Jesus and the "C" Word

There is that dreaded "c" word: change.  And the reality that change--these days, exponential change--is the norm.  And the reality that the church is not immune. And the reality that as the church (especially traditional mainline congregations) now comes to grips with what that change must be, comes to grips that the choice not to change is in fact no choice at all, church leaders necessarily become change agents.

If change ain't always pretty, being a change agent can be downright butt-ugly.

Change is hard.  Leading change harder still.  I've been doing a lot of reading in Luke lately, though, and--duh--have been smacked in the face again and again that the ultimate change agent was Jesus Christ.  In the sense that we can divide human history into pre- and post-Jesus, yes.  In terms of redemption and salvation, of being restored to right relationship with the Creator, absolutely.  In preaching Kingdom ethics that turn the ways of the world on their collective head, of course.

But Jesus was the ultimate change agent in another way as well--a way that speaks directly to the challenge of leading change in the mainline church.  Jesus' sabbath-was-made-for-man-man-wasn't-made-for-the-sabbath message in all its manifestations pitted him squarely against an understanding of being church as entrenched, codified, and stratified as any mainline denomination today, posing a threat so severe the only response Church People of the day could muster was kill him.

And in the face of that, Jesus' response was instructive:

• remain faithful to the call God had placed on his life
• speak the truth in love
• have compassion for those who didn't get it
• focus the majority of his personal attention on discipling those who did

In all the resistance to change I've ever encountered, I'm aware of no plots to kill me--yet.  But Jesus' response strikes me as the template for helping to lead change.  Anywhere, but especially in the church.  Faithfulness.  Truth.  Compassion.  Focus.

What does your experience leading change tell you about Jesus' experience leading change?

Rethinking the Dog and Pony Show

The connective tissue is ripping.

Many mainline denomination congregations think "connectional," as in "connectional church," as in we are not stand-alone congregations but, collectively, part of a bigger body.  And in said bigger body--the so-called "middle judicatories" which, for Presbyterians, are synods and presbyteries--we are called to do much of our work.  What happens, then, when such connective tissue, pulled apart, no longer holds?

It's a question being asked across denominations.  In the case of the presbytery to which I and the church I pastor belong, the tissue is ripping rapidly.  The three largest congregations in the presbytery are all withholding financial support of the presbytery itself while they discern whether or not to remain in the denomination.  These three, between them, account for 40% of the presbytery budget.  The presbytery can't withstand a 40% cut in revenue and remain the kind of presbytery it's been.  The presbytery exec (seeing the handwriting on the wall?) has resigned.  Remaining churches are scrambling.

Middle judicatories have important work to do.  Indeed, in the Presbyterian Church (USA), much of the real power in the denomination resides in presbyteries.  So ripping here is painful.

But it also can be rejuvenating.  If, as I believe, Christian churches are being called to a new Reformation, leaving Christendom behind for a renewed embrace of the Missio Dei, of Christ and his kingdom, then the recasting of traditional, attractional church in missional/incarnational forms necessarily must extend to things like synods and presbyteries.  In other words, we have an incredible opportunity to re-think the role of middle judicatories, returning them to what they were always intended be--agents for facilitating ministry, mission, and outreach.

With that in mind, what follows are some suggestions for changing presbyteries.  I'm thinking in terms of the Presbyterian church because that's where I hang my hat.  Change the nomenclature, though, and I suspect the suggestions can work elsewhere...or at least spark some conversation.

•  Refocus presbyteries on building the Kingdom, not maintaining the presbytery.  Put another way, our first allegiance is to Jesus Christ, not an administrative structure. Many presbyteries are top-heavy with committees and policies which exist primarily to maintain the presbytery.  So...
• Limit presbytery committees to only those doing work only the presbytery can do.  In the PCUSA, that would mean the Committee on Ministry, Committee on Preparation for Ministry, and Mission (understood as connecting congregations to do mission together that congregations cannot do alone).  This would then allow us to... 
• Limit presbytery meetings in quantity and duration.  The presbytery of which I'm a member meets four times a year.  That's nuts.  Twice a year is enough, three times at most.  And keep the meetings to three hours.  Multinational corporations are run via meetings shorter than that--why not presbyteries?  Partly this is good stewardship of time and resources.  Forbid the dog-and-pony shows of every committee and ministry in the presbytery getting up and reading what's in their written reports.  And partly it's common sense: meet twice a year for three hours of solid accomplishments, attendance (and participation) at meetings will go up.  Guaranteed.
• Presbyteries should be agents of change as much as agents of preservation.  Presbyteries have the responsibility to take care of business and much of that business involves preserving and maintaining approaches to church rooted in tradition.  But as church membership statistics constantly remind us, we must change.  Change is scary and we frequently don't know how to do it.  There is no entity better situated to bring frightened congregations together to discern and facilitate change than presbyteries. 

What suggestions would you make from your own experience with middle judicatories?