Wednesday
began with a talk from Linda Valentine, the Executive Director of the
Presbyterian Mission Agency (formerly General Assembly Council). She told a delightful story about
perseverance using her family’s bike trip from Pittsburgh to Washington. They mostly used old canal tow-paths
and railroad right-of-ways, which made for a beautiful journey through the
woods.
I
had to wonder, though. These are
obsolete modes of transportation far removed from what is now the beaten
path. Is our denomination another
example of an outmoded institution now relegated to the hinterlands and
backwaters, while the real action is on superhighways and in airports? Is this just another indication of our
being the old Buick?
And
what is the relationship of this image – the irrelevant and nearly forgotten
institution nobody uses anymore – to Corey’s insight that change comes from the
margins? Maybe the transformation
of these pathways from decrepit and abandoned places, to beautiful, natural,
and tranquil, if considerably slower and simpler, ways of getting from place to
place, is also something to pay attention to.
I
mean, we all know how the church’s frantic obsession with relevance and being
current often detracts from and seriously undermines our mission. Maybe the Kingdom of God is less
evident in the latest hot, fast, kinetic, “contemporary” thing, and more
available and present in counter-cultural
expressions of spiritual depth, like Taizé services, or spiritual practices
like meditation, chanting, calligraphy, iconography, or journaling. Maybe it’s better and more missionally
effective to be the reclaimed old tow-path or railroad line, an alternative to our frenetic,
roller-coaster/meat-grinder economy.
This is not to totally and permanently withdraw from that world, but at
least to be grounded in life and presence while we make missional forays into
the world. Maybe the recovery of
these lost places makes a statement that God and life always win in the end,
and that though our projects eventually crumble, God’s love never fails. Maybe there is community and
spirituality that is deeper than an iPhone app.
The
second presenter was Vera White, the coordinator of the 1001 New Worshiping
Communities initiative that is one of the really bright spots in our
denomination. (Even Brian McLaren
is impressed; he says it’s an indication that, of all the old denominations,
Presbyterians are the ones that most get it. I find that both encouraging and scary.)
1001NWC
includes 156 new groups doing a variety of new things in different ways. Almost half of these serve mainly
non-white people; 25% are aimed at young-adult populations. Over a third are in vulnerable
communities (trailer parks, inner city, etc.). She showed a video highlighting three of these. This the most important thing we are
doing as a denomination, and it has the potential to energize even established
churches. It takes some courage
for our leadership to invest resources in this direction because it necessarily
means shifting energy away from existing congregations. It is a recognition of something I have
been saying for a long time, which is that “redevelopment” of old churches is
nearly impossible, and that it takes a lot less energy and yields exponentially
more benefits when we instead start new worshiping communities.
That
being said, and not to detract from this important effort in any way, it is
somewhat disturbing that the three examples Vera gave were an Asian NWC, a
white NWC, and an African-American NWC.
In other words, it looks like we’re still segregated. I hope this is not the case and that
our NWC’s will be characterized by multi-racial and multi-cultural values.
Secondly,
and perhaps I am hyper-sensitive to this, but Vera used two words about the
eventual goal of NWC’s that alarmed me.
These words are “accountability” and “sustainability.” These terms are often Presbyterian code
for the old model of church we are trying to grow out of. I worry that all these exciting NWC’s
will eventually be reined in and have to account for themselves according to
the same old criteria for “success” that have oppressed us for
generations. Will we remain
enthusiastic about that trailer-park ministry in 10 years, when they still have
“only” 30 people, no building, and can’t afford a full-time minister? Or will we write them off as failures,
even though they continue to do effective ministry? Will we still support an out-of-the-box gathering of young
adults in 5 years, when it becomes apparent that they don’t really operate
according to the Book of Order or Robert’s Rules, they don’t have “membership”
that can be reliably counted for per capita purposes, and they are, say,
allowing non-ordained people to celebrate sacraments? Will we continue to make glitzy videos about ministries when
they are working with constituencies who are unlikely to produce new members or
contribute money?
We’ll
see. (It is discouraging that the
highest level of support for NWC’s come from Walton Awards. This is money from the Walton family
that was generated in the systematic demolition of countless communities, the
ruining of unnumbered good businesses, and the intentional impoverishment of
millions of employees, by some of the richest people on the planet and their
execrable and demonic enterprise: the Wal-Mart chain of retail stores. See yesterday’s comment about the
feudal practice of supporting mission by sucking up to the nobility.)
And
I do hope and pray that the blessed and good energy of 1001NWC will overflow to
our existing churches – and that presbyteries will allow older churches to
benefit from the freedom, flexibility, and support for innovation and
creativity that NWC’s enjoy. For,
even though “redevlopment” is usually a waste of time, there is a tiny number
of churches that actually did
transform, sometimes at great cost, and these also need our attention and
encouragement.
The
polity conference officially ended before lunch, which is also when the annual
meeting of the Association of Stated Clerks commenced. One of the things we discovered from a
recent survey of clerks is that nearly half of us are retired from some other
work, which means that nearly half are over 65. (Now I can see why Gradye retold that story about King
Reheboam’s advisors. Do the clerks
represent the wise elders, while the EP’s represent the hot-headed young
men? Is it because we have
followed the latter that we are currently being split into different realms? Just kidding. Sort of.)
The
fact that clerks tend to be older does explain a lot. Clerks have historically tended to be the brake on
innovation and experimentation, and the guardians of rules, regulations, and
“order.” This is changing, thank
God. Since about 2009, these
conferences have turned much more hopeful and forward looking than had been, at
least in my experience. Having to
adjust to the new Form of Government (which many clerks opposed rather
strenuously) and simply facing the dismal missional reality in many
presbyteries, and forward-thinking leadership, has led clerks beyond being just
the stewards of the rules, and making us more open to using our rules as tools
for mission, even innovative mission.
The
main speaker was Greg Goodwiller, the sub-title of whose talk, “Robert’s Rules
as a Tool for Faithful Discernment,” was, well, ominous.
A
little background: Presbyterians are historically apostles for Robert’s Rules
of Order (RONR). We have always
prided ourselves in doing process well.
Recently, however, many – even some clerks – have found themselves
frustrated by features of RONR. It
is perceived as adversarial, designed to produce winners and losers, and
detrimental to community discernment.
I
have always thought this was unfair.
(One of my first churches was United Methodist. I have first hand experience of denominational
meetings that do not flow according to any intelligible order.) RONR is also designed to ensure full
participation, mitigate the influence of bullies, lower the level of
destructive emotion, and really develop consensus, or at least a sense that
everyone has been heard. That’s
when it’s used well.
Often
it is not used well. And Greg was
coming to the rescue to help us use RONR better.
He
began his talk by going all the way back to Genesis, and building the
theological foundation for RONR and our use of it. Along the way he stated some assumptions that I think are
the root of the problem. He said,
as if it were obvious and unarguable, that “God’s will is undivided.” While this may be argued theologically,
it is really clear to me from the Scriptures that God’s will, at least as far
as we humans can see, is often quite
divided, a fact that Jesus recognizes when he contrasts his views with accepted
readings of the Bible. The
ideological assertion that’s God’s will is undivided has at least given aid and
comfort to imperialist polities that require God’s will, which is to say the
will of the ruling class, to be taken by the people as undivided. Part of the larger problem we are
dealing with these days is the assumption that the church may only hold one
opinion on issues, may only move in one direction, and must stifle all
alternatives.
(Dealing
with the apparent dividedness of God’s will in Scripture, Walter Brueggemann
has developed his understanding of “dialogical” biblical interpretation, which
basically intentionally takes into account these different and often competing
and contradictory readings, listening to what emerges from the tension. The belief that Scripture is only
allowed to say one thing is a residue of imperialist Christendom we are well
rid of.)
A
related bias is embedded in our polity, which is that “a majority shall
govern.” Majority rule is an
arbitrary and culturally conditioned practice. There is little or no hint of it in the Bible. Indeed, most of the time the faith is
kept by tiny minorities sometimes referred to as “faithful remnant.” If majority rule were in effect, the
Israelites would still be in Egypt, and most other positive developments of
God’s people would never have happened. In the New Testament, decisions are often made, not by
voting, but by lot!
So
combining these two ideas – that God’s will is undivided and that majorities
rule – leads us to a potentially, and often actually, toxic blend whereby slim
majorities get to impose their will on large minorities. And two years later, the parties are
reversed.
But
the primary and most frequently enacted image in our faith is that of breaking,
distributing, and participating, in the Eucharist. I see this as an indication that there is a manifold manifestation of the one Body of Christ. We receive a piece of the same single
loaf; and at the same time, we enact the Body in our own lives and situations
in more than one way. Except in
very basic things, there is no need – in fact it is even detrimental – for there to be only one, single, unified,
undifferentiated expression of the faith.
Our
polity usually recognizes this.
But in times of insecurity, or when a particular perspective becomes
overly pervasive, we start doing this top-down, one-size-fits-all legislative
thing, identifying minorities and squashing them. It’s not a good thing no matter which side manages to grab
this power.
Anyway,
the fact that we are now concerned with “discernment” is an indication that
there is no dominant perspective anymore, from which we receive marching
orders. Now we have to focus on
trying to hear the word of God. And many don’t think RONR particularly
helpful here.
Hence
Greg’s attempt to show that, no, really, RONR can be used as an effective tool
for discernment. Not just for
identifying minorities and cutting them off. He did manage to find several tools within RONR that may be
used for discernment. Some of them
involved just getting out from under the rules, which is what many are doing
anyway. Greg’s point, I think, was
that the rules allow a body to suspend them in an effort to “crystallize
opinion.” Basically, you
temporarily ditch the rules and do something else that works better. But then, Greg reminded us, the body
has to get back under the rules to actually make a decision.
The
body may also use the rules themselves for discernment. And Greg walked us through motions to
“postpone indefinitely,” “reconsider,” “rescind or amend something previously
adopted,” substitute motions, and, my favorite (probably because I still have
no idea what he was talking about), “create a blank.”
I
remain convinced that the basic principles of RONR are sound and
necessary. Otherwise, meetings
degenerate into the tyranny of the obnoxious extroverts with axes to grind. This human tendency to allow the power
of the powerful to increase, at the expense of the less powerful, is the
Pharaoh-model that God rejects and replaces at Mt. Sinai. Certainly we need to resort
occasionally to other processes to build trust and community. Especially in small groups, people need
to communicate without the cumbersome apparatus of making motions and so forth.
(Greg showed us that RONR actually includes more informal provisions for
smaller bodies.) And the question
of RONR’s Eurocentric, rationalistic bias needs seriously to be addressed. But when used intentionally,
judiciously, and well, RONR usually works pretty well. It’s mostly common sense flowing from
the two main principles: everyone gets to be heard, and don’t waste time.
Which
reminds me: I went to my room after dinner to get some work done, to discover
that the government appeared to be cancelling self-destruct mode. If the Congress were using RONR, it is
less likely that any of this psychotic, nihilistic, foolishness would have
happened. But in the end, no
system is fool proof.
+++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment