by Duane Sweep
Associate for Communications
Back in January, Phil Brown, executive for the Synod of Lakes and Prairies, wrote a memo to the Middle Governing Body Commission (or Mid Council Commission, if you prefer) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
He expressed deep concerns about the proposal to eliminate synods – or repurpose synods, to use the popular euphemism – and he made some suggestions about moving forward.
What follows are, I believe, particular elements of Brown’s note, written before the commission’s final report, that I find to be still pertinent. I have also quoted from Brown’s recommendations. Any failure to appropriately quote or to provide adequate context is mine alone.
The commission’s action, Brown wrote, “lands on an easy target, synods, and offers a technical fix to the denomination’s woes. Yes, there are some synods that are ineffective. But not all. And synods are an easy target because of the nature of their ministry, generally invisible to those in the pew, but not to a presbytery.
“The recommended fix promotes a one-size-fits-all. … In parts of the country where synods do not have strong and positive interaction with presbyteries and mission agencies, it is much easier to envision the absence of a synod.”
The commission’s report calls for the removal of synods’ ecclesial functions in 2016. What remains, then, is up to a synod’s presbyteries. Brown wrote: “I hear comments about Lakes and Prairies in terms of a successful ‘synod school’ and Living Waters as a creative ‘drinking water project’ and possibly Pacific as an effective ‘savings and loan.’ Then we hear … that a synod school could be continued by interested presbyteries. I doubt you’ve really explored that possibility, but it sounds easy enough. More importantly from my perspective, Lakes and Prairies would not assert that a viable reason for us to continue as a synod is to maintain a synod school, as marvelous as it is.”
In truth, the marvelous Lakes and Prairies Synod School is only a visible component of the ministry of the synod. It gets a great deal of synod press – or Facebook and Twitter time – and even attracts attention from Presbyterian News Service. But it remains a synod school and it is not the entirety of Lakes and Prairies.
“What troubles me,” Brown wrote, “is that the commission does not describe anywhere what Lakes and Prairies really is and what other synods do to create a positive climate and develop support for the church and for transformation. We believe Lakes and Prairies is much more than an effective, vibrant synod school. The presentation describes nowhere what really counts here among our presbyteries and our mission agencies.”
What does the synod do? The simple answer is this: The synod supports its presbyteries in ministry and mission. For Lakes and Prairies that answer can mean something different for each of the 16 presbyteries of the synod.
Right now, half of the presbyteries in Lakes and Prairies are in some form of transition or do not have a presbytery executive. In those times, the synod provides assistance, guidance and sometimes even some form of leadership. For some presbyteries, even those not considered in transition or those with traditional leadership, the synod fulfills some role.
A short list of those roles might note that the synod assists with presbytery personnel committees, works with and provides training for Committees on Ministry and Committees on Preparation for Ministry, coordinates racial ethnic scholarships, moderates the synod’s Self Development of People committee, administers a $5.5 million loan fund that supports congregation capital and renovation projects, and provides communication and media counsel.
And that would be a very short list pulled from a 3-page list of services that can be found on the synod’s website.
The short list above fails to mention any of the synod’s covenant relationships with Presbyterian colleges and universities, Presbyterian Homes and Services and Hillcrest Family Services. In each of those cases, those covenants have proved to be more than words on paper. We take those relationships seriously.
And there’s no mention in that short list of collegiate ministries or dollars spent to support to each of the presbyteries. One could simply say those dollars should stay with the presbyteries. I’ve argued that point around here just for the sake of argument. But the argument doesn’t go far.
It is probably safer to assume that those dollars just disappear – along with mission partnership funds and funds for collegiate ministries.
And it’s probably safer to assume that any of those ministries or missions cited would also go away with the synod. Perhaps that’s o.k. But consider for a moment that it isn’t o.k.
Brown addressed the “fiscal urgency experienced by most of our presbyteries.” He wrote, “Our presbyters anticipate that within the same time frame [of the remaining] life of synods, our presbyteries will be forced to transform life and staffing significantly due to decreasing resources. Walking along with and working with our presbyteries to develop new models during these anxious and turbulent times is a priority of this synod.”
From my perspective, at least one element that makes eliminating – sorry, repurposing – synods attractive would be cost reduction. But there remains a question. What’s saved? Brown wrote, “In conversations among our synod leaders, we believe it unlikely that if synods go away additional dollars will go to General Assembly or to support a regional administrative unit.” Where the money goes, he added, will not be the General Assembly Mission Council or the Office of the General Assembly.
Beyond cost, some might look for ways that synods inhibit the church’s call to mission. I don’t see that. In fact, as noted above, I see ways that synods contribute to mission.
I truly appreciate the work of the Mid Council Commission. Members put in months of work and pored over a substantial amount of data before creating their final report. (If you click on the link, you will find the commission’s unabridged final report. With appendices, it’s more than 300 pages.)
In the end, however, I’m not sure the report provides the right answer. As Brown wrote, “I encourage more cross-boundary conversations and collaborating efforts among presbyteries and synods. They are not easy or convenient or inexpensive … and definitely not a quick fix. If nothing else, relationships are nurtured and become the foundation of what can happen along the way.”
It’s also a good idea, I think, that other possibilities are considered. At least one alternative is an overture from the Presbytery of St. Andrew – it’s Overture 33. It calls on the 220th General Assembly to dismiss the commission and create a commission that looks at synod boundaries.
In the meantime, I hope Lakes and Prairies, as Brown wrote, can be seen as something more than synod school. It is his preference, and mine too, that synods play a vital role in the relationships we share in the PC(USA) and that those relationships are "foundational to the life we share the transformation we seek together."
