Implications of the 'gap'

by Phil Brown
Synod Executive

What are the implications of creating a “gap” in our structures by removing synods?

I’ve covered a lot of this ground in my initial and lengthy response to the commission. Now I’m selecting one or two at a time to highlight. In an earlier blog comment I pointed to one very significant implication contrary to the claims of the Mid-Council Commission folks who assert the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will be a more “flat, flexible and faithful organization.”  The tempting and faddish terminology is what we all want to hear.

My response, however, is to encourage folks to think critically about the proposal and such an assertion. Are synods the only, or at least the significant, reason we are not “flat, flexible and faithful” structures? How can such an outcome be sought, if that’s our purpose, without simultaneously examining the role and function of the General Assembly and its many agencies?

As I suggested in earlier comments, while the current proposal effectively removes a player from the field, it fails to level the field and expands the distance from home plate to the outfield.

Another implication of the “gap” not under discussion is really more foundational to the origins of the PC(USA). A (General) Synod was first formed in this country prior to the formation of a General Assembly. Their purpose was oversight and review of presbyteries when they began to expand in number. Similarly, when the church grew and multiple synods were developed, the General Assembly was formed. A key role, in fact a critical purpose, for the General Assembly was the review and oversight of the work of synods.

So, when the Commission introduces its work, including what it learned from the “listening” sessions, it asks, “What is not working?” “Synods” is the response.

At the same time the Commission never asks a question about the forms of “review or oversight” in which the synod engages with its presbyteries, much less how synods are reviewed by the General Assembly.

In brief, there’s the required reading of presbytery minutes. And there’s the participation in the search and review process for presbytery staff. There’re the meetings with councils and those groups charged to look at new visions and configurations for a new day in the life of presbyteries faced with far fewer human and material resources and a more limited sense of unity.

In fact our synod staff provide provisional support to those presbyteries currently without staff and more presbyteries are on that road.

 

There is the significant work of the Permanent Judicial Commission, including remedial cases and allegations of misconduct. There’s the work with CPMs and COMs in both call processes, and complex conflicts and dissolutions. There’s the communication and regular work with presbytery staff, adapting to new designs and position descriptions.

Picture how this GAP is going to lead to more vital, missional congregations?

Consider the GAP, the removal of the review and oversight responsibility of synods -- then, consider the Commission’s recommendation that enables non-geographic, missional presbyteries.

 
Where is the review and oversight? That’s pretty bold!