Postmodern lament

by Duane Sweep
Associate for Communications
Synod of Lakes and Prairies

I grow tired hearing about the decline of the mainline Protestant church.

We’re in the postmodern, post-Christendom world. We’re maybe in the post-postmodern world.

In our postmodern world we have taken a second look at the dominant culture, deconstructing its attitudes and beliefs, and skeptically exposing multiple translations of the historical text.

In our post-Christendom world, we have seen a decline in the practice of Christian religion, first in Europe and now across North America. We have seen a rise in secular beliefs and attitudes that have replaced Christian thought in the developed nations.

It’s a time, at least for some who have spent their life within the structure of the church, to lament.

But I grow frustrated when those lamentations become too frequent, when those lamentations seem to undermine what is good, when those lamentations attract too much attention, causing the good to go unnoticed.

I often find the lamentations tiring.

I grow tired when service is overshadowed by preaching or when preaching is a prerequisite for service.

I think of the child who goes to school hungry, the child who finds a way to get to school when parents are too drunk or too stoned to drive, the child who might have all the toys but is sexually abused at home.

When we as the church help the children who need help the most we are proclaiming the gospel.

And I grow tired when providing the shelter, nurture and fellowship to God’s children is discussed less than declining church membership.

When we as the church open our doors, accepting others without restriction, without requirements, without expectations, we are taking the right step.

And I grow tired when I hear that a traditional worship service serves a congregation’s older members while a contemporary service responds to younger worshipers.

When we realize that worship can take many forms, when we learn to accept that not everyone worships as we do, we will probably be taking the right step. When we accept that many forms of worship are divine, we might be taking one more step in the right direction.

And I grow tired when some within the church deride Presbyterian-related colleges and universities for being too secular, questioning whether those institutions meet some standard of what it means to be Presbyterian.

When we recognize the search for knowledge is a necessary part of preserving the truth, we will better see that we as the church are served by our colleges and universities, not the other way around. Our colleges and universities are a part of our history and certainly a part of our future.

And I grow weary when congregations are faced with vandalism for encouraging the participation of those who have been rejected in other areas of our society.

We can be reassured of the church’s work in social righteousness by the courage of those who are willing to accept renunciation for welcoming the marginalized.

It really is a new day. We need to accept that we live in a time of change, of doubts, of ambiguity. And I believe change, doubt and ambiguity are not only acceptable, but will be permanent fixtures of the age in which we live.

While we move through and within this postmodern time, we should do less lamenting.

We have a future and we need to be willing to explore our way into it, not hanging on to our structures, not lamenting a decline in the number of those like us, but looking to the good that exists today and trying to discover how we will move that forward.

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!

About the report and the 60-second promotional videos

by Phil Brown
Synod Executive

I continue to stand by the reflections I expressed in my January memo to the Mid Council Commission. You can find the memo on the synod’s website. Since that time, there is nothing in the lengthy Commission report or in conversations with the Commission’s chair that addresses constructively any of the concerns and questions I posed.

As I and others continue to engage in conversations about the Commission’s report, some themes emerge and over the next few weeks I’ll put them forward on this blog.

One theme becomes more apparent in the first of the YouTube videos posted by Tod Bolsinger to “market” the Commission’s report (you can find the video here).

The assertion is that the recommendations create a “flat, flexible, faithful organization with infinite possibilities.” That is a bold and undocumented statement with which I disagree.

When the 219th General Assembly (2010) issued the assignment to the Commission, it called on the Commission to examine and review all four levels of the church and their relationships – something that hadn’t been done in nearly four decades in spite of significant change affecting every level of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  That review remains undone.

The Commission, however, did choose to “repurpose” synods, concentrating on this one level of the church to resolve the issues faced by the denomination. Without taking a hard look at the General Assembly, the Commission does not encourage a “flat, flexible and faithful” church structure.

To the contrary, if adopted, the recommendations of the Commission will grow the silo labeled the General Assembly by expanding its responsibility, cost and authority.

The Commission does recommend that the 220th General Assembly (2012) form a new commission for the purpose of reviewing General Assembly and its six agencies – clearly a need, claims the Commission, but next time.

Perhaps during this summer's General Assembly the Commission's 60-second videos will be “blipped in” like a Super Bowl commercial.

Taking a slower, longer look at synods

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."

Maintaining that college tie

by Duane Sweep

Associate for Communications

A few months ago, the Middle Governing Body Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) – sometimes called the Mid-Council Commission – voted to eliminate synods.

I realize the final report of the commission has yet to be written, but here’s a thought about synods, relationships, Presbyterians and higher education. It’s well known that Presbyterians have established a goodly number of colleges and universities across this country. In general, it’s easy to state that Presbyterians support intellectual curiosity, excellence in education and academic freedom.

And, in most cases, the relationship between Presbyterian colleges and universities, and the PC(USA) is maintained and nourished through the synods. By my count, there are more than 60 Presbyterian-related colleges and universities that make up the Association of Presbyterian Colleges and Universities, and seven are within the bounds of Lakes and Prairies.

Last fall the synod and Macalester College of St. Paul, Minn., renewed the covenant the binds the synod and the college. As a side note, the covenant states that Macalester and the synod “support education that leads to growth in scholarship, faithfulness in character and preparation to serve the common good.”

From my perspective there’s something important about these covenants. They speak to a calling to encourage discovery, and they speak to the need for an educational experience that provides a framework for ethical behavior.

A few years ago, Douglas Oldenburg, president emeritus of Columbia Theological Seminary and moderator of the 210th General Assembly of the PC(USA), when speaking to the presidents of Presbyterian colleges and universities, said, “All would agree … that our church-related colleges should strive for academic excellence, helping each student to fulfill their potential in keeping with our Reformed tradition of valuing the ‘life of the mind in the service of God and humanity.’”

Now, just as important as any time in the history of the world, the service to God and humanity is needed.

Oldenburg went on, “Our Presbyterian colleges should be nurturing students to become ‘principle-centered’ leaders. … Our church-related colleges need to be concerned with both competence and conscience, the development of the heart as well as the mind, moral integrity as well as mental acumen.”

A couple weeks ago, Phil Brown, executive in Lakes and Prairies, and I visited Jamestown (N.D.) College. We spent a day with President Robert Badal and other leaders at that college. We saw and heard in person what Oldenburg called on Presbyterian colleges and universities to provide – an education that features competence and conscience.

At Jamestown the connection between competence and conscience is called “Journey to Success.” It’s more than words. It’s laid out as a four-step process, beginning with a “look inward,” where students move through a period of self-discovery, identifying individual strengths. That’s followed by a “look outward,” a time when student receive ethics instruction and participate in service projects. Next comes a “look beyond,” when students are encouraged to explore the world beyond the campus through travel and the institution’s foreign partnerships. The final component of the journey, a “look forward,” is a practical component that prepares students for vocations or graduate school.

Administrators and academic leaders at Jamestown College also spoke of their “Character in Leadership” program, a program open to about 30 student leaders per year, that emphasizes character development and servant leadership.

We were told of a student who summed up the program in one sentence: “It’s about who you are, but it’s not about you.”

That’s what an old professor of mine would have called a “moment of clarity” – that time when things come together.

But in the long run, there needs to be some benefit to Jamestown College and Macalester College for being in covenant with the synod. Phil and I talked about that, too. Jamestown has a great nursing program and its student nurses need internships. Phil serves on the board of Presbyterian Homes and Services of Richfield, Minn., an organization that needs nurses. There might be something there. The covenant between the synod and Macalester calls for an annual event “that engages religious and social issues in contemporary society.” A number of subjects, each with a potential impact that reaches beyond the bounds of the synod, are being discussed.

There are unique components to each covenant the synod shares with Presbyterian institutions.

One of my concerns is that those covenants, those relationships, will suffer if synods disappear.

Are we doing it again?

By Phil Brown

Synod Executive

Bill McAtee, in his book, “Dreams, Where Have You Gone? Clues for Unity and Hope,” describes the litany of divisions of the Presbyterian church.

The book lists all the reasons for the splits and then recounts a reunion a few years later.

And then, interestingly enough, there’s a confession for each one … “our divisions really did little to strengthen the church during our divide.”

The author summarizes what was referred to as the “futility and unwisdom of having divided” (p. 59).

It’s odd and discouraging to me that we don’t seem to learn from our journey. In part, I believe, because we allow ourselves to become full – full of answers and ourselves rather than questions that serve the common good.

Are we set to go through this again?

We live and minister in very anxious times. Many of our congregations, and most of all our presbyteries and synods, are in times of significant transition, challenging our sense of groundedness in Jesus Christ and His church in whatever form it is becoming.

I invite you – wherever you may be on your journey – to shape a question that will allow you to be attuned and responsive to the Common Good.

Reflecting the world

by Phil Brown
Synod Executive

I like questions. I walk with questions – those for myself and those I ask. Good questions seek knowledge and understanding – foundational for Presbyterians.

You may wonder or can probably anticipate where questions led my commencement address (see the previous post) to Buena Vista University graduates.

I talked about the questions they had brought with them to college four years earlier. Is this the right place? Can I make it? Can I afford it? Will I find new friends?

And, based on their college experience, there were those questions upon leaving and moving into the world. You can guess some of them. Can I pay my debt? Will I get the grad school I want? Will I find the right Job? The right spouse? And on and on.

I had some real live answers to those questions because I’d interviewed a dozen or so students a few months earlier. I hoped that at least those students would be listening. I enjoyed and found meaningful the opportunity to share their comments.

But I needed then, and now, to move question a bit farther along. Keeping the question theme in the realm of academics only works so long. The graduates, each in their own way, needed to take that next step beyond their diploma.

And they were entering a world with incredible divisions, from our towns to our states to our country and across the globe. It was true last spring and it remains true today – think of the Super Committee and its inability to resolve differences. There’s the gap that exists between rich and poor – think of Occupy Wall Street. There are governments that are not of the people and for the people – look to the Middle East and the revolutions in the streets. Maybe our own nation?

Then think about how we live. There are amazing advances in technology and science – think Time magazine’s piece on technological singularity. There is a significant emphasis on the individual and far less on interpersonal community – unless the community is virtual.

There is a disappearing capacity to articulate and live out a moral life. And I know if I asked you, the list would multiply. The speed of communication is mimicked by rapid social change.

So my challenge to the graduating class, my challenge to you and, in its own separate way, my challenge to me is to formulate a question to carry – not just about individual lives and journeys, but about the common good.

What question do we live with that will lead us to serve the common good?

Do we see the disparities in the world around us, in the places we live, work or go to school? Where are the divisions? Where can we serve with our gifts? What difference can we make?

These days we seem to have more answers than questions, and we seek company among those who agree with us.

And we seem to be living that way as a church – a reflection of the world in which we live.

I don’t sense faithfulness to Jesus Christ in such behavior.