{ OUTLOOK FORUM }
Mid Councils, discipleship and change. Those were the key issues before our commission — most pointedly, the ways our mid council structures do or do not serve our mission.
After almost two years of engaging with this question, the Mid Councils Commission propose that the church flatten its hierarchy and experiment with flexibility. We report on the many good and innovative mid councils that are already adapting.
We believe that, for the church to be “best organized to be responsive both to the spirit of Christ and the changing opportunities for discipleship,” we need a clear shift in priorities:
» Mid council structures must exist to serve the health and mission of congregations.
» Presbyteries must be empowered — for a season of experimentation — to structure in any way they discern will best serve the health and mission of their congregations.
This is based on a clear ‘adaptive’ principle: Genuinely transformative solutions to our biggest challenges come from giving the work back to the people most affected. Further, our report also elevates three issues underlying the challenges in the church today and calls on presbyteries to address them.
1. Who has the power? We have often been asked, “Why do we need to allow presbyteries to reorganize? Why aren’t ‘affiliations’ within existing presbyteries enough?” Our answer: Because a presbytery is where the power resides. In this regard, our report continues what PUP and nFOG started: giving power and responsibility to local elders working collaboratively within their presbyteries to create the structure that will best serve the mission of congregations. A presbytery is the best and most local environment for experimenting with new ways of doing ministry.
2. How much permission can we entrust to presbyteries? One church historian told us: “Healthy churches are entirely about increasing trust. You can’t create structures to work around the lack of trust and you can’t regulate the building of trust.” Our proposal suggests a bit less regulation and lot more trust. Our report asks of the General Assembly: Can we trust the presbyteries to determine the best structure of ministry for their congregations — including boundaries and membership?
This last bit is the rub, for some. Our recommendations entrust presbyteries with the power to create more flexible or porous boundaries. Our report does NOT remove or change boundaries. It allows presbyteries to work more collaboratively within a larger geographic region to help discern the best ‘fit’ for a congregation. All it does is remove the necessity for contiguous boundaries. This bit of flexibility adds lots of potential creativity. There could be smaller presbyteries within the boundaries of a larger one; presbyteries could form around mission needs or convictions; a single congregation in one presbytery could join a different presbytery within its geographic region. Multiple presbyteries could combine to be served by one administrative staff, or presbyteries could align for more services without requiring every congregation to go along.
3. Are we willing to experiment to discover new ways of being the church? We believe a season of experimentation by presbyteries could inspire emerging leaders to collaborate, foster innovation and lead to greater mission in the culture. Our proposal does not require change at the congregational or presbytery levels. Further, it also does not allow any change to become a fixed part of our structure without further GA approval in 2021. But our recommendations would allow innovative leaders more flexibility, more power and more trust to help us all discover new ways of being a connectional church.
TOD BOLSINGER was moderator of the Mid Councils Commission. He is pastor of San Clemente Presbyterian Church in San Clemente, Calif.
