Having closely monitored proceedings at the just concluded General Assembly meeting in Pittsburgh, followed up through reading reports and in conversation with participants I have perceived it to have been a most divisive and questionably productive conclave.
In this process two things really stood out for me which without question were major stumbling blocks to a productive, positive, progressive denominational outlook for realistic functionality… and frankly future.
The first is without question the lack of mutual trust and the second is the more recent propensity for commissioners to play “ follow the leader “ instead of courageously exercising their right to independent thought and conscience. Both were major detriments to producing a productive and progressive assembly.
To cite one glaring case in support of my perception with respect to the trust factor and perhaps the single most debilitating , yet paralyzing aspect of recent process I would reference the actions of the Committee on Mid Council Issues.
In Leslie Scanlon’s excellent report on the actions of said committee she stated: “ One by one a General Assembly committee shot down key proposals from the General Assembly Commission on Mid Councils. “ How ludicrous, yet a classic example of the trust void which has proliferated our denominational process.
The Mid Council Commission was appointed and staffed with highly dedicated and capable people, with a good balance of Teaching and Ruling Elders who labored for two years to craft a realistic series of solutions in answer to the crisis which presently, both functionally and financially, confronts the structural makeup of the denomination. I know how thoroughly and deliberately these people addressed their responsibility because I had an exchange with them and thus have some feeling for how completely they probed the exigencies which confronted them.
Frankly if such mis-trust continues to befall the efforts of dedicated commissions and commissioners why should capable, willing people even consider dedicating their time, talent and efforts to so serve the denomination? If we can’t place our confidence and trust in the abilities and corresponding results of such task entities why pursue the commission process and it’s corresponding cost, both financially as well as the investment of personal time and talent?
In other words…. if you can’t trust us and our efforts, why try? Sad but true, yet we have to face the bold fact that times are changing and we must change with them. Our propensity to continue to do things the way we have always done them just won’t fly as we stubbornly endeavor to preserve them in face of new social order.
As a recent article in our local newspaper recounted in a reprint from a Ft. Wayne, Indiana article, “Many, especially the younger generation feel like church is people, it’s not a label, it’s not a denomination. If they find people they want to worship with and want to be part of that community, that’s what is important to them.” It went on to say that the shift is away from traditional, mainline churches that mold their members to their particular dogma rather than non-denominational congregations that focus on molding their theology to the members. All this boils down to a feeling of comfort, acceptance, spiritual compatibility and… TRUST.
I sense that this just past General Assembly and it’s resulting actions were but a microcosm of a much more grievous lack of trust which extends across the spectrum of our denominational process and may well be the precursor of our demise unless we can come to grips with it, acknowledge that it is a debilitating factor which bids to preclude realistic efforts to adapt our long serving, but cumbersome, costly and outdated, structural process to a new, but very real, social challenge.
Where does all this it have it’s genesis and how then can we begin to move to re-establish a balanced, respectful, trusting relationship?
It starts with the second concern that I raise. With strong, dedicated, knowledgeable congregants led by and ministered to by ruling elders who have the courage of their convictions, know their polity and thus possess a positive grasp of their calling. Grayde Parsons coined the phrase “Angry Elders.” This holds just as true for all believing, worshiping congregants. A laity who are not so caught up in and rendered immobile by the “we’ve always done it that way” syndrome who can begin to restore a healthy, trusting, respectful balance of collegial ministry with their counterpart teaching elders. It’s a two way street that calls for mutual respect, acceptance, and utilization of the wisdom and worldly perception that each party brings to the table.
Thus, a willingness to realistically consider the future, to hold their own and not cave in to the unrealistic, blind cravings of those who refuse to accept that change is upon us. Acknowledge that we are losing ground rapidly and unless we open our eyes as the Mid Council Commission endeavored to point out we will continue to slip and slide toward obscurity.
To attempt to address it we must recapture and restore the lost element of strong respectful, trusting, collegial relationships between Ruling Elders and Teaching Elders which will in turn level the playing field and begin to position the denomination as a church which molds its practice to its people, present and future, not bent on preserving its hide-bound, creed-bound structural framework that serves to stifle the more modern theology that a new generation of seekers and potential believers can accept and be comfortable in……..
James Babcock is a Ruling Elder in Bozeman, Montana.
