1 Envisioning a 21^st Century Denomination

 

2           The North American culture at the beginning of the 21^st century looks quite different from the way it looked at the beginning of the 20^th century.  North American Protestant denominations also look quite differently today than they did at the beginning of the 20^th century.  Many books have been written to describe the myriad of changes that have taken place, and how our modern-day denominations have struggled to change and adapt to the transitional times that we live in.  Large organizations do not change or move in new directions quickly.  Organizations carry a historical baggage that often impede the decisions that are necessary to bring health and growth.  Many denominations today are dysfunctional, spinning their wheels over the same old conflicts, and never moving forward into new arenas of ministry.  While some resign themselves to the inevitability of this discouragement, others dream new dreams of church networks that can flourish and grow. 

 

3 

Comments for item 3

Oren J. Foust, Jr.  02-21-2002 03:08 PM ET (US) congregational polity, if this is implied, is not a positive contribution to this vision it is reactive rather than a positive application of reformed theology Evangelical failure to participate in the present polity cannot be (and should not be) cured by changing the polity to fit the evangelical neglect of the larger church and mission. I do not accept that evangelical zeal needs to focus on the local mission to the exclusion of the shared mission of the larger church. I do not accept the definition of the Church as primarily the local body, but rather it is first of all the Church in all times and places, Universal...catholic. The local body is derivative. I believe this is a more biblical ecclesiology, and that an unbiblical local/church heresy is largely responsible for evangelical neglect of "politics" and the dilemma we find ourselves in. the Solution is not in changing the polity so much as participating in it. It is in committment to our fellow churches through leadership in the larger church.

People today are dreaming of a church network that:

4           Enhances local church ministry rather than hinders it,

5 Builds and strengthens congregations rather than embarrassing them,

6 Casts an inspiring vision for ministry,

7 Defines the core beliefs of our faith,

8 Pushes congregations to engage their communities in new, missional ways,

9 Is freeing and not controlling,

10 Is faithful to Jesus Christ and the revealed,written Word of God,

11 Focuses on transforming individuals and communities through the power of the Holy Spirit, and

12 Shares the whole gospel with the whole person.

 

13 

Comments for item 13

Carl Grosse  01-30-2002 02:16 PM ET (US) If we live in a "post-denominational world", in which people couldn't care less about brand names, can we change our vocabulary? Throughout the document, ideas are framed in a setting that repeatedly uses the term "denomination", and organizes the suggested structures and procedures accordingly. Perhaps changing the key term to "association" or "fellowship" would not only make the whole document more accessible, but also free the thinking going into it.

          The 21^st century North American culture is a post-denominational world.  Most people who look for a church to belong to, do not care what denomination it is a part of.  They care what kind of ministry, preaching, love, and care happens in that local context.  The only future for denominational structures is in adjusting their priorities to serve the local congregation.[1]  Without vital congregations, there is no support base for any kind of world mission.[2]  The denomination that desires a vital, healthy future is one that focuses on a few main things.  Today’s denomination must have a clear sense of purpose and vision, and resist the temptation to try to be all things to all people.  It must be purpose-driven and vision-driven.  Today’s denomination must focus like a laser on these key areas:

 

14           Casting an inspiring vision,

15           Defining the few, central bedrock beliefs,

16           Communicating and livings its core values,[3]

17           Enforcing well-known boundaries of acceptable, ethical behaviors,

18           Strengthening local congregations,

19           Supporting, training, and encouraging pastoral and lay leaders, and

20           Providing connections with other Christians around the world.

 

21 Without these commonalities, there can be no unity in the 21^st century denomination.  Unity does not mean uniformity.  These is plenty of room for flexibility and creativity within the guardrails that scripture establishes.  But, it also realizes that not everything is acceptable.  Not everything is just a difference of opinion.  Some ideas are false teachings.  Heresy exists today, and some people are being led astray.  In a culture that says everyone can decide their own truth, the healthy denomination continues to confess the truth that God has revealed in the scriptures, and lovingly points out what God has said is not true.

 

22 

Comments for item 22

Carl Grosse  01-30-2002 02:19 PM ET (US) Differentiating between a "mission agency" and a "regulatory agency" is right on target! Even a cursory review of the Book of Order reveals that regulation is the underying obsession of the PCUSA. Adopting a mission mentality should result in a radically different system.

   The denomination of the 21^st century is one that will function more like a missions agency than a regulatory agency.  A missions agency looks for ways to help ministry happen.  The regulatory agency looks for ways to prevent things from happening.  The missions agency prays for God to raise up workers for the harvest and looks for ways to identify who God is calling.  The missions agency encourages these people, trains them, and sends them out.  The regulatory agency overloads people with minutia and paperwork, and micromanages less important things. 

 

23 

Comments for item 23

Carl Grosse  01-30-2002 02:28 PM ET (US) What is envisioned by the term "polity"? In our current system, polity refers to the vast configuration of presuppositions, structures, procedures, and regulations contained in the Constitution and executed by the various officers and judicatories of the PCUSA. Viable models of connectional ministry have very little in terms of polity beyond that which is necessary for the local congregation to order its life. This will be a tough issue to sort through, but I for one would prefer to put it down on the list of priorities.

In a missions agency, the polity guides the mission so the mission can happen.  In the regulatory agency, the polity controls, determines, and limits the mission, because the polity is more important than the mission.  In the missions agency, the polity is a servant to the mission.  In the regulatory agency, the mission is a servant to the polity.  The regulatory agency uses the polity to maintain power and control over people.  The missions agency uses polity to help, assist, and bring order.  The regulatory agency tells people what they have to do.  The missions agency listens to people, and asks them what they need to accomplish the mission better.  The regulatory agency believes it knows better than its field workers do.  The missions agency believes its field workers know better than it does, because they are the ones on the front lines of the ministry. 

 

24 

Comments for item 24

Carl Grosse  01-30-2002 02:36 PM ET (US) Amen! This concept of concentricity versus hierarchy could be of substantial influence in developing actual configurations for a new association. A critical issue would be determining responsibility and oversight for the wider circles beyond each individual congregation. For each "wider circle", what is the scope of responsibility? Who has oversight for that responsibility? Based on the rest of the document, and research from The Alban Institute, leadership accountability and support seems to be a primary concern.

The regulatory agency operates from a permission-withholding mindset.  The missions agency operates from a permission-giving mindset.  The regulatory agency does not trust its people or its committees.  It is always second-guessing them, and re-debating what they have already decided.  The missions agency trusts its people and its ministry teams, giving them the freedom to make the decisions to move the ministry forward.  The regulatory agency operates from a hierarchical position, imposing its higher will upon the will of the levels beneath it.  The missions agency operates from a position of concentric circles, where different people are responsible for wider areas of ministry, not to control, but to empower and support and hold accountable.  The regulatory agency believes that what is best for the denomination is what is best for the congregation[4], with the strength coming from the top down.  The missions agency believes that what is best for the congregation is best for the denomination, with the strength coming from the inside out.  The regulatory agency believes that congregations should blindly serve the denomination in all matters.  The missions agency believes that the denomination exists to serve its congregations, pastors, leaders, and people, and that the more they are served, the more they will voluntarily and whole-heartedly serve the denomination. 

 

25 However, the only way a denomination can make this shift from being a regulatory agency to a missions agency, is to get its people to accept and agree on the central articles of unity:  core values, bedrock beliefs, motivating vision, common mission, and a few well-known, well-enforced boundaries of ethical behavior. 

 

26 The core values include things like priorities (what we do), process (how we do the things that are important), people, doing mission as opposed to just talking about mission, and doing holistic mission which does not divorce people’s physical and emotional needs from their spiritual needs.

 

27 

Comments for item 27

Carl Grosse  01-30-2002 02:41 PM ET (US) Do core values precede bedrock beliefs? Here I think the Confessing Church Movement has given us a great gift. In the myriad of congregational statements are some consistently recurring theological expressions that have clearly galvanized faithful Christians. Out of this rich resource, a very elegant and effective set of bedrock beliefs and core values could be developed.

The bedrock beliefs are the few essentials of the faith that have stood the test of time, and will never be compromised.  The old cliché “in essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things charity”, still holds true today, but it can only work when the essentials have been defined and everyone knows what they are.  There must be agreement on the central beliefs of the faith.  Not every belief is true, and not every teaching is from God.  The 21^st century denomination that is healthy will define these, and allow people to choose if this is a church they want to be a part of or not.  One problem that the Presbyterian Church has had since the conflicts of the 1920’s is the mindset that theology divides and mission unites.  This is wrong.  There can be no real unity without theological unity.  Churches continuing in the Reformed tradition, operate under the belief that the Holy Spirit is still alive and active in the world today, but that the Spirit will never lead us contrary to what God has already revealed in the written Word of God.  Word and Spirit cannot be divided. 

 

28 

Comments for item 28

Carl Grosse  01-30-2002 02:52 PM ET (US) Leonard Sweet used the image of a kid on a swing, poised at the peak of the backward motion, to convey the idea that an effective vision must have both a past and future aspect in a kinetic present. Precedent suggests that congregations and pastors who leave a fellowship or denomination tend to have a vision that is negative (we are NOT part of such and such) and backward (we have a purer version of the old denomination). Casting a "heart-grabbing" vision may be the most difficult challenge for those moving toward a post-PCUSA reality. Whoever is involved in this task has my prayerful support.

The motivating vision is what the denomination repeatedly casts before its people.  Without a vision people perish.  “The most important problem in the church today is a fundamental lack of clear, heart-grabbing vision.  The church in America has no vision.  It has programs and institutions and property and ministers and politically correct hymnals, but no vision.”[5]   “This is a time for a dramatically new vision.  The current predicament of churches in North America requires more than a mere tinkering with long-assumed notions about the identity and mission of the church.  Instead… there is a need for reinventing or rediscovering the church in this new kind of world.”[6]   People need to know why the denomination exists.  People need to know why the denomination is doing what it is doing, and how the vision and mission of the congregation fits into the overall picture of what God is doing in the world.  

 

29 The common mission of the church describes how the North American church operates in its own post-Christian, post-modern context.  But, it also looks at how we engage with our mission partners in other countries.  A global perspective, that does not assume that North Americans know more than others do, and is willing to learn from Christians in other countries, is critical for a healthy strategy of world missions. 

 

30 

Comments for item 30

Carl Grosse  01-30-2002 02:59 PM ET (US) The PCUSA is actually a very ethical institution. That's one of the reasons our Book of Order is constantly growing. Maybe the ethics are distorted and selectively enforced, but our system reveals how an ethical focus can be a slippery slope toward becoming a regulatory agency. How does the new association develop ethical standards, and how will accountability to these standards be maintained? It should be very lean if a premium is placed on trust and empowerment.

The 21^st century denomination cannot be healthy without having some well-known behavioral boundaries.  The church needs clear, ethical standards that are lovingly and firmly enforced.  Today’s North American culture tempts the Church away from a Biblical morality.  It’s a fact that well-meaning, Christian people stumble and sin.  The Church does not seek to destroy people when they fall, but in order to lovingly help them, the Church says yes, you have sinned.  Confession and repentance are needed.  The Church will lovingly hold people accountable, and help them get the assistance they need.  But, for each person’s own health, and for the health of the Church, a “no-boundary” denomination where everything is acceptable cannot be tolerated.  If the Body of Christ has no backbone, it is spineless.

 

31 

Comments for item 31

Carl Grosse  01-30-2002 03:10 PM ET (US) This section, and the three following, illustrate the impact of technology on reshaping an association of churches. Given the proper conceptualization and development, the internet can be a tool for facilitating the kind of connectionalism highlighted throughout this document. It can link congregations and leaders to worship ideas and materials, educational curricula, mission opportunities and personnel, theological training, professional resources, the wider Body of Christ, and each other. Please make this a priority in forming new structures and processes for the post-denominational church!

The 21^st century denomination seeks to empower its congregations to reach their full kingdom potential.  It connects its churches to resources, rather than producing resources itself.  It realizes that there are a lot of products already being published by other sources, and encourages its churches to utilize any resource that is faithful to the scriptures.  The denomination realizes that loyalty cannot be assumed, demanded, or regulated.  It must be earned.[7]  This denomination trusts its congregations with their property.  The denomination knows that forcing a church to be a part of its network is not helpful to the ministry of the Kingdom of God.  The denomination must be more concerned about ministry than money or property, and so congregations are deeded with their property, to use as they see fit. 

 

32 “The denomination is a voluntary association.  As such, it is a collection of self-selecting individuals who make a commitment to participate…  Implicit in the nature of the denomination, then, is the freedom of every individual to make or break their commitments”.[8]

 

33 The 21^st century denomination operates from a Global/Local perspective.[9]  The denomination maintains contacts with other denominations, church networks, and missionaries all over the world, but increasingly it encourages local congregations to do the same.  The denomination knows that the closer people are connected to real mission work, the more the church will be strengthened, the more people will give, and the more the kingdom of God will advance in the world.  The denomination encourages its churches to contribute to any missions that are faithful to the scriptures, whether they are Presbyterian or not.  The denomination will encourage its local congregations to become “mother churches” that take the initiative to reproduce themselves by “birthing” new congregations, and will support congregations in these efforts by providing needed resources.  The denomination will not be threatened by any other Christian organization.  Rather, it will partner with other churches and other parachurch organizations to reach their local and global communities for Christ. 

 

34 National assemblies for these denominations would look quite different than the ones we are familiar with today.  National assemblies would focus on the needs of the ministry:  training pastors, laity, and missionaries for ministry, encouraging leaders who are discouraged, times of inspiring worship, connecting people in meaningful relationships, commissioning missionaries, and helping local church people connect with the missionaries they are supporting.  Very little time would be spent on debates and arguments.  The annual gatherings would have the ability to declare an issue “decided”, so that the same issue would not be allowed to dominate and consume the meeting every year.  That is not what most people are looking for from the church today.  The denomination and its gatherings will be much more relational than organizational.  Its meetings will be more like family reunions than political conventions.  Every church will be connected through the internet with regular e-mail conversations, so people will be able to “get in touch” and “stay in touch”.  The denomination will not focus on its own survival, but will focus on giving itself away for the advancement of the kingdom of God. 

 

35 We must be willing to let our traditional forms and structures that are the foundation of the institutional church die.[10]  Are we called to make sure that there will always be a Presbyterian church, or are we called to be faithful to the Gospel?[11] “I love the Presbyterian Church and its theological tradition.  But sometimes we lose our way.  Sometimes our tradition becomes more important than the simplicity of the Gospel.  Is it possible that we suffer from the same problem that the Pharisees of Jesus’ day suffered from?  Is it possible that we love our traditional trappings more than the Gospel itself?”[12]  “Not all forms of the church that we inherit must continue. … Such communities, if they are founded for mission, will be prepared to change and perhaps even to cease existing in a specific form.”[13]  

 

36 It is time for a change.  A small tinkering will not do.  It is time for a radical new reinvention of the denomination.  The 21^st century denomination will function as a servant to its missionaries, its pastors, its lay leaders, and its congregations.  It exists to help them do the ministry on the “front lines”.  The denomination is the support system, the rescue squad, the back-up team that works to make the most ministry possible.  It seeks to glorify God in all it does, operating under the authority of scripture.  Through its congregations and its people, it calls all people to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as the only savior and lord of the world.  The church will only be fruitful when it is faithful, and if it is neither, God will remove it from the vine(John 15:2).  Jesus is the vine and we are the branches.  Apart from Him, we can do nothing (John 15:5).