What's the way forward?

 

A while ago I read "Is There A Future for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)?" by The Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick in the Price H. Gwynn Church Leadership Series.  After giving reasons to doubt the future existence of the denomination - which includes loss of membership, partisan spirit and interest group politics and loss of a dynamic, unifying witness - he states a few reasons for hope in the future of the church. One of his statements of this hope stated "We have incredible resources to train the next generation of Christian leaders." Although I wholeheartedly agree with Cliff's assessment, I think the church as a whole is in a state of flux as to how to lead the present way forward.

If you talk to many people, one will get the sensethat the Presbyterian Church as a whole needs a new way of leadership as we look into the future. Undoubtedly, we cannot continue to do things the way that they have always been done. To paraphrase a favorite book of mine, we can no longer be a 8-track church in a CD world. Actually it is getting to the point that we can no longer be a CD church in an iPod world. The church today needs new strategies and new ways to do mission, have relevant worship, and grow and nurture disciples without sacrificing the core values and beliefs of the reformed tradition. But what should that look like? Many people are offering various views of how the church exhibit future leadership. One such view comes from Beau Weston's "Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment." If you have not read it, click here. You can also participate in a Facebook discussion of the paper here. It is not my intent to critique or respond to Weston's paper but to ask you what are your thoughts on the future of leadership in the Presbyterian Church U.S.A.? What should it look like? Should it be:

1. A variety of genders, races and cultures?

2 . Does it make a difference that the church has young(er) people like Bruce and I in a position of leadership and what impact should/could that have on the future of the church?

3. Does it make a difference if we have a predominate group, be it race, gender, tall or small church pastors/elders, etc. in leadership?

4. What characteristics should a person have in leading our churches and governing bodies?

5. Do you feel that we need a balance of so-called conservatives and liberals?

6. If we are talking about future plans for church leadership, should we continue to focus on the "hot-button" issues or should we focus on other aspects like mission or church growth?

I would be interested in hearing what you think is the way forward!

Comments

[Susan Phillips]

Thanks Byron!
These are good questions. I'm not going to respond to Weston's paper either. I think the potential for our denomination to grow in faith, if not in numbers, will be the extent to which younger generations can agree on essentials v non-essentials. I think X & Y have different ideas than our predecessors do about what rises to the level of essential. If we are talking about requirements for membership, it is a very short list -- as it should be. Jesus had little to say before, "Follow me."

Of course some folks will be unhappy if the list doesn't include their concern, but this perseverance with other through disagreements, even significant theological ones, is a hallmark of our reformed tradition.

I loved the story out of the 218th GA of YADS suggesting putting the Book of Order online and letting it be written as open source. The committee applauded them as they voted it down, but his week's Newsweek is talking about whether federal legislation might be worked out the same way in the future.

I hope our churches will celebrate and make good use of the gifts G-d has given each of us, regardless of all the blessed differences you mention, but we aren't there yet.

[Mark]

I'll answer your questions by the numbers above:

1. Duh! A variety of races, genders and cultures should be represented in leadership. On the other hand, we should not go so far as to create artificial divisions by using quotas. If we truly practice what we preach AND our denomination is successful in expanding our diversity, this will happen naturally. I look at leaders like you and Bruce and I see Byron and Bruce, not African-American and Bruce's mix.

2. Yes, it makes a difference that you are leading. Bruce has had the opportunity to visit our church twice - once for the pre-Assembly candidate's event and more recently as Moderator. I can't tell you how much excitement this generated among the few very active young adults that we have. Youth and young adults are the missing generations in our church. If they are energized by seeing one of their own in leadership, then that's what we need to show the world. Besides, you two were elected on your own merits and that says more about change in the denomination than anything.

3. It makes a huge difference if there is a predominate group in leadership. It says to the world that we don't practice what we preach - that all are God's servants. It shows a class hierarchy. There is some value to experience, but not at the expense of new ideas.

4. In an era where change is required in order to fulfill our mission as a church, we need new ideas and experience with those ideas being successful in our leaders. With younger generations no longer revering someone solely because of their age and position, we need people who can generate respect through their actions. We also need people who can speak the language of the unchurched/dechurched as well as the language of the church.

5. We need a balance of so-called conservatives and liberals because God calls us to be in community with all other followers of Christ (not to mention the rest of the world). However, there is a point at which fighting between conservatives and liberals gets in the way of our work. We are at that point now. Strong steps need to be taken to prune dissent back to a point where it is a proper part of the working of the Spirit and not a roadblock to our work. Besides - in a post-modern world purity of doctrine (liberal OR conservative) as our #1 goal is a turn-off to potential members.

6. We need to turn away from our hot-button issues. We aren't getting anywhere with any of them, but they are turning people off and consuming our energy. It's time for a time-out on certain issues.

I also think that we need to find an easy way for those who have decided that they cannot remain because of X or Y or Z to leave. Today it's easy for individuals, but hard for churches. Also, those who leave need to truly leave, and stop taking potshots from the outside.