For all the submarine type readers, I have to disappoint you in this post as the title actually describes my estimation of the PCUSA denomination. There are many similarities between the two behemoth organizations and I will mention a few of them here. I spent the last few days at the Montreat College Conference and got to hear an amazing keynote by Congressman John Lewis. His book just doesn't do justice to hearing his powerful story in person. What an amazing man with a phenomenal story that evokes confidence and hope in humanity.
I don't want to focus on his story, because I could never do it justice, but a common thread I noticed in listening to two leaders of my denomination. One was the moderator and the other the head staffer of the church for Campus ministry. Many people think the denomination will fracture and split over issues that are in the press for all denominations. However, after following the discussion for a few years and applying some good old submarine thinking of root causes. I think the root cause is a lack of denominational identity.
Whenever a proposal or issue rises to the top of the denomination at the General Assembly, it seems the PCUSA decides to take it on and study the issue. They then release a report and say it is on their radar. There are a myriad of issues which follow this pattern. What happens is that precious resources of time, talent and money are thrown at all sorts of issues and all of them important to some group of people. I appreciate acknowledging everyone's worth in the body. However, with so many issues to grapple with everyone suffers.
Take campus ministry for example. I think they said there were 64 universities affiliated with the denomination and another significant number that have campus ministers. However, as the resources have dwindled, the church as significantly reduced their support for nurturing the members who are in college. The conference is a start, but really a band aid and political gesture so show the denomination cares as no real support stems from the conference. Kind of like a steinke hood. There is no real movement or support for college ministry because there are too many things to occupy the denominational offices.
This is similar to one complaint many submariners make about the sub force, myself included. The sub force, around the same time of the Greeneville collision, decided to make everyone experts in every single mission area a submarine could possibly encounter. When I was a Junior Officer out in Pearl, each squadron focused on one or two mission areas and everyone knew what the squadron's main mission was. We learned basic competency in each area, but became experts in a few areas. We felt confident in our ability and overall mission impact and accomplishment. This new focus puts a great strain on the entire force to excel in so many areas that the overall performance seemed to suffer. There is no way to be the best in everything imaginable, humans are designed that way.
Thinking about the church, a denomination can't do it all and shouldn't try. We are told the church is a body with every person having a distinct function. Congregations and denominations are no different. This doesn't mean that my function is more important or vital to the overall body. If I am the hand, I can't be the eyes but I do appreciate what the eyes accomplish. Each denomination seems to be wanting to be the sole expert in every possible function of the universal church and that just seems absurd. This all got me to thinking what would be a good model for a denomination.
Well, maybe the PCUSA needs to spend the time at General Assembly prayerfully discerning what the denomination is called to act upon for the next two years until the next meeting. The church should make a statement of what their vision is and actively work toward that vision. I think they should take a stand and stake a claim to a certain number of issues/movements and put all of their effort into that. This is not to say that individual congregations can't work on their own. They should as each congregation needs to discern their place in the world. But if an outsider can't determine what issues are truly important to the denomination, they will leave it aside. In my experience, churches that succeed, and by extension denominations, are those that you know what they stand for. If you don't agree with their views you respect them and move on, if you agree you stand with them. There is an old saying, if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything.
That being said, the other issue is that if a congregation wants to leave let them. Sign over the property recognizing they are our Christian brothers and sisters. Just because people are in different places theologically doesn't mean we can treat them as enemies. Let them go in love and make sure the path back to the denomination is just as loving if the priorities align once again. I just think that all sides on these denominational issues are looking for the complicated answers when the simple answer is usually the correct one. This idea, while still rough keeps the ability to be a theologically diverse organization, but still allows for a graceful exit for those who don't agree. People on the outside look at our behavior and turn away for good. We need to set the example and put aside our pride and take a stand on living a life of love for everyone.
My two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment