To borrow a phrase:
I did not insert the word ‘not’ above, and I don’t know who did!
Actually, much of the week was well spent, in spite of the hot, humid weather, the endless chicken meals and the occasional commissioner who felt that he or she must express an opinion on every “little” item on the docket.
There was that magnificent sermon on opening night by the outgoing moderator, Herb Gale. His compelling challenge to “jump into the cool, refreshing river of God’s abundant grace and splash around” was an invitation hard to resist. Then there was the excellent leadership of Rick Horst, the new moderator, as he guided the assembly through some rocky rapids with efficiency and good humour.
This year there seemed to be less of that rancorous right/left theological division than in other years. It was still there but it was expressed with respect for the other’s opinion and with a welcome generosity of spirit—for the most part. During discussion on the wording of a statement about our church’s relationship with the Jewish people, which called us “to reach out in friendship and hospitality” to Jewish neighbours, a commissioner moved to insert the words “and with prayerful witness.” This gave rise to spirited debate on what constituted “prayerful witness.” Some of us saw these as code words for “converting the Jews” which seemed to be out of place in a public statement that would be shared with Jewish sisters and brothers. The amendment was narrowly defeated in the assembly’s only standing vote.
Assembly made one decision that could have far – reaching implications for our theology of the ministry of word and sacraments. This is the ministry to which ministers have always been ordained in our church. But this assembly decided to permit presbyteries, in special circumstances, to commission a properly trained ruling elder or a member of the Order of Diaconal Ministries to administer the Sacrament of Holy Communion. This, of course, is a change to the law of the church so it must be sent to presbyteries for their vote. I welcome this change because it provides a means for folk in remote areas to receive the nourishment of the sacrament on a regular basis; but stay tuned for some confusion over what the ordination of ministers is all about.
The assembly’s response to the cry from Palestinian Christians, known as the Kairos Palestine Document, was keenly debated. This debate reflected the difference of opinion on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that exists in Canadian society and around the world. But in the end the assembly wisely, I thought, decided to respond as one body of Christians writing to another, not fully agreeing with them but expressing Christian solidarity.
If there was one issue at this assembly that defined the struggle that we find ourselves in as a denomination, it was the lack of a comprehensive vision for the church, which prevents us from setting clear priorities and leaves us stuck with a national structure that claims to give priority to the needs of congregations but is built on an anachronistic Christendom model that is no longer suitable in a post – Christendom era. This was evident in three overtures that called for restructuring of the national organization. Each of them referred to the decline in membership and the loss of congregations, and the need for the national structure to focus money and staff on the renewal and resourcing of congregations. This was a cry for help, but it gave the impression that if we just get the structure right our churches will be rescued. Of course that is not true, but it does indicate that the church out there expects a level of help from the national structure that it is not getting now.
The dilemma for the national organization is how to respond to this cry at the very time when contributions to Presbyterians Sharing are declining. The Life and Mission Agency tried to meet this impossible challenge by a merging of departments into a peculiarly named office called Canadian Ministries/The Vine.
Commissioners attempted to address those overtures by asking for a special committee to take on the task of visioning and restructuring. In the end the assembly decided to leave this task to the body that is supposed to be doing it—the Assembly Council. My conviction is that we must now do what we should have done 20 years ago; that is, imagine that we have no national structure in place, start from scratch and design a structure that will meet the realities of today and stop trying to fit a round peg into a square hole by rearranging things at Wynford Drive.
Such are my random impressions here on the last day of assembly. We probably could have done in two days what we took five days to do, but hey, we would have missed all those chicken meals.
We are a gifted and struggling church, but the river of God’s grace flows in abundance, so hope is the main item on the docket. And honestly, I don’t know who inserted the “not” above.
As one of he principal authors of one of the three overtures mentioned above, may I assure Dr. Davis that it was far from our intent to infer that we need only ‘get the structure right’ and all will be well. In forwarding its overture, the Presbytery of Hamilton hoped to initiate a process that will draw denominational focus to the needs of congregations, and do more than simply re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Like all Presbyteries, the Presbytery of Hamilton is concerned about the viability and future of its congregations, and we are actively exploring and pursuing ways of supporting congregational renewal on our own. We would like to have more support from the national church in this endeavour, but know that true hope for the future will be found in the local context not in the administraive structures of 50 Wynford.
Thomas Kay
[Reply]
As one of the principal authors of another of the three overtures, may I also assure Dr. Davis that it was far from our intent as well to infer that we need only ‘get the structure right and all will be well’. Nor would I characterize the overture from our presbytery as a “cry for help”. In my opinion I don’t think that the national organization can effect much help in a top down way, nor is that what is needed.In my view the overtures are asking our national structure to get real.
I agree with Dr. Davis that we need a reimagination of our national structure, but not for today as he suggests. Today is already history, and by the time any reimagination happens “today” will be long long gone. As the overture from our Presbytery suggests, our denomination will look very different in ten years compared to today. We need to reimagine our denomination in light of that kind of timeframe.
I also agree with Dr. Davis that this should have happened 20 years ago. But it wasn’t for a lack of trying. IN 1989 the then Board of Congregational presented the Church with a Vision (which in my view is still excellent), but its priority was lost from national leadership in the midst of the difficulties of restructuring. An overture next convinced the Assembly Council of the need to rebalance budget priorities to put more emphasis on “mission in the field” but that was lost in a budget battle on the floor of Assembly between the Assembly Council and the Life and Mission Agency. In 1995 commissioners to the Asssembly were so critical of the recommendations in the State of the Church report that the committee withdrew all their recommendations because they knew they would not pass. In 1996 the work product of the Think Tank was substantially lost in a debate over process. Ideas from the Think Tank were turned into themes for the FLAMES years, which really didn’t seem to have much impact in the congregations I was aware of. By the time the demographic study was presented in 2001 to Assembly, all people could do seemed to be was surpress their collective yawns. Even the Life and Mission Agency did not follow up on its own recommendations to its own study. I can also recommend the reading of the Long Range Planning Committee’s reports of the past 12 years, one after the other. Illuminating.
I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Davis that we should have reconceived our denomination 20 years ago. But it was not for lack of trying, whether it was top-down, bottom-up, for local impact or national impact, initiated by national staff or coming from the grassroots. Personally, I think this tells us something about ourselves and change.
Subsequently our national organization has fallen farther and farther behind the eight ball as a consequence. Every passing year of inaction simply makes thoughtful, proactive change more difficult. It is my guess that Presbyterians Sharing will continue on what will probably be a bumpy decline. Because of complacency to date we do not have the “vision” and “priorities” commissioners were asking for this year. Given the history I have outlined above, I believe it is highly unlikely that such things can be developed with the wide kind of concensus needed to truly make them motivational and enabling for our church, all in the limited timeframe we have for action. Consequently the overtures have asked for the simplest of priorities just to get things started: let’s remember the congregations and presbyeries. They can’t be rescued, but there are many ways to help them cope, adjust,learn, adapt and for some perhaps even to thrive.
With this simple priority as a starting point, let us finally get on with it. If not, then the inevitable will happen: the Assembly Council will find itself with each passing year saying “OK, how do we cut things back $250,000 this year?”
Personally, I agree with Dr. Davis: we should have done this 20 years ago. But it wasn’t for lack of effort since 1989.
The Church — at every level and in every place — is always entrusted with the stewardship of its own future. Each generation has done that — at times well and at times not so well — and then they have passed that trust on to the generation to follow. It is now entrusted to our stewardship. What do we want to pass on?
[Reply]
Between the Record’s headlines about what was not accomplished at General Assembly, Peter’s litany of past failed attempts at visioning, and the reality of the decline of the PCC, I don’t know how anyone can defend our current polity that is clearly not up to the challenge of defining and implementing renewal.
[Reply]