This is the story of two presbyteries – though I think of many – and two surveys. Both presbyteries participated at the Emmaus Conference in April 2010 and both have undertaken follow – up events. Both had similar surveys done of their active members asking them what they thought of their own presbytery. Here are some of the not – so – shocking answers:
Presbytery A is not encouraging or supportive, does not challenge or assist ministers, is not visionary, does not shape new directions, is not proactive.
Presbytery B is stressed out, discouraged, frustrated, combative, draining, spinning wheels, filled with alliances, disconnected, business – like, indecisive, scared, disillusioned; but also changing and filled with possibilities.
Other issues facing Presbytery A include the court structures which discourage discussion, fellowship or strategizing, meaning they are unable to face realities of changing demographics and declining memberships, are not meeting needs of youth today, and have no effective relationships with congregations. This presbytery also lacks skilled mediators. They have few presbyters participating. The atmosphere is dismissive and adversarial. There is no fellowship or fun and lay representatives are unable to participate. Ouch! Worse than ouch.
Still, we’re in the hope business and both presbyteries laid out their wish list. Presbytery B wished that by 2014 they would have unity in purpose and ministry, feel supported, feel connected, feel energized, be able to meet challenges, do some church planting, have trust in each other and share resources.
Presbytery A made two lists, which I shall name Big Changes and Small Changes. Under small changes they suggested to themselves they should create mission statements and strategic priorities; abandon needless forms, eliminate reports with no recommendations; have more round table discussion, more small groups; set time limits and keep them; share positive and encouraging news; organize important business to the top of the agenda; review financial implications before presentation.
For big changes they suggested to themselves: More prayer; more praise and worship; more fellowship; more retreats; more strategic planning; more small group discussions; fewer committee reports.
Well, not surprisingly, Presbytery B had a similar list: Focus on Christ; a sense of holiness and spirituality; address difficult tasks in love; display love for each other.
Sitting through these two workshops—a couple of months apart—I was reminded of what Richard Topping wrote in our January issue: “I am just dying to one day say after a presbytery meeting, ‘Wow! Now that was inspiring.’ I’m not being cynical; I recognize the need to do business and that administrative work is crucial. But what if our business was framed by more intentional learning and spiritual support and imagination formation as it was in Geneva?”
Yes, what if indeed. Presbytery B imagined a change in its character from business – like to spiritual and loving. In so doing, they realized they could achieve some seemingly impossible tasks: grow, be fiscally responsible, be cutting edge, be intentional and creative.
These presbyteries have many challenges, their membership ranges from the conservative to the liberal, individual churches are struggling while a small handful are growing—in short, these two presbyteries are representative of the church.
And, yet, their meditations, their vulnerability, are powerful and dramatic. This leadership through honesty is scary stuff; and perhaps that’s what sets them slightly apart from the rest of the church. But I am hopeful; I have heard of others going through a similar process; and I know there is power in love.
Through Christ.
