The following is an excerpt (with one added editorial remark) from comments I sent in March regarding the Missional Structures Task Force Report. That was “version 3.0,” yet I believe that my comments continue to be relevant to the current version. I hope the selective scope and focus of what I say will help some in grappling with this.
This is just a short post, of special interest to voting delegates at GS2007.
Last year, during the formation of General Synod, it was suggested that the Synod give blanket privilege of the floor to all staff (allowing them to speak). This was an innovation; normally staff are not to speak at the Synod except to answer questions specifically put to them (Wes tends to break that rule pretty consistently, but, oh well) so that they will not be in the position of unduly influencing the delegates. The argument for doing this, according to Wes, was that, otherwise, the GS had to grant privilege of the floor each time a staff member was asked a question, and this was cumbersome and time-consuming.
Unfortunately, the motion put on the floor and approved gave staff privilege of the floor to speak to anything and everything–a status equal to and, in practice, greater than that of corresponding delegates (who were encouraged only to speak to areas of expertise, etc.)–and the staff used that status.
My suggestion would be that a voting delegate needs to be in front of this, making a motion specifically to allow staff privilege of the floor TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS FROM THE SYNOD. This would deal with the time-consumption issue while appropriately limiting the role of staff, avoiding any appearance of undue influence. Delegates should argue against any larger blanket privilege motion.
Just something for which you can keep your eyes and ears open.
Throughout the ages the church has been tempted to get things down to “one.” It makes things easier, and a truly Trinitarian faith is not easy to believe, and a Trinitarian way of being church takes discipline to maintain against the pressures of the day.
To the left is the famous Ikon by Anton Rublev, known as The Divine Hospitality. It refers to the story of God’s visit to Abraham, in Genesis 18. Of course we also see in it The Holy Trinity.
That theology expresses how I want to do church and be church, and it’s what the historic Reformed Church order is designed to reflect.
Read more…
It’s no accident that our Jewish sisters and brothers celebrate the giving of the law to Moses on the same week that we prepare for Pentecost. And it’s especially apt for us Reformed since our respect for law as gift from God characterizes one of our contributions to the greater church.
Read more…
1. When I served on GSC I remember that some proposals that came to that committee were put aside for lack of an attached succinct preview of financial impact and implications. I am not clear whether that is a requirement for GS recommendations. At any rate, how did that glaring omission slip by GSC? Is it fully (and transparently) explicated elsewhere? Would that count?
And if it is required of GS, is not this lacuna grounds for referral?
2. I call the proposal a re-missionalizing, because it completely ignores any input from our present or past designated missionaries, as far as I can tell from the document itself and the supplemental list in the GS handbook of those those who were consulted.
The Board of Deacons of the congregation I serve is puzzled by the idea that only now we realize that we apparently have to have a mission. As one Deacons said, ‘Do they mean to say that our efforts for all these many years are insignificant?’, ‘What do they think we have been doing and continues to do; or that we already are a mission in the midst of our culture?’, ‘Where is the evidence that the centralized management of our mission funds through the denomination is more efficient or successful than our other ventures through our other networking, congregational contacts and local cooperative venues?’ Where are the data that show that our (significant) regional synod assessment could be better spent through a distribution of a differently sized assembly? Our RS (NY) included rural, ex-urban, sub-urban and urban congregations. How exactly would a newly configured constellation or grouping benefit or unite all of us better in living out our Call? Visions of arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic comes to mind.
As members of the RCA we all agree that we are a Pentecost dispensation and have no business in Babel. So what were we thinking when we agreed to hire an Imhotep as General Secretary?
Read more…
One of the claims I here in defense of new “structures” [sic] is that they will enable the church to be more “missional,” which sometimes translates into being more “post-modern.” This is ironic. To see why we need a little history.
Read more…
What appears just below I wrote in 2003. It was part of the original Alternate Vision paper. I was proposing an hypothesis that behind the explicit Statement of Mission and Vision was an implicit vision for denominational restructuring. I offered it as one possible analysis of what was going on, and I suggested that it was not far-fetched. It turns out it was not far-fetched at all.
Read more…
Delegates to General Synod, please go on this website to the “Document Library” page, and then open either version (Powerpoint or Word) of Jim Reid’s paper, “A Second Look.” If you find it disturbing, well then maybe take another look at Jeremiah.
Read more…
I have been toying with this sketch, partially in response to the accusation that those of us who have problems with the MSTF Report and other GSC proposals don’t propose any positive ways for the RCA to adapt and move into the future. Comments are welcome—and, I am sure, inevitable.
Read more…