When we attended the Church of the Sojourners in San Francisco, the church that John Alexander pastored at the time, one of Rob's largest complaints was that they had no oversight or accountability from anyone besides themselves. They were a house church that wasn't, at the time, affiliated with any other house churches, nor any denomination. They did have ties to other house churches, most notably Church of the Servant King, but there was no formal accountability structure. This, and several other issues that Rob was dealing with, eventually led us to join City Church instead, which was just starting up in a little chapel in the Presidio. But the questions that Rob put to John Alexander seem to have gotten John thinking about the idea of accountability between churches. He even mentions, in his Stop Going to Church and Be the Church book that I've referenced several times in recent posts, the decision making process that he and the other church leaders went through as they considered the issue and tried to determine what might work best for their congregation.
They eventually developed a consortium of churches in which members of one congregation would (on a yearly basis, I think it was) travel to one of the other house churches and live among the members for a week. They would meet with each of the leaders one-on-one as well as in a group and they spent time (also one-on-one and in larger groups) with the rest of the members of the congregation as well, asking questions about their own spiritual growth, the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the church congregation and so on. In the end, after having spent a fair amount of time immersed in the matters of the church (both spiritual and worldly) they would give an evaluation of how the church was doing, areas where they could improve, where their strengths lie, etc. And when they gave their report, it wasn't in a business fashion in which ultimatums were handed down or numbers had been crunched. Instead it was a thoughtfully prepared evaluation written by a group of people who had built relationships with those they were evaluating. I'm sure it's not a perfect system, but what I love about it is that the people get to know each other. They talk over a period of time and everyone gets a say. And the conclusions are hopefully drawn up in love for the betterment of the congregation.
Compare that to the system that we found at City Church, a member of the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA). There the pastor attended Presbytery meetings 3 or 4 times a year where he'd meet only with other pastors or elders from the other PCA churches in the region. They often have specific issues to discuss and make rulings on. Then they'd travel back home having never met with other members of any other congregations and therefore only hearing the news from other churches through the lens of the other leaders (if they spent any time talking about their congregations at all). Though City Church was a member of a denomination with a body of leadership that was ostensibly in charge of holding each church accountable to the directives in the Bible, that leadership generally only dealt with issues once they'd grown so large that they had to be dealt with. There was no system whereby help was brought in before an issue grew too large. And when decisions were dealt out, they were from a stand point of leaders ruling over either other leaders or other church members. They were not done in a context of relationship and the problems were rarely, if ever, dealt with when they were still small and manageable. If it wasn't explosive, it wasn't worth dealing with yet.
The difference between the Sojourners model and the City Church model speaks volumes to me. I've been in many Bible Studies or Sunday School classes in which we've discussed the verses in Scripture that speak about holding each other accountable and almost always someone jumps in and quotes from Ephesians that you have to "speak the truth in love" and that means you have to know the person and have some sort of relationship with them before you can expect to be allowed into their life enough to also help them deal with their issues and struggles. (We only give paid counselors the right to tell us what to do without them first becoming our friends.)
But when you talk about accountability on a congregational level, that relational stuff often seems to fly right out the window. Within our denomination, the leaders of the other congregations can step in and make judgement calls without having had built any sort of relationship with the members of the congregation before hand. In fact, in our current presbytery, getting together across congregations outside of official presbytery meetings seems to almost be taboo. At least, every attempt I've seen made to get this to happen is akin to pulling teeth and still getting minimal or no results.
In the end I'm left wondering what the positives are after all to being in a church that's a member of a larger denomination. Sure, they'll whip us in to shape if we get out of line. But they're more than likely do it with harshness and lack of love because they don't have a clue who we are and why we've come to the place we're in. So if there's value in having a stick over our heads, then sure, there's value to being in the denomination. But if we're looking for outsiders who will come in and get to know us, and let us in to get to know them, and who will assent to holding us accountable to our goals and we to them, then we're certainly not going to find it in the PCA. From the presbyteries I've been in, this not only isn't a priority. It's not even on the radar.
I wonder how many denominations have split into even more denominations because, rather than building relationships so as to have a context in which to discuss their differences, they have formed sides, fought battles, and eventually resorted to a denominational split rather than come to an agreement on whatever issue they're struggling with. What a shame! Jesus said that the world would know we are his disciples because we love one another and instead we lord it over one another, not only at a personal level but at a congregational level.
Shame on us.
Not all presbyteries are like that - unconnected, etc. The upside of the OPC is a tradition that highly values presbytery-wide events. Some felt duty bound to attend, but for the most part most who were involved did so with loyal delight. There were summer family camps (balancing morning conference sessions with afternoon resting or community fun); men's special leadership weekend where a main speaker would come to talk on men's issues or church leadership matters; women's prebyterial where a special speaker would also come in and the ladies would have a fun day and evening together; and then joint worship events on special days such as Reformation Sunday and Good Friday (of the like) where two to four churches would rotate locations and gather for worship and a dessert spread that would often knock your socks off. Then, of course there were summer presbytery-wide picnics, Memorial Day weekend camp, Fall camp, etc., that were available.
ReplyDeleteThe RPCNA, RCUS and other smaller and older denominations have this same kind of tradition which comes from the early to mid-20th century. It is a tradition that was hard to break, thank God.
I find in the PCA, a newer denomination that has emerged out of the South (hence big-church, independently minded type of tradition), this kind of connectedness does not or very rarely exists. Sadly, the PCA culture has bred a sort of American Evangelical independence. I find it curious that there is much talk among presbyters about the NEED for fellowship time (I even heard it last Thursday at our meeting), but when it comes down to actually participating the pastors and elders of the churches are hesitant or dismissive. I am not sure why this is, but I suspect it is because (1) they see absolutely NO need to see how the church is more than just their local congregation, and (2) they fear losing people to other churches (a kind-of pious competition). In the South, the tradition is that if the larger or meg churches took the lead in Presbytery functions (camps, conferences, picnics, etc.) then there was an unspoken obligation or perhaps a greater willingness (because if it's from the big church it's legitimate) to participate by the smaller churches. If a smaller church tried to do the same, rarely would others follow suit unless the large church gave the nod. So, in the PCA there is this kind of junior-high styled cliquishness that takes place, and a spiritual arrogance that drives it.
I do know that because I am a pastor of a small-tiny church I am invisible to most and persona non grata (many at presbytery keep on meeting me again and again for the first time). Sadly, I have no credibility. However, church planters of cool churches or pastors of big churches are given weightiness that is much too silly (a curious phenomenon).