Denominations and Accountability

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. 

Talking honestly about a full range of issues

The church is the people of God. As such, within the church there should be open and honest dialogue about tough issues. And the dialogue, though it might still be hard, should still be safe because there's an underlying sense that we are family, forgiven in God's sight, and though still fallible, we're still working toward a common goal of glorifying God -- in part by being able to have really hard discussions and still loving each other through it.

That's the ideal, at least. Instead the discussions within the church are often either surface-level or hit only upon the hard issues with the understood undertone that everyone should agree about the issue and we know it's the heathen who are against us on this. (Any suspicion that someone within our own membership stands with the heathen on a particular issue is so unsettling that the conversation is often quickly changed.) 

On the one hand, it's very hard to have tough conversations together. Very few people look forward to something like that. But on the other hand, having a tough discussion and having it turn out well, where you learn something that you didn't know, or come away with more understanding for a fellow member of the church, is a wonderful thing. If we knew that every hard discussion would come out with such a positive ending, perhaps we'd jump into them much more readily.

John Alexander said that he believes that eating together is a sign of a healthy church. (By the way, I should add that within the church that John was a part of, the entire congregation eats together every Sunday evening. They also eat together in smaller groups several times during the week.) Along the same lines of eating together was being together in general. Not only do many congregations not do much together throughout the week, but within some congregations there is so much turn-over that it's very hard to form a cohesive sense of community within the group. 

Rob and I were members of a church in San Francisco that had about 400 members. Some friends of ours moved away to Kansas but came back for a short visit a few months after they had moved. We saw them after the service and they spoke briefly to us but then excused themselves to go say hi to several other friends. They returned awhile later saying that they were unable to find anyone else they knew! They had only been gone a few months and already the turnover was so great that though they had been in the church for at least a year before leaving, they were unable to find people they had known from when they lived in the area. That astounded me. (I knew there was a high turnover rate, and that I was having a very hard time feeling connected to anyone, but this brought it all home with a very specific example of the problem.) 

John Alexander points out that in a church with such a high turn-over rate, especially if we only see each other once a week on Sunday mornings, it is very unlikely that folks will get to the meaty issues of life. We may hear the pastor preach on something that's a tough issue, but then do we get a chance to talk to others in the body about our own thoughts on that issue or how we're dealing with that problem in our own lives? John asks, Do we, as a church, "talk honestly about a full range of tough issues?" That line particularly got me to thinking. I know that high turn-over rates are a problem. That's one thing that I like about our church is that there are people who have been in the congregation for twenty years, and even many of the "newcomers" have been around for upwards of 3 or 4 years or longer. (We've been members of the church for almost 9 years.) But has that familiarity led to a better ability to work through hard issues together? 

Sometimes I feel like in Sunday School or the gals Bible study we'll hit on a tough issue. And sometimes we really do have good, solid discussions on them. But there are other issues that we seem to skirt around as a congregation. So, while our congregation has the non-transient thing down pretty well, I think we still struggle with the "full range of tough issues" area. Our pastor has brought up some forums in which we might be able to tackle some of the harder discussions, but I can't say that there's been a stampede to dive in. 

And it's certainly not just our congregation. I'm sure this is a problem throughout the world. Which is a shame. God's people, of all folks, should be able to address each other in love and compassion and a thoughtfulness that enables really heavy and deep and hard conversations to take place in such a way that healing and growth and unity can occur. 

Philippians 2:1-4 If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

My interests may not be the same as someone else's. In fact, it's quite possible that my interests conflict with someone else's. But if we are to be a body, to work together as individual bits formed and shaped into one entity, the body of Christ, then shouldn't we take time out to consider the interests of others? To discuss those interests with them and gain a better understanding of where each other is coming from? ... well, of course. And I'm sure we all would even agree on that, though the thought of sitting down and actually doing as much can be a bit daunting. 

Which really gets to the heart of the question, I suppose. What can we do to get more of this "talking honestly about a full range of issues" happening? How can we foster this sort of thing both in the local church as well as the church national or the church global? Have you seen hard discussions talked out in a loving way among believers? What helped to foster that? 

1. Create Spaces for Open Discussion

My initial thought when reading this first suggestion for building community by Chris Smith, in his book Growing Deeper in our Church Communities, was that our congregation does this already every time we have a fellowship meal.  But as I read more, I realized that Chris was talking about a time with a more specific purpose and topic of discussion. He gives some examples that draw this out:

Once you gather people, there are thousands of things that could be discussed: How could we be more faithful together? Are there people in our congregation who aren’t being taken care of?  Perhaps there is a book that could be read and discussed.  For us, the initial conversation went in the direction of “What is scripture and how should we read it?”

This is the kind of conversation I've longed for in our congregation for quite awhile now. We seem to march ever onward in our traditional roles, making little tweaks here or adjustments there in how we do things or when we do them or what we're doing, but we never get together as a congregation and brainstorm on any of these things as a body. I would love to hear what people appreciate in worship, group study, fellowship, etc. from the past year of our life together. I'd like to know why they liked those things or hear their ideas on how we could do better at them in the upcoming year.

I think sometimes people direct their thoughts or reactions to the pastor like he's supposed to be the repository for all of our opinions as a church, and he is to be the master coordinator and organizer regarding how those opinions will henceforth change our means and methods of interaction. It would make so much more sense for us to all share our thoughts and ideas among each other -- to hear how something that I didn't really care much for meant quite a bit to someone else or to discover that there's a need I wasn't aware of but that I can help to meet.

This would develop a greater openness among the body as we learn more about one another's needs and preferences and we also learn to honor them in these things. I may not like reading through a question and answer of the catechism each Sunday, but if that's something that's particularly meaningful to another member of the congregation, and it helps him to feel more connected to God, then I'm more likely to read that question and answer with delight, not because I find value in it, but because I know that that act is enabling my brother to draw closer to God and that has value for the entire congregation.

New Monasticism

I came across these 12 marks of New Monasticism today. I thought I'd post them here both as a way to discuss them and to think them through a bit more. You can find the original list here at newmonasticism.org.  They don't give explanations for these, either. So make of them what you will.

1) Relocation to the abandoned places of Empire.

2) Sharing economic resources with fellow community members and the needy among us.

3) Hospitality to the stranger

4) Lament for racial divisions within the church and our communities
combined with the active pursuit of a just reconciliation.

5) Humble submission to Christ’s body, the church.

6) Intentional formation in the way of Christ and the rule of the
community along the lines of the old novitiate.

7) Nurturing common life among members of intentional community.

8) Support for celibate singles alongside monogamous married couples and their children.

9) Geographical proximity to community members who share a common rule of life.

10) Care for the plot of God’s earth given to us along with support of our local economies.

11) Peacemaking in the midst of violence and conflict resolution within communities along the lines of Matthew 18.

12) Commitment to a disciplined contemplative life.

May God give us grace by the power of the Holy Spirit to discern rules for living that will help us embody these marks in our local contexts as signs of Christ’s kingdom for the sake of God’s world.

Trust

Our church has recently gone through a  bit of turmoil as our last pastor, well past 70 and exhibiting symptoms of Alzheimers, left in a huff when it was suggested that the church should hire a part time assistant pastor who would take over the preaching responsibilities and would eventually become the head pastor when he finally decided to retire.  That left our little church (40 people on a good day -- including kids) looking for a new shepherd for our flock. 

So a pastoral search committee was appointed -- 5 guys (all Ss) and me (an N).   (More on S/N here.)  We met with 6 candidates either in person or on the phone and it was absolutely fascinating the differing reactions we had.  Though in general we had similar responses to candidates, there were occasions when I wanted to stop and say, "Wait.  Were you and I in the same meeting just now?"  It became very clear to me that the differences in our perceptions regarding the candidates fell right along S/N lines.  While I would be reading between the lines and getting an overall sense of how our future as a church would look with such-and-such candidate, the guys would all be listening to very specific details in what the candidate said.  They were also much more likely to consider what I think of was resume-details -- how much experience does this person have, where has he worked before, etc.

The day finally came to sit down and figure out who we, as a committee, wanted to pursue, and who we felt wouldn't be a good fit.   It was a very tense meeting and one in which these differences became utterly apparent.  While I had read between the lines and decided that one candidate was an excellent match, they had looked at the specifics and seen that he was a no go.  And on the flip side, several of them were very gung-ho for a fella who, when I pictured where he'd take the church, in my opinion would have had a great honeymoon with us and then the relational issues would begin.  

As we sat around the coffee table giving our pro's and con's for various candidates, we could have shouted, argued, fussed and fumed about our positions.  It could have torn us apart as a committee and it could have prolonged our search and perhaps led us to call someone who would be a very poor match for our congregation.  But instead, it became very clear that despite our strong stances on candidates, we were committed to agreeing.  

None of us articulated this at the time, and I don't know that we even thought it through while in the midst of it, but our actions were clear.  As strongly as we felt, we all knew that this was not worth risking disunity over. 

As well as the meeting went, it was still incredibly hard and when I came home afterwards I risked waking my kids up just because I needed the hugs.  

We had several meetings after that point, some with our culled through set of candidates and some without, and we eventually unanimously and wholeheartedly agreed on a guy who, I feel strongly was Providentially appointed to join us (and he, his family, and his current church even agree on this).   He'll be arriving in September as our full time pastor. 

Looking back, what is remarkable is not that we found a guy in only 7 months, nor that he's as excited about coming as we are about having him.  What utterly amazes me is that the folks in that search committee, despite strong differences of opinion, with every reason to distrust, chose rather to believe that we are a body -- the body of Christ.  We recognize that the harmony and growth of that body depends upon us each, on an individual level, just as the health of a physical body depends upon the working together and growth of the individual cells.  We will grow together or we will wither apart.  

Through this time of trial, we have chosen to grow together.