If you haven't heard much about GA, plan to attend the Sept. 9th meeting of the Presbytery to hear a report from our commissioners: Marcia MacKillop, Nancy Prince, Bisi Shofu, Jeff Vamos, and our Youth Advisory Delegate Alex Phipps!
One thing I think is clear from the G.A. going forward is that the PCUSA and its sub-units are in a period of transformation, from that which was regulatory and governing in nature, to that which is relational and facilitative.
As it applies to the current matter of the PNB Staff study and EP search the matter to be addressed by churches/clergy/elders is just how this new organization and/or EP person can assist me or my my church do what it seeks to do. Rather than a EP to act as more or less an enforcer of denominational orthodoxy. Even in a rather small and homogenious presbytery such as this.
Peter is probably right about the trend. It's happening in many organizations. It's all part of the flattening of the world (you MUST read "The World Is Flat"). The heirarchial model doesn't work any more. Some presbyteries have tried to recognize this by changing the title from Executive Presbyter to General Presbyter. I'm not sure this works. I prefer titles that are more descriptive, such as Presbyter for Congregational Vitality, Presbyter for Pastoral Vitality, etc. This is what they've done in Genesee Valley Presbytery.
Transformation, regadless of its intent or direction is hard. Hard on established structures, rules and organizations created specifically to defend the well established practices and modes which had served established insitutions in the past.
One could say the corporate structure of a GM or Ford did not allow it to address systemic problems which now put their continued existence at risk. Even in our "bail-out" culture.
Does NBP wish to retain the forms, structures, and organizational format that served it in the industrial/post-war world which has passed. Or does it take a more lean or fluid structure which is more cost effective and efficient? Again, authentic transformation is from the bottom-up, not top-down. It will be what the individual churches are willing, or not willing to do that will determine what the future may hold.
I'm not sure about this bottom-up, top-down thinking. If we are the Body of Christ, it would seem that transformation must be embraced at all levels. Imagine a presbytery where the congregations are in a tranformative mode but the presbytery leadership is not, or vice versa. What we have in PNB is a few congregations that are interested in transformation and a few Presbytery leaders who also are interested. Unfortunately, the job and person description of the proposed Executive Presbyter does not reflect an understanding of transformation. It reads like a description of a Bishop. On the other hand, the job description of the Associate Executive Presbyter is clearly all about transformation. Maybe what we need is an EP with the AEP job description.
As the nation and economy are in a period of de-leveraging and transitioning from a 20th century system of deregulation/regulation into a something likely more global and intergrated, it is a good time to ask is the PCUSA and its subordinate units prime for the same type of transitions? Painful as they may be to go through.
I would posit the PCUSA nationally and presbyteries locally suffer from an imbalance of real-estate, square-footage to users or customers/consumers of what we have to offer. From both a management and corporate perspective the PCUSA will not turn the corner in its transition until this is addressed.
Specifically the PCUSA will need to process the merger, union, yoking, resourse sharing for maybe upwards of 1 in 3 churches currently open. 1 in 3 PCUSA churches now open will either need to close/merge/union with others/yoke in such a way to gain greater efficency and use of limited resources, think clergy, and money. This will need to happen in the next 5-7 years. As it is now far too many cannot afford, nor will never afford clergy, full or part time. Resources that Presbyteries now use to prop, support such churches on the cusp of viability and effectiveness need to re-directed. The sooner we are honest with such churches and people, the better for them, and the corporate body.
All living things have a life- arc,a life span; people, pets, institutions, churches. Not all are meant, not will they last forever. Many PCUSA churches in the urban cores and inner ring suburbs are at the end of their life cycles, or close to it. Nothing wrong or evil in that, just the way it is. How one adjusts and processes that information will determine the relative pain of that transition time.
I agree completely although I'm not sure of Peter's numbers (1 in 3 churches, 5-7 years). Our "What Have We Learned?" Administrative Commission is dealing with this for PNB. They have identified about 8 at-risk churches. The problem is that no one has been willing to talk turkey with such churches. The culture of PNB is to let churches decide when and how to close their doors. This may change, however, thanks to the Commission. Of course, it will take more than a Commission's report to change the presbytery from being passive to pro-active. Changing culture is hard.
8 comments:
If you haven't heard much about GA, plan to attend the Sept. 9th meeting of the Presbytery to hear a report from our commissioners: Marcia MacKillop, Nancy Prince, Bisi Shofu, Jeff Vamos, and our Youth Advisory Delegate Alex Phipps!
Ernie Kimmel
I love presbytery!
One thing I think is clear from the G.A. going forward is that the PCUSA and its sub-units are in a period of transformation, from that which was regulatory and governing in nature, to that which is relational and facilitative.
As it applies to the current matter of the PNB Staff study and EP search the matter to be addressed by churches/clergy/elders is just how this new organization and/or EP person can assist me or my my church do what it seeks to do. Rather than a EP to act as more or less an enforcer of denominational orthodoxy. Even in a rather small and homogenious presbytery such as this.
Peter is probably right about the trend. It's happening in many organizations. It's all part of the flattening of the world (you MUST read "The World Is Flat"). The heirarchial model doesn't work any more. Some presbyteries have tried to recognize this by changing the title from Executive Presbyter to General Presbyter. I'm not sure this works. I prefer titles that are more descriptive, such as Presbyter for Congregational Vitality, Presbyter for Pastoral Vitality, etc. This is what they've done in Genesee Valley Presbytery.
Transformation, regadless of its intent or direction is hard. Hard on established structures, rules and organizations created specifically to defend the well established practices and modes which had served established insitutions in the past.
One could say the corporate structure of a GM or Ford did not allow it to address systemic problems which now put their continued existence at risk. Even in our "bail-out" culture.
Does NBP wish to retain the forms, structures, and organizational format that served it in the industrial/post-war world which has passed. Or does it take a more lean or fluid structure which is more cost effective and efficient? Again, authentic transformation is from the bottom-up, not top-down. It will be what the individual churches are willing, or not willing to do that will determine what the future may hold.
I'm not sure about this bottom-up, top-down thinking. If we are the Body of Christ, it would seem that transformation must be embraced at all levels. Imagine a presbytery where the congregations are in a tranformative mode but the presbytery leadership is not, or vice versa. What we have in PNB is a few congregations that are interested in transformation and a few Presbytery leaders who also are interested. Unfortunately, the job and person description of the proposed Executive Presbyter does not reflect an understanding of transformation. It reads like a description of a Bishop. On the other hand, the job description of the Associate Executive Presbyter is clearly all about transformation. Maybe what we need is an EP with the AEP job description.
As the nation and economy are in a period of de-leveraging and transitioning from a 20th century system of deregulation/regulation into a something likely more global and intergrated, it is a good time to ask is the PCUSA and its subordinate units prime for the same type of transitions? Painful as they may be to go through.
I would posit the PCUSA nationally and presbyteries locally suffer from an imbalance of real-estate, square-footage to users or customers/consumers of what we have to offer. From both a management and corporate perspective the PCUSA will not turn the corner in its transition until this is addressed.
Specifically the PCUSA will need to process the merger, union, yoking, resourse sharing for maybe upwards of 1 in 3 churches currently open. 1 in 3 PCUSA churches now open will either need to close/merge/union with others/yoke in such a way to gain greater efficency and use of limited resources, think clergy, and money. This will need to happen in the next 5-7 years. As it is now far too many cannot afford, nor will never afford clergy, full or part time. Resources that Presbyteries now use to prop, support such churches on the cusp of viability and effectiveness need to re-directed. The sooner we are honest with such churches and people, the better for them, and the corporate body.
All living things have a life- arc,a life span; people, pets, institutions, churches. Not all are meant, not will they last forever. Many PCUSA churches in the urban cores and inner ring suburbs are at the end of their life cycles, or close to it. Nothing wrong or evil in that, just the way it is. How one adjusts and processes that information will determine the relative pain of that transition time.
I agree completely although I'm not sure of Peter's numbers (1 in 3 churches, 5-7 years). Our "What Have We Learned?" Administrative Commission is dealing with this for PNB. They have identified about 8 at-risk churches. The problem is that no one has been willing to talk turkey with such churches. The culture of PNB is to let churches decide when and how to close their doors. This may change, however, thanks to the Commission. Of course, it will take more than a Commission's report to change the presbytery from being passive to pro-active. Changing culture is hard.
Post a Comment