Synods aren't sexy

Earlier this week, down at a Lutheran camp and retreat center in Farmington, MN, I was installed as the vice moderator of the Synod of Lakes and Prairies.  

Don't worry.  I expect to only hear crickets upon that announcement.

"The What of Who and Where?" you may be asking.  It's OK.  I expect to hear that, too.

The synod is not one of the better known aspects of the Presbyterian Church.  I like to consider our synod, that which includes almost every Presbyterian church in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska and a few churches sprinkled beyond these states, one of the best kept secrets in the PC(USA).  I wish it wasn't so well kept.

The synod is one of two "middle councils" between the local congregation and the larger national organization of our denomination.  More locally our congregation is a member of a presbytery, the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area, which covers the metro area  and stretches all the way down to Albert Lea.  Our presbytery is then a member of the synod, along with sixteen other presbyteries ranging in size from the Des Moines, Iowa metro area to the entires state of South Dakota.  We also have on non-geographic presbytery within our synod, a Dakota language Native American presbytery, the oldest Presbyterian mission west of the Mississippi River (someone PLEASE correct me if honor isn't quite right).  

These two middle councils are a big part of what distinguishes Presbyterians from some of our brothers and sisters in faith.  We are a connectional church.  By that I mean that we don't believe it is good for any one congregation to operate as an island.  We don't believe we are all out here on our own, with no support from or accountability to others.  We believe it is in the very nature of the church Christ formed to be connected to one another, partnered with each other, and in mission together.  Our connections can be local and organic, but they are also institutionalized so that sometimes, many times, we are forced into working and missional relationships with brothers and sisters in faith with whom may disagree.  Personally, I think we are all the better because of this.

We also believe that there are important ministries and missions that are better organized and carried out by levels of organization larger than local congregations not because no one cares locally, but because it is a better stewardship of resources to work together.  Presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly do for local congregations and the whole church what we can't do on our own and what is better accomplished when we work together.  They aren't some nebulous "them" out there dictating what "we" must do.  Presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly are "us," members of local congregations with passions and visions for ministries beyond their local community who are called and elected to carry those visions for the whole church. There are things the Presbyterian Church can do to demonstrate God's love and grace in the world that are better done on a national or regional level.  Commissioners to these other parts of our body make sure these ministries and missions happen.
  

It doesn't make sense for every single congregation to publish Sunday School curriculum.  It would be a poor use of our collective resources for that to happen, so the national church works to provide options for us.  It doesn't makes sense for one congregation to in Madison to provide an entire campus ministry including a magnificent student church, campus pastors, student housing, counseling, and mission outreach to the community and the world, so the synod provides a great deal of resources, networking, and oversight to Pres House, our Presbyterian presence on the UW-Madison campus.  It doesn't make sense for one congregation to work completely on it's own to start a new congregation in an unchurched neighborhood when there are four, five, or more congregations who can see that vital need from different angles, so the presbytery pools resources to do that work together.  

Our Synod of Lakes and Prairies, through an extremely hard-working staff, commissioners like me who spend two days together a few times a year, and other volunteers around our constituent presbyteries, participates in God's work in the world inexhaustibly.  

1.  We maintain covenant relationships, sharing human and financial resources (when possible), with seven Presbyterian colleges and universities.   

2.  We fund scholarships for racial-ethnic students pursuing higher education.  

3.  We provide training for the committees of presbyteries that oversee their member ministers and congregation and those that prepare women and men for ordained ministry as pastors.  

4.  We offer Self-Development of People grants to community and regional organizations, directly related to Presbyterian churches and not, that low-income people identify a problem within their life experience, organize themselves to do something about their condition, and are the direct beneficiaries of the project.  

5.  We support collegiate ministries on Presbyterian and non-Presbyterian campus through grants for specific projects and conferences for ministry leaders.  

6.  We provide support and a place for collaboration for presbytery executives in our area.  

7.  We respond to the unique mission needs across the presbyteries by connecting people across those boundaries who are best equipped to assist each other.  

8.  We heighten the awareness of our presbyteries to larger justice issues, particularly when it comes to race relations and the condition  of racial and ethnic minorities in our midst.  

Many of these things are not immediately on the ministry radar of our local congregations, but I hope you will agree they are important to the church's call to demonstrate the kingdom of God on earth.  This isn't even ALL of what we do, and it doesn't even include our famous Synod School.  (Please, talk to ANYONE in my family about Synod School.  We'd love to tell you all about it and have you join us there this year, July 22-27, in Storm Lake, IA.  You won't regret it.)

Locally, we don't hear a whole lot about what happens at the synod partly because I have not been a great communicator of these things and partly because synods don't directly relate to congregations  And because, well, synods aren't sexy.  Synods aren't the bodies that elect commissioners to the General Assembly to vote on things that get the headlines - things like sex.  Synods are the bodies that vote on changes to the constitution that get the headlines - changes about things like sex.  Synods aren't the body we LOVE because they helped our church find a new pastor.  They aren't the body we we HATE because they wouldn't help us get rid of that horrible pastor fast enough.  Synods aren't sexy.  

And without the sex to sell them mixed with maybe a bit too much humility unfortunately many of them don't market themselves or their fantastically faithful ministries to the local church. They have some excuse for this minimal marketing.  Their charge isn't necessarily to serve the local church directly.  However, as I've found myself saying over and over recently, it's members of local churches who do the praying and discerning and voting as General Assembly and Presbytery commissioners.  Synods may not directly serve local congregations directly, but they better figure out how to communicate their value to them, and they better do it pretty quickly.  

Unfortunately, my term of service to the synod as vice moderator this year and moderator next year may be the last such term for anyone.  There is an item of business that will come before the 220th General Assembly (the national decision-making body of our church that meets every two years) this year that contains a recommendation to eliminate this level of our denomination's organization.  This isn't the first time this has been before the General Assembly, but this time the recommendation seems to have more momentum than in the past.  There are some who think eliminating synods will save money, and this hope plays into the fear many people have that we don't have enough money.  Synods are funded in part by a portion of the per capita payment that is collected based on the membership of each local congregation.  Other synod funds come from congregations like ours who make a mission pledge to the different levels of the Presbyterian denomination.  Even if synods are eliminated there are a number of their functions that will need to be picked up by General Assembly or presbytery staff, meaning new positions will need to be created and funded carry out these duties.  The cost won't likely change without synods; it will only differ to whom the money is sent.

It is true that many synods around our denomination are not NEARLY as functional as ours is.  There are several regions of the country that already operate as if there is no synod.  I am not saying our current structure is not worth examining.  However, I am deeply concerned about the kinds of ministry that are taking place here in the Synod of Lakes and Prairies that may get lost in the shuffle if there isn't the continuation of the important connection in our church.  They are important and life-giving ministries, but they aren't necessarily the kind of ministries which everyone feels called to support with their own energy, intelligence, imagination, and love.  In fact, they may be ministries that have one supporter in Wisconsin, two in Minnesota, another in Iowa, and then someone way out in the far northwestern corner of North Dakota, but thank GOD for these supporters who feel passionately called to work on behalf of our church in anyone of these unique ways.  The problem is if we eliminate the synod, the infrastructure for their meeting organization, the bookkeeper for their grant monies, the institutional memory for their legacy of ministry, we make it very difficult, if not impossible for them to continue to work for Christ in these unique and vital missions.

I hope it doesn't come to this.

Where's the trust?

A conversation has started over at the Chain Link, the blog of the Rev. Paul Moore, the organizing pastor of the Presbytery of the Twin Cities' New Church Development in Chain of Lakes. (I have to admit I'm new enough in this area that I still don't know if "Chain of Lakes" is a town or an area.) It is about the presbytery meeting that took place on Saturday and the "heated" discussions and debates that took place.

I joined that conversation in Paul's comment section, but thought I'd maybe expand upon what I wrote over there over here. This is how blogging works, folks! Neal Lloyd posted some comments afterward that have informed my thinking a little more.

I'll start here where I ended there. I am, essentially, a polity geek. I'm not the world's expert in Robert's Rules of Order, but I like them. I find them fun, as well as useful. I enjoy an intricate debate in which amendments are made to substitutes and things even further on down the line. I liked at one point at this recent meeting that we had a vote to challenge the ruling of the moderator NOT because I was a fan of the crazy arguing that was going, but because you don't see those motions being made very much, and, well, that's what we Robert's geeks live for!

I also like RRO for the reasons Neal pointed out in Paul's comments. It gives a process for the minority to be heard. It provides a framework for discussion and debate to take place in a way that HOPEFULLY is respectful and fruitful.

So anyway, my thoughts on the meeting...that's the conversation Paul started...

The meeting feel apart. It didn't get rowdy. It didn't get completely disrespectful (although, again there were moments that things were moving that direction). It fell apart as a gathering of the Body of Christ called together to discern God's will for the ministry of our presbytery. It fell apart, I believe, due to a lack of trust.

Members of and commissioners to presbytery did not trust the nominating committee. Ministers and elders did not trust each other to follow the leading of the Spirit instead of their own personal opinions. No one trusted anyone enough to set aside the idolatry of the process they liked best (here I'm speaking less about RRO and more about "the way we usually do it" or "last time we did it this way" - elect the whole slate, nominate alternates one at a time or as a whole, prioritize alternates according to the number of votes first received, etc) in order to try to find the way to do it best now.

I think lack of trust is at the core of that idolatry that Paul mentions (OK, idolatry is my word, but it's my interpretation of the direction Paul is going in his post). We want to know and stick to and have standards in our process because everyone is distrustful that when something is on the floor that is important to "me" it will be handled fairly and equitably. That's why we have chosen to govern ourselves by RRO in the past. We see that prescribed order as one that protects the voices of all. I think we cling to the process so tightly so that we can believe our pet issues won't be swept under the rug or pushed through by folks who don't want the same things we want. Again more distrust.

I haven't been in the presbytery very long at all, and I know I missed a lot of history even in recent years. I also have no idea how trust is rebuilt after, what I believe must have been, a very painful group experience. But I think, when I walk into many of those meetings (any one of which can turn contentious on a dime), we are bunch of people gathered together to make very important decisions and discernments with very little trust among us. I have no idea how you fix that.

Some things that could have happened ahead of time? At least as I seem them?
1. I agree with the member of presbytery who asked the Nominating Committee to not only take applications for nominations, but also to seek candidates to elect out, especially on something like GA commissioners. Even if there are enough applications that come in, the Nominating Committee, in my opinion has the blessing and responsibility to put together the best slate possible from among all our presbyters, elders and ministers of Word and sacrament. I know this is a huge presbytery in population. I know it's not an easy job, but it is an important one.

2. I also think that as presbyters we have a responsibility to give the Nominating Committee names of friends, colleagues, and members of churches who might be good candidates. The Nominating Committee came to the presbytery meeting in November and very literally BEGGED ministers to apply for this role. If we did not come to their aid either by nominating ourselves, encouraging others we trust and would like to elect to do the same, or sending them names to contact than I find it awful hard for us to complain about the slate they bring forward.

3. We do seem to spend a lot of time in presbytery meetings talking about processes outside of ROO - Do we examine on the floor of presbytery ALL ministers who are coming in? Do we require folks to have a call to transfer their presbytery of membership? Do we vote for a slate or one by one? Do we have to challenge a specific persons nomination with a nomination from the floor (the way they do it at GA, by the way, which on the one hand gets personal, but on the other hand forces people to speak up about why they are making a new nomination and what change they are seeking in the slate)? I think it could be helpful to distribute ahead of time in written (or electronic, of course) form exactly what the process will be. If it is a standard we have created in the past that is sitting in some policy and procedure book somewhere let us know so that we can trust the rules that are being applied are the rules to which we have all agreed.

I said it earlier (more than once I am sure), but I have no idea how you solve the problem of missing trust in a presbytery, especially such a large one in population. Maybe the discussion groups we have formed at each meeting over the last year are part of the solution, but I don't know. I don't think they hurt. Somehow we have to come to see people of differing opinions as people first, children of God, operating not out of some huge desire to spite us or ruin our church, but out of a desire to follow God faithfully. How they understand that way they are to follow may be very different from how I understand it, but I have to know and trust that their understanding comes from a place of deep faith. I have to trust they are doing the best they can, the way I'm doing the best I can, to follow God who calls us to this ministry together.