Friday, August 11, 2006
Good Questions
Glenn Lucke is asking some question about and of PC(USA). Some of his question concern Presbyterian accountability:
The bad is that the congregants rarely exercise their authority, leaving the church, in practice, in the hands of the "professionals." When you combine that with the fact that the professionals in the higher ajudicatories of the church are largely those that have failed at congregational ministry, often by virtue of being exceedingly liberal, one ends up with a bifurcated church wherein on the congregational level things can be quite robust and healthy, but on a higher organizational level, sick almost beyond repair. The church, rightly in theory, believes that those that have devoted themselves to obtaining ordination should be provided for, and this is how we do it. Problem is, it rewards failure. This is largely where we find ourselves today, and it leads me to the second set of questions Glenn poses, the "why" questions:
One of the major factors that has contributed to the declines and rises that Glenn notes is that Presbyterianism demands a great deal of its members. They are expected to participate actively in church governance, which means learning all sorts of arcane polity. They are, on paper at least, expected to reach certain levels of spiritual maturity to participate in that governance. Being a Presbyterian is work.
We have seen a rise in "church as entertainment" in the decades since the '60's. Church as something one consumes as opposed to something one makes and participates in. I think those churches Glenn notes as having grown in these decades are those that are on the leading edge of that trend. In fact, Presbyterian congregations that are robustly growing in numbers, are congregations that have geared themselves to such operation.
Having said that, one of the reasons I remain Presbyterian is that I can generally find, on an individual level, more people that appear to be mature and seeking more depth with Jesus than in most Baptist or Pentecostal churches where they seem to be satisfied with the same surface level stuff decade after decade. And all of this in the midst of a failing church. Frankly, I'll take a stable Presbyterian church over a growing Pentecostal or Baptist church any day for that reason, the national church is not at all healthy but an individual congregation can be so, and the individuals in it can be spectacular.
There is also something of a "Wal-Mart" effect in this phenomena. As Wal-Mart pushes the boutique business out, so I think the mega-church pushes out the traditional smaller congregation approach.
All that being said, there is a huge problem with the theological and poltiical liberalism rampant in the PC(USA). Despite the presence of many, if not most, healthy stable congregations, the image of the church is quite distinct from that based on the bifurcation previously mentioned. This tends to keep people away before they even find out if a specific congregation is healthy or not.
Finally, turning to Glenn's question about how and where to spend "the money." I, for one, as an elder, work to carefully to direct specifically where money our congregation puts into the higher adjudicatories of the church goes, preciesly because of the misuse that he wonders about. There is good work amongst the debris, I work to make sure it goes there.
Mr. Anderson is free to send his money where he likes. I would not make such a gift, but part of being a Presbyterian is being tolerant of other disagreeing viewpoints.
The recent adoption of the PUP report by GA, that which emerged from the homosexual ordination dialogue, is in fact a huge step in the direction of governance like a Baptist or Pentecostal church. If it stands church court scrutiny, which is VERY likely, it will rob many of us of the opportunity to try to exercise accountability regarding that money, should it ever arrive, which is unlikely.
Bottom line is this. PC(USA) is broken right now, but on paper it has, well maybe had, the right tools and right organization to be the best. I, personally, am a part of a healthy stable congregation, which I enjoy for the most part. Under such circumstances, I feel it much better to stay and work towards reform than to leave. To some extent, that reform takes money - but mostly it takes the people of the church rising up and exercising their authority. My church does not happen to me, I make my church happen, I like that.
Related Tags: PC(USA), presbyterianism, donation, church growth, church planting
3. What steps has the PC(USA) taken in the past 10 years to start new congregations, re-vitalize old ones, and add more ethnic churches? How have those steps gone? Have they succeeded, failed, or produced a mixed report?There is good and bad in all aspects of accoutability in the PC(USA). The good is that the accountability lies in the hands of the congregants. Presbyteriansism is as close to democracy as you can get in a Christian church, and in my opinion, that's a good thing.
[...]
5. What reasons do PC(USA) leaders and lay members have for being confident that Stanley Anderson's $150M gift will be used to accomplish his goals? Is it for lack of financial resources that the the PC(USA) has lost members (and maybe churches)?
6. How big is the Presbyterian Foundation? I've heard it is over $1 Billion. If so, what will Anderson's $150M do that the $1B has not done? If the PC(USA) is already the wealthiest US denomination and they have lost enormous numbers of members, why will still more money change that?
7. What sort of church planting operation does the PC(USA) have? What sort of results have they had? If Anderson gives his $150M, how exactly will that money be spent?
8. Is there accountability in the PC(USA) church planting operation?
The bad is that the congregants rarely exercise their authority, leaving the church, in practice, in the hands of the "professionals." When you combine that with the fact that the professionals in the higher ajudicatories of the church are largely those that have failed at congregational ministry, often by virtue of being exceedingly liberal, one ends up with a bifurcated church wherein on the congregational level things can be quite robust and healthy, but on a higher organizational level, sick almost beyond repair. The church, rightly in theory, believes that those that have devoted themselves to obtaining ordination should be provided for, and this is how we do it. Problem is, it rewards failure. This is largely where we find ourselves today, and it leads me to the second set of questions Glenn poses, the "why" questions:
1. Why has the PC(USA) declined so much since 1960? What are the various factors in their decline?Firstly, I want to challenge the assumption that "growth" as measured by naked numbers is necessarily an adequate measure of church health. I do not in any fashion represent the current state of PC(USA) as healthy, but I do think we need to be very careful about how we define and measure health.
[...]
4. Why has the PC(USA) shrunk considerably since 1960 when the Southern Baptist Convention and Assemblies of God have grown during the same period?
[...]
10. Is there wisdom in giving money to churches that are in decline? Would it be wiser to give the money to the churches who already ACTUALLY grow? The auditor worries that Anderson's money might be wasted by giving it to churches that seem not to know how to grow. Why not give it to those who already use their talents (Matthew 25:14-30)?
One of the major factors that has contributed to the declines and rises that Glenn notes is that Presbyterianism demands a great deal of its members. They are expected to participate actively in church governance, which means learning all sorts of arcane polity. They are, on paper at least, expected to reach certain levels of spiritual maturity to participate in that governance. Being a Presbyterian is work.
We have seen a rise in "church as entertainment" in the decades since the '60's. Church as something one consumes as opposed to something one makes and participates in. I think those churches Glenn notes as having grown in these decades are those that are on the leading edge of that trend. In fact, Presbyterian congregations that are robustly growing in numbers, are congregations that have geared themselves to such operation.
Having said that, one of the reasons I remain Presbyterian is that I can generally find, on an individual level, more people that appear to be mature and seeking more depth with Jesus than in most Baptist or Pentecostal churches where they seem to be satisfied with the same surface level stuff decade after decade. And all of this in the midst of a failing church. Frankly, I'll take a stable Presbyterian church over a growing Pentecostal or Baptist church any day for that reason, the national church is not at all healthy but an individual congregation can be so, and the individuals in it can be spectacular.
There is also something of a "Wal-Mart" effect in this phenomena. As Wal-Mart pushes the boutique business out, so I think the mega-church pushes out the traditional smaller congregation approach.
All that being said, there is a huge problem with the theological and poltiical liberalism rampant in the PC(USA). Despite the presence of many, if not most, healthy stable congregations, the image of the church is quite distinct from that based on the bifurcation previously mentioned. This tends to keep people away before they even find out if a specific congregation is healthy or not.
Finally, turning to Glenn's question about how and where to spend "the money." I, for one, as an elder, work to carefully to direct specifically where money our congregation puts into the higher adjudicatories of the church goes, preciesly because of the misuse that he wonders about. There is good work amongst the debris, I work to make sure it goes there.
Mr. Anderson is free to send his money where he likes. I would not make such a gift, but part of being a Presbyterian is being tolerant of other disagreeing viewpoints.
The recent adoption of the PUP report by GA, that which emerged from the homosexual ordination dialogue, is in fact a huge step in the direction of governance like a Baptist or Pentecostal church. If it stands church court scrutiny, which is VERY likely, it will rob many of us of the opportunity to try to exercise accountability regarding that money, should it ever arrive, which is unlikely.
Bottom line is this. PC(USA) is broken right now, but on paper it has, well maybe had, the right tools and right organization to be the best. I, personally, am a part of a healthy stable congregation, which I enjoy for the most part. Under such circumstances, I feel it much better to stay and work towards reform than to leave. To some extent, that reform takes money - but mostly it takes the people of the church rising up and exercising their authority. My church does not happen to me, I make my church happen, I like that.
Related Tags: PC(USA), presbyterianism, donation, church growth, church planting
