Proposal raises interesting ideas ... and questions

Witherspoon Issues Analyst Gene TeSelle takes note of both the ideas and the questions.

[9-27-04]

Check out some interesting comments on this essay.   And add your own!

The New Wineskins group, made up of evangelicals who are "envisioning a new denominational reality for the 21st century from within the PC(USA)," have issued a statement outlining "Key Design Elements" for an effective connectional structure (their web site is http://www.presbywine.com/

Click here to go directly to the "Key Design Elements."

Some features will sound familiar, especially the emphasis that "the church does not exist for itself, but as a servant for Kingdom ministry and mission."

This is very much like the "functional" view of the church that was pressed during the Fifties and Sixties by Johannes Hoekendijk, Paul Lehmann, and Arend T. van Leeuwen, and for a time by Lesslie Newbigin. It is the flavor of much that the Presbyterian Church said and did during the Sixties, including a number of paragraphs in the Confession of 1967 (especially C-9.32 and 9.37). In those years, it was progressives who were talking about "church renewal."

In continuity with that emphasis, the New Wineskins document calls for a connectional structure that is "defined by relationships more than by structures," based on "organic relational networks," providing "active support" for the clergy, and "centered on serving and equipping the local congregation for contextually relevant ministry and mission." Staffing and structure are to be minimal, "set in place only to support the ministry and mission of the local church and its leaders."

When it comes to "national church networks" (meaning the General Assembly), this is to be "an alliance of like-minded churches" in relationships of "trust and mutual accountability." "A dramatically downsized national staff will feature mission specialists operating on a convene-and-deploy model . . . " Polity will be "permission-giving, not regulatory," designed to "foster, not hinder, ministry and mission."

Similarly in "international church networks" (missions), the emphasis is on networks and alliances "with other connectional structures, organizations, and ministries for the sake of effective cross-cultural Kingdom ministry."

This is thrilling language. No wonder it continues to have appeal.

But it also raises a number of questions.

1. The emphasis on leaner structure that will "foster, not hinder, ministry and mission" may build on stereotypes about "the structure" as it is now, i.e., Louisville, bureaucracy, captivity to alien forces, and all of that. These are repeated themes on the right wing of the church, but votes at the General Assembly and opinion around the church does not seem to agree. Most Presbyterians are impressed with what the General Assembly agencies are able to do (and help them to do) and are not inclined to make drastic changes. We often say that we should emphasize what unites, not divides us, and most segments of the church support programs like Hunger and Peacemaking.

2. We must ask what would happen with what we call the ecclesiastical" functions of ordination and discipline that fall under the office of the Stated Clerk in contrast with the program agencies dealing with Worldwide, National, and Congregational Ministries? Whether we like it or not, these are an indispensable part of the activities of presbyteries, for we know that we must live together and affirm each other with all our differences while remaining loyal to the Reformed heritage.

3. One answer to this question is that all governing bodies would look more like the current "affinity groups" or "parachurch organizations" that are united by common commitments and purposes. Evangelicals in the church often look to these as the focus of their activities; at least since Matt Welde they have compared these with the "religious orders" in the Catholic church. The religious orders do indeed have considerable independence from the bishops, except where pastoral "care of souls" is involved. They do exhibit a special zeal in carrying out their particular callings. But religious orders are not immune against power struggles. Human realities have a way of catching up with us.

4. The problem of potential divisiveness is dealt with in the "design"--but in what one could only call an authoritarian way, and one that has the potential to divide more than unite. A major emphasis of the design is that the various "networks" are to include only those persons who can subscribe to "defined theological and ethical boundaries," an "unambiguous, biblically- derived statement of orthodox and reformed faith essentials," a "new and concise statement of theological essentials " to which all participants would subscribe. At the same time it is to be made clear that "property will belong to the local congregation." The connectional system is to be characterized not by solidarity but by free association - and the freedom to divide.

In this respect, the New Wineskins movement, despite its language of functionality and facilitation, breathes a spirit of uniformity and enforcement. With all its enthusiasm for ministry and mission, there seems to be a lack of concern for due process in governing bodies, making it all the more likely that "networks" at all levels would be riven by disputes when they arise.

The New Wineskins group is to be thanked for getting us thinking. But its "design" is not likely to be the answer, both because of its uniformity and because of its lack of attention to dealing with differences.

We reported about a year ago on the presentation of the New Wineskins idea at the Presbyterian Coalition conference in Portland, Oregon. The idea was put forth there in the context of discussions of possibilities for "gracious separation" within the PC(USA).

 

What do you think -- of the "new wineskins" proposal and of this critique of it?
Please send a note and let's talk about it here.
Please identify yourself, at least by name!