First, I think the agencies are an aberration on the core concilliar structure of the presbyterian form of church government. They grew out of committees that eventually became more-or-less permanent, standing committees, but have never really fit well. In part, this is because the Synod supposed to oversee them is different every year while the people being overseen become quasi-permanent. One finds this same thing in a government setting where the civil service is essentially permanent while the supposed overseers are switched out every couple years or so. The permanent bureaucrat can easily undermine, slow-walk, or just wait out the overseer.
These permanent committees/agencies/bureaucracies also tend to develop an internal culture that begins to divide them from those they supposedly serve. Sure, the bureaucrat might use the 1st person pronoun to include the whole when speaking in public, but in private, the bulk of the community is in the 3rd person. In the CRC structure, the move to regional representation on boards has served to further sever the connection between the bureaucrat/agency official and the community as a whole. Several agencies in the denomination have a representative from my region whom I've never seen and/or who has never been to our classis meetings, much less e-mailed or otherwise corresponded with the congregation. I have no idea who they are, not even a name detached from a face. Other than the "CR" in the agency's titular acronym, there is no connection.
Second, it is vital that the denomination be able to act collectively if the word "church" is to apply to an institution larger than a specific congregation in any meaningful way. These kinds of agencies/standing committees, with the funding sources that support them, are a most efficient way of doing so. If we had a better way, we'd use it, but we don't.
So, how do we reconnect the ministry of the denomination with the members in a substantive way that reduces the "us-them" dynamic and restores the authority of the church's councils (local, regional, and national)?
I would suggest that the strife among the agencies is not a bad thing in this. If, for instance, CRWRC and CRWM and CRHM are squabbling in a way that forces them to go to an external authority - Synod - for resolution, the authority of Synod vis-a-vis the agencies is enhanced. I would, therefore, eliminate the Board of Trustees. The drama will be there regardless, but we can manipulate the drama so it serves rather than dominates.
I would then relocate these agencies away from a single, central location. Put one of them in NW Iowa, another in Wisconsin or somewhere around the base of Lake Michigan (Illinois or Indiana), another in New Jersey, and another in either Washington (around Lynden or Vancouver) or California. Leave only the smaller groups - Disability, Pastor-Church, etc., in Grand Rapids. In Canada, take the counterparts and split them between Ontario and Alberta. The availability of web conferencing at low cost means they would still be able to collaborate. In this way, although there would still be a certain amount of "us-them", the "us" would be a region of people who have a personal connection with a given agency rather than merely that specific agency.
Granted, this is a mitigation rather than a solution to the problems you mention. Oversight will still be a problem, for in this more diffused set-up, people will have greater latitude for ignoring decisions they find distasteful, but then, that's not much different from the current set up.
Such practices do impede Synod's ability to function as a deliberative body. So also does the short time-frame (1 week).
The fact is, most substantive decisions are made by the Board of Trustees these days and Synod dances to the tune they play. Where Synod does make a decision, it often seems as if they make its implementation optional.
I've never been a delegate to Synod. The way it is presently constituted, I rather hope I never am.
I would suggest that the creeds and liturgical resources that have always been in the Psalter have become more important than the rest of it. As churches buy CCLI licenses, install projectors and screens, move away from organ/piano-based hymnody in general, hymnals as such are becoming obsolete. Already the only time we take the Psalter out of the pew racks is when we're looking at one of the creeds or using one of the liturgical forms for baptism, communion, profession of faith, installation of office bearers, etc.
We would welcome publishing these separate from the hymnal - because we wouldn't buy the hymnal.
Posted in: Drama Queen
I've mixed feelings.
First, I think the agencies are an aberration on the core concilliar structure of the presbyterian form of church government. They grew out of committees that eventually became more-or-less permanent, standing committees, but have never really fit well. In part, this is because the Synod supposed to oversee them is different every year while the people being overseen become quasi-permanent. One finds this same thing in a government setting where the civil service is essentially permanent while the supposed overseers are switched out every couple years or so. The permanent bureaucrat can easily undermine, slow-walk, or just wait out the overseer.
These permanent committees/agencies/bureaucracies also tend to develop an internal culture that begins to divide them from those they supposedly serve. Sure, the bureaucrat might use the 1st person pronoun to include the whole when speaking in public, but in private, the bulk of the community is in the 3rd person. In the CRC structure, the move to regional representation on boards has served to further sever the connection between the bureaucrat/agency official and the community as a whole. Several agencies in the denomination have a representative from my region whom I've never seen and/or who has never been to our classis meetings, much less e-mailed or otherwise corresponded with the congregation. I have no idea who they are, not even a name detached from a face. Other than the "CR" in the agency's titular acronym, there is no connection.
Second, it is vital that the denomination be able to act collectively if the word "church" is to apply to an institution larger than a specific congregation in any meaningful way. These kinds of agencies/standing committees, with the funding sources that support them, are a most efficient way of doing so. If we had a better way, we'd use it, but we don't.
So, how do we reconnect the ministry of the denomination with the members in a substantive way that reduces the "us-them" dynamic and restores the authority of the church's councils (local, regional, and national)?
I would suggest that the strife among the agencies is not a bad thing in this. If, for instance, CRWRC and CRWM and CRHM are squabbling in a way that forces them to go to an external authority - Synod - for resolution, the authority of Synod vis-a-vis the agencies is enhanced. I would, therefore, eliminate the Board of Trustees. The drama will be there regardless, but we can manipulate the drama so it serves rather than dominates.
I would then relocate these agencies away from a single, central location. Put one of them in NW Iowa, another in Wisconsin or somewhere around the base of Lake Michigan (Illinois or Indiana), another in New Jersey, and another in either Washington (around Lynden or Vancouver) or California. Leave only the smaller groups - Disability, Pastor-Church, etc., in Grand Rapids. In Canada, take the counterparts and split them between Ontario and Alberta. The availability of web conferencing at low cost means they would still be able to collaborate. In this way, although there would still be a certain amount of "us-them", the "us" would be a region of people who have a personal connection with a given agency rather than merely that specific agency.
Granted, this is a mitigation rather than a solution to the problems you mention. Oversight will still be a problem, for in this more diffused set-up, people will have greater latitude for ignoring decisions they find distasteful, but then, that's not much different from the current set up.
Posted in: Do the Practices of Synod Diminish its Deliberative Nature?
Such practices do impede Synod's ability to function as a deliberative body. So also does the short time-frame (1 week).
The fact is, most substantive decisions are made by the Board of Trustees these days and Synod dances to the tune they play. Where Synod does make a decision, it often seems as if they make its implementation optional.
I've never been a delegate to Synod. The way it is presently constituted, I rather hope I never am.
Posted in: New Translations of Our Confessions in a New Hymnal?
I would suggest that the creeds and liturgical resources that have always been in the Psalter have become more important than the rest of it. As churches buy CCLI licenses, install projectors and screens, move away from organ/piano-based hymnody in general, hymnals as such are becoming obsolete. Already the only time we take the Psalter out of the pew racks is when we're looking at one of the creeds or using one of the liturgical forms for baptism, communion, profession of faith, installation of office bearers, etc.
We would welcome publishing these separate from the hymnal - because we wouldn't buy the hymnal.