I won’t rewrite Draft A but just elaborate and expand a bit.

I am assuming that the mandate of the TFRSC is both to propose next step changes and to suggest a direction for future changes. Usually the way these processes go, especially given the new ED that is just getting started is that you make recommendations, see what is adopted by Synod and the Board and then hand things off to the new administration and/or a subsequent team to follow up with implementation.

I am also realizing that I like the committee haven’t done enough justice to the culture question. I’ve had a couple of posts rolling around in my mind but just like culture is so much more powerful than structures similarly is it so much more difficult to get a handle on. You can point to a structure, write a proposal, make changes in it, but culture is gets at the small decisions people make every day and the way that groups default to practices with very little critique or intention. I hope to write a bit more on culture but that will not likely make the deadline.

The real culture change will probably begin with the new ED anyway. Culture is shaped by decisions, actions and behaviors. Leaders shape culture all the time. Changing culture almost always involves conflict.

5 Streams and “Spinning off” Agencies

1. I’d like to hear the rationale for the changes that were made from the ECC 5 smooth stones document.  They don’t really fully line up the way I read it and I think the verbs rather than the nouns are more helpful in terms of guiding and defining action. I’m sure thought was behind the changes, perhaps if I knew the arguments I’d see the superiority of the 5 streams over the 5 smooth stones.
2. Our current are the product of historical development rather than organizational thought or mission clarity. If we’re really serious about the definition of the 5 streams or 5 stones we should probably consider what it would be transition from our current agencies into new organizations that reflect this differentiation. Adding the 5 streams/stones as an overlay connected by Collaborative Working Groups sounds like an interim adaptation but not a long term strategy.
3. Dawn Wolthuis in her comment and conversation with me on CRC Voices recommends starting new organizations rather than imagining current agencies as “independent” and I think she’s onto something. Although, the migration that World Renew has been undergoing has seemed both natural and fruitful. World Renew by its mission has been the agency most self-conscious about organizational theory, structure and expertise as well as being the organization NOT run by clergy directors. Is there a lesson there for us?
4. Ideally the 5 Streams or Smooth stones should help us get some greater clarity on what should stay within the organizational church, what should be along side and how they should be connected. What tends to stalk the debate about “inside vs. outside” is the ministry share question. Ministry shares are the most cost effective way to raise funds. In “spinning off” or “starting” organizations a fear is that now we will have far more “development officers” calling us, soliciting funds, etc. World Renew does not receive ministry share but has such a strong brand in the CRCNA that congregations often think of them first. There is a lot in this that one study committee won’t of course be fully able to untie. This stuff will have to be worked through and no matter how good a plan we have moving forwards there will be untended consequences.

Sorting out Synod, Classis and Region

This was the area of Draft A that received the most amount of push back, everything from “stay away from regions because it will add another layer” to “dismantle classis entirely”. I’ll add a few additional comments.

1. If you dissolve the middle the CRC will continue to drift towards congregationalism in our individualistic culture. Classis more than Synod is the where the church really is forced to live in community. Classis is where we can know each other face to face. Classis is where we can work together to engage a city. Classis is where clergy can find support from other CRC peers. After I wrote the Draft A piece I stumbled upon this piece which very much reflects some of my thinking about how denominations need to morph. Denominations ought to be confessional networks where identity is continued to be shaped and resources shared. It is supposed to be something of the expression of the community we see in Acts 2 and 4. Classis is where clergy separations and discipline cases get worked through. I know it doesn’t always look like it but classis is a vital place for ministry and without it working as it should the CRC will simply drift along the cultural lines which means more congregational and less confessional.
2. The problem of size: Both congregations and classes struggle with size. With classis there are money questions, geography questions, culture questions. Some kind or regional approach may be able to offset size difficulties. I am sensitive to the question of adding a bureaucratic level. Options 3 in the TFRSC report imagines replacing the BOT with what amounts to a mid year mini-synod to do agency work. I’d rather there be once a year regional meetings to discuss and elect agency boards and BOT delegates than one mini-synod. We will always have the problems of size but we need flexibility to adjust to local and regional needs.
3. Classis on a mission: The reason I am most passionate about classis is because I see its potential for mission. A classis can do mission like a local church (unless they are a multi-site mega) can’t. A classis might be able to do something like a multi-site mega church might if they really went after it. There would need to be a lot of cultural changes for that to happen. I’d love to see it happen.
4. The Question of Bishops: Bishops are not in our polity or tradition but we have implicit bishops in every classis. They are leaders who don’t have title or official authority but have power by virtue of their influence, experience and leadership. I prefer implicit bishops to overt ones. The difficulty implicit bishops have is that they are pulled in many different ways and classis usually gets the short end of their leadership stick. Working out staff sharing may help. It’s an area we need to continue to work on.
5. Any restructure should restore the classis/synod balance. Board regionalization and downsizing was well intended and probably the right move, but it devalued the classical level and shifted too much balance to Synod. Synod is a poor operational overseer which is why the BOT was developed. I’m not sure the BOT currently has the right mix.
6. Change is Coming, usually in both directions: We are probably going to see classes continue to struggle or merge, but one of these days a classis is going to decide to shift denominational ministry share money to classical work. I hope the motivation will be missionary rather than rebellious. What if a classis decided to get serious about doing the staffing and the services to really support their local congregations in ways that a denomination really can’t? If that classis decided to divert 100 to 200k of resources from denominational subsidy to classical it would be a bold experiment. It would also send a shock through the denominational system. The idea has been discussed, at some point it might be tried.

Getting Clarity on the ED Position

What does the ED really lead? What power does the Executive Director really have over agencies? Can the EC fire an agency director without the consent of the agency board? It is the “two headed” authority question that is manifest in our system but the question beneath it is really the division of authority between Classis and Synod. Agencies and Specialized ministries can’t really thrive without classical support and participation but they need closer supervision and coordination that only a centralized authority can deliver. We need both an ED AND close Classical contribution for the denominational agencies and offices to do what we want them to do.

Here’s another idea.

1. Continue to spin off, create, reduce the agencies into more of a 5 streams/stones alignment.
2. Create boards that really express classical buy in perhaps through once a year regional meetings to give expression to each stream or stone
3. The denominational offices works in conjunction with those stream/stone boards to implement the vision.
4. The BOT works primarily again as a Synodical Interim Committee deferring to the ED and the Stream boards for oversight of what becomes the stream agencies.

There are probably more and better ideas out there. But the heart of it is that we need Classical support and centralized coordination and on site supervision by an ED.

OK, the due date is here. I’ll send it in.

Makes sure you send in your input to the TFRSC too!

email address for Synodical delegates: TFRSC@crcna.org and one for non-synodical delegates: TFRSC2014@crcna.org.