|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| An
online publication of the Office of the General Assembly |
|||||||||||||||||||
Items
marked with
|
Helen Baily Cochrane When my husband and I were raising our children in the 1950s through the 1970s, Presbyterian churches were growing in membership, providing excellent resources for education, and actively serving their neighbors in the world. I received encouragement and guidance from my local church, presbytery, and synod through their many resources for leadership training. As a member of Presbyterian Women, I participated in denominational mission programs, administration, and education. The connectional nature of the Presbyterian church was visible and mutually helpful to all parts of the four-governing-body system. After I was ordained for pastoral ministry thirty-two years ago, presbytery and synod activities further increased my options in areas of leadership, especially in stewardship, which was the impetus for me to focus my Doctor of Ministry thesis on stewardship issues. I designed a slide presentation for Pittsburgh Presbytery on “The Flow of the Mission Dollar,” which clarified how the money received from congregations was distributed throughout the denomination. I had at my fingertips the annual denominational stewardship resources that helped me guide congregations toward a clear understanding of the basic biblical principles of Christian stewardship and practice and toward increased financial support. The denomination adequately focused its resources in a way that enhanced the congregation’s ability to educate generations of Christian disciples. As a pastor, I took very seriously that the biblical principle of the interdependence of the body of Christ was to be reflected, mutually building up the whole church. Local congregations were enthusiastic about supporting the larger work of the denomination. I recognize that our connectional form of governance is not the only way for a denomination to achieve the goal of mutual support, but our ordination vows reflect our belief that mutual forbearance and love must be present for any system of governance to work. I have taken those vows and believe they are the fairest and best way to reflect our confessional understanding that “God alone is Lord of the conscience” (Book of Order, G-1.0301). Although a lifelong Presbyterian, I graduated from the Lutheran Seminary at Gettysburg, and then Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. I was employed by the Lutheran Church as a counselor, and by United Methodist and United Church of Christ congregations to help in the resettling of Asian refugees. In each position I learned the benefit of these different governing systems, but I came away with greater confidence in the Presbyterian system. I believe our denomination has the best potential for being faithful to God and staying connected as a denomination, while not compromising core beliefs. Of course, things are much different these days from earlier decades. The electronic age has changed how we do church. We are competing more and more with other influences in our culture. Church members and pastoral leadership are often more inclined to seek information from multiple sources, including many independent churches and individuals who claim expertise in religion, politics, and morality—all freely found in blogs. There is also an abundance of printed resources in the public media that are inexpensive and easily accessible, which can draw churches away from denominational resources and missions. Some of these resources present perspectives quite different from the Reformed theology of our confessions. As this explosion of information happens, I think it is common for churches to lose their basic Presbyterian foundation in theology and polity—and our basic connectedness—as a result. Many synods and presbyteries have restructured to deal with these changes, but like churches, they can lose their moorings and their sense of connection with the larger church. An unintended consequence of a presbytery’s focus on its congregations can be to lose sight of what I think is one of the presbytery’s most important and basic roles—to be the connecting link between congregations and the denomination as a whole. Several steps have been taken over the years to keep strong our connection to one another in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Out of the “Shape and Form” gathering in Chicago some years ago came the recommendation to establish the Middle Governing Body Relationships Committee, of which I was a member. We studied other systems of church governance, as well as our own. Though we were a small group, we led focus groups with all presbytery and synod executives and with groups of lay leaders. For example, I was assigned to meet with delegates at a Youth Triennium and a group of Presbyterian Women. Based on our committee’s recommendation, the Office of the General Assembly and the General Assembly Council created the staff position of coordinator of middle governing body relations. That led to a multi-year plan of visits with representatives of presbyteries and synods throughout the denomination by the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly and the Executive Director of the General Assembly Council. It was an example of communication among the governing bodies and, for the most part, a great learning tool for future decisions and cooperation. More recently, the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church offered avenues for dialogue that would enable us to agree to disagree without splitting the denomination. This is critically important, since our church has had its share of disagreements about what is essential to our vows—our sacred promises and covenant with God and the church. Those disagreements have too often threatened to tear us apart, and at times have split us apart totally. Dialogue is something for which I have great zeal, having served as the executive director of the Bethlehem Area Council of Churches in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. In that position I found ways that diverse church bodies, including the Roman Catholic Church, could dialogue and work together without compromising basic beliefs, and in doing so provide a much better witness in the community. Overall, some patterns of communication and mission design are still in flux. To keep our connections strong, I would like to see a more cohesive, unified approach to the way presbyteries and synods set goals, so that those goals are related closely to decisions of the General Assembly that affect the whole church and, indeed, the larger world. It is human nature to focus on problems and issues close to home because they may appear to have more immediate impact on us. Governing bodies of any type are not immune to this tendency. However, for us to remain a connectional church, we must respond in a way that is guided by our theological understanding of the church’s central purpose, that is, to act as Christ’s hands and feet and heart in our witness to the world. If we are fractured into separate or disparate groups, or if we lack the willingness and determination to iron out our own disagreements peacefully, our mission and ministries will be scattered and confusing to our own members, as well as others in the world who are searching for answers in the midst of their own confusion. I am not suggesting that we simply revert back to the connectional system. I remember so fondly from my younger days in the Presbyterian church. I know, of course, that we did not have and never will have a perfect system. There is always room for change and improvement. I accept that this is a new day and we need to imagine new kinds of connections. For example, one current work in progress, to simplify our Form of Government, offers hope. But can we accept greater flexibility and fewer rules—which means having greater trust of each other—when we tend to quibble over every word, every nuance? This is a huge step. Will we be willing to change our priorities enough to walk the Christian walk with people with whom we disagree without believing we will lose our faith or our church in the process? That remains to be seen. The Reverend Helen Baily Cochrane is parish associate for First Presbyterian Church, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and a member of the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly. Copyright Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). All Rights Reserved.
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
