Will posted today about a blog entry by Will Williman, a Methodist Bishop and someone who has been writing about church life for quite some time. Williman and others in the Southeastern Jurisdiction of the UMC came up with a list of characteristics of “Effective Congregations:”

EFFECTIVE CONGREGATIONS:

1. Love their particularly community. Their pastors have found a way not only to love their congregations but also their neighborhood. Effective pastors help their congregations move beyond love of themselves, turning their congregations outward.
2. Rise above mere contentment with things as they are and do what is necessary to expect and welcome change, disruption, and movement, similar to that of the Risen Christ.
3. Find a way to welcome the stranger and to practice radical hospitality in the name of Jesus Christ. They find a way to be as interested in those who have yet to join the church as those already in the church.
4. Have a clear sense of their primary purpose and keep focused on their primary God-given missions.
5. Enable lay leaders to lead, not just manage. Lay leadership that feels a strong sense of responsibility for the future of their congregation.
6. All have a strong, change oriented, gifted pastor.
7. Make growth a priority and figure out how to grow.
8. Keep focused upon Jesus Christ as the originator of, and the purpose for the church (rather than church as just another human oriented institution).

Will’s take is more simple:

As far as these things go, it is a fine list.  But I have read over 50 books on church growth, renewal and effectiveness.  I have attended more seminars on the same subjects than I care to remember, and over the past 20 years or so, I have grown tired of all the emphasis on these things.

For me there are only two marks of an effective church, which can be phrased as questions.  First, does the church provide an opportunities to worship God and connect with the divine?  Second, is the church making disciples for Jesus Christ?  Everything else flows out of these two things.  At least that’s how I see things.

These things have me thinking about what it means to talk about a church as “effective.” I gather that depends on what you think church is for, because that ecclesiology will be a major factor in whether you judge a church to be effective.

Willimon is writing as a Bishop who is concerned not just with individual church functioning but also pastoral/congregation dynamics and such. I get why he wants churches to love their communities, for that is what is essential for a church to move from just doing church to being church in the neighborhood, from maintaining an inward focus to having a heart for outward presence (which is what I take the term “missional” to mean).

Humes’ summary isn’t all that off, either. Connect with God; Grow in discipleship.

Has me pondering “effective” church…

I’ve decided to bring back a personal blog which I call kairosblog. There I’ll blog about my own perspective on faith, culture, ethics, media, love, you name it. Here I’ll blog about things pertinent to this community of faith. Sometimes those will overlap, and I might crosspost or refer to one blog or the other.

I think this will be a way for me to keep the two worlds clear while allowing an important distinction of purpose. But Roeminations really ought to continue. Here’s to me working on that…

This week, The Church Geek pointed me to this wonderful list of 100 “spiritually significant films.” We don’t get to see movies as much as we did pre-twins, but we try to see some now and then, and we used to go see quite a few. So, I was surprised that, like the Church Geek, I’d seen so few of what this author lists as the top 10 (two, actually: The Miracle Maker and the Gospel According to Matthew). Though, part of that has to do with the fact that most of the top 100 seem to be foreign films…

Some of my favorite movies are on the list: Millions, The Mission, The Apostle, Schindler’s List, Les Miserables (though the musical is better, and one of my favorites there too..). One movie I would have had on there that wasn’t: Shawshank Redemption.

Check out the list next time yer planning a rental.

We’ve not pushed this very hard at Southminster, and yet we still got $41 for our workcamp. Thanks to all who are using this, and imagine what we’d get if more used GoodSearch in just some of their web browsing.

Give it a shot! Type ‘Southminster Presbyterian Church’ in the box that designates where you want your funds to go…

Update: There’s also a way for you to add a special toolbar for ie or a special GoodSearch entry in your firefox searchbox. Look for these at http://www.goodsearch.com/Toolbars.aspx

It was a specially called meeting, fairly rare actually, where we were considering the recommendations of the Presbytery’s Committee on Ministry to remove a minister from the rolls of Presbytery. In effect, this removed his ordination. There is a lot of back story here and history that I can’t really summarize here, but the long and the short of it is that the particular pastor in question had been at a church in our presbytery for 15 years, and had for quite some time expressed “deep grievances” with our denomination, particularly on issues such as abortion and diversity of opinion over the church’s teaching and approach to human sexuality.

There’s a lot of disagreement on a lot of issues in our church, and that’s neither unusual nor a deal breaker. I don’t agree with our church’s position on certain things, and like others I am free to work against that and to even advocate for change. Its my responsibility to seek the mind of Christ and to advocate for it in Christ’s church. But in the meantime I acknowledge the common constitutional framework that binds us together, and I believe that this framework gives us a good way to try to discern God’s will for our church and to bind us together with mutual responsibility and mutual forbearance.

As a Minister of Word and Sacrament, I can’t just do anything I want to do as a pastor, or that I think is the truth. I have to submit that to the wider strictures of the constitution of the church, and its bodies that nurture me and give my ordination meaning. The constitution requires that some duly authorized body (say, a session or a presbytery),, and duly authorized and overseen by a governing body of the church authorize it when I administer the sacraments, and that I do them in a certain way (say, with the Trinitarian baptismal formula “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and Holy Spirit”). It requires that I get the denomination’s approval if I want to do pastoral things in a setting outside of the presbytery, say if I want to officiate at a wedding in another part of the country. These are just some conditions of being a minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA).

My acting outside those bounds would (rightly) subject me to the discipline of the denomination. That’s part of the deal; part of what it means to be a pastor in this church. It gives shape to what it means to be a PCUSA minister and to be accountable to the larger church, elders and ministers in representative bodies.

It was the judgment of the Presbytery today that this pastor had, in effect, removed himself from our denomination through his actions. The technical term for that is that we judged that the pastor had “renounced jurisdiction” of the Presbyterian Church (USA), by doing two things: persisting in a work disapproved by the Presbytery, and assuming membership of some character in another denomination.

Again, a quick summary: this particular church, after its leadership had over the years expressed concern about the state of our denomination, asked to be dismissed from our denomination to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (or EPC), following some suggestions of the New Wineskins Association of Churches along the way. The pastor in question was part of the strategy team which wrote this strategy document, which I’ve read and which I think is not a fair picture of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

That’s a charitable way of saying it; more directly, I think it is misleading, inaccurate, and propagandistic on its face, and in particular it misrepresents the connectional nature of our denomination, the relationship of individual churches to our presbyteries and the denomination, and the faith of many if not most of its members and clergy. It particularly distorts those of us, like myself, who are liberal/progressive in theology, evangelical in passion and dedication to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and committed to the work of being a disciple of Jesus Christ.

But some members of this church, and many others, didn’t see it that way, and they decided that they could no longer abide being in communion with us. The Presbytery, after attempting reconciliation through its Committee on Ministry and an Administrative Review Commission, appointed a special type of committee, called an Administrative Commission (or AC), to act in as Presbytery to to seek reconciliation with this church and its members where possible, and to determine what to do under the requirements of the constitution.

This AC determined that there was a sizable number of people (around 90 at this point) at this 500 member church that wanted to stay within the PCUSA, and for that reason among others it denied the request of the church to be dismissed to the EPC. The AC, as it was empowered to do by the presbytery, assumed original jurisdiction and became the session of the church, and placed the pastor on paid administrative leave, under the condition that he not perform pastoral functions (preaching, officiating at sacraments, etc) while under that leave.

Some 200-300 members of that church left (as they were planning to do, anyway), and formed another church in the same community. And the pastor went with them to be a “guest preacher”, performing baptism there and, as the presbytery determined, acting as their pastor. In doing this, and in his activities with the EPC, the presbytery determined that this pastor’s call wasn’t with the PCUSA any more, and that he was acting outside the structure of our shared constitution.

The argument presented and deliberated today was more complex than all of this, but that should suffice. If you’re a real glutton for punishment, I’ll post the link to the video of the whole painful affair when it becomes available…

I wanted to comment on this, briefly, here for a few reasons. The main one is that I’m saddened that our presbytery was brought to this. I support what we did today, but I mourn for the hurt that this pastor feels about his (now former) denomination, and while I strongly disagree with his claims about us, I really do wish him well, particularly should he formally become pastor of this new church in his community, and if they get affiliated with the EPC. As I communicated to him recently by email, I continue to hold him and his family in my prayers, hoping that God’s grace may abide with him in whatever God might be calling him towards.

One other reason to post on this: I’ve had scant little interaction with this pastor, but I have blogged about events at his church elsewhere. I did this on a blog that was pseudonymous, under the name ‘kairos’. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the pseudonymity was a conscious decision I made in order to be able to blog on matters without being identified with a particular church.

This pastor made a lot today about my having commented about what he and others have done–actions that I thought, then and now, were outside the bounds of our constitutional bonds–and how I did so anonymously. In part, he was making an argument (directly or indirectly) that I was hiding behind that pseudonym to act dishonorably. But many people blog anonymously, for various reasons. That in and of itself is not dishonorable. I didn’t obscure my identity strongly, and many people could see who I was, and for others who asked, I tended to tell. “Hiding” wasn’t ever the point, and I frankly have no problem talking about that. Drop me a line if you’d like more discourse about it.

This pastor points to this exchange, on another blog that frankly distorts the events and positions of the PCUSA, as a purported example. He wants people to read it, and frankly so do I.

I actually am quite proud of all that I’ve written there or under that moniker, and this pastor’s claims to the contrary, I didn’t blog about or comment about anything that wasn’t public record. I didn’t misrepresent myself. I tried to write there and elsewhere with pastoral sensitivity, respect for the truth and for others, and with all possible grace. I think that exchange demonstrates that.

Since this pastor brought this up in his floor comments today, I wanted to comment on it here. I simply want to acknowledge what has transpired from my perspective, and don’t plan to belabor it. (Thus there are no comments available to this post, and I don’t plan to blog about it any more). I am moving on, as I’m sure he is moving on. I wish him well as he seeks to follow God as he think’s God is calling him. I will continue to do my best to embody the teachings of Jesus as I understand them and as I have been shaped by the PC(USA). In the end, I hope that God’s will is accomplished through both of us, and I trust that, regardless of any of this, God’s will will indeed be accomplished, to God’s glory.

Chad Herring is associate pastor of Southminster Presbyterian Church in Prairie Village, Kansas. He and his wife, Brook Bailey ‘98 had infant twin girls, Nora and Tessa, in August 2006. Chad tells me that he feels called to do this particular kind of ministry, to be in a church that’s at the core of his faith tradition–in his words, “warm, accepting, and grace-giving.” Chad blogs at www.southminsterpres.com/roe/.

I thought that was pretty cool!  Welcome, Grinnellians…

I plan a few categories:

• decently and in order, for those blogging that claim affiliation with the presbyterian church (usa) in some capacity,
• emergent-esque and faith musings, for blogs that are trying to explore what this contemporary movement called the emergent church is all about,
• amusing blogs, for those blogs I think are well done but that defy definition,
• news and political commentary, which should be self explanatory,
• official pcusa sites, which should be self explanatory, and
• pcusa advocacy.

I’m going to try to put up links that represent a broad range of thought, so you might find all sorts of links up there, conservative to liberal, red state to blue state, and all things in between. So I don’t take responsibility for those to whom I link, but I’ll try to keep the list focused to some good stuff. Enjoy!

What makes for a good blog? This has long been an interesting question to me, but I think it is some combination of regular attention, original insight or at least some pointer to the same, a particular lens through which one views the world and articulates a vision, and a measure of intellectual honesty. What makes a good blog on issues of faith and the church includes all the former, and adds a commitment to the best ideals of Jesus Christ in the writing.

I aim for this blog to become more active in the weeks and months ahead. I hope for it to become a better blog than it currently is, so I’ll try to attend to the points listed above.

One of the difficulties is, I think, that my writing this blog links me in some way to the church and denomination I serve. This in many ways cannot be helped, and that is not in itself a bad thing. I am a minister of word and sacrament in a particular denomination that feeds my spirit and in a particular church that gives context to my ministry. I love my church and my denomination which gives vibrant expression, in my judgment, to the gospel.

I’ve tried blogging under a pseudonym before, though, in part because I thought (and still do) that the freedom that it would offer was important–being able to write commentary without it being identified as a specific pastor of a specific church. In some ways that worked well, and in other ways it did not. But that venture is pretty much over for now, and I am back to Roeminations…

A few things that will become pretty clear. The blogging that I do here is not in any way the responsibility of Southminster or the Presbyterian Church or the like. I am related to them through ordination and installation vows; I am one of their pastors and representatives. My work and my life is intertwined with them, and Southminster hosts this website for the time being.

But this blog is not a Southminster blog; it is my blog, about things of interest to me or about things that I think are important, whether it is important to the life of Southminster or to Johnson County, Kansas, or to the wider world. This is an important distinction that I want to emphasize. And I gather that, just as I am afforded the freedom, and indeed am expected to exercise it, when approaching scripture for the purpose of exegesis and sermon preparation, the same will be presumed for this forum. Any failing you find on this page is solely my own, and I take responsibility for it.

So I might (or might not) talk about a whole host of things: various issues of theology or biblical exegesis; matters of church and state, thoughts about the wars we’re in over in Iraq and Afghanistan, what it means for our country to adopt torture as an “enhanced interrogation technique,” or things like that. In fact, that last one has captivated my conscience for quite a while now, and I think the church in America has lots to say about torture.

So, the commentary, vision, commitments laid out on these pages are my own, and I take sole responsibility for them. I don’t plan to be intentionally political, but I don’t plan to shy away from it either. I am who I am. I do not think a case can be made that Jesus Christ was a-political, either. Issues that he cared about–poverty, purity, peace–intersect with the public realm and thus have a political dimension. The church has something to say about things that are happening in the world.

However, I also know that you are who you are, and I love you for it. I will endeavor to write with respect for honest differences of opinion, with candor and humility, and with love and faith for God and God’s creation. I promise, like I do in every aspect of my life, to conduct myself with as much integrity as I am able, living my life in such a way that commends the gospel as I am able to articulate it.

I don’t suspect that everyone in my church or that all those who stumble across the blog will agree with the whole substance of the posts I make, but that is ok, since I believe in the importance of diverse voices at the table when discussing these matters.

If you would like to, I encourage you to comment as you wish. I tend to allow quite a bit of leeway with comments, though I will not permit comments which are in my sole judgment spam (of course), vitriolic or abusive, off topic, or beyond the pale. I don’t take responsibility for what others write there, but I’ll try to keep it both as free as possible and as upright as possible. I admit, that’s a hard balance. Take it for what its worth.

With all that said, lets begin anew, shall we?