As someone who teaches Disciples of Christ history & polity on a fairly regular basis, I was interested in the Covenant Conversation process and certainly in the details of what’s being proposed. For students counting on me to have an up-to-date understanding of our communion, generally & regionally, I wanted to stay aware of and engaged with the plans, and be able to explain them to Disciples in general, and ministerial folk in particular (the latter have been more likely to ask me questions). “The Design of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)” has been our primary governance document since 1968, and while it’s been revised before, these are probably the most substantive changes any of us have seen in our lifetimes, or at least since the original “Provisional Design” was approved in 1967.
But my reading of the proposed revisions document, my midrash of it if you will, is not as focused on nuts-and-bolts governance detail as you might think. Our “Design” has been and if approved will still be very much a theological document, and it tells us things about ourselves we can take for granted if we’ve been Disciples for a long while.
Here is a link to the pdf of the full GA-2343 with the actual proposed changes starting on page 7, and I will reference the line and paragraph numbers included in the document to orient my observations, so you can find the text and discern for yourself what it’s saying:
We begin at line 18 with the marvelous “Preamble” which stands unchanged. Generally understood to be largely the work of Dr. Kenneth Teegarden, who would later become our second General Minister and President after Dr. Dale Fiers, it is reportedly a late addition to the Provisional Design in 1967, the core of “Restructure” whereby from 1968 we formally adopted a church structure. Teegarden’s prayerful work back in his hotel room produced this marvelous statement of who we are as a Christian community.
I would note in passing: it is a modestly Reformed document, a model in miniature of well regulated worship. The Preamble begins with a confession & assurance (“we confess…” & “we accept…”), continues in doxology (“we rejoice in God…”), makes a series of statements about the life of faith including an epiclesis (“in the communion of the Holy Spirit…”) continuing into a strong statement about Christ’s presence at the Table of the Lord, reminds us of “the universal church” and concludes with a benediction adapted neatly out of Revelation 7:12.
Then to “The Design” proper on page 8, with numbered paragraphs. A personal aside: I made my “good confession” & was baptized in 1972, began to get more deeply involved in the church beyond congregational walls in 1977, so my first steps as a baptized Christian, member of a congregation, and a deacon in the Disciples of Christ were immediately in the wake of Restructure, as in the first ten years. When I started seminary in 1985, I was corrected in a comment I made about “The Provisional Design” which I thought was still the name – my home church in Valparaiso, Indiana had copies of “The Provisional Design” lying about, and that was the caption I still had stuck in my head. Similarly, when it came time to ordain me in 1989, the church elders were shocked when the associate regional minister showed up and said very firmly “the region is in charge of ordination, not the local church.” There was an emergency meeting to soothe ruffled feathers that almost delayed the start of the service: they hadn’t gotten the memo, then over twenty years after!
So we need to talk about what this document does, or tells us to do. Both in terms of theology and process (no jokes about process theology, please). Add in the fact that the average Disciples of Christ congregation tends to have a majority of not just members, but of committed & devoted leaders who grew up in other traditions who do things differently than we do: it becomes very important to talk about how this “Design” functions, even if it means some interesting conversations . . . because you don’t want to have them thirty minutes before an ordination service is starting, for instance!
Paragraph 1. – this and the first three paragraphs are unchanged, but worth noting. In the first formal operating portion of “The Design,” we state unambiguously that the church of Christ is transcendent, universal, even catholic (that word is not used), and more importantly: we start our statement about who we are as a Christian church by talking about Christ’s church. Jesus is Lord, there is a church “under His judgment,” and it is already one. That is crucial, and that is who we are. We who call ourselves Disciples affirm that Christ’s church is already one, and what are we going to do about it? Yes, we organize ourselves into different groups and fellowships and denominations, but our opening statement is about the reality of Christian unity, and not about how we are the singular holders of it. To be discreet about it, many churches start with “we are us, and we are the ones who have Christ’s commandments and teachings.” They state or at least imply that the universal Body of Christ is them. We come at this differently.
It's not until Paragraph 2. we talk about our particular communion, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and our “testimony, tradition, name, institutions, and relationships.” We admit, even confess we have our distinctives, but we don’t confuse them with having perfectly bodied forth the oneness of Christ’s church. And here we begin to talk about ourselves as being in “covenantal relationships in congregations, regions, and general ministries.”
The term “covenant” has been asked to do some heavy lifting in recent years, but let me first note that a covenantal church is distinct from a confessional church, or a connectional one. The United Methodists are going through their own transitions and transformations, but through it all is how their process is working given that they are a CONNECTIONAL church. Other Christian bodies are more CONFESSIONAL, in that membership and standing and all sorts of roles from entry to leadership are tied to assent to a stated confession of faith. We are not connectional in the sense of Methodists, with the conference connection to the parish meaning they place clergy and control property; we are not confessional as are many Reformed churches, with a printed statement of faith (confession, creed, catechism) to consult in asking “are you in relationship to us?” Covenantal is a more “by mutual consent” relationship, of which we’ll say more later.
Paragraph 3. starts us into specific discussion of how we are doing church, or what we are being a covenantal community FOR. Why have anything between Jesus and a believer, organizationally and structurally? The Design here lists what I’d lump into four reasons to be a church: “(to) provide Christian witness, mission, evangelism, and service from our doorsteps to the ends of the earth; furnish means by which all expressions of the church may fulfill their ministries with faithful Christian stewardship; assure unity in Christ while respecting diversity; and work as partners in ecumenical and global relationships.” Or to lightly condense: a) cooperative ministry beyond a congregation’s capacity, b) stewardship capacity ditto, c) our anti-racism/pro-reconciliation priority, and d) our historic commitment to ecumenism. Cooperative efforts, stewardship tools, anti-racism leadership, and a focal point for ecumenical relations, that’s why church, we’re saying.
This is important because in my work with commissioned ministers, who so often are serving and leading smaller and more rural churches, the question comes up over and over again: how are we different from the Church of Christ across town, one which often has historic ties to their church? Why are there independent Christian Churches, anyhow? And while Paragraph 3’s four reasons are positives for us as Disciples, they also are worth remembering as the obstacles which created the rolling departures of former fellow congregations between 1926 and 1968. Cooperative ministry: nope. Missionaries should be supported directly by congregations and individual donors, in the independent world view. Stewardship help? Nosirree, Bob: no one looks at or has a claim on our church funds. Nobody. Get away. (Yes, we still have plenty of that spirit in our fellowship, but that’s a big part of where it comes from.) Anti-racism? (Awkward silence, coughing, change of subject.) And having ties to the National Association of Evangelicals was too much for our early dissenting and departing former Disciples who became independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, let alone the National Council of Churches or (ominous organ chords) the World Council of Churches.
Paragraph 3 defines us. Sadly, it divides us from some Christians very like us in many ways, but let’s put it on the table from the outset, as we did in “The Design.”
Now we get into changes, which is why the three of you actually reading this far are interested (thank you). In line 78 we excise the Administrative Committee. Don’t worry, we have someone to meet with between General Assemblies and even between General Board meetings, but it’s no longer the Administrative Committee.
Paragraph 4 does include the first mention of our primary general operating bodies: the General Assembly and the General Board. Do they govern us? Remember, we aren’t connectional, definitely not hierarchical. We are in a mutually agreed on relationship we call covenantal, and that agreed-upon-ness is worked out at General Assemblies (GA from here on) and the General Board. I bet you cash there were long discussions of calling it anything but a Board, but it does have certain formal functions that it may not be a bad idea to remind both members of it about, and to remind the church in general that there’s a board doing board stuff. Call it a “Connectional Table” or “Circle of Consensus,” but sometimes you do need to make orderly decisions about specific hard things. So we still have a General Board.
Our name: Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Notice there’s no “The” at the beginning.
Paragraph 6, line 93: we get into the first edits indicating the bigger changes ahead. Let me very clearly say “This is that idiot Jeff’s opinion, and no one else’s!” But I would suggest that one of the things the new “Design” is trying to do is to empower congregations, and in return for congregations getting a little more juice in the process, there’s going to be some tightening up. Which, again my opinion, stands to reason. The change is simply to take language about a congregation being “located” to that it is “recognized.” The standards for recognition will come in a bit. But you can’t just “be there” to be a voting Disciples congregation. Make sense? Good.
Paragraph 8 says something that we need to see for what it is, and this has been there all along as well. Some have bemoaned it, actually. “Congregations constitute the primary expression of the community of faith within the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).”
In terms of ecclesiology, this makes us, well, congregational. Many long time Disciples don’t realize that there are other robust Christian traditions where the diocese is “the primary expression of the community of faith.” Catholicism and Anglicanism are structured so that the bishop is the primary expression of the faith, the priests have their warrant to preside at sacraments through the bishop’s authorization, and parishes are more of a geographical subset of the more significant structure. This is NOT to say Catholics or Episcopalians don’t value parishes, just that – as when you hear as we do these days about bishops announcing they are closing a hundred parishes or so – the fundamental relationship is different.
In Methodism, which is the closest neighbor to many of our Midwestern Disciples churches, the “primary expression” is the conference. Ordained clergy are members of the conference, and the bishop has a primary role in the ordering of that primary expression. Ask any Methodist minister! Or at least the bishop’s cabinet . . . but even there, the authority that legendary group has derives from the bishop.
We are very congregational. Our good friends the United Church of Christ were once largely Congregational churches. The Pilgrims and Puritans were all congregational heretics from the Anglican model of obedience to your bishop; the early American Baptists like Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson were kicked out of Massachusetts to Rhode Island because they held that a congregation could form itself, which the Congregationalists weren’t too happy about.
Reformed and Lutheran traditions have their own ways of mediating authority and oversight, some using bishops (Lutherans) but in a different model, others looking to presbyters in synods to create a collective model, such as Presbyterians have, which is our direct history, but not our actual practice after 1804 & 1809 respectively, between Stone & the Campbells in their disputes over how much authority a presbytery should have over local churches and preachers.
So we come out more in the congregational side of things. Which brings us to “Recognized Congregations” as the next section, from line 108. It is largely untouched from the post 1978 revisions to “The Design,” and if you don’t know why we needed to change how you get into the “Year Book and Directory” after 1978, ask around, you’ll find out. Oh, and if you didn’t know this, we’ve revised “The Design” a number of times.
Basically, it’s a sensible set-up for a highly congregational polity: to get in, you have to ask. That’s still about it, honestly. You have to ask formally, not just send in a postcard saying “hey, list us” (which is almost exactly how it was from 1909 to 1978). And to be removed, there’s no big hairy deal as would be the case in a connectional church, just a notarized letter if the church wants to leave, or if you’ve been on radio silence for at least five years, the region can say “take ‘em off.”
Line 142 is another preview change, not significant in where it first appears: the words “Disciples Mission Fund” are excised in favor of “the church-wide mission funding system.” Likely heralding further changes to what we once knew as “Unified Promotion,” “Basic Mission Finance,” and lately “Disciples Mission Fund.”
In “Rights and Responsibilities” the section starts in paragraph 10 with the church affirming “that congregations in their freedom in Christ have both rights and responsibilities.” The rights are mostly all those autonomy things: owning their property, controlling their assets, setting their budgets, calling their ministers. Responsibilities are less tangibly spelled out, but start with baptism and communion, continue through spiritual nurture, transcending barriers, and of course consulting with their regional minister. Yep, it’s a listed responsibility! There’s a phrase I’ve heard chewed over about “striving to share proportionally resources” with the wider work, but a back door apportionment plan it ain’t. And there’s a line that churches have a responsibility “to choose voting representatives to the General and Regional Assemblies.” Keep that one in mind. But they’re all existing provisions, no changes here.
Line 201 is the section “Representation in Regional and General Assemblies.” Now the “to be changed” red ink flows like the Mississippi.
Big change: every recognized congregation gets three General Assembly voting representatives (sometimes referred to as delegates, but not in The Design). No formula for how you get more than two, it’s three for every congregation, lines 204 to 206. Also ordained and commissioned ministers get a vote on their individual own, and I won’t be noting each change from licensed to commissioned, but that work is done in this set of amendments. Line 212, the 180 day deadline for items to be considered is dropped, and we’re not submitting business items anymore, keeping “business” and “consideration” separate, which I think wise.
Then from line 229 we get into the question of “Regional Ministries” which, if you have been around a really long time, used to be “State Societies” like the “Ohio Christian Missionary Society.” The big move in Restructure was to complete the already ongoing process of converting state societies into regions as we know them.
Why have regions? The Design already says some very nice, very general things about extending ministry (cooperative stuff, in other words) and pastoral care to members, ministers, and congregations. I would throw my two cents in about how we could improve this passage, but that’s not really what you’re here for. More at the end on that subject if you’re still reading.
Under “Shape and Boundaries” we have another preview of coming developments, in this one idiot’s opinion. Let me be very clear: I think having the General Assembly vote on approving regional revisions of borders/congregations, or on regional mergers, is not a wise use of our time. If the regions involved have all agreed to what’s to be done, allocating twenty minutes to letting people say on the floor how sad they are the South Succotash Region will no longer exist as an independent entity is wallowing. If the regional board of South Succotash and of Big Piney Region and the Soggy Bottom Region have all agreed to become the Higher Ground Region, it’s almost un-congregational to let other region’s members voice and vote on it . . . if you see a region as a form of congregation, which in fact I do. And congregations close and merge: we don’t ask other congregations across the state if they approve of that act.
My own impression is that we have a large amount of regional revision ahead – and I’ve been accurately quoted before as believing the Disciples would benefit from having about nine regions. And I’ve been told off for it, too, but I’m certain we will not get too far down the road with 29 regions as we now have; it was 33 when I started seminary, and I would argue we don’t “really” have even 29 now. Again, another discussion for another day.
But big change: the GA will not vote on regional revisions, with the General Board having an oversight role, lines 317 to 319. Sounds fine to me.
The Design in paragraph 31 describes regional ministers, and this section has not changed since the last revisions. Formerly state secretaries or executive secretaries in most states and areas, from 1968 we’ve been working on what we mean by making someone a regional minister. Lines 334 to 342 are pretty administrative in tone and import, and I’ll leave that right there.
Regions will submit items for consideration, not business, and the 180 day deadline is excised; these changes are lines 345 to 350. Then there’s lines 352 to 358…
Big change: each region does not get to put a person on the General Board. That model is cut in paragraph 33, new model on down a ways. Regional ministers will have input to the General Board’s Nominating Committee, but that’s as far as it goes. Let’s hold comment a bit.
Paragraph 35 a modest change with potential import: fiscal review and evaluation is not reserved to the former Administrative Committee, now Executive, but is to be done by the General Board. (Spoiler on later change: the General Board will be smaller and meet more often, so this makes sense.)
Under “The General Assembly” in paragraph 37 we have a small, but I think big-ish change. Line 377 the definition of the GA changes from “The general representative body of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) shall be the General Assembly” to “The general covenantal body of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) shall be the General Assembly.” Can you hear it? We’re not talking about GA as a merely representative body, but an expression of our covenantal relationships both between our manifestations as churches, and between the church and God. Vertical and horizontal covenentalism. Big change? You decide.
Big change for sure: a brand new paragraph, lines 382 through 386, saying the GA can meet both in-person and virtually. Yes, I know, we did that sorta in 2021, but it wasn’t official. Now it is. Tucked in with that: the GA “is in perpetual existence.” Now, theologically, that may sound to some of us like a definition of Hell, and Disciples tend not to believe too strongly in everlasting damnation. But this is not meant to imply some of us might be consigned to an eternal lake of committee meetings. It simply means the old “time & place” provisions are no longer operative, and (spoiler) not only can we go to every three years instead of every two, we could call a meeting, online, with 60 days notice to congregations and regions (I skipped noting this new parameter earlier, lines 349 & 215), and such a meeting is capable of doing official business. We can’t do that currently. Is that useful? Ask the poor United Methodist Church, which due to a parallel problem is still trying to hold their 2020 General Conference albeit in 2024 but with the 2020 delegates, half of whom may be departed or deceased by the time they hold it. I’d say this is smart, nimble, and forward thinking. Could someone use it for shenanigans? Yes, true in any polity (check out the Borgia popes), but remember the increase in voting representatives, three from each church, and they do some new stuff in a few more paragraphs. So I think it’s good.
Okay, more Big changes: line 395 as we already know each church gets three voting reps, c. line 401 now each region gets three, dispensing with the old formula on size. Clergy still vote as before, with standing. Paragraph 40 starting line 419 puts these new voting members to work, with the congregational representatives having three year terms, and intended to ultimately change one per year each year, so there’s continuity and change.
And those three congregational voting members of the General Assembly won’t just be those who travel every other, or as we’re about to read, third year, to a distant hotel and convention center. They will have ongoing contact and opportunity to offer their input and vote, because we are now, BIG CHANGE, going to have at paragraph 42, not only an every three year in-person semi-traditional GA, but paragraph 44 lines 462 to 465 calls for the GA to meet every year. Within a three year cycle, a voting member from a congregation would go to a GA on site once, and twice participate in worship and education and equipping and business online. The idea, I would sum up, is that the congregational GA delegate becomes a real part of the process, which has potential implications for both the wider church and the local congregation, if we take that seriously. Those “in between” online meetings add, not detract in my opinion, from the value and legitimacy of actions taken at the in-person GA.
Lines 474 and 475 remove the provision for emergency motions to be placed before a GA. Having helped cook up a number of them and gotten them to the floor, I calmly say farewell. They are themselves an artifact of the GA “only” existing a few days every other year; now that GA meets annually, let’s not make emergency motion continue to be the agenda driver they have tended to be. Focus. Items of business have to be shared around 60 days in advance, and any world events that take place within 59 days of the gathering will just need to wait another eleven months.
Much of the rest is housekeeping. Another moderate change which I would think is a mutually agreed upon not-big change is that the “racial ethnic ministries” are becoming more like a general unit among general units, and less of a region-plus within our polity. It makes sense, and I trust this is happening because the ministry bodies involved think it’s the best shift for all concerned.
In line with all of this, “The General Board” is getting a bump, in authority, in scheduling, and in role, in return for getting a modest downsizing. The General Board in the past hasn’t met more often because it was dang expensive in terms of airfare and hotels and catering to put them all in one place. All of this is changing.
Big changes: line 636, the General Board will have three core committees, Mission, Finance, and Executive. Lines 639 to 644 they will receive and review topics and issues for dialogue and education; they will manage the “sense of the assembly” motion process. They will establish mission priorities (line 648) and take action (line 651) on matters of social witness. They will coordinate and review and evaluate our missional activity as a church, and work to make it structurally coherent (lines 660-1). And lines 670 to 678 they will examine closely “the church-wide mission funding system” including allocating and reallocating funds. One idiot’s opinion: we have less money coming in, and we have to be smart about how we spend it. We don’t have three or two years to make major decisions. Even annually, that’s a long fuse for volatile times. The General Board can make changes within the annual framework, and that sounds smart to me.
Also, line 700, the General Board is itself the Time & Place Committee. Not a big change.
Line 711 designates the Executive Committee of the General Board as the official Board of the Office of General Minister and President (GMP). Well, someone’s gotta do it, and they make sense. Having another separate board do that for the GMP? In this day and age, that’s too many boards. We have trouble finding people for all the boards and commissions we have.
This DOES have the import that (lines 714 to 717) the Executive Committee also becomes the court of appeal, so to speak, for grievances against regions, regional ministers or even the GMP. Again, it has to be someone, and they make sense, rather than establishing a whole ‘nother body that will never be fully consistently staffed (Jeff’s opinion). So I’m for this, too.
What we haven’t had yet are the General Board make-up provisions, and this in some ways may be what kept this set of proposed revisions off stage for so long, because many of these issues were hotly debated well before COVID and the online semi-GA of 2021.
Instead of a former General Board of sixty some members, not counting OGMP staff, with four year terms, they will serve six year terms, line 723, and lines 731 to 753 defines but does not enumerate a General Board of by my count 45, where that number could decrease if the number of regions decreases. But if I’m reading this right, while the number of General Board seats is tied to the number of regions and of general units, neither regions nor general units get to name their representatives. The total roster of nominations is up to the “General Nominating Committee,” which is to consult with regional ministers and general unit heads, but they are to complete their slates mindful of seeking people “with specific gifts of mission, finance, and/or governance and the full diversity of the Church will be considered.”
That’s a big change. Not a bad change, but the General Board will under these guidelines be responsible for populating the General Board. It won’t be made up mostly of the people regions want to send, but of the people the General Board wants. Some regions will inevitably end up without representatives on this new General Board. Recall paragraph 37, line 377 about the GA: “The general representative body of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) shall be the General Assembly” changed to “The general covenantal body of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) shall be the General Assembly.” Just one preacher’s opinion, but I think the upshot is that we are being asked to think about church life and governance in covenantal terms, in relational terms, more than as representatives serving geographically. And with some regions having fewer functioning congregations than other regions have in a single district or area, this makes sense to me.
Well, if General Board members aren’t representing regions or general units, who are they representing? Again, lines 779 to 781: “Nominees are to be involved members of congregations and regional and/or general ministry life. Nominees will be sought with specific gifts of mission, finance, and/or governance and the full diversity of the Church will be considered.”
Could this go pear-shaped, as my military friends like to say? Is there potential for reality to impact idealism in a way that squishes the reality of our church as it is against the more flexible definitions of the church we hope to become? Absolutely. And it will need to be watched, but again, that’s where the counterweight of the larger and more frequent congregational voting delegate contingent comes in. I think smaller than over 60 makes sense, and you have to get there somehow. So I raise the caution to indicate I see the hazard, but still affirm the model proposed.
Big change, and a good one: line 786 says the General Board meets “at least twice annually” (emphasis mine, it formerly said annually) which means three or even four aren’t out of the question, made possible because newly inserted Lines 791 to 793 allow for online/digital meetings, huzzah. Welcome to the post-COVID world!
Then, bigger changes: from line 816 the reformulated Adminstrative Committee becomes the Executive Committee in full, and lines 818 through 838 gives the new Executive Committee plenty of work to do. Lines 840 to 846 put them at a voting membership of 9 members; lines 851 to 857 gives them three year terms, the possibility of one renewal for a six year total, and a step-down period, with 21 total including the ex officio non-voting members having voice and presence if not vote. These nine Executive Committee members have real authority to deal with real problems in between the twice or more a year General Board meetings. If the Exec Comm folk get carried away, the ex officios can speak up, and it’s not that long until the full General Board can yank the leash, or even override them. I’m saying okay with all that.
Lines 904-5: they have to have 6 of 9 voting members to make up a quorum. I would have said 7 of 9, but . . . [loud booing from the peanut gallery, which must be mostly Star Wars fans].
Paragraph 81 we get the make-up of the General Nominating Committee, which I trust you see has some pretty significant authority in our new system. There will be ten of them, and lines 1007-1009 say “One-half of the members at the time of their election shall be from the membership of the General Board, and not more than one-half nor less than one-third shall be ministers.” They will have (line 1011) have a six year term.
The Executive Committee as now formulated picks the General Nominating Committee (lines 1009-1011). They will be “elected by the General Assembly” (lines 1001-2) but it’s the Exec Committee that puts nominees before the GA. This is where the real authority is situated, in that function. Nine voting members, with an ex officio twelve person cohort of GMP, moderator team, two regional ministers and two general unit heads present & speaking (lines 843-848), who essentially will select the ten General Nominating Committee folk with the six year terms.
Finally [cheers from the peanut gallery] and perhaps poetically, at the very end of The Design is “the red-headed stepchild.” Yes, at line 1041, we get a closing section on “Ministry.” In this conclusion, we see a very Disciples ecclesiology at work, and one whose outlines we ignore at our peril. It’s frighteningly accurate.
First, we get a fairly pro forma “priesthood of all believers” statement in paragraphs 86 & 87. I won’t unpack that, but it is largely who we are. In paragraph 88, unchanged from previous iterations: “In addition, the church recognizes an order of ministry, set apart under God, to equip the whole people to fulfill their corporate ministry. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), through the General Assembly, shall approve general policies and criteria for the order of the ministries [I think that should be “for the ordering of the ministries” but hey], within policies developed by the General Assembly; regions certify the standing of ministers…”
Ministry in terms of ordained clergy is presented here almost as an aside. Yeah, that’s . . . hold that thought. It’s more accurate than the line I keep hearing from people who should know better: “we Disciples have always recognized (or even “honored”) an educated clergy.” That’s a line we borrowed from the Presbyterians from whence we sprang, but it’s essentially inaccurate. Is it a goal? Different question, but it’s not an accurate statement of the situation. The Design at lines 1054-55 simply calls for ministerial “policies developed by the General Assembly; regions certify the standing of ministers [and the processes of calling & separation between ministers & congregations].”
In paragraph 89: “The offices of elder and deacon are ordered by the congregations, through election and recognition with appropriate ceremony, for the performance of certain functions of ministry…”
Yeah, I have opinions here. But now is not the time. Paras 89 a & b could be elaborated to everyone’s benefit, but that’s not what we’re here for. As The Design stands, before and as revised, it says about both elders and deacons they could be “sharing in the ministration of baptism and the Lord's Supper and the conduct of worship, and sharing in the pastoral care and spiritual leadership (of the congregation)” all of which is just right, in my opinion.
But recall we have set the stage with lines 725-726 “not more than one-half nor less than one-third of whom shall be ministers” regarding the General Board, and lines 1008-1009 “not more than one-half nor less than one-third shall be ministers” regarding the General Nominating Committee. Lines 102 to 371 spell out in very particular and clarifying terms what congregations are, and should be doing, and then the same for regions. Over 250 lines on right ordering of local congregations part of a wider fellowship, and the “middle judicatory” likewise defined as regions in our common life.
Ordained and commissioned clergy, their definition and role in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), are laid out indirectly, obliquely, in fewer lines (1052-1055) & barely more words (46 of ‘em) than we devote to limiting how many of them can be in leadership decision making roles (24 words in the two clauses noted in the paragraph above). Is it fair for me to say The Design, from 1968 to the present proposed revisions, exhibits a significant ambivalence about who and what ministers are to be in our common life? This continues to be a weak point in our polity, our governance, and our missiology. How do we want our called, commissioned, serving ministers to fulfill their vocations? The correct answer is “we’re working on it.” I won’t beat this drum harder, other than to say it’s a problem we’ve had from the outset, with Alexander and Barton being profoundly ambivalent about ordained clergy, and we’re still working on it, but not in this document. Perhaps in future proposed revisions . . .
We conclude with light revisions to how we handle “Revisions and Amendments” with paragraph 90, simply calling for a two-thirds vote of those present and voting to approve, at meetings properly called with 60 days notice, indicating these changes can be made through an online meeting. There is a lovely Biblical “Ascription” to conclude with, from Ephesians 3:20-21, and as a sort of epilogue we have spelled out as to what the general ministries of our United States and Canada fellowship are, in lines 1090 to 1104:
Central Pastoral Office for Hispanic Ministries
Christian Board of Publication
Christian Church Foundation, Inc.
Council on Christian Unity, Inc.dba Christian Unity and Interfaith Ministry
Disciples of Christ Historical Society
Disciples Church Extension Fund
Division of Homeland Ministries of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Inc. dba Disciples Home Missions
Division of Overseas Ministries of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Inc.
Higher Education and Leadership Ministries, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Inc.
The National Benevolent Association of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
National Convocation of the Christian Church
North American Pacific/Asian Disciples
Pension Fund of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
=+=+=+=
In summary, I think these proposed changes are or are aimed at:
1. Empowering congregations in their common life to revitalize their individual sense and practice of mission;
2. Specifically, each congregation has three voting representatives;
3. The General Assembly as a whole will no longer vote on regional boundary revisions;
4. Each region will not have a guaranteed vote on General Board;
5. The GA can meet virtually and do business;
6. Each region will have three votes at GA, not the former size-based formula;
7. GA will meet annually, but in person on a three year cycle;
8. The racial/ethnic ministries are referenced more as a general unit than as a sort of super-region (my terms, but that’s how I read it working out);
9. The General Board will have three core committees, Mission, Finance, and Executive;
10. The General Nominating Committee will operate to populate a General Board of some 45 (my count), no longer a voting group of over 60 (ditto), with more latitude to select than formerly, where in the old model much of the General Board was designated by other bodies in terms of representation. In this model, not every region or general unit is guaranteed representation in terms of voting privileges. Less a representative body than a covenantal leadership group.
11. General Board will meet at least twice a year, implying it could be more than two, and virtual/online meetings are legitimated.
12. An Executive Committee of nine members with robust ex officio presence is empowered to work for the Disciples between General Board meetings.
13. Meetings, including General Assemblies, can be called with 60 (sixty) days notice; the old emergency resolution model is no longer on the table, though I’m sure parliamentary procedure shenanigans will continue.
Those three GA voting representatives in each congregation can become a focus for closer engagement between local churches and the general work of the church, or it can be another slot we fill like “historian” or “trustee.” There’s work to be done here after the process is approved, but I think the concept is sound. Congregations might just find themselves feeling more connecting to missiological energy through those three delegates than they currently do, because the annual (or more!) meetings could be a two-way street of proclamation and invitiation. I truly hope and pray it works out this way, and it could.
Regions lose some power here. There, I said it out loud. I’m sure someone will try to point out “wait, Jeff, the regions are still important in their role as…” but it’s worth pointing out: in this model, the regions do not have the control and authority in the general church the older Design iterations envisioned. It’s also the case that we’re well past critical mass with regions putting their missions accounting through the Office of General Minister and President using Treasury Services. Ohio was a major shift in the balance when we moved in 2017, as a necessary and emergency measure, from handling all our own DMF accounting to placing it in the hands of Treasury Services. Just to clarify for those who’ve missed out on earlier fun-and-games, some key regions used to have local churches send them the missions giving, and then the region passed along to the general church (once BMF, now DMF, soon churchwide mission funding however named) the percentage they felt right. There was under Unified Promotion and Basic Mission Finance a process of the general church to determine what percentage a region should keep, but sometimes a region, say Ohio, would decide they would keep 33% and not 31%, and while there was consternation and weeping and wailing and casting of aspersions, if local churches sent BMF dollars to the region first, there wasn’t much anyone in our upper judicatories could do about it.
That is essentially no longer the case. A plurality of our church, regionally and congregationally, either sends directly to Treasury Services or the region hands over received DMF contributions to Treasury Services, and the decided-upon allocations are being followed, if you will, “in covenant.” Being Disciples, that will probably never be 100%, but it’s heading there. This means regions can’t just “keep more” to deal with change and variation in mission giving for the support of their budgets and programs.
In other words, speaking purely for myself but I believe based on the facts of the matter, regions are losing control. Over the flow of financial resources, and over mission priorities. They have voice, but not vote in all cases, along with not having that control of “the tap” I just described.
What do they gain? Well, I think regions have an opportunity in a healthy sort of co-optation of those three a church delegate persons. Most local clergy are up to their ears in alligators as they try to drain various swamps of church life; a healthy and vital region could walk alongside to train and inform and engage those persons – a region of 100 congregations would have reason to make specific, direct contact with 300 of their total number to talk about what it means to make disciples, share good news, equip the saints. Regions are still ideally situated to do that, and could. Or this will become a direct circuit between local churches and the general church, bypassing more chaotic regional structures.
And whether empowering or disempowering, these proposals I believe point towards some serious re-ordering of our 29-ish regional structure in between congregations and the Disciples of Christ general work. Full disclosure: when Ohio went pear-shaped in 2017, and I ended up called to help make sense of the debris and create a new plan moving forward, my sense as regional treasurer pro tem was that Ohio could give the wider church a gift by voluntarily relinquishing being a region our own. We functioned with an interim regional minister for a while, and with four surrounding regional ministers assisting Ohio for a while longer – my vision in 2018 & 2019 was “let’s make this permanent, and show the Disciples of Christ we can be a faithful church on the regional level without holding onto our prerogatives historically and structurally.” You know, Jeremiah 29:11 and all that. If one region voluntarily dissolved into bordering regions – hello, Springfield Presbytery anyone? – it might start something.
Without fighting the last war, that plan was soundly rejected. Okay, I am a bit bitter: many said they liked the idea, but in the actual implementation discussions it ended up just being me with egg on my face. No one in public would say they liked dissolving Ohio as a region and finding an independent basis for Camp Christian, so we didn’t do that. And we continued as (not my line originally, but I’ve happily stolen it) a camp with a region attached to it. Many good people have been working to make the Ohio region healthy or at least healthier since I was shown the door in 2019, but I sincerely had the best interests of the Disciples of Christ message and witness at heart, for Ohio and for the general church, in saying “maybe God doesn’t have to have an Ohio region for this way of being Christian to work.”
Given that self-disclosure, take this as you will, but I am thinking I see in this set of proposed revisions to “The Design” an assumption that, perhaps ten years after I tried to help Ohio set an example, we might be moving to something of more of an “inter-regional fellowship” model than trying to preserve at all costs the existing regions as they are. Again, in Ohio, through my historical study & review it came up that our current district and CYF conference boundaries were set in 1932. Maybe some things have happened since 1932 which make boundary revisions a good idea? Likewise our 29-ish regional structures, some of which are robust and active in congregational and ministerial support, equipping the saints and proclaiming the Good News, and some of them are nearly ghosts of institutional structures, more on paper than in practice.
In other words, I heartily support the revisions proposed, and eagerly await the application of these new ways to be Christ’s church in the United States and Canada. None of the changes will work without Christians of good will putting their effort into their implementation. That’s the real vote, if you will. We can pass this in Louisville this summer, but for it to be approved, we have to lean in, put our shoulders behind making it work in the months and years ahead.
Onwards!
You should be a Regional Minister
Thank you for this thorough analysis and description.
I am disappointed by the lack of attention paid in these revisions to the power of single Regional Ministers to sabotage the ministries of ordained clergy in dysfunctional regions where systems of accountability and covenant are broken. Do you see anywhere in the changes ways to hold regions accountable for the harm their brokenness inflicts on the whole Body?