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.
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?
Sadly, Regions, like congregations, are accountable in the way you imply only within themselves to their congregations, Pastors, and members. There are processes and procedures to address specific and actionable misconduct at the general church level (Jeff does make comment on that deep in his document), but this is directed at individuals. There's plenty of pastoral intervention that happens (on request), but corrective action must be done from within the region in question. Using covenantal language--the general church can speak to a specific region's brokenness, but lacks the coercive power to force correction or action.
And some regions do that better than others, and in certain regions it works better at some points in their life* than others, no matter what the stated guidelines say.
*Much depends upon who the Regional Minister is, and almost as much as who the chair of the Commission on Ministry is. Less so on the Moderator/President of the regional board or council, but in some regions that role has a place in putting forward a concern from a congregation. As Michael and I both know, when the Regional Minister is the one there's a concern with, most regions have a problem in making the process work. I think the revisions infer that a minister or church member who wants to make a formal complaint regarding a Regional Minister would be able to make that with the General Board's Executive Committee -- if (another inference) there has been some attempt in the region itself to address the concern. Having the General Commission on Ministry be the locus for appeals of regional process, especially on RMs themselves, may still be the plan, but I confess to skepticism about that approach. It's how things worked in 2017, but they didn't "work" if the person in question retires mid-process, and the GCoM then loses standing to address the problem. So again, my *inference* is that these sorts of grievances or complaints would go to the Executive Committee of the General Board.
You should be a Regional Minister
Not until I take your course on Worship!
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?
Sadly, Regions, like congregations, are accountable in the way you imply only within themselves to their congregations, Pastors, and members. There are processes and procedures to address specific and actionable misconduct at the general church level (Jeff does make comment on that deep in his document), but this is directed at individuals. There's plenty of pastoral intervention that happens (on request), but corrective action must be done from within the region in question. Using covenantal language--the general church can speak to a specific region's brokenness, but lacks the coercive power to force correction or action.
And some regions do that better than others, and in certain regions it works better at some points in their life* than others, no matter what the stated guidelines say.
*Much depends upon who the Regional Minister is, and almost as much as who the chair of the Commission on Ministry is. Less so on the Moderator/President of the regional board or council, but in some regions that role has a place in putting forward a concern from a congregation. As Michael and I both know, when the Regional Minister is the one there's a concern with, most regions have a problem in making the process work. I think the revisions infer that a minister or church member who wants to make a formal complaint regarding a Regional Minister would be able to make that with the General Board's Executive Committee -- if (another inference) there has been some attempt in the region itself to address the concern. Having the General Commission on Ministry be the locus for appeals of regional process, especially on RMs themselves, may still be the plan, but I confess to skepticism about that approach. It's how things worked in 2017, but they didn't "work" if the person in question retires mid-process, and the GCoM then loses standing to address the problem. So again, my *inference* is that these sorts of grievances or complaints would go to the Executive Committee of the General Board.