What I Am Seeing and Hearing across the Church?
Heath K. Rada, Moderator of the 221st General Assembly (2014) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) at the Presbyterian Mission Agency Board—April 2015
It is my pleasure to offer to you a reflection of what I have seen and heard across our church during the 10 months since I was elected moderator. First, let me begin with some of the very positive reflections.
1. We are seeing an amazing emergence of young adults coming back to the church. Whereas statistics indicate that these folks are leaving evangelical megachurches in large measures, the PC(USA) is seeing young adults returning to our membership. Let me give you three examples. My own church, Grace Covenant in Asheville, N.C., announced last year that for the first time in our history we have more members, from our 900 memberships, who are under the age of 45 than older.
Myers Park Presbyterian Church in Charlotte, the fourth-largest church in our denomination, with over 5,000 members, says that their rapid growth is being impacted particularly by the 21- to 31-year-olds—the largest demographic of growth in their congregation. White Memorial Church in Raleigh, with over 4,000 members now, says that of the almost 400 new members in their congregation in the past four years, the vast majority are young parents—at least 75 percent of them. I am hearing this over and over, particularly in urban areas. And when we ask why these folks are choosing to be members of our denomination, they give two primary reasons:
A. We are a safe place where these young people can come and search for their faith
identities. They can ask questions and seek answers and pursue deeper understandings
of the faith without fear of judgment or feeling they shouldn’t have questions. They say
the Presbyterian Church embodies the teachings of Jesus who taught us to love one
another and respect one another.
B. They say that we are a church without walls. Over and over, they say that we are a place
where they can live out their faith. They don’t have to be in church every Sunday, but
they are not going to let down the feeding programs for the poor when they are
scheduled to be there. They may take a hike instead of attending worship on some
Sundays, but they know they will come back and be fed and then be equipped to go into
the world as living servants of Jesus.
C. They say that we care for all of God’s children—regardless of race, creed, or gender
issues. They do not all agree with gay marriage, but they say that being a part of a
denomination that allows for them to have different opinions models the love of Christ,
which they believe is true and is not hypocritical—a trait many of them have found in
other denominations.
Let me hasten to add that I see and hear about this phenomenon in urban areas. Rural areas are not
having the same experience. But rural areas are also working hard to keep young adults living in their
towns and communities, because they are choosing to leave in large numbers.
So my first question to us as a Presbyterian Mission Agency board and staff is, How are we going to
address this new influx of dynamic Christians? How can we serve them in ways that will enhance their effectiveness and undergird their excitement as PC(USA) members?
2. We are often criticized by many outside our church as not believing in the authority of the Scriptures and not accepting Jesus as our only path to salvation. I have preached on these two matters almost every time I have occupied a pulpit. And I want to simply say two things: both of those are untrue and almost blasphemous accusations about the PC(USA). First of all, there is not a teaching or ruling elder who is ordained in our denomination who does not have to answer the question in the
affirmative—
Do you accept the Bible as the authoritative Word of God?—or some similarly worded
statement that means the same thing. If they cannot say they do, they are not ordained. To say the
PC(USA) does not believe that is a lie. It is sad that people who want to harm us have used this
untruth to lead many people who are less informed about such matters to turn against us.
The other main theological question I am asked is if we believe in Jesus Christ as our sole means to
salvation. Again, the answer is blatantly obvious. One cannot join a church in our denomination
without answering the question in the affirmative that she or he believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and
Savior.
If you do not, you cannot be a member in our churches. And I have not met one single
person—member or officer of our church—who does not believe that as truth. There has been a
campaign of hate and divisiveness built against us. And it is not a true reflection of our particular
body of Christ.
Question number two: How do we under-gird the basic theological and faithful principles of our
church in a way that lets the world know the truth about who we are? Nothing, absolutely nothing,
is more important to members of the PC(USA) than the acceptance of and love for Jesus Christ.
3. The third area I want to mention is related to our witness to Christ around the world. Our global
missions program is still extraordinary. I have had the chance to sit with and watch our mission
coworkers in nine countries outside of the United States during these 10 months. Their faithfulness
and love and compassion, as well as their commitment to the faith and our denomination, and
particularly to the wonderful people they are serving, is remarkable. We are extraordinarily blessed
with these people, and they deserve increased support and affirmation as they live and work in
areas where their very lives are under fire. Our mission partners in other countries love and affirm
our work in their midst. Not only are they grateful for our past service, but they are eager for us to
continue to work with them to build up their churches.
So,
question number three: What can we do to help, as a board, to under-gird these precious, longstanding, and devoted relationships with church bodies around the world? How can we impress on our denomination the significant impact we are having in addressing issues of world peace and
compassion?
The Presbyterians who are breaking off from us and becoming other denominations do
not have the same history of relationships and long-term bonds of love. Nor do they have the
networks and relationships with both the governments and the churches that we have developed.
They are losing a huge advantage in their efforts to make a difference around the world. We cannot
let our partner churches down. We also must find the resources needed to enable our mission
coworkers to continue. How can we do that?
4. The fourth will be brief but needs to be shared. Our church offices in New York City, with the United Nations, and in Washington, D.C., are huge factors in living out the faith by promoting worldwide peace and justice, the critical issues that Christ called us to pursue. In New York, I was told by numerous other faith communities that our UN office is the standard that they choose to emulate.
Our staff and work there not only serves our denomination but is the model used by other Christian
communities when it comes to being aware of, and responding to, issues around the world which
impact God’s children. Likewise, in D.C., when I went to the White House, I was informed by so
many people from other church communities and nonprofits that we are the denomination that
brings the message of Jesus into the realities of policies and projects being undertaken by our
government. In fact, one person tearfully reminded me that had it not been for the PC(USA), both
the original act and the extension of the Civil Rights Act would not have been legalized.
Question number four: How can we under-gird the ministries of these areas across the
denomination? I find that our membership at large does not realize that as Presbyterians we have a
formative voice in both national and international matters—a voice that lifts up the love of Christ
and upholds the human dignity of our sisters and brothers.
5. The fifth matter I wish to address is our relationship to the Jewish community in the United States.
After our vote last summer on divestment, this became the number one issue on my plate, as well
as the greatest topic of conversation around the church. In our effort to stand up for the humane
treatment of Palestinians, we lost trust with our local and national Jewish communities. There are
lots of issues related to this. It is a complex and challenging matter we have undertaken. I am not
here today to debate the pros and cons of the divestment decision, as that is not the role of the
moderator. But I can tell you that I have worked hard to communicate with both our Jewish friends
and our Palestinian support groups, to see how we might communicate in ways that will uphold the
dignity and strong anxieties which both bodies have—and I might add that I believe both groups are
legitimate in their fears. Dialogue is critical. I am aware of conversations in so many communities
where Presbyterian churches have come together to explore the issues and have found the
conversations to be very helpful. I have had very meaningful meetings with the Israel/Palestine
Mission Network and with Jewish rabbis.
In fact, in a few weeks, and with the blessing of Gradye Parsons, who is our primary communicator in such matters, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, who is in many ways the titular head of the Jewish faith community in the United States, and I are inviting a group of about 30 Presbyterian ministers and Jewish rabbis from across the United States to meet together in a private conversation to discuss ways that we might continue some form of reconciliation.
This matter will continue to raise its head at our General Assemblies and will likely continue to be
divisive.
So my
fifth question is, What should we as a board do to help bring some degree of reconciliation to
the peoples with whom we relate? Obviously, we cannot control the Israeli government or the
Palestinians, but what guidance might we provide our denomination so it can look at ways to move
forward in directions that would be more conciliatory?
6. Number six is related to gay-marriage issues. Yes, whereas our decisions have been liberating and
celebrated by some, they are painful and heartbreaking for others. But I am no longer seeing this as
the defining issue of our church. Even in many churches where they have been quite divided, I am
hearing members say they are tired of the fight, they are tired of being identified as a one-issue
church, and they want to move on—as members of the PC(USA).
I am aware of two very significant churches in Texas that were identified by many as two of five major churches in Texas that would be leaving the denomination. They were offered support and assistance to help them in this venture.
But in the past few weeks they have stated that they are no longer going to be divided over this
matter, and they have called dynamic pastors to lead them in ways that might make them be more
strongly aligned with the denomination. Whereas there are still some churches that are considering
leaving us, more and more I am hearing of those deciding to stay because what we offer as faithful
followers of Christ is far greater than some of the issues that have been dividing us.
So,
question number six: Now that it appears likely that the major storm of separation and upset
over gay-marriage issues may be diminishing, what do we do to bring back the harmony we need
and should expect as one body? I would say that we still need to interpret what we have done. We
need to undergird that in this “big tent” we call the PC(USA), there is room for us to disagree in love
and not be afraid that alternative positions will be crammed down our throats. People are not being
asked to betray their conscience. Grace has been a hallmark of the Presbyterian Church throughout
our history. And grace will continue to be a huge part of our DNA.
7. My seventh issue is related to communications. It was my honor and pleasure to retreat for several
days with the six communication directors of our six denominational agencies. They are talented
and competent people. They recognize that our denomination is seeking a coherent message. We
don’t have a website that is working for us like we need. We hear from six different agencies about
our work, but who is telling the story of the PC(USA)? Do we need a brand, something that could be
a handle that would help to identify us in a way that shares who we are? Another way that question
is being asked is:
“I don’t know how to tell someone in a few sentences who I am as a Presbyterian.
It is complicated. Can it be put into some simple statement that could then be elaborated on?” I
would propose that for the next few years we might need to put greater emphasis on
communicating than any other facet of our church.
Churches want to know better ways to share their successes and ask questions of one another. They want to be able to ask which other churches have faced the same issues they are now facing and how they resolved those matters. People also want to know what the denomination has to offer on various topics and issues. In many ways, people are looking to our denominational offices to be the conveyors of information and not necessarily the instigators of new ideas. In many ways, that has been identified by our staff here as their new role. But we need to find new ways to communicate in a society that is focused on communications like it has never been before.
So,
question number seven: What can we do to enhance communications between and among all
constituents in the PC(USA)?
8. What can we do about funding? When our Foundation is growing so well and our pension plan is
financially secure (and everyone thanks God for both of those successes), why are our programmatic
funds not also increasing? We have an excellent team of people raising money on many different
levels. This is not a criticism of their work. But we are far short of what we need. Many people
suggest to me that it is related to communication and the fact that people are not clear on what
they should, can, and actually do give their money to support. Are we competing with ourselves?
Should we embark on even greater efforts to raise the funds needed? Are there funds that should
be redirected? Are we trying to do too much? In our Presbyterian Mission Agency board, we have
asked our leadership to enact major changes in our budgets, which have resulted in huge cutbacks
in order to be more efficient, while seeking to minimize cuts to services that the church needs to
continue. But is the overall model of current funding for our whole denomination the best one?
So,
question number eight: What can we do to increase financial resources for our programs and
operations, which would more effectively under-gird our work?
9. And now for my last point.
There is a lot of conversation at various levels of our church about how we function as a PC(USA)
organization. The basic question I am asked in different ways over and over is, Is the PC(USA) set up
to function in the most effective way to meet the needs of our denomination in 2015? And most of
these people say no. These people are not the general pew sitters in our churches—those folk who
care mainly about what is happening in their local church and want to know how to impact their
local communities more effectively in the name of Jesus.
But for those who do care, at the General Assembly level there is a growing interest and concern
about the way we operate at the assembly. Many of you know that there is a movement to explore
ways to redesign our process for governing the church. We are seeing overtures from Foothills
Presbytery that are calling for us to look anew at how we do business. We have people expressing
concern that our wonderful democratic process of government can also be a liability when it comes
to making a decision. It is felt that we have to wait too long for some decisions and that our
emphasis on voting becomes our identification. It is said that “to vote” means to “divide the house”
and that Presbyterians spend too much time dividing themselves from one another rather than
looking at ways to build the church together.
We are currently exploring the role of synods. I don’t need to expand on issues being raised
concerning that level of governing body, but we do need to include it as part of a much greater
concern about our overall priorities.
And what about presbyteries? Recently, I heard these statistics from Sue Krummel: We have 171
total presbyteries. Thirty-four of them have no executive presbyter and most have eliminated the
position. Another 34 have interim leaders. Thirty have a person serving both the role of stated clerk
and executive as a dual role. Seven have someone sitting in the seat that used to be for the
executive—but the role is now quite different. That means 105 of our 171 presbyteries do not have
the traditional model of stated clerk and executive, the model we have used for so many years. And
the negative impact of this is multifold, not the least of which is that the traditional avenue for
communications across our denomination is no longer in place. It is interesting to note that stated
clerks are required, so they are everywhere.
We need to realize that the current structure for this was put into place 45 years ago, and demographics were different. People had much more faith in institutions then, and now there is suspicion and much concern about all institutions—religious or otherwise—in our nation.
We hear a great deal of conversation about “Louisville”—almost as if it is an entity unto itself. Things have been tough there. We continue to expect our staff to do everything they did when we had 5 million members and one-third more staff and money. It isn’t fair, but the system needs to be
changed. What can we do to help create a new system that will change the church in ways that are
needed?
My personal assessment is that we must spend time in setting our priorities as the Presbyterian
Mission Agency and as a denomination. Does the structure need to change? All evidence says yes.
But we can’t change effectively until we know our priorities.
For us, the Presbyterian Mission Agency, we are the operation that is most criticized. In some ways
that could be expected, for so much of the “work” of the church falls under our umbrella and we are
the most visible. If people don’t like something about the church, often it is because of some
direction our programs are going, and that is usually related to us.
I have tried to listen carefully, and I am hearing three primary streams of thought.
The first one is from what I would call “insiders”—people in the church who focus on matters of
church structure and operations. I do not find these dynamics to be focused upon by most people in
the pews, unless pastors or some other folks to whom I am referring as “insiders” encourage them
to do so. Of the ones I have been hearing, there seems to be confusion and dissatisfaction with our
board as well as with our staff.
Here are the three sets of opinions I am hearing most often concerning the Presbyterian Mission
Agency, and they are not in order of priority. All are perceived as problems.
1. That Louisville staff are not handling their administrative roles as carefully as they should,
resulting in unnecessary problems and concerns. There is the feeling on the part of some that
we need to hold people responsible who have made poor decisions.
2. The second wave of thought is that whereas there have been some decisions made which were
more harmful than helpful, that to lay the primary blame on the staff in Louisville is unfair.
There is concern that our structure was formed when we had 5 million members, and that today
our 1.8 million members want the same services and support which they received when our
budgets were many times greater and our staff much larger. That group of people is calling for
us to reexamine how we are organized beyond Presbyterian Mission Agency board operations.
How might some of our functions between the six agencies work together more closely to help
us achieve our priorities? Some social scientists say that in a day when all organizations are
viewed with suspicion, and when people are looking for new forms of accountability, our model
of working by consensus is no longer helpful—or even possible. Should there be a place where
“the buck stops” and also a unified message from our church—rather than six different units
sharing their own messages? They also ask,
“Are we being fair to our staff by expecting them to
work in impossible circumstances and criticizing them when they can’t do it all?”
3. There is also a sentiment that our board, the Presbyterian Mission Agency board, is not
functioning effectively. Marilyn, I have not heard this directed to you, nor Jo, so please don’t
take this personally. In fact, I have heard you praised. I would have pulled you aside and shared
it with you confidentially if that had not been the case. But what I have heard is that the other
five boards of our organization respect confidentiality, are collegian to one another and to the
staffs that work for them, but that there is dissent among the mission agency’s board
membership.
Some people in the church seem to know our confidential business when they shouldn't. They
say that we go out and talk about our problems rather than working with each other to fix them.
There is also a feeling that we have some on our board who are vying for power and position
and using board membership to place themselves in positions of being appointed to major
leadership roles or even in seeking paid positions.
In fact, one example that I heard in Nebraska two weeks ago was that the very issue we are
talking about today—namely, the report of the 1001 misuse of funds, is being debated by our
board in unhealthy ways. I don’t know where they got such information. Some say, quite
bluntly, that Linda should have managed this better. Others who believe that may have been
the case early on, say they believe that the board is the one who made the decision to have this
study done, without Linda’s input, and therefore the almost certain negative reaction to what
will likely be extraordinary expenses should be addressed to the board—and the church should
be told that we did it—not management.
So there is a lot of tongue wagging about our board and whether or not we need to reexamine
how we handle our role. The saddest part of this is the rumor I have heard from New York to
California to Texas—that some of us are vying for key positions in the church and are helping to
spread news that casts a poor shadow on our staff in public ways which should be dealt with in
confidence. I cannot speak to the truth of any of that, but I do know that is what I am being told
by pastors, and middle governing execs, and even seminary staff. And for us to do the work we
are called to do, we need to name and address these matters.
My friends, God has called us into the communion of fellowship known as the PC(USA). In a spirit that reflects who we are as responsible followers of Christ, let’s start looking at ways to lead our
denomination into our new reality. Let’s find ways to make God smile.
And remember this most of all: We have every reason to believe that God loves our church, because it is in God’s hands. And God also loves each one of us—so much that it’s as if God had nothing else to do.
.jpg)
"Memang benar, Allah akan melakukan apapun yang telah Ia tetapkan, bukan hanya sekalipun seluruh dunia tidur, tetapi juga sekalipun seluruh dunia menentangNya; tetapi merupakan kewajiban kita untuk meminta dari Dia apapun yang Ia janjikan, karena tujuan dan kegunaan dari janji-janji adalah untuk menggerakkan kita untuk berdoa."
