DETROIT, Mich. — The Mid-Councils Issues Committee gave its approval to the Mid-Council Commission 2 report recommending the reduction of synods but not without making changes.
The committee modified the MCC-2 proposal during a lengthy session Tuesday and will present it to the 221st General Assembly for approval later this week.
Following a time of discussion in small-group settings and suggestions shared by each group, debate on the report hinged mostly on the number of synods to be reached through the process. The MCC-2 proposal called for a reduction in the number of synods from 16 to eight. But the committee bantered about that number throughout the afternoon after the MCC-2 and synod leaders made presentations regarding the report in the morning.
The committee went through seven different motions to amend the opening recommendation for Business Item 05-04.
After considerable wrangling, the committee finally settled on asking the GA to approve the reduction to “no more than 10-12 synods.” There also was modification to the wording of the recommendation, which now reads: “Direct that a new configuration of synod boundaries be established based on an emerging sense of purpose, partnership, context and call through a collaborative process between the synods and presbyteries resulting in no more than 10-12 synods. The synods shall report to the 222nd General Assembly (2016).”
Recommendation 3 (b.) from the MCC-2 also was modified to correspond with the first. It now reads: “To recommend to the 223rd General Assembly (2018) the boundary changes necessary to achieve a total of no more than 10-12 synods, if there remain synods and presbyteries that have been unable or unwilling to engage in a collaborative process of reconfiguration.
One final change was made to the fifth recommendation referring to the MCC-2’s ability to organize new synods, divide or unite existing synods or portions of them between GA sessions by adding the wording “upon request of the synods.”
It took the committee more than three hours to work its way through the first recommendation, 45 minutes to navigate the last five.
“This is a big issue. We knew it would be a big issue,” said Courtenay Willcox, moderator of the Mid-Councils Issues Committee.
There will be a financial implication of $44,540 over three years to implement the MCC-2 proposal, compared to a cost of $100,000 over two years to hire a business consultant to handle such a transition, as one commissioner suggested.
Views from the committee
Commissioners shared plenty of views on the report followings presentation by MCC-2 members Ariel Mink, Byron Wade, Jim Wilson and Eileen Lindner.
“This says if you don’t do what we want you to do, we’re going to do it for you. I don’t like that,” said Forbes Baker of New Covenant Presbytery. “Why don’t we see if they (synods and executives) can’t get there without this being forced on them.”
Another commissioner noted that the members of the MCC-2 were no different those sitting in the Cobo Center meeting room, saying, “These people were sitting in the position we are in … they’re just like us. They have put time an effort into this, listening to so many voices. It’s not like they haven’t done anything.”
Bryce McAteer, a Young Adult Advisory Delegate (YAAD)from Los Ranchos Presbytery, offered, “All they are asking is to initiate a process and giving (synods and presbyteries) the freedom to figure out how to do it in a collaborative manner. The whole church is in a time of transition. Depending on how issues turn out in other committees, were looking at reorganization of the whole church.”
The work of MCC-2
Members of the MCC-2 panel had four face-to-face meetings and numerous phone conversations in spending two years studying the issue and coming to a determination of how to change the synod structure as charged by the 220th GA.
“We are asking the synods and presbyteries to engage in the hard work of change but asking them to be their own agents of change,” said Mink, co-moderator of MCC-2. “We’re asking them to pick up their anchors and be their own captains.”
She noted concerns expressed by synod leaders revolving around costs of such a reduction, increased stress on staff, the complexity of sharing assets and potential loss of relationships.
“Are there challenges? Yes there are. But our committee does not believe they are insurmountable boundaries,” she said.
Wilson said options considered before arriving at recommendation were elimination of synods, mandatory minimal function, the status quo, reconfiguration of boundaries or reduction. He noted that the current structure was developed more than 40 years ago and does not seem to be working now.
“We were convinced the status quo is not working,” Wilson said. “Our synods aren’t working for us. The synods put together in 1972 aren’t serving the church of 2014.”
He explained that elimination of synods or going with mandatory minimal function for the governing bodies did not seem to be viable options.
“To simply eliminate synods as ecclesial bodies does not solve the problem,” Wilson said. “We were concerned with a minimal function structure because there are some (synods) doing good work, and we believe that their good work will survive the collaborative process we are suggesting.
“We feel that what we are offering is a prudent and moderate approach for our church today.”
Lindner likened the process to trimming trees or shrubs.
“We believe pruning is a holy vocation,” she said. “Pruning is the proactive option. Pruning allows us to bear more fruit. We have tried to do this in the most compassionate way possible.”
Synod view of the proposal
In contrast to the MCC-2 panel, Conrad Rocha from Synod of the Southwest and Dan Saperstein from Synod of the Sun, spoke on behalf of synod leaders in opposition to the report.
Rocha said synod leaders agreed with MCC-2 that sticking with the status quo is poor stewardship, but there is a difference in how that best is accomplished. He spoke of relationships that would be impacted if new boundaries were established.
Saperstein said reduction to eight synods would create major problems of scale, noting an unequal proportion in many of them if mergers occur.
“Increasing the geography and membership size makes them more removed and eliminates relational partnerships,” he said, echoing Rocha’s comment.
He added that combining two or more mid-council bodies inhibits mission by creating competition for resources/assets and mission design.
“Theological, historical and cultural differences will not easily be resolved with boundary changes,” Saperstein said. “And it will create competitiveness.”
Rocha, who suggested a churchwide conversation to address the issue surrounding mid-councils, added, “Changing one piece will not necessarily resolve larger issues.”