The Rev. Joshua Bode is a guest blogger for this miniseries on the Reformed Church in America’s (RCA) present work to envision a future for itself in the midst of tension. Josh is an RCA minister who has served a church in upstate New York, been the stated clerk of his classis, and is a former moderator of the RCA General Synod’s Commission on Church Order. He currently serves as a senior pastor in the Protestant Church in Oman, a church the RCA founded as part of its Global Mission.
Part I: Introduction and Re-Framing Current Reality
I am currently serving an international Protestant church in the country of Oman. In this church are Protestants of every conceivable kind from some 60 countries and of at least a hundred denominations (and no denomination). This experience has allowed me some reflective distance from church in the States as well as a rapid immersive learning in wider perspectives on Protestant Christianity. From those vantage points I wanted to put down in writing, and share, some thoughts on one aspect of the RCA’s present life. Whether or not readers agree with what follows, my hope, and intention, is that it may be a constructive contribution.
The Reformed Church in America’s 2018 General Synod acted:
To appoint a 2020 Vision Group to work, in consultation with whatever staff, commissions, councils, agencies, and/or outside consultants the vision group deems necessary, to identify possible scenarios, strategies, and consequences for these future options for the Reformed Church in America:
• Staying together
• Radical reconstituting and reorganization
• Grace-filled separation
This should include, but not be limited to, consideration of one denomination with three or more affinity assemblies within it. Care should be given to the administrative, legal, financial, real estate, and emotional burdens of each option. Any potential new bodies should be identified by what they are “for” rather than what they are “against” and should be consistent with Reformed theology. This should be done in ways that affirm all parties. This must be bathed in denomination-wide, hope-filled prayer that God will show a way.
As the vision group engages these options, its work should include, but not be limited to:
- A commitment, as much as is possible, to the unity of the church in its being, spirit, covenantal relationship, mission, and kingdom witness in the world
- An understanding regarding the foundational role that biblical hermeneutics and Reformed exegesis play in the life and witness of the church, and a commitment to articulate how those methods are operative in the church’s way forward
- An analysis of the role that the RCA’s theology, Standards of Unity, and liturgies play in the present and future life of the church
The vision group will consist of 10-12 members named by the interim general secretary and general secretary, in consultation with GSC, and its makeup should reflect the wide diversity of the Reformed Church in America. The general secretary will serve as an ex-officio member without vote. Expenses for the vision group and any attendant costs, such as consulting or legal feels, will be taken out of GSC reserves, not to exceed $250,000.
The vision group shall present semi-annual reports to the GSC, an interim report to the General Synod of 2019, and a final report with recommendations to the General Synod of 2020. (ADOPTED)
The synod has directed its “20/20 Vision Group” to consider three possible future options for the RCA:
Option 1: Staying together
Option 2: Radical reconstituting and reorganization
Option 3: Grace-filled separation
In this series of blog posts I will do four things in three Parts:
Part I: First, I will take a step back and offer a narrative that I believe accurately describes what is currently the reality in the RCA. The narrative I will offer is a re-framing of the narrative which says that the RCA is experiencing “conflict.” I will also say why I think the re-framing matters.
Part II: Second, I will lay out what I believe are two additional options not included in OV 18-23, one of which is completely absent from the list of three, and one of which is, in my view, a better version of option 1.
Part III: Third, I will explain why I believe that options 2 and 3 are schism (and what I mean by that), and why I believe that option 2 is the worst possible option. Fourth, I will end with a brief idea about how possibly to mitigate damage in the case that option 2 is taken.
Re-Framing The RCA’s Current Reality
Bowen Family Systems Theory tells us that there are four basic responses to anxiety. One response is conflict, ranging in severity from persuasion to more familiar expressions of outright conflict. A second response is distancing, ranging in severity from avoidance of people and subjects that stir up anxiety to cut-off. A third is over- and under-functioning, where people take responsibility for things they are not responsible for or do not take responsibility for things they are responsible for, respectively. A fourth response is projection, ranging from ventilating to a third person (called ‘triangling’) to blame projection. While these four responses to anxiety behaviorally look very different from each other, what they have in common is that they are responses to anxiety.
It is customary in the RCA to say that the RCA is “in conflict” or that there “is conflict” in the RCA. I do not see that. Of the four responses to anxiety, the one that I have personally not much seen at the level of assemblies, governance, or public visibility is conflict. Very occasionally an unmediated form of conflict does show up in assemblies like the General Synod, but when it does it is almost always in a raw, unproductive way– at best in the form of attempts at persuasion, and very rare. One thing I believe is that the RCA needs to experience more conflict, and in a facilitated, mediated, potentially productive way.
The main response to anxiety that I observe in the RCA is not conflict, but distancing. There is much cut-off. I also observe lots of the fourth response, in the forms of triangulation and blame projection. I take speechifying in governance assemblies, preaching, and voting to be forms of distancing. The re-framing of the RCA’s current reality that I am suggesting is that the RCA is primarily suffering from behavioral distancing, avoidance and cut-off, and secondarily from echo-chamber-triangulation and blame-projection. I am comfortable saying that what the RCA needs is not less conflict, but more and better conflict, in a potentially-productive way.
I hear folks in the RCA say they are “tired of fighting.” I perceive in that phrase a self-description (“I am tired”) and a system-description (“of fighting”). I believe the self-description but do not believe the system-description. I do believe that folks are exhausted by the way they have been showing up. I do not believe that most people in the RCA have been fighting. To repeat: in my view most people in the RCA have in fact been avoiding the people they perceive to be the source of their anxiety. Instead, most people have been choosing to ventilate to like-minded people in their own echo chambers and to cast blame on people from whom they are cut off. This dual behavior indeed is exhausting. It produces only more anxiety, which takes increasingly enormous energy to carry.
In Part II I will offer reflection on Option 1 and describe another option not listed among the three options outlined by the General Synod in OV 18-23