A Moment of Reflection

The following is a copy of an email (pasted below) that was sent out from the Joshua Generation Leadership Team on Friday, October 3rd, 2008.  The three documents referenced in the e-mail, are available for viewing in the following three posts.

________________________________________________________

October 3, 2008

To the United Church of Christ family, 
 
It has been brought to our attention that statements addressing the Joshua Generation Leadership Team's Call to Action Regarding Concerns about the UCC Governance Proposal, written by Rev. Tim Downs and Rev. Davida Crabtree, have been recently circulated in mass throughout the networks of the church. Rev. Downs emailed the Joshua Generation Leadership Team on September 27th, sharing with us his views about the points we raised in our Call to Action. The JGLT emailed him back on the 29th, acknowledging that we had received his email, and that we were grateful he had shared his opinions with us. With regard to Rev. Crabtree's statement, we still have not received anything from her directly, and in fact, we had not yet seen the document until it was officially sent to the Executive Council this past Tuesday, October 30th. At this time, we would like to thank both Tim and Davida for taking the time to read the points raised in the Call to Action, and for offering their opinions on our concerns.
 
In addition to acknowledging Tim and Davida's individual opinions, we would also like to take a moment to note our concerns with the action that is being taken, in response to the Call To Action. We find it interesting that rather than directly addressing the concerns raised by the Call to Action, and the many people who have signed it, the national church has instead decided to invest their time in pursuing a public relations campaign, in an attempt to calm the swell of voices that are emerging. For example, today many of you have received an email from Rev. John Thomas (the email titled "Boards to consider modified governance proposal" was the first mass email sent to this denomination about the restructure from Rev. Thomas). Also, those of you who are on the social networking website, Facebook, have received a message by Rev. Ben Guess, who wrote, "While this may be a yucky, boring conversation to some, it's still one that's important to the future of the denomination, and we want people to have access to good and accurate information. Thus, UCC Facebookers are now in the know!"  
 
Although we acknowledge with great care that it is wonderful that National is presenting the proposal to the masses, we are wondering, why did it take so long? Is this a last minute, rushed effort to solicit for support, rather than taking the time and care to address the concerns that have been raised in the Call to Action? The people are speaking and it is imperative that these voices not be ignored.  
 
Lastly, today the Joshua Generation Leadership Team received the attached document from Rev. Thomas Dipko, in response to Davida's and Tim's documents. We hope that you will take the time to read the attachment, so that all opinions can be received before we rush to make the decisions that are upon us. We would also like to thank Rev. Dipko for taking the time to share his thoughts with us.  
 
  We pray from the depths of our hearts, that God be with us, especially during this difficult time in our denomination.  
 
Lovingly,
The Joshua Generation Leadership Team

Comments from Tom Dipko

October 3, 2008

Dear Davida and Tim,

Your thoughtful letters, concerning the proposal to restructure the national setting of the United Church of Christ, are circulating widely. I have read them with great care as a former Conference Minister, retired executive of the United Church Board for Homeland Ministries, and as the representative of the four historic Recognized Instrumentalities on the previous General Synod Committee on Structure.

I appeal to you to continue this urgent discussion without caricaturing the past, without judgments that demean the service record of faithful servants of the church in earlier generations, some of whom are now in the cloud of witnesses, and with hearts open to the critique of a younger generation that deserves more than paternalistic or maternalistic admonition and scolding.

Respect for our diverse history requires integrity about the birth and continuity of mission movements that preceded the creation of national bodies by the General Synod and its predecessors. These mission movements were not creatures of General Synods or General Councils. They were, and remain in the current structure, not “federated” but Covenanted Ministries integral to our faithfulness. In some instances, they arose precisely because the ecclesiastical church chose not to address pressing issues of evangelism and justice, including racial justice through the abolition of slavery.

In the reforming work of the previous Committee on Structure, efforts were made to create a single centralized governing body more modest than the United Church Board that is now envisioned. That plan brought discomfort to many on the directorates of even the Established Instrumentalities. It was rejected firmly and clearly by the two Recognized Instrumentalities that eventually approved, as did the General Synod, the current structure. This is recent and documented history that deserves your understanding and respect. It is congruent with the historic covenantal ecclesiology of our church and our understanding of mission as God’s mission (Missio Dei). 

Arguments from “efficiency and effectiveness” do not exhaust the historic governance commitments of our tradition. Democracy can be cumbersome. Our federal government, even with its balance of powers in three distinct branches, one of which is bicameral, consumes enormous energy, resources and time. But few among us would be willing to risk a unitary national government lodged in one house and accountable to the governed only in election years.

Our youth have not detailed the fear they sense in a single United Church Board of so small a size, embracing all our historic mission movements and corporations. I urge you to hear their fear and the wisdom it conveys. Why should our church, which contributed directly to the shaping of our civil federal government, abandon any differentiation of powers in the national setting of its own life? Other denominations, even ones with dispersed powers in their national structures, provide for a judicial council of some sort to adjudicate internal disputes.  

Your language of “balkanization,” “fiefdoms” with “moats around them,” and other charged metaphors are not exactly felicitous, unbiased oratory. They offend. They also compromise a fuller discussion, on equal footing, with all who love the United Church of Christ and are open to its ongoing reformation. 

With affection, respect, and hope, 

The Rev. Thomas E. Dipko, Ph.D.

Comments/Response from Timothy Downs

September 27, 2008

I read the "Call to Action for the UCC Proposed Restructure" petition with interest. I believe that those who drafted it have been listened to, understood, and there is genuine disagreement on the part of many with their understanding of the facts, and their conclusions. This is different than not having voice. The voices have been heard clearly. Some disagree.

The conversation they have raised is not new to the UCC or its predecessor denominations. I believe that at its heart is the dynamic between autonomy and covenant. How do we preserve enough freedom to permit all voices to be heard, and maintain enough order so that neither majorities or minorities can exercise tyranny, and governance can proceed toward a greater good? Let me respond to the five points in the petition:

1. "The process has been unjust"

• The process has been in fact very just, and has sought to include voices from national settings, conferences, local churches, and Historically Underrepresented Groups (HUGS) The Executive Council designated funds for a gathering of representatives of the HUGS to discuss this. Concerns have been heard.

• There have been numerous people consulted in this process, not "one consultant". I have myself sat in meetings with attorneys, and advocates of differing perspectives. This has been well considered by thoughtful professional people

• I have also sat in meetings where respected elders and leaders have spoken. That is a public claim because it is a true claim.

2. "We have been a church that has historically chosen not to place power in any one place"

• That continues to be true in the recommendations of the Governance Follow-up Team. As Davida Crabtree noted in her responses, we have natural checks and balances throughout our structure… in the General Synod, in the representation from conferences on GS, and in other national settings. Further in the nominating processes through which people are elected to General Synod and the Boards of the Covenanted Ministries, there are assurances of representation of diverse constituencies. The HUGS are not the only source of diverse representation

3. "We have always been a church (which) has fought and continues to fight against elitism".

• The recommendations that are before us from the GFT assure that there will be a wide range of diversity of interests in the structure of the UCC moving forward. This openness and democratic spirit is evident not just in numbers, but in the nominating processes.

• As noted above elitism, or tyranny, in a system can be exercised from many quarters. One interesting form of tyranny is when the system is so chaotic that a democratic minority with a vigorous voice can keep the will of a majority from being exercised. We see this in our congregations often. A handful of people tie them up in knots.

• One of the ways in which we work to oppose elitism is to assure that our local congregations are well represented on General Synod. This happens through the representation from the Conferences who represent the local churches "the basic unit of the life and organization of the United Church of Christ".

4. "This has not been a mission-drive restructure; it has been a financially-driven restructure"

• Jon Stewart would ask us to show a little "truthiness" here. From the inception this conversation has been driven by trying to develop a structure as Davida noted in her statement that draws us into more effective mission. What we have currently is a balkanized structure which been a stumbling block to effective mission and witness, with different entities pulling in different directions. This structure was based on a 19th century structure for mission rather than effective and faithful witness in the 21st. for those of us who speak about the "flattening of the world", this structure will allow us that capacity to move resolutely together in mission, while attentive to the many voices that shape it.

5. "it is as if we are erasing the rich history of our church and are starting from scratch."

• The rich history of our church is one well captured in the phrase from our Reformed tradition; "always reformed always reforming", that is rooted in our past and pressing toward our future. We are always reaching to live out the line from the old hymn "new occasions teach new duties, time make ancient good uncouth". I believe that we honor our history by naming covenant as being at the heart of being the "body of Christ", and by seeking new ways to live out of that covenant.

Timothy Downs

Conference Minister

Southeast Conference, United Church of Christ

www.secucc.org

Comments from Davida Foy Crabtree

Date written unknown

Comments from Davida Foy Crabtree

I saw this petition online earlier today, and was astonished at its assertions. I do not think it is accurate overall, and think the portrayal of the rationale for the new concept is way off base. It almost seems as though those who prepared it have not read the proposal nor listened to the presentations.

The design is prompted largely by missional issues: the challenge with separately incorporated boards (used to be 2 out of 9 or so; now is every board!) is that there is virtually no way to achieve strategic priorities in concert. Each one is so focused on its own narrow and historic mandates (many of which are still apt for our time; some may not be) that cooperation is rarely achieved in a time frame that enables rapid response to changing and challenging situations, particularly justice and missional issues that cut across mandates.

The concept of a unified board with the ability to harness the varied mandates and mission commitments of the several incorporated entities is not uncommon in our life. Here in Connecticut, our Board serves simultaneously as three boards: the Conference, the Missionary Society of CT, and the Trustees of the Fund for Ministers. Each is honored in its mission, and all are engaged to serve the good of the whole in a united and strategic way. This structure has been in place for decades and has served us well, allowing us to create innovative staffing and program that interplays the missions of each entity.

There is no question that financial issues now loom large for all of us. That was not the original premise for this design, but in this moment in time, we'd be crazy as a denomination not to be looking for every possible way to coordinate, eliminate duplication, and ensure that we are using all our resources in the most faithful and effective way possible. To be able to reduce administrative costs for the sake of the wider mission seems to me a high benefit!

I know that there are individuals and communities who worry that they will not be represented on such a board. I cannot imagine how anyone can say the concerns raised by the HUGS have been ignored. Serious dialogue has occurred at every point along the way; each of the groups has been represented on the various governance teams. That the teams have listened deeply and made changes to the plan several times has not been enough for a few people and they have cried foul because the teams didn't automatically adopt their every desire. It is certainly true that not everyone can be present and this will result in a reduction of numbers of persons participating. However, the new design specifies that this new United Church Board will include a much higher percentage of persons from the historically underrepresented groups than formerly. And they will be engaged in strategic decision-making of significant consequence for the whole church.

The petition says that staff will vote at the board meetings. It is my understanding that only the executives of the four covenanted ministries, officers of the Church, will have votes. Their leadership is expected and for them to have voice and vote only makes sense. That hardly makes the design "staff-driven". If anything will make the design staff-driven, it is the size of the board, but that is just as true now. I don't buy this business about elitism either: do we want a board that can make faithful and effective decisions, or do we want a lumbering lummox of a system that cannot? Board meetings will be as effective as the leaders are; and as long or short as that effectiveness.

The issue of there being no checks and balances is a red herring. What is General Synod, to which each covenanted ministry and the new Board will continue to be accountable? In the restructuring of 2000, however, the members of the covenanted ministries boards were made voting delegates to General Synod. Now there is a check and balance issue -- having those who are accountable to the Synod making its decisions!

As one who has lived the recent history of the UCC for the past 37 years, I take issue with the assertion that this proposed new plan forgets our history. On the contrary, I believe it is the maturing spiritually and organizationally of a denomination that will see amazingly faithful witness into the future -- IF we will stop bumbling along as though our context and the world's need has not changed in that time. As the Body of Christ, we are forever changing in light of the world's need. The world has a great need of our witness, but it is impeded by our failure to create a unified and winsome way of being the Church. Evolution is the nature of the Church, and has been since its very beginning. Within the UCC, we have constantly worked and reworked our

systems and structures, going all the way back to the beginning. We keep tweaking; that's our nature as a non-hierarchical church. There are people who really want us to lock in these fiefdoms and put moats around them, or at least it seems that way. As one who spoke strongly against the separate incorporation of each entity a decade ago, I welcome this particular tweaking as a way to overcome the excesses of entrenched power that resulted.

The work of the various govenance task forces has not had all the outcomes I've wanted. But I am convinced that this is a step we must take because of our UCC vision of a transformed world. Without this step, we risk losing our shared prophetic voice; indeed, we lose the ability to speak of ourselves as a Church and succumb to the siren song of a loose coalition of separately incorporated, redundant and wasteful mission agencies -- which is what we will be without this new governance model. That model is not rooted in the Body of Christ but in the ways of the world that value competition over cooperation.

So that's my take on it. Not one some people want to hear, but a take that is just as committed to justice work, to empowerment and to engagement in the mission as theirs. I'd appreciate your sharing this with those you sent the petition to.

Rev. Dr. Davida Foy

Crabtree Conference Minister Connecticut Conference