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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment