Adventures in Moderation, PC(USA) style

The rumor mill has been churning, cryptic inquiries sent, conversations held about this "thing" people have been hearing about Bruce.  With the publishing of this blog post this is the first public acknowledgment of what folks have been hearing and is intended to be a way to be transparent and upfront about Bruce's future endeavors.

'Tis true, Bruce has lost his mind and is now, not only referring to himself in the 3rd person, but is seriously considering standing for the office Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to be held, June 2008 in San Jose CA. 

Wow is right.

And now back to the first person . . .

First off . . . apologies to those readers who are not at all interested or involved in the inner-workings of the Presbyterian Church (USA).  Much of what follows is a bunch of Presbyspeak.  Should I move forward in the process there will be much more background info given regarding the nature of this office, my intentions, my qualifications, it's repercussions, etc.

The first step has been taken towards this possibility as I will be one of the four clergy names submitted by the Presbytery Nominating Committee to San Francisco Presbytery on November 17th to be a commissioner to General Assembly.  Nominations from the floor will be taken and then at our next meeting on January 15th, 2008 four clergy commissioners will be elected.  If I am elected as one of the four, I will then seek the endorsement of San Francisco Presbytery to stand for Moderator.

Again wow.

Should all things fall into place, and again none of these steps is a foregone conclusion, there will be much to be worked out and plenty of ways for folks to get involved in the process.  But again, first things first, the San Francisco Presbytery process must play itself out.

Until then, here are some initial thoughts to help you get to know a little about what you could expect should I be elected as Moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the PC(USA).  It is also my hope that, if you are a voting member of San Francisco Presbytery, this may inform your decision regarding my candidacy.

Main Area of Focus

I believe the formative question for our denomination right now is, "What kind of church are we going to be in the future?" At this point in our life we need to be intentional about confronting some of the questions that will define our future as a denomination.  I also believe that the questions before us are greater than the specific issues that are currently drawing most of our denominational energy.  We must take seriously global, cultural and worldview shifts that are forcing us to rethink the very nature of community, church and denominations if we are not simply to survive, but thrive in the future.

I am not ready to give up on our beloved Presbyterian Church (USA).  Over the years, this denomination has raised and formed many of us; it has a rich and grounded heritage and it has been a faithful and healing manifestation of the body of Christ in the world. So many have poured their lives into the mission of the PC(USA) that it deserves our intentionality and commitment to discerning its future impact on the world.

My passion for the role of denominational life is built on the bold belief that if we are to thrive as a denomination, tradition must be embraced and valued while at the same time radical transformation encouraged and unleashed. If we live into that idea and posture of ministry, I believe we can enter into conversations that are built on our common experiences and the future of our life together can be discerned with faithful abandon.

Specifically I would want to focus on the creating space for conversations regarding the following areas:

the importance of urban, small and emerging congregations;

Questions for thought . . .
What do we see as our role and mission in society today?  What is our role in the midst of the turmoil of the world?    How do we live out evangelism in light of shifts in cultural understanding of the world and faith?  Do we see the future of the church with eyes of defeat and cynicism or a posture of hope and possibility?  What will pastoral leadership look like in the face of changing congregational models?

the challenge of submitting to healthy disagreement

Questions for thought . . .
How will we live out the centrality of Christ in the midst of great disagreement and division?  Can we model to the world healthy disagreement, focused on a common truth for each of us?  Can we live with multiple understandings of the purpose and manifestations of the church? Who is Christ for each of us and the whole?  Is there only one understanding of the nature of Christ?

the realities and possibilities created by technology, globalization and a shift in worldview

Questions for thought . . .
How will we be a presence of peace in a world that is in so much chaos? What opportunities for strengthening community, encouraging transformation and doing relevant ministry does technology and social media provide for us?  How can we shift from a culture of being a church based on methodology and "DOing" to a church based on relationships and "BEing" church.

Obviously there is much to be fleshed out, shared and explored should I be endorsed by SF Presbytery, but I in no way want to make any assumptions about the future and the election and endorsement by San Francisco Presbytery.  My hope is that over the next few months, in addition to enjoying the Advent season, I will be focused on the movement of San Francisco Presbytery.

So . . . if you are part of the SF Presbytery process please let me know if you have any questions, want to know of ways you could help build support and/or just want to have coffee and talk.  While this is in many ways an overwhelming prospect, the nature of my ministry, local or denominational, will always be built on healthy and appreciative relationships.

In the mean time, please feel free to wander around my blog, connect with me on Facebook and/or start up some conversations on your own about any or all of the areas that are mentioned above.  The adventure has begun and I look forward to the next few months of conversation with you all.

Peace,
Bruce

For your clicking pleasure:

• Presbyterian Church (USA)
• 218th General Assembly
• Moderator Election Guidelines
• Moderators on Wikipedia

And some of my favorites posts to get to know me:

• Letters to My Daughters
• Why Bruce Will Stay Presbyterian
• Blogging as Spiritual Discipline and Pastoral Practice
• Top 1 Reason PC(USA) Churches are Dying a Slow, Painful, Sad, Drawn-out Death and Other Happy Thoughts;
• Myths of Postmodernity and the Emergent Church (Presbyterian Outlook)
  

Comments

[Aric Clark]

I would totally vote for you if I was a commissioner. Study that Book of Order!

[breyeschow]

Vote early, vote often . . . oh wrong state, wrong election. Thanks. If all goes well in SF Presbytery we'll be calling in those virtual votes to help get the word out.

[sarah]

It's about time! (for you AND the Church!) Look forward to hearing more about the adventure.

[breyeschow]

Sarah - Thanks I hope so.

[Jim Berkley]

Bruce,

I always enjoy reading your posts, whether written in the third or the first person. You give something to think about.

However, I am trying to figure out what you mean in a couple of cases that seemed analogous to saying, if you were running for President of the United States, "I am totally for the Democratic and Republican platforms...".

Case #1. You say that "tradition must be embraced and valued, while at the same time radical transformation encouraged and unleashed." What does it mean to embrace and value tradition if what one really wants to do is unleash radical transformation that would wipe out the heritage of tradition? Does that mean to tip one's hat toward ancient but now outmoded customs--kind of a kicky but momentary nostalgia for funny old things (perhaps like boys wearing knickers or playing by rolling hoops down the street?)--while discarding the value of the past in a headlong rush to do something new and supposedly more exciting and relevant? A "conservative" is one who wants to conserve a valuable heritage and sees its worth. A "progressive" is one who seeks "progress" in what is current, new, different, and supposedly superior. It seems to me that you can't claim to be both, and it may be a little disingenuous to imply being both. Or have I missed something?

Case #2: You write about being "focused on a common truth for each of us," Huh? How can it be a COMMON truth if it can be unique for EACH of us? Which do you mean? Is there a common truth, or do we each pursue a "truth" that might be different for each of us? We can't have it both ways.

Politicians love to try to be everything for everyone, hoping to garner votes from all camps. It both cases above, it seems that you're stretching to include words and ideas that might appeal at first glance to each of two very different camps. But the overall effect is to say something unclear and self-contradictory. Maybe you could explain what you meant in each case?

Thanks.

Jim Berkley
Bellevue, WA

[breyeschow]

Jim,

AWESOME! Was wondering when/if we would connect on this. I think you raise some great point and I think my next steps will be to post on each of you comments separately as my initial post is jam-packed with possible points of departure. I need folks to ask e questions that will help push some of this stuff for not just myself, but for a growing number of people who are trying to figure out what is next and HOW they will or not be engaged in the process.

I will get to them all. I promise. I'll take on Case #1 in a few days and #2 sometime after that.

[Shawn Coons]

Jim,

I'm not running for moderator but I'll take a stab at Case #1 and say that the Reformation might be an example of valuing tradition and unleashing radical transformation.

I think sometimes we institutionalize tradition so much that we end up creating a substitute tradition that no longer honors the original tradition it was based on. When that happens we sometimes need radical transformation in order to reclaim what we have lost.

[Drew Ludwig]

This is good news! Run, Bruce, run!

[breyeschow]

Drew, thanks! should I get beyond SF Presbytery we will be putting the word out to really start generating some buzz.

[ec]

wow. that's cool that you're considering a run for moderator.

i once ran for president of my middle school -- and got squashed.

[breyeschow]

Eugene - If it be God's will, lets hope that "squashed" is not my result as well ;-)

[kristen]

i ran for mascot in eighth grade. we were the wildcats.

i didn't win.

[breyeschow]

Kristen - Ooo I wonder how that would come off as a campaign gimmick. I could wear a John Calvin mask. Winner!

[irene]

Bruce, Mienda told me this news last night! Soooo awesome!!

[Jason Robbins]

Man, this is a bold step, but a bold step in the right direction for our denomination. I am excited about this promising possibility. Let me know if there is anything I can do here on the right coast.

[breyeschow]

Irene - Thanks, quite the daunting possibility.
Jason - Bold or foolish? Hmmmmm . . . If I get through SF Presbytery, I will certainly be in touch!

[Sean Chow]

Rock the vote... rock the vote baby.
Go Bruce speak for all of us younger visionary types that get shunned to the side. Do we get cool buttons to wear and everything?

Quick question though. Do you have to be a commissioner to be a candidate for moderator? Just a lame polity question from a student.

[Carol Howard Merritt]

This is fantastic news! Please let me know if I can do anything to help out in your endeavor.

[breyeschow]

Sean and Carol - Thanks. Should I get through SF Presbytery, I will certainly be getting in touch with folks who would be supportive to help create some buzz.