landonville

(This post concerns thoughts surrounding the NEXT Church conference. For a recap of said conference and the debate following it, follow the link I reference below.

In case you begin wondering, I was encouraged to post this to my blog by Rocky Supinger, who also helped me correct factual errors and who was kind enough to make sure my tone and tenor was appropriate.  Also, in the spirit of full disclosure, some of this text is an adaptation from my book Open Source Church.)

For the past week, I have had a burr in my saddle, a thorn in my side, a pea under my mattress.  Ever since I left the NEXT Church conference in Indianapolis (nay, halfway through my time there) I have been irritated.  But I have struggled and struggled to understand why.

Until yesterday.

Yesterday morning, one of my best friends in the world, Rocky Supinger, posted a reflection to his blog on his lack of concern regarding the value of like-mindedness that I foundationally disagree with.  I will not say that he is completely off base (No one is good enough to be 100% wrong). I actually like and agree with some of the distinctions he draws between the Fellowship and the NEXT Church organizers. But the basic argument he makes is one that I can’t buy into.  In fact, I think it is dangerous, especially for the life of the church in this moment.

Notice that I did not say “catastrophic,” or “malicious.”  I merely said dangerous, and its danger is (at first) a subtle and unassuming one, like alcohol.  As a friend of both Rocky and I said on his 21st birthday about Long Island Ice Tea: “It just tastes so good that you slug it down, and you don’t realize what you’ve done until you try to stand up.”  Friends, just like a young man on his first night of legal imbibing, all parts of our church are drunk on the value of like-mindedness, and I’m afraid we’re not going to know what we’ve done until we try to stand up.

Near the end of his post, Rocky writes:

“… I don’t think like-mindedness is a problem. Shared convictions and common ways of viewing problems are the fuel of effective movements for change. Both The Fellowship and NEXT are appealing to people who think like the organizers and who like and trust one another. There’s nothing wrong with that.”

All effective organizations know what they are about.  Much of my recent work has been concerned with the study and analysis of the open source software movement and the Wikipedia community, in particular. I have found that the number one reason why Wikipedia is so successful is because it knows what it is about.  Wikipedia has five foundational principles (called “The Five Pillars”), the first of which is “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.” The community also communicates their goal through their stated mission of ensuring that “everyone has access to the sum of all human knowledge.”

Wikipedia is very clear what it is up to. It is not a newspaper or an almanac. It is not a place for posting opinions or cutting edge research.  Its mission is set, its purpose is clear. Mission creep is not a problem for the Wikipedia community. The First Pillar keeps them on track.

If this is what Rocky means by “shared convictions,” then I am with him.  I have often contended that the struggles of Mainline Protestant Christianity are the result of not knowing what the mission and purpose of the church is.  As Tom Are (Pastor of Village Church and early organizer of what has become NEXT) said to me one day, “Every governing body of our church thinks it’s a [social] mission agency.”  Exactly.  Frankly, the church doesn’t know what the hell it’s doing.

But Rocky’s post also names “common ways of viewing problems” as “the fuel of effective movements for change” and concedes no issue with a group made up of “people who think like the organizers."  This is where I want to run, not walk, away.

Remember those ideas, because we’re about to go on a scenic trip round the mountain before we get back to them.  To truly understand why I believe like-mindedness is dangerous, we need to back up one step and consider the very real problem of diversity.

Consider the facts:

The Ministers of Word and Sacrament which formed the basis of Fellowship PC(USA) had been conversing for awhile, eventually publishing a letter naming the church as “deathly ill” and offering what the group considered some viable, yet loose plans, for how to heal it. The almost immediate critique to be leveled against the letter was regarding the demographic makeup of the writers and signers. When it was initially released, the letter bore 45 names: 43 of which were White, 44 of which were Male, all of which were Ministers of Word and Sacrament, and (if I’m not mistaken) all of which represented a congregation significantly larger (in some cases dramatically so) than the average congregation in our denomination.  These larger congregations are commonly referred to as “Tall Steeple Churches.”

Concurrently, another group of Ministers of Word and Sacrament were also meeting, as well asking questions about the future and influence of the church. To quote from the rapidly developing creation story of what has become NEXT, everything began when Tom Are asked a simple question of a colleague: “Why aren’t Presbyterians known any more for building hospitals?” I believe the question reflects an assessment of the state of the church, similar to that of Fellowship PC(USA): We have lost our influence, and we can get it back.  And yet, with a few exceptions (namely that almost half the planning team is women, which is notable), the demographic makeup of the organizers of NEXT is also remarkably homogeneous: almost all White, Ministers of Word and Sacrament from “Tall Steeple Churches.”

In this regard, Charles Wiley’s tweet to Rocky seemed accurate to me.  Apart from the irenic tone, I see the two gatherings as the flip side of the same coin. To say that this does not sit well with those more receptive to the progressive nature of the NEXT organizers is an understatement. Many of my friends and colleagues – even some of the organizers who felt comfortable or compelled to respond - are as equally dismissive of this reality as The Fellowship was.  I must confess that I, myself, want to dismiss it and look for a different explanation.

This is a hard thing to name.  I have been very hesitant to broach the subject because I know and respect many of the folks involved, and because I am biased towards the progressive side of the aforementioned coin.  Tom Are is a gift in the presbytery in which I serve, and my friends who serve with him at Village find him a capable leader and friend.  I consider John Wilkinson to be an incredibly faithful pastor and Christian, and believe the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly (on which I serve as Vice-Moderator) to be in excellent hands with him as Moderator.  I have recently had the pleasure of getting to know Karen Sapio (who, incidentally, is Rocky’s Head of Staff) when she welcomed me into her home for dinner while the congregation she serves recently hosted me as I visited Southern California on a Vice-Moderatorial trip.  I have only recently met Shannon Kerchner online, but am duly impressed with her passion, conviction, and ability to communicate a Gospel message. And a close friend of mine worked under Lewis Galloway at Second Presbyterian (where the NEXT conference was magnificently hosted) for two years and speaks highly of his giftedness as a pastor.

But this hesitancy to publicly disagree with “like-minded” colleagues is not just a “progressive” problem. Things can be said in equal measure about those who signed the letter written by Fellowship PC(USA).  One person I have a lot of respect for said to me, “There are people on [the ‘deathly ill’ letter’s signatory] list for whom I would give my life.”

And so I do not wish to tarry here for too long, because I do not want either group to feel as if my goal is to attack them personally or imply malicious intent.  The makeup of these groups is not the point I wish to make. To a large degree, there is almost complete truth to the response that these conversations began amongst longtime groups of friends and “birds of a feather flock together.”  I do not wish to criticize either group for naturally being what they are, because my point cannot be reduced to “Fellowship PC(USA) vs. NEXT Death Match” (to borrow Rocky’s tongue-in-cheek post title).  What I do wish to do is use the observation about the demographic makeup of both groups as the foundation upon which to speak of “like-mindedness.”

Regardless of a group’s defining characteristics, when group members are similar, they tend to become cohesive – or “like-minded” - fairly quickly. The more similarities, the faster the cohesion is achieved.  This cohesiveness is deceptive. We interpret it as a good thing because it seemingly allows us to get our work done more effectively and efficiently. But the actual effect of this cohesion is that it promotes reliance upon the group to such a degree that members become insulated from outside opinions.

This is, to a large degree, not our own fault. The idea of cohesion/like-mindedness is woven into the very DNA of the Christian faith. In a plain reading of the scriptural text, some measure of consensus and conformity seem to be promoted throughout the Bible, especially in the letters of the New Testament. We are encouraged to present a unified front to the rest of the world. People should not see us arguing and fighting. They should not see us at odds with one another. And so, because we consistently hear messages advocating cohesion and like-mindedness, we assume that when we see those things present, we are seeing evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit bringing us together. But what we often think of as a “movement of the Holy Spirit” is, in fact, not.

Theologically speaking, in creed and confession after creed and confession, the Holy Spirit is always spoken of in relation to the whole church (not just parts of it). The Holy Spirit is the gift of God’s very self to the church to be the power of the church. Conversely, I submit that what we typically think of as “Spirit filled” moments evidenced by “like-mindedness” are actually the common sociological phenomenons known as social proofing and the information cascade.

Social proofing is a fancy way of saying that as more people become involved in something, the more everyone else thinks it is a good idea simply based on the numbers (think: Joel Osteen and Hot Pockets.  Are either really that nutritious or tasty?). An information cascade occurs when people observe the actions of others and then make the same choice that the others have made, independently of their own private information signals (as defined by Wikipedia).

Without delving further into the nuances of the theory, it suffices now to say that what we can already see happening regarding both NEXT and Fellowship PC(USA) is social proofing followed by an information cascade.  Notice the how the rhetoric has already solidified – this is a “NEXT vs. Fellowship” issue in the minds of so many Presbyterians.  Because those on both ends of the ideological spectrum are seeing those who have historically been seen as the “successful leaders” of the past establishment step up and start to guide the conversation, they are simply falling in line with these two groups.

I, personally, am quite skittish about this because I do not hold the same opinions about the future and purpose of the church that either of these groups of organizers seem to hold.  I do not think the church should try to regain power and influence in society, or that the church should try to rebuild the Mainline establishment.  If the story of James and John in Mark 10 shows us anything (“Let one of us sit on your left and the other on the right…the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve.”) it is that the kind of community Christ intended to initiate was not one which would be concerned with power, influence, establishment, or notoriety. 

This is where an insistence on the recognition of the demographic makeup of these groups becomes very important.  “Tall Steeple Churches” have a history of wielding power and influencing the direction of the communities in which they are a part.  So, naturally, those who pastor these communities must accept that premise as a condition of employment (if they had not already done so). But that era is over, if it was ever more than an illusion to begin with.  A blog post I recently read (which I’m ashamed to say I can’t recall where, just now) demonstrates this well: A prominent member of a church tells the Pastor that when they joined, the mayor, city council members, bank presidents, and other community figures were attending the church.  This was the reason the member decided to join, they say.  But none of those kinds of figures now populated the pews.  Given that, this member told the Pastor they were leaving. Is something similar to that the kind of power and influence we’re trying to get back to?  A place where the “Who’s Who” in the pews determines whether you join? Who had begun to populate the pews of that church?  Too many people of color?  Too many middle class folks?  Union workers and socialists?  Young Adults?

I can hear the pushback already: “But, Landon, one cannot control the wishes, desires, and accidental characteristics of those who would follow particular leaders.  You cannot make that their responsibility.”  While the first part is true, the second is decidedly not. And here, finally, is the ultimate point I wish to make in this response:

In this open source day and age, if you decide to step up to leadership, you must realize that that means you forfeit your right to be the center of the conversation.  When you purport to try and provide leadership to the church in its next phase, you are woefully remiss if you do not attend to intentional diversity (especially class diversity) and independence of thought.  “Y’all come!” is not a good enough invitation to the feast, because only those who can afford to come will show up.  To carry on the metaphor, from here on out, specific invitations need to be sent and the family needs to be reminded that “guests eat first.” (On that note, the NEXT organizers should be commended for ensuring that 70 seminary students were able to attend, even if some missteps happened regarding their participation.)

So, in the end, it is irrelevant regarding what end like-mindedness is used for, because the like-mindedness itself has already all but determined the result.  It is not okay to limit our work to those who come along beside us because they “think like us.”  “Like-mindedness” is not the fuel of effective change, as Rocky submits.  Quite the opposite, like-mindedness is the fuel of cohesion which can easily lead to groupthink. If the goal of any group is to “seek a way forward” then they will fail if they do not expand to include as many voices as possible.  Remember, the Holy Spirit, who’s power animates our very existence, seeks change for the whole church, not just part.  What is also disturbing is that the Holy Spirit is also working through those other parts, not just ours.

One final word:

Much of my thinking here is the result of my work on the open source software movement, its communities, and its ideology. I have spent 4 years working with how these variables might inform the life and future of the church.  I’d like to offer one idea that might help frame the vast amount of critique happening right now.

The open source world has a saying, “With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow.” What is meant is that the more people you have looking at your project, the more likely it is that someone will be able to discover and report a problem, or “a bug.”  Good development is heavily reliant on “bug reports.” The developers will not know what to fix if they are not told what is and is not working.

I, personally, know how hard it is to hear critiques and criticism.  I, personally, have an impulse to not be gracious and become defensive when I feel like I am being attacked, especially for something I have put my heart and soul into.  But I want to encourage the organizers of NEXT (and Fellowship PC(USA), if you care to know my opinion) to try to be as detached as possible so that you can receive the feedback you’ve been getting and use it to improve the project going forward.  You are gifted servants of Jesus Christ and have the confidence and conviction enough to lead part of this change – Please do not be discouraged.