The Church ... culturally conditioned forms

[Ken Pell]

XI. The Church
15. We believe … The Church is a historical reality, which organizes itself in culturally conditioned forms

For reasons that are irrelevant to this thread, I was reading the article of faith on the Church this evening and became fixated on the above.

I think those who drafted this article got it right … we are to be organized in culturally conditioned forms. But I also think the Manual’s imposed structure on what that form must look like undercuts (and maybe even violates) the spirit of the article.

Do you think there is a conflict between the intent and assumptions of this portion of the article and the organizational structure that is imposed on local churches?

Do you see a benefit in allowing each local church to organize itself as it deems best and most germane to its culture?

[Dennis M. Scott]

Technically, those forms are not imposed upon the local church, but ratified by representatives from the local church. All membership is local, and only members have penned the form.

When local leadership decides to vary from the agreed upon form, the success of that variation will depend on the experience, insight, determination and commitment of that leadership. It is remarkable how often district and general leadership is shouldered with the responsibility of cleaning up messes made after local leadership decided to "adapt" form and/or practice.

Form must be relevant, but relevance is not guaranteed by variation.

[Hans Deventer]

Do you think there is a conflict between the intent and assumptions of this portion of the article and the organizational structure that is imposed on local churches?

I actually think it aligns pretty well with

113.11. [...] Alternative board and committee
structure may be used by a local church in organizing itself
for ministry and missional action, provided such alternatives
are approved in writing by the district superintendent
and the District Advisory Board, and such structure complies
with civil requirements.

What exactly is imposed on local churches regarding local organizational structure? Or are you talking about the district, regional and general organisational structures?

[Ryan Scott]

I was challenged recently in a class. The point of reference was the brand new "Church Government Flow Chart" on page 27 of the new Manual. I have looked at it as a sneaky attempt to absolve the denomination of liability in lawsuits. Not that I'm against liability, but the flow chart represents a polity we don't currently practice, with General, District, and Local administrative bodies being on equal footing and all reporting directly to the General Assembly.

My professor said, rather than looking at it as dishonest, take the Manual at its word and assume that within the polity, it is possible for this to happen. What would it look like?

I'm still not entirely convinced, but I like the idea of being creative. There is room in the Manual for creativity.