It is, of course, a huge logical fallacy to believe that critics of the plan are cheering for failure or mean-spirited or hopeful for denominational demise.

WormTape: “Chuck, you have a real problem brewing. It seems that most of your supporters are privately losing confidence—or the will to face a public repudiation—and are beginning to distance themselves from StratPlan 3.0. Some are saying it has no support out there, and some of your troupes are even beginning to work on Version 4.0 (which, of course, will feature more of the same vested interests and absence of true empirical data. I think you and all the MUCK need to read the confidential memo that our spies have just found. Don’t shoot the messenger when you read it either.”

Pauly D: “No, way; we can still steamroll this. Let’s have a few more puff pieces in By Sight, and get all our mailing lists together. And be sure to tar-and-feather those mean old TRs [ed. Note: TRs are as frequent as UFOs] who are not supporting our WHAVMP: ‘We have a Vision-Mission-Plan.’”

Snookie: “But what are you hearing?”

WormTape: “We found the following memo on a blog site, just last night. It made me so sick that after all my consulting with your group, I considered dropping you as a client. If not for the fine fees, believe me, I would have.”

Jim: “So, just what’s the word out there?”

WormTape: “Here’s the memo below. It’s entitlted ‘A Strategic Opportunity: A New Style of Pastoral Leadership Arising?’ And we can’t identify the authors, but it is as catastrophic as a Blumenthal candidacy for the Senate. It starts with the opening below and honestly raises 6 questions. Uggghhh. I told you guys that if you didn’t do your work well, the light of day might kill you. Arrrggggh, why did I take you on as a client? I almost want to distance myself from this plan, too.”

*************************
Memo: A Strategic Opportunity: A New Style of Pastoral Leadership Arising?
Date: May 19, 2010

By most accounts, the Strategic Plan proposed to the PCA is largely popular only among its proponents but seldom seems to inspire enthusiasm elsewhere. It may even prove to be (a) dead on arrival, (b) not attractive to many sessions and pastors (unless they serve on denominational committees); and (c) an incredible opportunity to see if new or stronger forms of leadership will arise from this well-intentioned mistake.

The largest challenge—and an opportunity so great that one almost wonders if the plan hadn’t been designed to be a foil to create new leaders and leadership styles—is to see how our PCA leaders will respond to the yawns (at best) or hostility (at worst) evoked from this plan. And, these authors are hopeful and cheering for good responses** either from our existing leaders or perhaps from new leaders who will undoubtedly arise from this debacle, which had been launched in the hope to pass as a studied approach.

The watching church will soon see what kind of leadership will arise for the future of the PCA. Below are six questions, the answers to which will tell us a lot about the future caliber of leaders in the PCA. Do pass these on and seek answers to these.

1. Will our leaders, present or future, respond with faith and repentance? The signature phrases of several recent renewal groups have been summed up under mottos that stress belief and humble change of direction. Will our leaders, present or future, admit that they’ve been a tad out of touch with local churches and change recommendations . . . or seek to soldier on with ideas that are coercive? And will they respond to fraternal correction with thanks (We think Proverbs speaks of the ‘faithful wounds of a friend’), and will future iterations of planning be more optimistic and full of faith, trusting God’s power more than managerial techniques? Or continue to see the sky falling and call for changes that are not truly related to misdiagnoses?

2. Will our leaders, present or future, embrace constructive criticism or will they respond defensively and attack critics? Will new leaders truly adapt, listen to the grass roots, and seek to find consensus more than force the passage of their own cherished notions? Some future leaders have a tremendous opportunity at this juncture of the PCA’s life. Fading leaders will send out one last projectile that slimes any critics, but that will hardly inspire followership.

3. Will our leaders, present or future, reach out to and seek to place in office those in their 30s and 40s? For example, it is one thing to call for ‘seats at the table.’ It is another to step aside and try to promote a younger minister. If the average age of Program Committee Coordinators is 65 or higher, shouldn’t they themselves be taking quick steps to nominate others for those key leadership slots if they really wish to have new faces around the table? Or is it that some wish to keep their long-held seats at the table AND add other lackey votes to their own tired and endangered ideas around the table?

4. Will our leaders, present or future, encourage study in the lower support groups and seek to bring their next round of changes from enthusiastic presbyteries? Or go back, modify with the same flawed outlooks, and change very little? Isn’t there some great thinking coming out of Susquehanna presbytery and some other small presbyteries that do not have the interests or turf to protect that present leaders do? Might not these outside-the-perimeter groups have ideas worth pursuing, even if not from the CMC?

5. Will our leaders, present or future, allow or lead with diversity among themselves? Surely this plan, since unanimous, was a bad case of group thinking. Maybe admit that to begin with? Will our leaders welcome opinional diversity among themselves on these future planning exercises? And will they seek to change the CMC to make sure that other rounds of Outta-Touch-R-Us don’t continue? Could, alas, the very formula for the CMC be wrong, perhaps needing a few pastors from smaller churches and a few less corporate types?

6. Will our leaders, present or future, do a more empirical task? In order for a radical restructure of the denomination to succeed, there has to be a lot more than the opinion of a few executives or presidents. Moreover, when will the PCA have a plan that compares their own growth percentage to the OPC or growth not counting transfer growth as in 1973 and 1982? Isn’t it true that our real growth rate has always been about 1.5-2%? And isn’t this ‘sky is falling’ decline hard to support empirically? And will StratPlan 4.1 continue to assume that rubes in small towns can’t possibly figure this out on their own?

** It is, of course, a huge logical fallacy to believe that critics of the plan are cheering for failure or mean-spirited or hopeful for denominational demise.

For such a time as this, God is raising up new leaders. That may be a wonderful thing to come from this. Again, shouldn’t we spend more time praising God for what he is doing than cursing the crumbling of personal kingdoms?

*************************

Pauly D: “Are you freakin kidding me? We could be toast. We may have no option but to attack . . . and slime hard.”

Jim: “Or retreat, add a few more suckups and slightly revise—acting like we’re responsive, you know.”

Chuck: “Or let me write another book review.”

Snookie: “Or listen; maybe this new generation is right?”

WormTape is a satirist and a member of the Presbyterian Church in America.