Little, if any, strong support for the funding plan has been gained since the General Assembly, except by twisting arms and spending bullets. Looks like the same old supporters, mostly with vested interests.

Good plans pick up steam and convince doubters—a sense of excitement may be noted. This plan has not done that; in fact, it may have attracted more opposition following the GA because it could not generate great, heart support. If one remembers that all the Coordinators, all the publicity, all the resources were supporting these plans from conception, surely it must cause some of the planners to wonder if they got it right with so many folks not saluting.

It’s been a busy year in the PCA, and the coming months will show if much changes. Color me on the skeptical side, kind of a doubting that sea-changes are truly in the offing for the PCA. And I share my reflections on the past six months of the General Assembly and Presbytery voting as one, simple presbyter. My year end reflections certainly do not represent an official response from any group.

Others may also freely support, blast, or reject my muddlings. Notwithstanding, I believe that rejoicing and hope are in order, even if some plans do not succeed (Prov. 16:1, 9).

Here we go, hoping that some perspective will also prove foundational for a faith-filled way forward.

1. The AC proposals did not leave Nashville with the church’s mandate for funding reform. Despite all the denominational machinery and charisma behind these Strategic Planning proposals, the threshold was not crossed to entice or cajole others into following the proposals. Little, if any, strong support for the plan has been gained since that time, except by twisting arms and spending bullets. Looks like the same old supporters, mostly with vested interests. Good plans pick up steam and convince doubters—a sense of excitement may be noted. This plan has not done that; in fact, it may have attracted more opposition following the General Assembly because it could not generate great, heart support. If one remembers that all the Coordinators, all the publicity, all the resources were supporting these plans from conception, surely it must cause some of the planners to wonder if they got it right with so many folks not saluting.

2. It is a surprising tally to be virtually tied in the presbytery voting. Many were evidently riled up enough to express early dissent. Until recently, the proposed funding plan was getting creamed in voting. At one point, it was disfavored 15-8, needing a 2/3 majority to survive. With great effort and the use of many traveling pitches, the AC has battled all the way back to . . . being even. This is about like undefeated Auburn and Cam Newton crowing if they are tied with Slippery Rock State University and trying to claim a victory by saying, “Hey, we knew the Slippery Rocksters would be tough; and we’re leading 17-16 at half.” Like it or not, dissenting voices won the debate in the fall. If it’s really true that those presbyters voting against the plan are ill informed, then perhaps the AC can yet snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. I for one think most presbyteries know exactly what they are voting on, and are trying—with as much gentility as possible, even to sometimes deaf ears—to say: “No thanks” to the planners.

3. We see a New Opportunity for leaders to arise. One of the risky things about offering plans is that, if rejected, other plans rise to the surface. It is also a true test of leadership to respond graciously if other plans/ideas are adopted. Perhaps our AC will listen to other plans (instead of their own) before the train of history moves past and yet be a part of forming new ideas and plans that will surely arise from other competent sources. Or will the AC doggedly only try to reverse presbyteries that have already voted “no”?

At this point, it looks improbable that the AC funding model will be ratified, especially since the AC devotees must obtain almost 80% of the remaining 46 presbyteries. What a hill to climb, and if they succeed they certainly deserve to be congratulated when this is all over with, at least for political efficacy. Should they yet succeed, I will join in congratulating them on (a) persuasion, (b) the use of AC personnel, time and travel resources, and (c) recruitment. I will commend them for winning a political skirmish.

What most will not do, however, should they fail to obtain the needed votes, is patiently listen to whining about unfairness, the meanies or bloggers out there who don’t go along, or process. Goodness, these folks have had all the Coordinators, all the resources, all the budgets, all the momentum, all the cache. Blaming or whining will certainly not be plausible if the outcome does not suit one side. In fact, how about all sides make a new year’s resolution together to rejoice in what God signals through his church on this issue, whatever the outcome, and not allow these to become such ultimate issues that bitterness ensues?

4. If I were the AC, I’d be very troubled. Even if the funding method passes, it could result in LOWER revenue, less support, and more suspicion. Many churches will likely opt out of both giving and attending General Assembly, especially when funds are tight. Supporting and attending General Assembly may be a habit for many. If I were a leader wanting large attendance, I’d be quite reticent to break that habit. Someone might well start asking: what will bring church sessions back to an Assembly, if they miss a few years? And what will induce many to avoid using those same mandatory amounts for a vital mission trip, or for staff raises, or for building improvements? This voting may be a prime example of “Be careful what you ask for . . . you may get it.” Sure, central planners may reduce the size of GA—they may only end up with a committed few paying-to-play—but when new financial support is needed, the church will probably not react well to coercive measures. It has almost become a lose-lose scenario for bureaucratic reform.

One need not be surprised, though, if the AC gains a slight lead presbytery voting in January. Compared to the huge lead they should have, however, anything short of 45 affirmative presbyteries by January’s end is over par on this course and signals likely failure. By pulling out all stops, calling in all favors, contacting many (but, goodness, so do the Aquilaistas), the AC SHOULD have had this vote iced by November; it did not. It should be coasting to victory in January. It is difficult to see the beginnings of new funding implementation on the horizon. Notwithstanding, 30 days from now, the AC will have to run the table. Having to muster 2/3 is hard; having to muster 36 from the remaining 46 (78.3%) is incredibly hard. Hint: that’s why future liberalizing BCO amendments will be even tougher. No wonder, the forces of progressivism hope to score touchdowns at General Assemblies or behind the cover of study committees. The plodding road of base-hits to actual constitutional amendments is, and will remain, exceedingly difficult. Three cheers for constitutionalism!

By mid January the AC support will likely take a lead of 10 presbyteries or so in voting. However, that is not nearly enough to win. By mid January, the real voting will probably be something like 32-22 in favor of the proposals (find up-to-date information in the under-funded Aquila Report; unless things change, the well-funded By Faith will not publish current tallies), and the AC will then need to carry 85% of the remaining presbyteries!! Unpersuaded presbyteries or those who think there may be better ways, could even reach their magic number of 27 “no thank you” votes before January ends. The “no thank you votes” will likely hit their target first, and one wonders what backup plans—other than to lobby for reconsiderations—have been explored by AC, which looks like it is putting all its credibility on the line, all its eggs in one very rickety procedural basket. But that will not signal a descent into the Abyss. Good will arise.

5. It is time for some new approaches, some new creativity. No doubt other plans will be forthcoming; however, the sky really will not fall if the unwarranted proposals before us are given a polite “no thank you.” Maybe the best thing for the AC to do would be to invite others, outside the CMC (who’ve already had their shot) to contribute ideas and without prejudice or grudgery to help facilitate new approaches.

A new era of accountability and thoughtfulness could also be applauded if this proposal goes down. Sure, some of our leaders will be disappointed because they’ve invested a lot of their reputation into these initiatives. The net result of the Strategic Planning process may not yield very much—except to have boringly tame and non-controversial dialogues—if these funding proposals run aground. In fact, the SP albatross may have damaged a more receptive hearing of the Funding plan than any other single factor.

But is not the PCA more than the sum total of its highest echelon of leadership? Isn’t that rediscovery precisely where the hope and rejoicing come in? For do we not encourage all presbyters—from hinterlands, from youth, from no repute, from nonurban settings, and those who are not elected as super delegates—to share their input and yea, verily, even to disagree? Can’t the body of Christ actually be strengthened by healthy debate and constructive dissent?

I think one of the finest things to result from this cycle will be a renewed confidence that the distant sockets outside our southern hub are just as valid and as strong spokes as any others. The PCA could probably benefit from a little more input and little less group-think on the front end of future planning. At least the next round of planners should seek that if efficacy is a goal. And congratulations to a new generation of presbyters and pastors who are speaking up and writing on ecclesiological topics.

Note to self: don’t whine about blogs when they criticize my precious ideas in this or any other article. “Waaaaahhhh” is seldom an inspiring or reassuring expression from leaders. If we haven’t gotten the message, let’s all repeat this one to ourselves one more time: “Others in the church may disagree with my ideas, without insulting or denigrating me or my office”—no matter how many committees I’ve served on.

Finally, it is wrong for critics on either side to attack persons, besmirch reputations, or guess motives. This plan, in my opinion—set forth by fine and noble men, who want the best for our church, and widely heralded by the few—simply fails to persuade or set out the only or superior options. Far from containing compelling arguments, most quickly glance at this plan and realize that at worst, if it fails, the AC will merely receive about 80% of its Askings again this year—like, say, for the last 37 years! And we will not descend into the Lake of Fire if this, or any other plan, is not passed immediately. In fact, things will probably rock along fairly well as they are. The crisis needed for such overhaul really is not upon us.

This set of ideas may fail, alas, on its own merits, on the principles contained. We may still love, admire, and support our leaders and friends but differ sincerely with them as to these principles and specifics. It’s been a fine year for that. So will next year. And somehow I don’t think our God is too troubled about which percentage of taxation prevails or who voluntarily contributes how much to win this issue.

All the while, vital local congregations are growing, working, and doing the work of the ministry, regardless of any visionary reform proposals. Thankfully, that will continue in 2011 and beyond; that our Lord has promised! Perhaps the way forward is to see what the local units are finding helpful. That’s an idea that could work in a lot of places of governance.
________________
David W. Hall is a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and serves as Senior Pastor of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Powder Springs, Ga.