New Ecclesiology & Polity: The United Church of Christ

Clyde J. Steckel

• Publisher: Pilgrim Press
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9780829820751
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Systematic Theology & Ethics

In "New Ecclesiology and Polity, " Steckel argues that the United Church of Christ ecclesiology and its polity have an urgent need to be re-examined and re-shaped if the church is to be a faithful and strong ministry in the post-modern world. He describes the transition from modernity to post-modernity focusing on ways the United Church of Christ, is aware of these transitions in the life of the church, but no awareness of how the denominational governing structures undermine faithful mission in a post-modern world.

CHAPTER ONE

How Polity Impedes Mission

THE FOUNDERS OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST created a governance structure, another word for which is polity, which included both the principle of the autonomy of the local church dear to Congregationalists, and the presbyterial church order of the Evangelical and Reformed Church, where synods and the General Synod made authoritative decisions on behalf of the whole church. It was this constitutional authority to speak and act on behalf of the whole church that worried Congregationalists over a loss of autonomy that might lie ahead in a union with the Evangelical and Reformed Church. To reassure wary Congregationalists the Commission to Prepare a Constitution wrote the constitutional paragraph (originally Paragraph 15, now Paragraph 18) that guaranteed the right of the local church to determine its own beliefs, create its own confessions or covenants, worship as it saw fit, and own and dispose of its own real property without the permission or interference of the wider church. In an effort to maintain traditional Congregational practices and something of the spirit of Evangelical and Reformed presbyterial polity, however, these sweeping affirmations of local church autonomy were balanced in the Constitution by Paragraphs 17 and 19 calling for the mutual respect of actions by local churches, associations, conferences, and the General Synod and its related bodies — that all such actions should be received with respect, taken seriously, and given thoughtful and prayerful response.

This effort to balance traditional polities did not, however, in the years immediately after the union in 1957, result either in a clear definition of a new polity as hoped for by the founders, or in a balanced and nuanced interim polity that honored both Congregational and Evangelical and Reformed traditions. The Evangelical and Reformed heritage of a constitutional synodical authority soon disappeared. Congregationalist autonomy won the day, even though many Congregationalists continued to worry about a hierarchical church order lurking in the wings.

In the midst of this mix of confusion, dashed hopes, and the triumph of one polity tradition over the other, an old word emerged, covenant, put to a new use to characterize and explain the polity of the UCC and to distinguish it from congregational, presbyterial, or episcopal polities. In the speeches and writings of Robert Moss and Avery Post, UCC presidents in the 1970s, and Louis Gunnemann, seminary dean and historian, as well as Ruben Sheares, executive director of the Office for Church Life and Leadership, that word, covenant, was increasingly employed to define UCC polity. The idea of “covenant” was rich with biblical and theological resonance especially cherished in the New England Congregationalist and German Reformed traditions. Since biblical covenants were initiated by a gracious God, the church could view its polity not simply as a humanly devised system of governance, but as promises made between God and the followers of Jesus Christ to live and govern themselves as God would have it done. This belief in a divine origination of polity corresponded closely to historic Reformed and Free Church traditions, where church governance and, in the Reformed case, the governance of the city or state were understood to be guided by God’s Spirit according to a divine plan. Gradually the language of covenant caught on, appearing increasingly in revised editions of the Manual on Ministry, and eventually in the constitutional revisions of 2000, where a new Article III, headed Covenantal Relationships, declares that all expressions of the church have “. . . responsibilities and rights in relation to the others, to that end that the whole church will seek God’s will and be faithful to God’s mission. Decisions are made in consultation and collaboration among the various parts of the structure.”

Three emerging themes in UCC identity in the late twentieth century and the early twenty-first century have important implications for ecclesiology and polity, though these implications have not been worked out as fully as the ecclesiology affirming that the church is headed solely by Jesus Christ and the polity of covenant relations. These three themes are those about diversity (the commitment to be a church that is multicultural, multiracial, just peace, open and affirming, and accessible to all), about the church engaged in the mission of God, and about the church as a community hearing and bearing witness to the still-speaking God.

Affirming diversity would seem agreeable to historic UCC affirmations about the church and its polity of covenant relations, if diversities of culture, race, gender, sexual orientation, and abilities are viewed as gifts of the Creator. Many in the Christian world, including the UCC, would not agree with that claim, however, particularly on gender and sexual orientation. Within the UCC conflicts over homosexuality persist in spite of studies and actions by the General Synod and other expressions of the church that affirm the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons to full equality before the law and to church membership and ordination. Within the wider Christian family, even deeper divisions over sexual orientation threaten the unity of historic denominations. And in many traditions, gender equality and the possibility of ordination are decisively rejected. Diversity of cultures poses an additional challenge to UCC core convictions, especially where cultural traditions reject gender equality or homosexuality. How far can the UCC go in welcoming cultural traditions that reject such core UCC affirmations? It is difficult even to have a conversation on such a question, let alone come to any agreement.

A second ecclesiological and polity theme — the church called to engage in the “mission of God” — is now widely employed in the United Church of Christ. While the phrase comes from the writings of David Bosch, the notion of the church as mission goes back to the beginnings of the Christian movement, first as a politically subversive religious movement in the Roman Empire, then as the official religion of that empire. In those officially Christian centuries of medieval and modern times, empire and religion worked hand in hand to Christianize the peoples under their joint rule. In the modern era of world exploration and colonization by Western nations, missionary movements imposed European and American cultural values and Christian faith, often uncritically mixed together, to bring Latin American, Asian, and African peoples into political and religious subordination. But this unholy alliance began to break down in the early twentieth century as the worldwide ecumenical movement fostered the increasing autonomy and equality of missionary and established churches and as critical theological analysis in Western churches challenged the centuries-long alliance of church and society. In this critique the meaning of mission was radically transformed. The mission of the church, the mission of Jesus Christ, was to bear witness against the injustices of society and to call for social transformation in keeping with God’s righteousness and peace, even if the consequences were a marginalization of the church as institution or, beyond that, martyrdom. Using Bosch’s ecumenically more inclusive phrase, the mission of God, the United Church of Christ now understands itself as a church called to God’s mission on behalf of the world, not primarily on behalf of the church or the individual believer. The “mission of God” phrase now appears widely in UCC discourse — for example, in the documents concerning the restructuring of 2000, and now in the Pronouncement on Ministry adopted by General Synod 25. This worldly emphasis, with the church understood as faithful followers of Christ engaged in God’s mission on behalf of the world, places the institutional life of the church and the pilgrimage of the individual believer in an instrumental role for the sake of God’s mission, not as ends in and of themselves.

The affirmation that God is still speaking, that one should never place a period where God has placed a comma, is a third and more recent UCC theme bearing implications for ecclesiology and polity. This identity campaign, with its TV commercials, visually integrated media materials, including identity items like pins, shirts, mugs, bumper stickers, and the like, makes it clear that all are welcome in the UCC, that even if the preponderance of Christian interpretation of scripture lines up against homosexuality, God is speaking a new word in this time, a word of welcome and affirmation for persons of LGBT orientation, and that the faithful church should be attentive to that word, and not simply to interpretations of the ancient words. What this affirmation does not address, however, is the question of discerning claims on behalf of other new words by the still-speaking God. How will the church tell if new words claiming to be from God are truly of divine origin? Pentecostalism has not been a core characteristic of the UCC, but some notion of continuing revelation is consistent with its liberal theological heritage. As long as God’s new words are primarily those of welcome where the church previously excluded people, such questions may be beside the point. But surely if God keeps on speaking, this divine speech may not always be words of welcome and affirmation. God’s words may be about judgment. What then? Will modernist ecclesiology and polity be adequate for such discernment?

This emerging ecclesiology and its polity in process are clearly grounded in Free Church Reformation theological principles and in modern Enlightenment political and philosophical beliefs. These two sources are remarkably in harmony, as I will show later, but this is a harmony that today impedes the mission of the church in the postmodern world, however well suited it might have been to modernity. First, though, the strengths of this current UCC ecclesiology and polity ought to be recognized and clearly stated. There will be losses as well as gains if the UCC revises its ecclesiology and polity in ways I am proposing, so current strengths inherent in UCC ecclesiology and polity need to be identified and weighed in the balance.

One of the obvious strengths of UCC ecclesiology and polity is their permission, even encouragement of initiative by anyone, literally—individuals, local churches, associations, conferences, the General Synod and other national bodies—to speak and act on matters of concern in church and society. As long as these statements and actions are within the domain of the responsibility of that person or body, as understood in common practice or as defined in the Constitution, no other permission must be sought. This does not mean an absence of consultation or a failure to attempt persuading others to join in the statement or action. But it does mean that action does not need to await consensus or majority vote by the whole church. While it is clear to those familiar with the Constitution and the practice of the church that no one can speak for the UCC, it is also clear that often these prophetic and courageous actions are identified as coming from United Church of Christ expressions, especially when it is the General Synod or the General Minister and President, and therefore, in the public view, are assumed to represent the UCC. Though it is constitutionally accurate it is also a bit disingenuous to say that no such body or person can speak for the UCC. An officer or official body would have to disavow their UCC identity to claim that they speak only to the church and not, in some fashion, on its behalf. This confusion is exacerbated by the fact that the General Synod is composed, in part, of delegates elected by the conferences, so that it looks and acts like a representative governing body, even though it is not that in any strict constitutional sense. A further tension arising from this polity of initiative and persuasion, now widely understood as a polity of covenant, is the situation where UCC stances are not widely supported, when significant numbers of members, clergy, or local churches disagree with UCC “official viewpoints” (such language is not appropriate but is still widely used), and then believe that their contrary views were not expressed, or not heard, or not treated with respect. Some dissidents leave the UCC. Others organize movements to challenge and change these stances. Such disaffections should not be taken lightly. But surely this kind of polity has a flexibility and strength not seen these days in other mainline denominations, where deep divisions and the risk of schism over issues relating to sexual orientation—ordination, equality of marriage as defined in law, etc.—cannot be readily resolved where some official or representative governing body finally has to say yes or no on these issues, a decision that is binding for the whole denomination.

A second obvious strength of a polity of covenant, as increasingly understood and practiced in the UCC, is its reliance on persuasion, patience, and prayerful discernment instead of majority vote or executive fiat. Decisions are sometimes painfully slow in such a polity, and some decisions still need to be made quickly. It is also difficult for decisive and impatient persons to work comfortably in such a polity. Sometimes their gifts are lost simply because they decide not to stay with it. But surely the benefits of patient persuasion and prayerfulness outweigh, in most instances, those of quick and firm decisions. What is less clear, so far, is how a polity of covenant treats those who do not get it, who do not seem to understand the rules, or who choose not to play by the rules. What are the consequences of breaking the covenant? In the biblical and theological framework in which a polity of covenant has been set, breaking the covenant is punished by dire consequences like war, famine, flood, fire, illness, or death. Today, however, one dare not view such outcomes as God’s punishments. To do so would make God a harsh and vindictive despot, not the loving and compassionate God known in Jesus Christ.

In the absence of such rewards-or-punishments theology, a polity of covenant can rely only on pleas and admonitions. If an individual, a local church, or some other ecclesiastical entity chooses to ignore pleas or admonitions from covenant partners, no consequences can be legitimately applied by covenant partners, except in the cases of the standing of local churches or authorized ministers. Association committees on the ministry have become more careful about ministerial standing in view of an increased public awareness of clergy misconduct or abuse, but have still not systematically or intentionally reviewed the standing of local churches even though they are authorized to do so in the Constitution of the United Church of Christ. From this reluctance to impose penalties, even when constitutionally authorized to do so, the covenantal polity of the UCC becomes an exercise of moral exhortation rather than a system of rewards and penalties for keeping or breaking the covenant. It seems that is about all that can be done.

And the United Church of Christ’s welcome of diversity in cultural, racial, or ethnic heritage, or in sexual orientation, shows the strength of an ecclesiology and polity open to new messages from the still-speaking God. While there are biblical testimonies to God’s inclusive love that is impartial, there is no similarly clear biblical embrace of diverse sexual orientation or marriage between persons of the same gender. If one has to depend on clear biblical warrants or biblical silence to permit such affirmations, there is a problem. But if God is still speaking, then a new truth hitherto unimagined can be discerned and embraced, so long as its spirit is in keeping with core faith affirmations. If the United Church of Christ and other Christian communions cannot entertain that possibility, then no radically new message from God can be allowed. UCC ecclesiology and polity make that discernment of new divine truth possible. It is more difficult in other ecclesiologies and polities.

With these strengths of UCC ecclesiology and polity I have just discussed, it may seem an act of perverse folly to argue that this ecclesiology and polity of the United Church of Christ impede its mission, but that is precisely what I have come to believe. These impediments are grounded in the transition from modernity to postmodernity now under way in Western culture. I will next outline these impediments and then, in the next chapter, explain more fully the transition from modernity to postmodernity.

In United Church of Christ ecclesiology, there is a structural contradiction built into the Constitution that makes it impossible to state what the UCC believes. Paragraph 2 of the Preamble summarizes UCC beliefs about Jesus Christ as sole head of the church as well as Son of God and Savior, about the Word of God in the scriptures, the historic faith of the church set forth in the ancient creeds and Protestant Reformation insights, the admonition that each generation needs to make this faith its own in “reality of worship, in honesty of thought and expression, and in purity of heart before God,” and the recognition of two sacraments: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

But in Paragraph 18, within Article V, which speaks of Local Churches, the autonomy of the local church is declared to be “inherent and modifiable only by its own action.” Among the rights of the local church guaranteed against encroachment by the General Synod, association, conference, or any other body are the right to “retain or adopt its own methods of organization, worship and education; to retain or secure its own charter and name; to adopt its own constitution and bylaws; to formulate its own covenants and confessions of faith.” While these absolute rights of autonomous local churches are set within a context of Paragraph 6 calling for the practice of covenantal relations and Paragraphs 17 and 19 asserting the responsibility of local churches to care for the whole church and to hold in the highest regard decisions or advice from the General Synod as well as their conferences and associations, these are relatively weak admonitions when placed alongside the absolute protections contained in Paragraph 18.

In practice this contradiction has required precise definitions (not always grasped within the UCC or by the public, the media, or dialogue partners) of which body is speaking, and for whom it is speaking (only themselves) when any expression of the United Church of Christ makes a public pronouncement on issues of the day, or engages in ecumenical or interfaith dialogue. Paragraph 18 means that, literally, only the whole church (every local church, every other expression of the church) can speak with authority about any matter of faith or practice. There is, to put it another way, no authoritative teaching office in the United Church of Christ except for the whole church. Other denominations specify bishops, or councils, or synods as authoritative teaching offices. The UCC identifies only itself, its whole self, as qualified to determine what it believes and how it is to act.

The current transition from modernity to postmodernity in Western culture stretches and even breaks this persisting tension between autonomy and covenant relations of mutual consultation. When the dominant values and assumptions in Western culture held sway—values like the autonomous self, reasoned consideration and persuasion, government by the consent of the governed, authority and power shared with equity, and the inherent respect due all persons—a UCC ecclesiology and polity embracing these values could be made to work even though key constitutional paragraphs seemed contradictory. One could not imagine that an autonomous local church would exercise its right to determine its own confessions or covenants of faith (Paragraph 18) in a manner that would directly contradict Paragraph 2 in the Preamble. A sampling of local church mission or vision statements, however, or ordination papers coming to committees on the ministry would show only a distant echo of affirmations taken for granted in the Preamble. This puzzling and disturbing state of affairs arises, I would argue, more from the difficult transitions from modernity to postmodernity than from any lack of rigorous seminary teaching or any loss of due diligence by committees on the ministry.

Two other examples illustrate the difficulties inherent in this transition: one is the decision of a local church to leave the denomination (not a uniquely UCC risk) after a number of newer members join and, sooner or later, occupy key offices and have enough votes to prevail over those who wish to stay in the denomination. And the second example consists of the roadblocks in the way of becoming a multicultural and multiracial church, especially in most local congregations, as the General Synod has declared the United Church of Christ committed to becoming. Each example needs to be interpreted from many viewpoints, but here I will focus on the transition from modernity to postmodernity to show how the UCC is ill-equipped in its ecclesiology and polity to meet these challenges.

In the example of the local church taken over by new members who, for whatever reasons, organize themselves into a sufficiently powerful political force to remove the church from the denomination, the assumptions of modernity would imagine that new members would be gradually incorporated into the culture and traditions of the local church, would come to ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction
• Chapter One: How Polity Impedes Mission
• Chapter Two: How UCC Ecclesiology and Polity Became Entangled with Modernity and Why It Matters
• Chapter Three: A Re-Visioned Ecclesiology for Postmodern Times
• Chapter Four: A Revised UCC Polity for Postmodern Times
• Afterword
• Notes