Jengie Jon's Website

I started this a while ago, but with the Church of England debate and the increased discussion on how church councils should be conducted. What I am doing is outlining what I see as the important balance within the theology of discernment carried out in councils of the church from the English Reformed Perspective and the disciplines that are needed by members for that to function.

Firstly let me say that URC like the Anglicans have a lot of procedures which on the surface appear to be democratic but can often lead to things that people do not see as democratic outcomes. The grumbles within the URC tend to focus particularly on the ability of the major councils (General Assembly and Synod) to engage with the local congregations. Like the Anglican church they are often seen as the provenance of the self selecting few.

Long words I am afraid, but I think this needs to be said as the URC is going once again through the “we are governed by the people” “no we are not we are governed by the Holy Spirit”. The correct answer it of course “Yes”, it is not an either or situation. Firstly there are some quite specific things that English Reformed Church has adopted:

1. The belief that the Holy Spirit can and does speak to who the Holy Spirit chooses to speak, not to who we say she should speak with.
2. That the Holy Spirit diverse in its revelation,that fits with the need of the person
3. That the Holy Spirit speaks into the context into which it is sort and what applies in one context is not what necessarily applies in another.

There are however some things that equally need to be stated:

1. We have never assumed that all people speak with the same level of guidance. There are those within every congregation who have a track record of being open to the leadings of the Spirit and these carry more weight.
2. That the discernment of the Spirit is a communal act that requires that people who participate in the discernment are present.
3. That the tradition of the Church is a good tool to be used within the discernment of the Spirit. Thus those who are learned in the faith carry the extra responsibility in discernment and may be called onto advise.

This is important, because the councils of the church are not exercises in democracy but exercises in discernment in which voting is often used. Votes are restricted usually to members, present and although normally a simple majority suffices that is not the always the case. You need to be present not because of some inability to read or ascertain postal votes but because you need to listen to the debate, for what the Spirit is saying through it and also to sense the mood, well what others feel the Spirit is saying.

There is a problem, we all are very well aware of the debate and voting meeting of a secular business meeting and to an outsider that is what the form of our meetings take.

I am going to suggest we need to think about how we conduct meetings and the disciplines with which we conduct them. I am not going to suggest major constitutional changes.

First of all we need at all meetings at all times to practice hospitality. No I do not mean provide food, I mean the practices that make a good host. One is to try an anticipate the needs of others, these can be simple as using a loop system so those who struggle with hearing can hear. That however means every person who speaks in a meeting must speak with a microphone. Therefore if somebody can not easily get to a microphone you need to find ways of getting to the microphone to them. It means that we should all be patient with those who struggle with words and we should all be careful not to bore others.

However I also note that often people when they want a council to change want it to change in ways that would favour them. Everyone is different and therefore have different preferences over how the meeting should be run.  Not everyone is happy standing up and speaking in a meeting. Not everyone is happy working in small groups and feeding back. Not everyone likes to write up on notice boards. Some individuals like silence to think things through others like the cut and thrust of a debate. Some people like formal approaches others prefer informality. Some like to have information in advance and will read and digest it, others much prefer that everything is presented at the meeting. Some like the routine to be the same each time and some find variety to be more engaging. As we choose approaches so we also choose the people who are most likely to contribute. There is no easy solution but we need to be aware that the way we ask people to participate alters who is comfy participating.  God has not given a standard form that must be followed but we do need to be aware if people are feeling that uncomfortable that they are self excluding from the debate. In such situations ways do need to be sort to include them without excluding others.

Another important guideline is to keep procedures simple. That is that most people will be more content and feel more happy about contributing if they know what is going on. Having complicated methods of voting and such just makes most people insecure and edgy. Also realise that people often like to suss out how something works before they try using it. Some people will always be flustered if asked to do something for the first time. If you must have complex ways of doing things then make sure that you find at least three different ways of presenting it so people have a good chance to get hold of what is happening. That does not mean three contradictory sets of instructions. It does mean something like:

1. A written explanation given in advance that people can read and digest at leisure. Most won’t but some people will and some of those who will are highly resistant to something being put on them at the meeting.
2. A clear verbal re-iteration of what was in the written explanation at the meeting. This is to catch the 90% who just glanced at the paper and have not taken it in
3. Either a video of people enacting the procedure or a trial run with a pretend issue which can be taken.

If two and three take together longer than five minutes your procedure is too complicated! Equally if people start asking a lot of questions the procedure is too complicated. It may well be better to go for a simpler form. Meeting size matters, as a rule the bigger the meeting the simpler the procedures need to be. In a group of three, it is quite easy to brainstorm, talk things through, negotiate and come to a complicated consensus. Try doing it with several hundred and you will spend several days discussing the date of the next church fair as each checks their diary.

The final one is that we should spend time and energy encouraging people to listen. The real skill of participating in a church council is not speaking but in listening, in hearing not just what is said on the surface but what is also being said below the surface. In some sense this is listening for the spirit, but it is also listening to your inner voice, seeing the way that you interpret what someone else says. Are there words you hear particularly well and also words you miss? Does it matter who says something? It is not easy to listen at that depth, I am not claiming that I do it all the time, but if we are truly to do the discernment it is what is needed. It is easier to listen at this level in a small meeting than a large one. Perhaps a good reason for having smaller meeting in which people can practice doing this. Without those among us who listen at this level we are not really in a position to weigh the material and to progress the discernment. This of course slows things down and in our quick fix society this listening is counter cultural.

Given this as you might expect I do not see form as an essential for discernment, we are human all human form will fall short of the divine, God still works through it. Nor do I think we should expect the outcome to be the same regardless of situation. Because it is not a voting democracy but an act of discernment, I am quite happy with restricting the meeting to those present, with votes that are not simple majorities and with consensus procedures if used appropriately. Votes are in the end only as binding as we make them in this procedure.

If I am honest I think the one essential is that we stop assuming that members will just pick things up as they go along and start actively trying to engage members in doing this sort of discernment and understanding what they are doing in church councils is this. That may require changes in approach, teaching within and outside of church councils and also a lot of careful chairing. It certainly will not make councils quicker initially but I suspect that until we do, people will continue to gripe about them.

In Prayer and Praises, Nathaneal Micklem frequently uses a hymn as part of the ritual of private devotion. In so doing he is following a long line of Reformed practice. John Calvin made the translation of the psalms into metrical verse not just for public worship but for private devotion. There is a scene in Thomas Hardy where at the end of the day workers down tools and sing together a hymn or psalm. Erik Routley wrote a number of devotional commentaries on a variety of hymn. Songs sung in public worship also used for private devotion seems to be the norm within the Reformed tradition.

It may be St Augustine of Hippo  who said “He who sings prays twice” but the Reformed tradition seems to have built a whole way of being a Christian around the singing of psalms and hymns. There is something that resonates deep with Presbyterian about “Ye Gates lift up your heads” as I have found since I came to St Andrews, and have you noticed your Congregational friends often put down their hymn book to sing “When I survey the wondrous cross”. These hymn/psalm becomes part of who we are.

Then hymns speak at different levels not just the words that you sing, many people recall the hymns sung at a parent’s funeral or on their wedding day. However lots of little events equally shape our understanding of a hymn, I cannot think of “Glorious things of thee are spoken Zion city of our God” without also recalling my child hood church of Zion Wakefield, equally “We are marching in the light of God” always recalls singing it while walking around St George’s Jerusalem with a pilgrimage group.

It is often said that in the old hymns you sang theology but this is too simple. For the last rather two hundred years hymnody has been split into two strands, one appealing more to the head, the other more to heart. The mission hall hymn “What a friend we have in Jesus” by Joseph Scrivens is very much a heart song and yet I can recall as a child hearing my Grandmother sing it. The well formed Christian needs both.

I sometimes find myself humming a hymn while I am doing something else. The range is enormous, from “All people that on Earth do dwell” through Brian Wren’s “Great God, your love has called us here” and onto “When I was lost you came and rescued me” by Kate and Miles Simmonds a modern Charismatic worship song. However if I stop the hymn I am humming often captures something of my mood that I need to, in the words of the old hymn, “take it to the Lord in prayer”.

The Reformed tradition seems to always be multi-voiced. The idea of mono-vocal or multi-voiced discourses comes from the work of Mikhail Bakhtin a Russian philosopher, better known for his work on Carnival. Multi-voiced discourses are where even if only one person is speaking you can hear echoes of previous utterances by other people. Sometimes this make a cohesive voice, like a large choir all singing the melody, and sometimes they produce a polyphone of harmonising and clashing themes. The Reformed tradition appears to be one of the later.

This leads to always having a “yes but” stance which is uncomfortable. In part I think this discomfort may explain some of the Reformed tendency to splinter into smaller groups Scottish Presbyterians clearly who have this propensity, but Congregationalism just tended to do it more often with smaller numbers. Thus divisions do not appear denominational level. The aim of division was to reduce the divergent voices and thus make a more comfortable position.

This ignores the flip side, which is actually older, the tendency to seek merger and unity. If there is a single action that creates the Reformed tradition then it is the signing of the Tigurinus Consensus in 1548 between John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger,Huldrych Zwingli’s successor in Zurich. The first cross tradition merger was between Cavlinist and Zwinglites which created the tradition.  Now the theologies of the Calvin and Zwingli are different, but there was enough common ground that they were able to acknowledge each other as part of the Church merger creates multivoicedness.

Thus Ecumenics is not a twentieth century phenomena, but finds its echoes in leaders with a Reformed heritage of such as George Macleod, Brother Roger of Taize and Tullio Vinnay (founder of Agape a centre for reconciliation in the Italian Alps) . What was new in Twentieth century was people looking beyond the wider Reformed tradition.

So if we were not splitting apart then we were coming together! There are lots of people who through time have spoken from what they perceive as a Reformed position. Some have wished to take the high ground “only if you believe this are you properly Reformed”, others have wished rather to build on common ground just as John Calvin did. The challenge is to find ways of speaking within the multitude of voices.

It may appeal to be silent, but a choir where everyone is silent is not singing in harmony, nor is it really a performance of a choir piece if only the soloist sing. So we need to find ways of speaking about what we believe. However if we are to create harmony and not discord we also need to learn to listen to other people, not necessarily to sing their tune, but see if we can’t adjust ours so that it compliments rather than clashes.

In 1972 the URC came into being and two denominational traditions collided. There are problems today that are caused not by the positions regarding wider traditions, these were both traditions dominated by the Reformed Tradition, but by the fact that the two traditions did not bother to find out how the other tradition worked, the Presbyterian assumed that with these sort of half toned Congregationalists they would find it easy to dominate, the Congregationalists assumed that they would continue doing things as they always did with a few adjustments for Presbyterians as they had done before. The Presbyterians assumed there was a meeting two dissenting traditions of which theirs was superior  because it was articulated. The Congregationalists just assumed the way they did things was the way it was to be done noy because it was Congregational but because that was how it was.

The mistake was made in thinking that within English Congretationalism there was a named tradition that in some way is comparable to the Presbyterian tradition of the Presbyterian Church of England. This Presbyterian tradition is that of a clear dissenting tradition that stands against the mainstream. It says “We do this BECAUSE we are PRESBYTERIAN”. It is clear and defined. English Congregationalism on the whole found no need for such a tradition. Indeed may have found problems with having it. Rather with respect to tradition it relates as a dominant discourse, the tradition has no name (or rarely is named) but is referenced by how “We do it”.

I suspect that this has several roots. Firstly the obvious one, the tradition is not a single strand but a loosely woven rope of many strands that are not always compatible. It is true that the Reformed strand is the core one but there are plenty of other bits. It has to be seen as an grouping that specialises in bringing the disparate together. What is more with the Independent part, for most congregations “the tradition” is primarily the tradition of that congregation and only secondarily draws on the wider experience of other congregations and the wider church. When you talk about the wider context few members have any interest. Thus there is a need to have a way of talking and holding things together without setting people’s backs up. Names tend to carry baggage with them, so it is convenient if their is no name for anyone to object to.

Secondly in England there was an indicator name change I suspect at the end of the nineteenth Century. Before that all Congregational churches tended to be called Independent and Congregational used only after then. Traditions are conservative by nature, I suspect that there is a strong streek of people who still think of themselves as going to the Independent Chapel despite this. To add to this the change seems to coincide with the NonConformist Ascendancy in Late Victorian times. There were places in England where Congregationalism was the dominant tradition, so naturally it took the dominant form.

The result is that former English Congregationalists are not concious of their Congregational heritage but they are secure in it, assuming it is the way things ought to be done by any rational person. They have not had a name and feel no need for a name. For them the question was how the Presbyterians will alter the way we do things. It is a tradition based around absorbing not fracturing.

The former Presbyterians, as do former Congregational Church of Scotland, (I have not idea what former Churches of Christ do) find that what happens is that instead of their nice named dissenting tradition, they are faced with a nameless mesh of ideas that somehow resists their attempts to say what it should be like.  What is worse it uses the first person plural “We” of itself so your choice is to join it or dissent from belonging. This is not tradition as they know it, yet it assumes the dominant position.