After attending the recent meetings of the PC(USA)’s “Form of Government Task Force,” I’ve been thinking about how to “place” the efforts to develop a new “missional polity” for mainline churches. That is, how to place it in the more comprehensive effort of working for the missional transformation of our congregations and ultimately the larger church structures and denomination as a whole.

In casual conversation, when people talk about “missional polity” (don’t you talk about missional polity in your casual conversations?), people are often referring to “some form of church government that is more flexible and supportive of congregations,” a polity that moves from a “regulatory” model to an “enabling” model, or however you want to put it. And such emphases are rightly placed at the center of our effort to move beyond the overly hierarchal, overly bureaucratic forms of church government that are often insensitive to the needs of congregations and do not foster an ethos in the church that is conducive to building the kind of genuine relationships that ought to characterize our life together.

So, developing a more congregation-focused polity has some real potential. And I immediately think of the need to be more discerning in how we train and ordain leaders. Our current policies often prevent immigrant congregations from receiving adequate support and often make young entrepreneurial leaders feel as though preparation for ministry is more about getting all the boxes checked and being introduced to the “mainline ethos” than it is about being nurtured in the faith and commissioned to go out and take risks for the sake of the Gospel. And, who knows, maybe a new missional polity can give us smaller presbyteries where people might actually get to know each other and at least have the chance of becoming the kind of discerning communities without which no polity can be “missional.” And – is this too much to hope? – maybe a new congregation-focused polity will drastically pare down the functions of the General Assembly and leave only those functions that really are making a difference for our congregations.

But a more congregation-focused polity in itself is not going to solve the problems of the PC(USA), and I think we need to recognize that any new polity can really only be potentiating in its effect. That is, a polity designed to be more relational will not create the relationships but provide the context in which those relationships can develop. A polity that gives greater freedom to presbyteries in developing policies that are appropriate for their own ministry context is only helpful if the presbyteries can wisely and maturely live within that greater flexibility. (I should note that, in the work of PC(USA)’s “Form of Government Task Force,” the debate over sexuality is off the table, thankfully. So we’re not talking about local flexibility or license to disregard national standards regarding the manner of life of officers, which are to remain untouched.) The long and short of it is that structural changes can help catalyze a change in the ethos of the church and can help make an environment more conducive to faithfulness in ministry, but simply changing the structures themselves will not bring about a change in ethos or greater faithfulness.

In addition, one of the things we must contend with in the midst of efforts toward the “missional transformation” of our governing bodies is the fact that such change is more than a matter of creating a more efficient, less cumbersome government for the sake of congregational ministry.

The connecting structures of the church also are intended to serve a critical role in maintaining and expressing the unity of the church and a unified witness to Jesus Christ. And these functions can only be realized (beyond a mere institutional unity) by being founded in a genuinely common faith and life. Being a missional church together is a matter of moving into participation in God’s mission as a result of our common participation in the life of God through faith. So, hopefully obviously, authentic missional transformation in the mainline will go beyond reworking our polity and will involve a common foundational understanding of who God is, what the missio dei is, and how he has called us to participate in his mission to redeem the world in Jesus Christ. In other words, ultimately, the missional transformation of mainline connectional structures cannot take place without addressing and, to some degree, overcoming the crippling theological divisions plaguing the church. Re-writing the PC(USA)’s Form of Government is not in itself going to bring about theological renewal.

But I think it would be a mistake to assume that we must first solve core theological divisions before we address obvious problems in the connectional structures. I am beginning to wonder if re-orienting our structures around the centrality of the local congregation might indirectly help us address some of the theological divisions. How? Because there is no better test of the viability of theology than in the midst of the particularities of life in the local mission community. And being one who believes that, with adequate support and leadership, the faith and life of a congregation that is shaped by the classical Christian faith will not only survive but will thrive, I have hope that less burdensome and top-heavy governing bodies might catalyze a more faithful and effective witness in our congregations. If our higher governing bodies focus on enabling congregations, and if we can put the witness of our local mission communities front and center in our own ecclesiology, then I believe classical Christianity will prevail. Good theology informs ministry that connects people with Jesus Christ. In this case, the theological changes at the higher level will come as a result of demonstrated vitality in the local church.

All in all, there is much to be said for working to reform our church polity in a way that is focused on the needs of congregations as the primary unit of mission. Many denominations are thinking through how (and why) to make this happen. And my hope is that we will see this as one potentiating step in addressing the much bigger and deeper problems in the church.

(In future posts, I’ll take a look at the specific efforts of the PCUSA’s FOG Task Force.)