BLOG SERIES: The RE REsearch REview
“Seven-In-One-No”
One of my favorite stories as a kid was “Seven-In-One-Blow.” You may know it as “The Brave Little Tailor,” but a rose by any other name is still a great story. I’m sure you could tell it yourself (and if you can’t, please don’t tell me because it would break my heart), but let me give a quick overview. An ordinary tailor finds his lunch of bread and jam rudely interrupted by a swarm of flies. Infuriated by this pesky horde of flying pestilence, he slammed his hand down to annihilate them; and to his surprise, he kills seven-in-one-blow. It was such an amazing feat that he felt he ought to commemorate it by making a belt proclaiming the accomplishment, “seven-in-one-blow.” Buttressed by this achievement, he set off into the world to seek his fortune. Of course, everyone who meets him thinks he killed seven men with one blow and see him as a man to be reckoned with. In any case, through quick thinking, shrewd actions, and good luck, our tailor outwits giants, captures a unicorn, and defeats a troubling twosome of gigantic proportions. And for these feats, he wins the heart of a princess and becomes the king of the land. It almost inspired me to become a tailor or a pest exterminator.
Seven-in-one blow, in my opinion, is great fun. Seven people voting “no,” in my opinion, would not be much fun at all. We are coming up to the time when we will go out into our world to seek a new denominational home. But note, there are giants out there, and our first giant is a big one. We need a sizable majority of our church to vote “yes,” to move to ECO. Now, think about that. Our membership currently stands somewhere around 70 to 80 people, so even a handful of people voting “no,” could keep us from making the move. Of course, if that is the will of the body, then we will accept that and come up with another plan. But there is another giant lurking out there, and this one has seven heads with each head representing one of seven reasons why someone might choose to vote “no” to the move to ECO. Today, I would like to address these “seven-in-one no’s” to see if I can give some added perspective.
The first reason to vote “no”: Some of you may say: “I feel there is little hope that River’s Edge is going to be able to survive the upcoming transition, and so changing denominations is nothing but rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.” I get the sentiment, but I strongly disagree. But let’s talk about it. It is true, there is a national shortage of pastors which will make it difficult to find the “next guy.” And that would be true even if we were a church of 400. A church our size will find it even more difficult. Those are the facts; but while it will be difficult, I would like to suggest it is far from impossible. But I get the concern. It is also true that the longer the search takes to find “the next guy,” the more fear, the more doubt and the more fatigue will creep in. And when you add those three together, they spell “hopelessness.” Business guru Max DePree tells us that the first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. Here is our reality. The search for a new pastor is going to be tough, and we realize we may lose some people during the transition. That should not be too surprising; you typically lose people during a transition. But in a church our size, that loss will be very apparent and could create waves of anxiety throughout the congregation. Please, don’t let it. Yes, there may be a period where we lose people, but we also believe that a morning will dawn when we start to add new people. And with the new energy, new appeal, and new ideas that our new pastor will bring, we hope we will add lots of new people. And ECO offers us many great resources to help us grow and to reach new people. But if many people give up hope before we get to the “adding phase,” it is going to be more difficult for us to press onward. Again, difficult, but not impossible. All that to say, we need everyone on board. We need everyone to pitch in, and we need everyone to hang in there and not only work together, but to work for each other, to persevere for each other and to hope for each other. Let me be honest: I have lots of hope for a very bright future, but if lots and lots of people leave, then things will grow exponentially more difficult to reach that future. Now is not the time to pull back. Now is the time to jump in with both feet so that we can not only survive the transition, but thrive during it. So, please, don’t give up hope. Great things are just around the corner.
The second reason to vote “no”: “I hate change, and I love the PCA.” This is also true. The PCA has been great to us, but over time, we feel we have outgrown it. And the benefits we gain from becoming egalitarian, in my opinion, more than make up for what we lose in leaving the PCA. By moving to ECO, we get to keep the same theology, embrace the same creeds, embody the same philosophy of ministry, be involved in the same missions and be able to expand our ministry endeavors in new and exciting ways. Most everyone hates change, but I firmly believe this will be a change for the better.
The third reason to vote “no”: “I fear ECO as a denomination is a step too far.” Our new denomination study team was charged with finding a denomination that fit who we are as a church. And we knew that there was a faction in our church that would want to stay as close to the PCA in both theology and in practice as possible. And so, we had to wrestle with this. And we did find a denomination that was egalitarian, but was closer to the PCA in both of these regards. But the team felt it had three weaknesses. We felt moving to this denomination would be much more of a lateral move, would require us to take on some elements that we were not excited about and would not help us reach our potential. And for those reasons, we decided not to pursue it. We also believed that the vast majority of the congregation felt that our next step ought to cause us to stretch. ECO provided us with that opportunity. But we never thought ECO was a step too far. Just the opposite. ECO seems like it was just the right step. Now, I have one more comment to make about this, but I will save it for the next reason.
The fourth reason to vote “no”: “I fear the denomination is not a step far enough.” Our last objection feared that ECO was a step too far. This one fears it doesn’t go far enough. Again, this is a valid concern. ECO, in many ways, is very traditional. It upholds the creeds. It believes in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. It stands against all forms of sexual immorality and sees the covenant of marriage as being between a man and a woman In other words, ECO has very traditional values wrapped in very progressive methodology. And for some of you, that means that ECO doesn’t go far enough. I get that. But the thing that drew me to ECO was its emphasis on grace and compassion and understanding. In short, ECO believes that people matter. And so, while I may not agree with ECO on a few contemporary cultural issues, I do get an approach to people that I want. And to me, that is a fair trade-off. And one more thing. The New Testament repeatedly calls us in the church to serve one another and to put the needs of the other person ahead of our own (Phil. 2:1-4). If we apply this to our discussions, I wonder if both those who think ECO is a step too far and those who think ECO is a step not far enough may put aside their differences and come together in the middle for the good of the whole body. There is no perfect denomination. Let’s seek the one that best serves the needs of the whole church.
The fifth reason to vote “no”: “I hate the term evangelical as it is now being defined and to see it in the name of our denomination is a real negative. And when you add to that the fact ECO’s headquarters are in Texas, well that’s two strikes.” Let me be honest. I’ve never heard anyone say this so maybe this is not a concern out there. But I have said this many times. I don’t like the term evangelical, and I don’t like Texas. Now, I used to like both. In fact, I used to be a big fan of the Dallas Cowboys, but times have changed and now I pretty much despise both. But here’s the good news: ECO doesn’t use the term “evangelical” in the contemporary cultural or political sense. Instead, it emphasizes the centrality of the person and work of Christ for salvation. ECO also believes that “evangelical” has a secondary meaning referring to the need to bring the good news of Jesus to the world, in both word and deed. This is what I grew up believing the label “evangelical” meant; and while I wish our culture had not hijacked the word to add a political component, I stand firmly with ECO in its insistence that we interpret the word according to its original meaning. Would I prefer that the word “evangelical” did not show up in the name of our new denomination? You betcha! But that’s the way it goes. As for Texas housing the denomination’s headquarters, we can always pray that one day they will move.
The sixth reason to vote “no”: “I don’t care what we do.” Now, usually people will say this for one of two reasons. First, they are planning on leaving the area in two or three years or, second, they are planning on leaving as soon as I retire. Now, I understand the first issue. If you are not going to be here when the next pastor is here, why should you vote on whatever denomination he or she is from? Here’s my answer: Because you are part of this community now, and I bet you want what is best for them. In fact, I bet if I sent out a call for help, you would show up and do anything you could to serve. Here’s the good news: You can help us now by voting for a future even if you won’t be a part of it. And you can do that because you care about our church now. And let me add, if you are planning to leave when I leave, you are making a huge mistake. I am hoping the next pastor will be wonderful. I am hoping he or she is going to lead our church into a great future. And I am hoping that you will be a part of that because whoever our next pastor is, they will need our expertise and history and perspective and experience to help them learn the ropes, to understand Catonsville and to encourage them in their work. They will need you. Don’t bail on them too soon.
The seventh and last reason to vote “no”: “I hate the name ECO. The only thing good about it is that we don’t have to say I am part of the covenant order of evangelical presbyterian denomination.” I fully agree. I really hope they change the name in a few years, but it’s not easy. You don’t want to be COP (Covenant Order of Presbyterians), or EPC (there is already a denomination with that name), or REE (Reformed, Evangelical and Egalitarian) or RED (River’s Edge’s Denomination). But in the meantime, ECO is the name; and as Shakespeare says, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”
There it is: My response to seven key objections. I’m not sure I completely did away with all seven, but I gave it a good whack. Now, if you would like to talk more about any of these, I would love to hear your thoughts (this is supposed to be a conversation, after all). Or if you have any other reasons that you would like to share, I am all ears. This is an important and timely topic; now is the time to address it. And again, each one of these reasons has some truth attached to it, but I hope that in this blog I have played the role of a really good tailor and given each one a pretty good swat. And if I swatted the stuffing out of each one, let me know and maybe I’ll make a belt.