"Something's Going On": The Future Denominational Church

By Deborah Arca Mooney Just weeks ago, the Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow preached his last official sermon as Moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA) at the denomination's bi-annual gathering, General Assembly. The youngest moderator ever to be elected, at age 39, Reyes-Chow has spent the past two years serving as the highest officer of the 2.3 million member denomination, as well as continuing to serve the church he founded in San Francisco, Mission Bay Community Church. During his term as Moderator, a non-paid position in the Church, he attended more than 175 events, preached at 100 churches, traveled some 200,000 miles nationally and internationally, and visited all sixteen Presbyterian Synods. Throughout it all, Reyes-Chow and Vice-Moderator Byron Wade conducted a first-of-its-kind, vibrant social media campaign that included some 6,000 friends on Facebook for Bruce alone, and 3,500 Twitter followers. Reyes-Chow has become one of the leading voices of postmodern culture and its impact on the Christian church. As part of our series on the Future of Mainline Protestantism at Patheos, we talked with Bruce recently about some of his Moderator "gleanings," the challenges and opportunities facing the PC(USA) and denominations generally, and the future of the mainline church. What have you learned about the Church since serving as Moderator that you didn't know before? There were actually very few surprises for me in my term. Both Byron (Vice Moderator) and I grew up in this church, and we yearn for it to be a denomination that is really transforming the world and society. And there are pockets where that is happening, but as a whole, our influence in the world has greatly diminished since our days in the 1950s and ‘60s. We don't want to forget that past, but what was foundational from that time really needs to move us into the future. What I was surprised about was that there were very few people in the church who would say that what's going on in the world isn't impacting the denomination. Very few people are saying, "Nothing's going on, we can just keep doing the things that we want." Most folks acknowledge that something is going on and we have to figure out what to do. Now, how we respond to that is different. Some people get more conservative with their resources and pull in; others just give up the institution outright; and still others are trying to work within the institution. I think what I've learned the most is that folks know that something is going on. So now it's, "What do we do?" Something is going on indeed. A recent report cites that membership in the PC(USA) has dropped to half of its largest size, from its high point in 1965. How is the Church responding to the well-documented ‘mainline decline,' which is also occurring in every mainline denomination in America? As a denomination, we are driven by numbers and success to our own detriment. We talk about our denomination now being at 2.1 million members and it scares people to death that we're no longer 3.5 million. And I just think that is a rabbit hole that we can't go down. We've responded in too many ways to this idea that we have to grow numerically. Now, I'm not opposed to growing numerically but I think the reality of us getting to 3 million members is harking back to a day that is no longer going to be there for us. Can we be an inspired 1.5 million that changes the world? Yes! But when we stay in those numbers conversations, we get into this blame game that gets us nowhere. The conservatives say we're too liberal and that's why we're losing people; the liberals say we're too conservative. I would say to those who want to continue that fight, that's the reason we've lost so many folks. We don't have any existence unless we know whom we're fighting against and that has driven our denominational reality so that a whole generation is checking out of that way of being. The PC(USA) has responded with an initiative called "Growing the Church Deep and Wide," which has some really positive elements to it around finding stories of churches that have managed to do some transformation. But the danger is that we're still driven by numbers, and we're driven by a sense of survival. I think that can spark things, but I am not a pastor in this church so that we can survive. A denomination that is only interested in its survival is no longer faithfully living the Gospel. One of the initiatives of your term was to hold town hall meetings in every city you visited, and to create a space for these conversations about the future of the church. What were the top three issues that came up during these gatherings? Surprisingly, the one thing that didn't get talked about a lot was sexuality. As much as a lot of folks want us to be caught up in conversations about ordination and marriage, very few people actually asked about it in our town halls. The things that people wanted to talk about were, first, the future of the church with respect to young adults and youth (how do we attract them?); second, technology and social media; and third, as people who have helped to build this institution, what is our role in it now? That's what people are really yearning to talk about. Our denomination is old. If you look around most churches, there are far too many 50- and 60-year-olds, and the Baby Boomers continue to hold the power in the institution. Many of us who see that are trying to figure out what our role is in helping to create what's next. Some of the Boomers are holding on and thinking they can think like they're 20-and 30-year-olds; others are saying no, our role is to nurture the next generation, so what do we do? You know, there's a common saying in the church that "youth are the future of the church," to which someone else will say "no, youth are the today of the church." To which I follow up and say, "but they're not." For all intents and purposes, there's a whole generation of people that is missing from our congregations, so to say that "youth are the today of the church" is kind of lying to ourselves and a way of saying to ourselves we're doing okay, which we're not. One or two young people in your congregation do not a future make. Until we have young folks at a significant place at the table in thinking about the future, we're paying lip service to thinking about what's next. And then it's a bunch of us who become calcified, holding on to what we've always loved until it dies, and that's not what the church is to be about. And I think folks get that and are trying to figure out what to do with that. So what do we do as a church to help encourage and nurture a community of faith that young people feel invited to, excited about, and drawn into? Because I was raised in this denomination, it was important for me to acknowledge wherever I went the amazing work and legacy that has been passed on. At the same time, our response to the gospel is not about maintaining a legacy, but responding to the grace that God has given us, so if that's the case, then we have to figure out what is grace-filled about where we have been and respond to that. I also tried to get people to acknowledge that the age 40 is older now! People would be like "Oh, 40 isn't old, I'm still young." That the problem -- we've adopted the American culture where we never want to grow up, so you have 40- and 50-year olds that think that they're still 20 and 30. Even though they lived as 20- and 30-years olds at some point, they have not lived as 20- and 30-year olds in the 1990s and 2000s. So their life understanding is drastically different. I really push that we need to understand that our role is different as a 40-year-old than a 20-year-old. My role as the pastor at my church is to make sure that we always have more 20-year-olds than 30-year-olds, and more 30-year olds than 40-year olds and figure out a way that our leadership takes seriously that group. Our Session (church governing body) is a very young Session. I believe it's important that they are defining the future of the church, even when I don't get it! That's my role. Our boomers need to understand that their role is to usher in that next generation, not in a token way, but at a significant place at the table. Is the PC(USA) as an institution doing anything specific to bring these younger people to the table? One thing I try to help people see is that when a crisis hits and we start to think we're on our own and this is just happening to us, the reality is that this happening all over the world, this is everywhere. We can take some comfort in knowing that no one has really figured this out yet. So we're all in this same time of transition between very different world views, and the question is, how do you transform an entire organization built in the 1950s and ‘60s into one with a completely different world view, when the new generation doesn't exist within that institutional system? At the same time, there are programs we have that we are reinventing a little bit. Our national Environmental Office has begun to see that there's a generation that cares differently about environmental issues, and so we've reinstated that office. Our World Mission division is now focusing on gender issues, trafficking, and environmental issues -- issues that young folks have generally been really interested in within the last 5-10 years. We're trying to tailor programs to come alongside those movements. In the midst of the conversation about the "mainline decline," there are significant voices in every denomination, as well as outside of denominations, saying we should let the church die so something new can be born. What's your response to that and what new forms might church take in the 21st century? Okay, I could riff on this forever. I get into these conversations all the time, especially with friends from the Emergent Movement who come from non-denominational backgrounds. I think their context defines their reaction to denominations. There are a growing number of us within a denominational reality that have a very positive experience and don't feel we need to throw everything out to move into the future. When someone says to me, "you know, we're post-denominational," I say, "I totally agree, we're post-‘50s denominational." We have yet to decide and discern what denominations look like in the future. I think one of the things the emergent folks are buying into culturally is an isolationism and disconnectedness that technology has brought about. And if we follow them, then we're buying into this idea, in an almost rebellious attitude, that you can do everything on your own and you are not accountable to anyone other than the folks you have deemed part of your immediate community. A denomination, on the other hand, says to the world that we're accountable to folks who manifest the Spirit and the Body of Christ beyond our human constructs, and I think that is a prophetic word for the world today. Denominations certainly have their issues, but we do also have a gift that we can offer. I would add -- and this is what Phyllis Tickle would say -- that the future of the Protestant church will be defined and formed by the mainline emergents, which she calls "hyphen-mergents," because we know how to do structure. Now we certainly don't want to just do it the way we've done it before, or do it in a way that stifles creativity and adaptability, but we do understand the benefits when it's done well. There's this great convergence now between the traditional evangelical emergents and these emergents coming out of mainline traditions, and we're trying to figure out how much we are going to work together. But when people say we're post-denominational, I think that's too easy. I'm not a cheerleader for denominational survival, but at the same time I think we can offer something in a different form than we have in the past, and some of us are trying to figure out what that looks like. So what do you think we are learning from the emergent movement? How is that particular community informing the future of the mainline church? One of the things we have to understand when thinking about future forms of church is that if we take seriously that we're a postmodern church in a Christian context, we have to honor, understand, and respect multiple manifestations of church equally. There are far too many who are still caught up in the modernist mindset that says the church just needs to be ‘not that,' so the ‘not that' issues are no longer valid expressions of community. And that's dangerous because we're only moving into the next calcification of the institution. Some of us are getting to the point of being open to valuing all of those manifestations of church and asking what, then, is the structure that holds us together and gives us the freedom to be the church in our particular contexts? How do we even do that within our own congregations? We're learning now from the churches that started within the last 5-10 years and that are now getting to the point of talking about what this looks like for the long-term. Are you really as fluid as you say you want to be? Because mainline churches have a mindset of longevity, we're having those conversations now in many congregations. We're going to have to be open to multiple manifestations of the church whether we understand, like, or agree with them, and we have to honor them all. We're seeing many denominational churches -- House for All Sinners and Saints in Denver, Church of Apostles in Seattle, Mission Bay in San Francisco, The Open Door in Pittsburgh -- churches that are saying we can straddle this postmodern-modern thing and do it well. I think the learning is coming from the tension that's arising from trying to figure out what sustainability looks like. It's easy to talk about being church different -- it's much harder to actually do it. Our church used to meet in a café, which theoretically was a very cool idea, but practically was horrible. Putting the theory to practice is where we are now, because more places are open to us trying to do it. As I said earlier, everybody knows something is going on, so there is more openness now to these new ways of doing church. Speaking of new ways of doing church, social media has been a central component of your ministry as a pastor and in your life as Moderator. You're clearly a champion of using social media and new technologies in the life of the church. How are those tools affecting denominational transformation? While I don't take credit for much as Moderator, this is one area I will! In the past two years, under my encouragement of it, social media has blown up far more than anybody would have expected. So much so that we actually came up with a social media policy at General Assembly this year. And it wasn't a "don't do it" policy -- because that would be foolish -- but one that was "Let's use it well." I've been pushing the idea throughout my term that social media/technology is only one more tool we use to engage in ministry, nothing more, nothing less. As with any media we use to experience and express the gospel, we have to learn how to do it well. When it comes to the foundation of the social media component, this whole "open source" understanding of people gathering together to discern the truth is actually something Presbyterians are wired for. We believe that we gather together and that nobody is supposed to have more authority than anybody else. And in an open source world, that's exactly what we do. Now we don't always live that. But what has happened is that somewhere in their souls, folks have connected with the social media component. Other than Catholics, I think Presbyterians are the most active Christians in social media at this point. What has really been wonderful about the social media connections has been that people who stand on opposite sides of theological issues are discovering each other as people, rather than just an "issue." Social media has allowed this continuous connection and interaction (if you're up for it) that allows us to know each other more authentically. But as with any community, it's only effective when we're willing to mutually and authentically open our lives to one other. One of the positive outcomes, for example, is that when we get to General Assembly and are having heated interactions about various issues, there will be a growing number of people who know people beyond just that event and issue, or at least know people who can help soften the demonization and vitriolic nature we engage so often. So I think social media has really helped to create a better sense of community within the church. Plus, information gets disseminated so much faster now! There were about 5,000 people watching General Assembly online every day -- that's five times more people than were actually on the floor watching it live. So, looking forward, how is the denominational structure going to have to adapt to allow for these multiple manifestations of church you mentioned earlier? I use the term "institutionalizing fluidity" when I talk about this. We used to create structure for a set time that would then stay there until we restructured again. So it would be chaos, chaos, chaos, breathe, breathe, breathe, chaos, chaos, chaos, breathe, breathe, breathe. We have to understand that chaos is just the air we breathe, so how does the structure keep us moving through all of that without going through these huge highs and lows? How does it provide some stability without being stifling? I think of it like a jellyfish moving through the water -- you never know where it's going but it still holds together. When we think of institutional structures, we can't think of them as endpoints, but rather as this constant movement, which can drive people nuts. Our structure needs to have adaptability built into it, which we don't have now. Doesn't that require a real shift in how institutional leaders lead? Is it realistic to believe that leaders will be able to make such a shift? All things are possible in Christ! ( laughter ) My biggest hope for the church is that people know that something is going on, and my biggest fear is that we don't actually have the capacity to adjust. At the same time, there are a lot of young folks who are yearning again for something that is not as open as some other traditions or independent movements. There is something about the stability of a denomination, whether they would name it that or not, that says "we're going to be here every Sunday," and in a world where things are not there every week, that's a good thing. But then we can't oppress these younger folks when they come in with this structure that they have to be part of. So what does this require for leaders? I say you're either "open source" or you're not. You can't "kind of" be open source. Worship is a great example. I think every pastor who is leading a church that is truly trying to be "open source" should cringe at least two or three times during a worship service because there will be people contributing something he or she doesn't like or understand. If you think you've crafted the perfect worship service, then you've taken away this open source kind of feel. The perfection comes from the understanding that we've all been part of its production, and not from the product. Since we're on the subject of worship, let's talk about that for a minute. When you were visiting churches across the country these past two years, were you especially excited or inspired by any new creative forms or worship? Hope and despair run rampant in my worship experience with this denomination. We built a denomination where you can move from city to city, state to state, and find a Presbyterian Church exactly the same as the one you left. People say we're not a "one size fits all" church sometimes, but when it gets right down to it, we are. Even in the worship services of the more creative people, I could still write their order of worship. That has to change. You can still have the flow of a reformed structure of worship but it doesn't have to look exactly the same everywhere. I was excited by a church in Chicago called Wicker Park Grace , led by the Rev. Nanette Sawyer. They do an improvisational worship service. The worship leaders and the pastor do this improv dance back and forth and yet if you look for it, you will see all the elements of a reformed liturgy. Whether we have the capacity to do this on a large scale, I don't know. As you look ahead at the future of this denomination, where do see the biggest areas of growth and change? The biggest challenge, and place we need to shift and change, is in our theological education. As Presbyterians, we're always going to have this idea that folks are set aside for ministry, so how we train people for pastoral ministry in a variety of manifestations is going to be crucial to the future of our denomination. We're going to need to figure out how to train pastors to be tentmakers, to be bi-vocational, and to see ministry not as a last resort but as a calling. We need to broaden our understanding of pastoral ministry. Our seminaries have to re-engage with the church so they better understand what is needed. For the most part, we're still training people for a church that exists now, but not for a church that is yet to become. I think seminaries need to take the lead on training folks to help transform the church in the future. The other piece that is going to be major is institutional structure, from church sessions to middle governing bodies. Because again, if I believe in the connectional church, we have to have the structures there that support that and manifest a healthy presence. So in a denominational future, how we structure middle governing bodies is going to be huge. That's the game changer for the PCUSA -- re-thinking our synods and presbyteries to model ministry in a connectional way. As far as ministry components, I predict a resurgence in justice ministries again, as so many young folks are looking at issues like trafficking, gender, invisible children, environmental issues, etc. Folks are realizing that we need to come alongside some of these movements and be influencers. The last thing I'd say is that we just hired a new director of our Washington office who is going to reinvigorate our prophetic presence in DC. I think that piece is going to be really important. What would a vibrant mainline church of the future look like? It is one where you walk in and you feel that there is life. You feel that there is theological integrity and you feel like people in that space have been part of its birth. There is this sense that there is something greater happening and that it is because of this that people have gathered. In a reformed understanding where we believe God is unfolding some reality, it's a place that knows its role in that and is journeying along that way. One last question for you: What does the future of former Moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow look like? What's emerging for you now? People keep asking me if I'm going to slow down now that I'm no longer Moderator. My meter always runs on high -- I don't know what slow looks like. I'm looking forward to coming back to Mission Bay Community Church where I serve as Pastor. I'm ¾-time now at the church, trying to model that it's not just good for me, but it's good for the church to bring in some new folks and younger staff. I'm also teaching a class on social media at McCormick Seminary in the fall. Like everyone, I‘m working on a book. It's called Embracing the Gray, and it's not about social media or technology or church leadership but about my particular life and some of the craziness that's happened, and finding the calm of Christ in a world of chaos. I have three daughters and a wife, so I'll be home a bit more. But I'm still going to be out there traveling and being part of some larger national conversations on church and emergent stuff. I really loved being Moderator, but I'm thrilled to be done and am looking forward to what's next. An ordained minister since 1995, Bruce Reyes-Chow is the founding pastor of Mission Bay Community Church. Bruce is also co-host of a weekly internet radio show, God Complex Radio , serves on the board of Public Religion Research , and is currently also on a self-publishing adventure, writing his first book , Embracing the Gray: musings on faith, family and the pursuit of an American dream. Bruce blogs at Bruce Reyes-Chow. You can also follow him on Facebook and Twitter.