Denominational Polity: Not Just for Church Nerds!

 

Denominational Polity:  Not Just for Church Nerds!

“Denominational polity” is a term that describes how a church body (a.k.a. denomination) is organized in order to carry out its mission and ministry.  In the United States there is a range of options for how churches are put together, how power flows through the denomination, and how local congregations relate to the wider denomination.

Some churches are organized hierarchically—with power flowing through a highly-structured system from the top down.  The Roman Catholic Church exemplifies this model.

Other churches are organized democratically, with power flowing through a widely-dispersed organization, from the bottom (a.k.a. “grass roots”) up.   The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is an exemplar of this sort of polity.

Still other churches exhibit elements of both hierarchical and democratic polities, such as the historic Protestant church bodies in North America—e.g. Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Reformed churches.

In the wake of the latest news emerging from the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)—reports alleging that the denomination has failed to respond effectively and compassionately to hundreds of victims who have accused their religious leaders of engaging in sexual misconduct—it’s vital to understand the importance of the SBC’s denominational polity.    

The key unit in the organization of the SBC is the local congregation.   Each congregation basically “calls the shots” for how ministry is organized and carried out.   The wider denomination is primarily “advisory” in nature.    If members of a congregation cannot agree on potentially church-dividing issues, a faction of members who are at odds with their fellow-congregants will often withdraw and form a new congregation.   (As our family experienced many years ago on a vacation trip through the “deep South,” it’s common to see clusters of Baptist congregations within close geographic proximity to one another—reflecting a pattern of tiny faith communities that have splintered off from one another.)

Discussing the recent shocking report by Guidepost Solutions (an independent firm contracted by the SBC’s Executive Committee to look into the reports of hundreds of clergy sexual misconduct cases in the SBC),  Christa Brown, a member of the SBC who is a lawyer, writer and victim of clergy abuse declared:  “What is absolutely critical is that the local church cannot function as the default or presumed starting place for a survivor to try to obtain an investigation of clergy sex abuse….If the local church is deemed to be a requisite first stop for survivors to pursue action, then many survivors’ voices will be choked in their throats before sound is ever uttered.”

I believe that what Ms. Brown identifies here is a challenge posed by the SBC’s “bottom up" democratic polity which is highly focused on each congregation being the primary unit of the denomination.   Despite the strengths of such a denominational polity, it’s also clear that local congregations usually lack the capacity to step outside their tightknit “family circles” to exercise fair and effective discipline when an often-beloved local pastor is called to account for misbehavior.   It will be especially fascinating to see how the SBC responds to Guidepost Solutions’ recommendation that the denomination create an “Offender Information System” that would inform local call processes for pastors across the whole SBC.   The creation of such informational systems has been a primary way of addressing the problem of an offending pastor leaving one congregation and then being considered for the pastorate of another congregation.   Doing so would involve changing the “culture” of the SBC—moving the denomination from being strictly a “bottom up” organization to incorporate elements of a more “top down” organization.

Lest we assume, however, that “top down” denominations are more adept at stopping clergy sexual misconduct, we need to ponder the recent history of the Roman Catholic Church’s agonizing attempts to reduce the number of offending clergy in its own ranks.    This has been a challenge for the Roman Catholic Church for a number of reasons, including

·       The revered status of priests whose ordination is understood to convey a permanent, “indelible image” that sets them apart from the laity of the church;

·       The fact that the laity of the church are highly dependent upon their priests (and bishops) who alone can preside at the sacraments that are foundational for Catholic faith and life;

·       The solidarity that celibate priests and bishops have with one another, often leading them to “close ranks” when individual ministers are accused of wrongdoing;

·       The challenge of incorporating laity into new pathways that have been designed to prevent and/or adjudicate clergy sexual misconduct.

I believe that, with the SBC situation right before us, we’re living in a time when both hierarchical and democratic church polities are in flux as the faithful members of churches seek to “change their stripes” in order to draw upon the strengths and opportunities provided by each of the dominant patterns for their respective polities.   Catholics have slowly but surely become more open to involving laity in investigating and adjudicating clerical malfeasance.   And now it would appear that Southern Baptists are being challenged to break free from their staunch “congregationalist” approach to carrying out their mission and ministry.