I’m at the ELCA Churchwide Assembly as a voting member, and there has been some very encouraging discussion on the requirement for the church to become a missional church. Those of us in emergent/missional conversations know this to already be true, but making this a strong emphasis across a mainline national church body is a welcome move.

However, I wonder how serious we are willing to become a missional church.

There is enough controversy at this assembly with the sexuality debate before us, but there is another controversial debate that this church must wage in order to become driven by God’s mission. It is an ecclesiological debate that effects the very fabric of local congregations and their practice of the faith as a community. It is a huge structural, logistical, and bureaucratic nightmare to even think about addressing. But if we do not begin to ask these questions, we will not enact foundational change in local congregations.

Ordination must be rethought.

If we are going to be a church free to move swiftly with the movement of the Spirit, a church that takes seriously the priesthood of all believers, a church rooted in local community, a church that believes that all are called by God and equipped for ministry, then the current structural handcuffs that go along with ordination, seminary, the call process, the sacraments, and the host of other issues related to ecclesiology must be removed.

I know the implications of this suggestion. I have lots of further thoughts, but don’t have the time to spell them out right now. This is a debate that will eventually be had, but I am simply advocating we have this debate before it is too late.

I’ve considered proposing a resolution to the assembly to begin a process to re-evaluate our ecclesiology, especially concerning ordination, but don’t think that I will have the time to do the necessary legwork before the deadline tomorrow morning. I would surely be defeated, but would put the issue before a host of people to whom it matters most.

I welcome your thoughts. More to come from me later.

Some of you may or may not know this, but I am a voting member in next week’s ELCA Churchwide Assembly. Because of that, I received about 500 pages worth of the Pre-Assembly Report in the mail a few weeks ago. It’s filled with reports from churchwide officers and offices, recommendations for action, information about procedures, the ELCA Constitution and Continuing Resolutions, and on and on. As a voting member of this assembly, I am quite conflicted.

My gut instinct says that this is not the way the church is supposed to operate. The church is not stacks of paper dictated by Robert’s Rule of Order where the majority always gets their way. And yet, on the other hand, when you are talking about coordinating efforts between massive groups of people, is there really any other way? When missional activities involve millions of dollars and millions of people, doesn’t that necessitate a slow-moving bureaucracy?

For example, one of the great things we are considering is our participation in a serious effort to fight malaria in Africa, an effort that spans across churches other than the ELCA and requires a commitment of tens of millions of dollars. Obviously, to make any significant dent in this disease across a whole continent requires a massive undertaking. I’m not sure that a bunch of independent local churches could coordinate this sort of large-scale initiative. Perhaps I’m wrong.

So, I am going into this assembly with an open mind. While my instincts tell me this is not the way a church should be structured, I am open to being proved wrong. This will be an interesting adventure in ecclesiology.

What about you? Is denominational bureaucracy a two-edged sword? Is there an alternative, especially as it relates to large-scale efforts?