george fox seminary

355 Pages·2014·2.27 MB·English

GEORGE FOX UNIVERSITY

TOGETHER, FULL OF WISDOM AND THE HOLY SPIRIT:
A PARADIGM FOR CONGREGATIONAL DISCERNMENT
AND DECISION MAKING

A DOCTORAL PROJECT SUBMITTED TO
THE FACULTY OF THE GEORGE FOX SEMINARY
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF MINISTRY

BY
MERRIE SCHOENMAN CARSON

PORTLAND, OREGON
MARCH 2013
All Scripture references, except those quoted by other authors within quotes, are from the
New International Version of the Bible.

Copyright © 2013 by Merrie S. Carson
All rights reserved
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was completed with the help of many people to whom I am deeply
indebted. The staff and faculty at George Fox Seminary have been insightful,
challenging, caring, encouraging, and helpful. My sincere appreciation goes to Doctors
Loren Kerns, Cliff Berger, Dan Brunner, Frank Green, Leonard Sweet, Jules Glanzer,
Cecilia Ranger, Richard Sartwell, Carole Spencer, and my professor and encouraging
advisor Dr. Chuck Conniry. Thank you to Dee Small for her joyful attention to our
smallest needs, including doughnuts and marshmallows! Thank you to David Nixon, for
his thoughtful, kind presence and discerning heart.
Many thanks are due to my cohort friends, the “Special K’s”: Dr. Rodney
Berthelot, Dr. Jerilyn Felton, C. V. Hartline, David Herrmann, Dr. K’Lynne McKinley,
and especially to Dr. Laurie Mulkey and Dr. Donna K. Wallace who dialogued with me
and read my writing long after class time and their dissertations were done.
Sincere thanks to my Saturday prayer group (Carol, Char, Janet, Marcia, and
Marlene), Amy Chase, my spiritual director Julie Anderton, and friends and colleagues
who believed I had something important to say and were willing to pray with and for me.
Last, I thank my family, especially Dick and Mary Schoenman, Sue Carson, Suzie
Crisp, Rosie and Lamar Fontaine, Sherry Carson, and children David, Jill, Andy, Marie,
Rob, and Emily for their support, and encouragement. I cannot thank my husband, Ron,
enough for his love, patience, and all that he has done to make this possible.
For all of the above I thank and praise my Lord Jesus Christ, who through this
experience has taught me much about partnering with Him and listening to His Spirit.
Merrie Schoenman Carson
iv
CONTENTS

Section............................................................................................................................ Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... vii

INTRODUCTION: TWO VIGNETTES .............................................................................1

ONE THE PROBLEM: The Challenges of Congregational Discernment
and Decision Making in American Church Culture ....................................5

Cultural Influences

Rationalism

Naturalism

Narcissistic Individualism

Restless Impatience and Information Overload

Pragmatism

Guardianship

Mystical Experience and Spirituality

A Better Way for Congregational Discernment and Decision
Making?

Understanding Guidance from Wisdom, the Holy Spirit, and the
Community

TWO OTHER MODELS OF CONGREGATIONAL DISCERNMENT
AND DECISION MAKING ......................................................................42

Guidance from Wisdom

Guidance from the Holy Spirit

Guidance from the Community

Guidance from Wisdom and the Holy Spirit
v
Guidance from the Holy Spirit and Community

Guidance from the Community and Wisdom

A Better Way?

THREE THE PROPOSED PARADIGM: Together, Full of Wisdom
and the Holy Spirit .....................................................................................74

Guidance from Wisdom, the Holy Spirit and the Community
Discernment and Decision Making in the Early Church of Acts
Ignatian Discernment and Decision Making

Quaker Discernment and Decision Making

Wesleyan Quadrilateral Discernment and Decision Making

Contemporary Discernment Models of Decision Making

FOUR ARTIFACT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................134

FIVE ARTIFACT SPECIFICATION/BOOK PROPOSAL..............................137

Query letter

Non-Fiction Book Proposal

SIX POSTSCRIPT ..........................................................................................148

APPENDIX A: THE ARTIFACT ...................................................................................153

Chapter 2 ..............................................................................................................154

Chapter 3 ..............................................................................................................193

Chapter 4 ..............................................................................................................247

APPENDIX B: The Tests of Authentic Spiritual Guidance ............................................307

APPENDIX C: Summary of Seven Models of Congregational Guidance ......................314

APPENDIX D: Congregational Decision Making Questionnaire. ..................................320

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................323
vi
ABSTRACT

In American consumer culture a congregation’s decisions are often based on the
sum of individual personal preferences, limited information, and pragmatism, promoting
disunity with no assurance that God’s will is discerned and done. After exploring seven
cultural “spirits” that cause problems for congregations as they discern God’s will and
make decisions, this dissertation examines the biblical, historical, theological, and
cultural backgrounds for Christian communal discernment to discover how congregations
can effectively make more God-focused, God-honoring, and God-reflecting decisions.
The current study proposes that a Christian community makes better decisions—more
faithful to its identity as the “body of Christ”—when it uses a model of discernment/
decision making that includes: (1) insights/teaching/judgments from wisdom sources, (2)
the guidance of the Holy Spirit through personal and corporate listening prayer and
evaluation, and (3) contributions from the entire congregation or group. It looks at how
the lack of one or two of these components is detrimental to healthy congregational
functioning and provides examples from Scripture and Church history. Also examined
are current models that enable congregations to apply wisdom and seek the guidance of
the Holy Spirit as they together discern practical solutions to ministry concerns.
The Artifact (chapters and appendices from a proposed book) presents biblical,
historical, and practical materials, and theological arguments supporting the proposal. It
demonstrates how God’s people have valued wisdom as a gift, using insights gained
through thoughtful consideration of human behavior and Creation to aid their
discernment/decision-making. It explores God’s leadership of his people and the Spirit’s
guiding and gifting of Jesus and the Early Church. It also examines Jewish and Greco-
vii
Roman models of community organization, and Early Church decision-making structures
and practices. In addition, New Testament teachings about unity, leadership, and healthy
“body of Christ” dynamics are provided.
viii
INTRODUCTION: TWO VIGNETTES

The members of Lakeside Church were gathered for a quarterly congregational
meeting to vote on a new set of church policies and procedures. After a brief prayer and
devotion on the importance of unity, the Chair announced that the question/discussion
time would be limited to issues of clarification, since concerns should have been
expressed to the revision committee in writing prior to the meeting. The committee, of
which she was a part, had worked many hours on the documents and the congregation’s
job was to approve them, not change them. The agenda for this meeting was a full one so
discussion would be restricted to twenty minutes.
Fred leaned over to his wife and said, “Looks like they’re railroading it through.
I wonder if anyone will try to object.” Ten minutes into the discussion, Charles, a former
member of the church council, raised concerns that he had already given to the
committee, and suggested a possible change to deal with them. He was promptly gaveled
down by the Chair as being out of order and, in spite of his protests, asked to sit down.
The tension in the air was palpable. John, whose wife was on the church staff, asked if
the staff agreed with the revisions, since the church was currently without a senior
pastor, and some changes were aimed at “restricting the power” of the pastoral staff. He
was assured they all had agreed and that their concerns had been addressed. He was
stunned by this response since he knew his wife hadn’t heard back from the committee
about the detailed six-page letter she had sent them several weeks before.
John was followed by Jane, a member of the revision committee, who talked
emotionally about how much time and effort they had put into developing the new
policies and procedures and suggested that the congregation needed to trust them and
1
2
honor their work by voting “yes” on the measure. She then called for the question. Her
appeal apparently worked because the congregation voted to accept the documents. The
church chair briskly led the congregation through the rest of the agenda, pausing only
occasionally to allow brief discussion.
After the meeting Fred grumbled to his wife as they left, “I don’t know why I even
bother coming to these meetings. Our thoughts and opinions aren’t important. I think
God must be pretty disgusted and saddened by all of this.” Another church member was
overheard to say, “I’m not sure what all the fuss was about. I didn’t bother to read the
papers they gave us. I’ve got enough stuff to read already and they were pretty
complicated, so I just voted ‘yes.’” His companion responded, “Well, I voted ‘yes’
because I didn’t want to disappoint the committee. They’ve worked so long on this. And
besides, I’m not sure it makes much difference. The board runs the church the way they
want to anyway, and I don’t think these changes will have much of an impact on me.”
When the new senior pastor began at the church the next fall, he largely ignored
the new policies and procedures, saying to a staff member, “I was hired to lead. This
congregational polity thing is the pits! It’s more important to just get done what you want
to get done. You know the saying, ‘Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.’”
Needless to say, the pastor did not last long, and the church continued to have
meetings where unresolved conflict was the norm.1
Unfortunately, the situation at Lakeside Church is not unique. Many Christians
would nod their heads as they read this scenario—this has been their experience also, and

1 The church’s name and some details have been changed for this initial scenario, but this was a
real situation and similar comments were made about this meeting.
3
they have been left frustrated, wondering why church decision making is often so
contentious and what that reveals about their communal life. Luke Timothy Johnson says,
I think there ought to be some connection between what a group claims to be, and
the way it does things. The church claims to be a community of faith; is there any
connection between this claim and its actual communal life? This could be tested
by looking at several places where churches express their life, but a particularly
important and revealing place is the process of reaching decision.2

Carl S. Dudley concurs:
How a congregation makes decisions about spending its time and energy is an
important window on the inner dynamics of its life together. … The way these
priorities are established strongly affects the congregational climate—its general
feeling of warmth and support, its overall morale, its general openness to change,
its usual levels of conflict, and its habits for including people in decisions.3

An astute observer might ask many questions: Is the way Lakeside Church made
decisions really any different from how secular local businesses or government groups
make theirs? “What do we learn about the nature of the church as we see it reaching
decision? Is its proclaimed nature revealed? Is its essential self-understanding given
articulation? Or is there a disparity between what the church claims to be and what its
way of deciding the future shows it to be?”4 What criteria determine success in deciding

2 Luke Timothy Johnson, Scripture and Discernment: Decision Making in the Church (Nashville,
TN: Abingdon Press, 1893, 1996), 10. He says further on 15-16, “The process by which decision is reached
tells of the nature of the group in a way other forms of ritual sometimes miss. Perhaps a community loudly
proclaims its democratic lifestyle—and at work, rest, and meals, the members hold all things equally. But if
the community’s decisions are made by executive decree, the claim to equality is empty; the group actually
has an authoritarian structure. Conversely, if decisions on entrance and advancement, leadership and
responsibility are made by a genuinely popular vote, that process reveals the group to be democratic in a
way that propaganda never could. … Property, gender, or age qualifications for voting give specific
shading to the kind of democracy this is. The fact that we vote to make decisions tells us that we are a
democracy. The fact that not all of us who are members of the group can vote tells us that this democracy is
not absolute but relative. If it is possible for a member to lose a vote, that tells us how seriously we take
responsibility or deviance. And if members of a group have the vote but do not use it, we learn of a
profound alienation of the members from the life of the group.”

3 Carl S. Dudley, “Process: Dynamics of Congregational Life,” in Studying Congregations: A New
Handbook, eds. Nancy Ammerman, Jackson Carroll, Carl Dudley and William McKinney (Nashville, TN:
Abingdon Press, 1998), 111.

4 L. T. Johnson, Scripture and Discernment, 20.