Affinity Classes?
I’ve been thinking a lot about an event that happened at General Synod last week. It’s in relation to the creation of the RCA’s first “affinity classis.” For those of you who are unfamiliar with RCA polity, here’s the quick and dirty run down: a Classis is a regional assembly with the ability to “open” and “close” churches and ordain ministers. It’s made up of elders and ministers from the churches in a local region and is arguably the most powerful level in RCA government. Classes (that’s the plural) can only be created by Regional Synods (a slightly larger entity, of which there are 8 in the RCA). Congregations cannot create their own Classis from the bottom up and General Synod cannot step into the Regional Synod’s domain and create a Classis from the top down.
Until this year, every Classis throughout the history of the RCA has been geographically based. Granted, sometimes that geography is odd (i.e. we have a congregation from Georgia in Zeeland Classis and St. Thomas, USVI is in New York Classis) but the oddities are exceptions created by either historic necessity or the scarcity of RCA congregations in certain parts of the US and Canada.
That just changed. The Regional Synod of the Far West (?) recently created an “affinity Classis” of congregations named the “Classis of City Center .” An “affinity Classis” is a Classis that is defined not by geography, but by affinity. In this case, an “affinity” toward urban ministry. Currently there are only 2 congregations in the Classis but more are expected to be added soon.
To be fair, even though I’m a polity curmudgeon, I’m not particularly concerned about this particular creation. What concerns me are the potential implications of allowing the creation of affinity Classes. Here are a couple of them:
- If it’s appropriate to create an affinity Classis, it is possible for Regional Synods to “ghetto-ize” congregations that don’t agree with something specific. For example, a Regional Synod could create a Classis that didn’t allow the ordination of women or a Classis that only ordained blondies… or elderly people… or ???
- The concept of an affinity Classis suggests, at least at a certain level, that there is little to be gained in the diversity of the greater church. In other words, it implies that congregations from a particular affinity (i.e. Urban) don’t need the checks and balances of those from another (i.e. rural)… or poor and wealthy… or white and black… or ???
In short, it seems that the creation of affinity Classes sidesteps the balance of the larger church and has the potential to separate out those we don’t like… or separate ourselves from those we disagree with. I have a problem with that.
I’m all for “affinity networks” - networks of congregations/deacons/ministers/elders/etc. who minister in similar contexts or have similar issues… but the Classis should be better balanced.
It’s kind of like a chess game. This individual move isn’t so problematic… what worries me are the moves that could very well follow.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
4 Responses to “Affinity Classes?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:16 am
2 things:
1) The name of the classis is The Center City Network.
2) The term affinity classis is somewhat a misnomer imho.
grace and peace,
Drew
June 13th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Drew…
Thanks for the correction on the name. As for the tem “affinity Classis” - I think I know what you mean. What concerns me isn’t this Classis, it’s the door that non-geographical Classes opens up. Ironically, I’m personally not so concerned with the creation of Classes around particular similarities. I’m concerned about the creation of Classes whose purpose is to exclude or to “get rid of” (I used the term “ghetto-ize” earlier) those who are different.
In some regional synods, I could see the creation of Classes around ethnicity or theological peculiarity - both concern me.
Hope you’re well and feeling better! We missed you last week!
Grace and Peace,
`tim
June 16th, 2008 at 2:43 am
The only thing that Drew’s comment clarifies for me is that this new classis may not be a classis (rather, a “network”), but came to Synod expecting to be treated as one.
I am mostly concerned about the fact that church order (the tangible expression of our covenant, which forms the RCA as a church) does not yet allow for such non-geographic classes, yet there is a regional synod that chose to create one, and our GSC was ready to seat it, indicating that neither of these bodies takes the covenant too seriously. Since the General Synod is, in itself, a creation of the covenant, if we are ready to declare that covenant null and void, does the GS still exist?
My second concern about affinity classes is this: our term “classis” comes from the word for “fleet.” A fleet includes ships of different shapes and sizes, based on the logic that all of them are needed to support each other. How can a fleet of only aircraft carriers, or only tugboats, survive? Or do we no longer intend to recognize our need to support each other, or the possibility that God works through congregations that don’t work like us?
Maybe all this thinking is passé. Maybe we don’t actually need each other, and the covenant is an unnecessary encumbrance. Maybe we all ought to stop the pretense and go our separate ways.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:25 am
James…
From my perspective, if this were a created “network,” there wouldn’t be any problem whatsoever. Networks are separate from the church’s official governance but still held accountable by it. This body obviously seeks to be “within” the governance — the two churches currently making up the Classis were, theoretically, allowed to send four delegates.
Regarding the allowance of our polity. Here’s the rub. Even church order (who offered an opinion on the issue in their report to General Synod, but not a “ruling”) admitted that while the BCO doesn’t “allow” non-geographic Classes, it also doesn’t specifically dis-allow them. Which means, of course, that the Regional Synod who created them cannot really have a complaint filed against them.
The fleet issue is exactly what I’m talking about. And I don’t think you’re thinking is at all off here. We do need each other - that’s part of living in a body. Some of us are nose-hairs… others are toe-nails… a few are lungs… all are essential for a healthy body.
Grace and peace,
`tim