|
Middle judicatory A middle judicatory is an administrative structure or organization found in religious denominations between the local congregation and the widest or highest national or international level. While the term originated in Presbyterianism, the term has been widely adopted by other Christian communions, including Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Roman Catholic and even some congregationalist churches. Middle judicatories have different names and structures across Christian denominations, and they may also be layered. For example, in the Latin Catholic church, dioceses and archdioceses are grouped into provinces, and in the Presbyterian Church (USA), presbyteries are grouped into synods. The typical funding model for middle judicatories is by apportionments or tithes paid from individual member congregations that have achieved a minimal level of financial stability. TerminologyIn English, the term "judicatory" originated in Presbyterian polity, which consists of layers of church courts—rising from local session to presbytery to general assembly—that adjudicate church disciplinary matters.[1] However, the term is used within a variety of Christian traditions to describe their mid-tier organizations.[2] Traditions with middle judicatories include Anglicanism,[3] Lutheranism,[4] Methodism,[5] Roman Catholicism[6] and some congregationalist communions, such as the United Church of Christ in the United States.[7] Depending on the tradition, a judicatory may be called a classis, conference, diocese, district, eparchy, ordinariate, presbytery, synod or another term.[2] Middle judicatories may also be layered, with dioceses being grouped into provinces (as in the Anglican and Roman Catholic traditions[8][9]), districts being grouped into annual conferences (as in United Methodism[5]) or presbyteries being grouped into synods (as in the Presbyterian Church (USA), where middle judicatories are known as "mid councils"[10]).[11] Although some Baptist denominations are organized into conventions and associations, in the Baptist tradition the local congregation is the primary church unit. As a result, not all Baptist conventions are considered middle judicatories.[12] Even in churches that do have professionally staffed judicatories, Lutheran minister and church executive Robert Bacher has challenged the use of the term "middle judicatories," claiming it suggests that "adjudication was their main or sole reason for being, [although] in recent years these collections of staff, volunteers, and their governance units have taken on even more important roles with greatly expanded responsibilities."[13] History.jpg) From its Presbyterian origins, the term "middle judicatory" came into more common use in the 20th century to describe historic church associational forms, primarily but not exclusively among mainline Protestant churches.[14][15] The role of judicatories expanded from handling discipline and ordination to encompass programmatic activities, mission work and church planting coordination, becoming what Baptist pastor and church executive Ronald E. Vallet called "strategically important parts of the denominational system."[11][16] Some mainline denominations built new forms of middle judicatories during this era. For example, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) moved from a congregationalist to a denominational model in 1968, creating "regions," the Disciples' term for their middle judicatory.[17][18] Middle judicatories often served as hubs of ecumenical and interfaith social services in local areas.[19] The integration of middle judicatories from different traditions was a major topic of discussion and tension in negotiations over church union in the 20th century.[20] By the 21st century, some middle judicatories had begun shifting away from confrontational trial-based judicial practices to focus on coaching and conflict resolution techniques, according to United Methodist bishop Will Willimon.[5] Functions Depending on the polity, the middle judicatory can have decisive authority over a local church, can offer standing for clergy members but little or no control over congregations, can offer counsel and services but no authority, or can serve as an informal vehicle for fellowship and communication. Middle judicatories typically make decisions on the ordination and placement of clergy; deliver educational, training and outreach program; and represent the denomination to the congregation. Consistent with its origins in Presbyterian church courts, middle judicatories are also typically the principal venue for handling issues of clergy discipline.[2] Middle judicatories also often handle matters related to congregational mergers and closure.[21] Judicatories are usually funded by apportionments or tithes from member congregations.[22] Many middle judicatories use these funds to operate with full- or part-time paid staff, with titles that variously include bishops and assistant bishops, superintendents, executive presbyters, executive ministers, stated clerks and canons.[2] In the mainline Protestant churches, declining attendance and budgets has often resulted in declines in employment at the middle judicatory level.[23] To help middle judicatories support congregations during an era of shrinking mainline churches, late 20th- and 21st-century commentators on church polity have called on middle judicatories to focus more on building denser networks of communication among their member congregations and emphasizing congregational activities and buy-in.[24][25] Effective judicatory operation generally requires greater engagement by judicatory officials (bishops, district superintendents and executive presbyters) at the congregational level, greater choice in which denominational programs congregations can support through their judicatory funding, direct congregational support for critical needs and clear communication about the effects of congregations' contributions to the judicatory body.[22] Likewise, Methodist religion scholar Jackson W. Carroll has observed that middle judicatories' role is "best fulfilled when the integrity of the church is respected and envisioning for the future is shared."[26] CriticismMany scholars and observers of religion have questioned the effectiveness of middle judicatories in supporting the local church. Ronald J. Allen, a Disciples of Christ minister and professor of preaching, has compared middle judicatories unfavorably to the leadership model presented in the Acts of the Apostles, noting that "ossification sometimes sets in so that leadership roles lose their missional dynamism and focus on maintaining the institution as institution. Indeed, churches today—upper and middle judicatories—[and] congregations sometimes develop elaborate leadership structures that delineate lines of authority so that officeholders maintain their domains of power."[27] United Church of Canada minister Thomas G. Bandy has argued that, when functioning poorly, middle judicatories "build processes of inquisition and censorship" and that they can impose "institutional rules" that curtail innovation and suffocate "transforming congregations," particularly in environments of organizational decline. He has also said that the structure of the middle judicatory, set between a larger church and individual congregations, can be "easily swayed by emerging regional and world issues," forcing congregations away from local issues and pushing changes at the churchwide level before previous priorities have been able to be achieved.[24] In denominations that have significant theological diversity, survey research has found that cooperation at the judicatory level was hampered and engagement by the laity was depressed.[22] Lists of middle judicatoriesAnglicanism
Eastern Orthodoxy
Lutheranism
MethodismPresbyterianism
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)Roman Catholicism
Unitarian UniversalismUnited churches
See alsoReferences
|
