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.^[1] While the term originated in Presbyterianism—with its layers of church courts rising from local session to presbytery to general assembly^[2]—the term has been widely adopted by other Christian communions, including Anglicanism,^[3] Lutheranism,^[4] Methodism,^[5] Roman Catholicism^[6] and even some congregationalist churches,^[7] among others.

Depending on the tradition, a judicatory may be called a classis, conference, diocese, district, eparchy, ordinariate, presbytery, synod or another term.^[1] Middle judicatories may also be layered, with dioceses being grouped into provinces, districts being grouped into annual conferences or presbyteries being grouped into synods.^[8] 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.^[9] Despite being organized into conventions and associations, in the Baptist tradition the local congregation is the primary church unit, so not all Baptist conventions are considered middle judicatories.^[10]

Rooted in Presbyterianism, 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.^[11][12] The role of judicatories expanded from handling discipline and ordination to encompass programmatic activities, mission work and church planting coordination, becoming what Ronald E. Vallet called "strategically important parts of the denominational system."^[8][13]

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.^[14][15] Middle judicatories often served as hubs of ecumenical and interfaith social services in local areas.^[16] 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.^[17] 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]

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.^[1] Middle judicatories also often handle matters related to congregational mergers and closure.^[18]

Thomas G. Bandy has argued that at their best they "build communication networks and encourage congregational ownership in all things."^[19] To support smaller churches, Theodore H. Erickson has recommended a structure that prioritizes "collaborating with churches and mutually designing and evolving organic associations of faith which can meet the needs of a society characterized by increasing religious pluralism, moral reassessment, and structural hegemony."^[20]

Many middle judicatories 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.^[1] In the mainline Protestant churches, declining attendance and budgets has often resulted in declines in employment at the middle judicatory level.^[21] However, in churches whose judicatories remain professionally staffed, 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."^[22]

For effective judicatory operation, Adair T. Lummis recommended 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.^[9] Likewise, 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."^[23]

Many scholars and observers of religion have questioned the effectiveness of middle judicatories in supporting the local church. Ronald J. Allen 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."^[24] When functioning poorly, Bandy has argued that 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.^[19] 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.^[9]

• List of Church of England dioceses
• List of dioceses of the Anglican Church of Canada
• Ecclesiastical provinces and dioceses of the Episcopal Church
• List of dioceses of the Anglican Church in North America
• List of dioceses of the Philippine Independent Church

• List of the dioceses of the Orthodox Church in America
• List of eparchies of the Serbian Orthodox Church

• Regions and Synods of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
• Districts of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod
• List of dioceses, deaneries and parishes of the Church of Sweden

• Conferences in Methodism

• Church of Scotland synods and presbyteries
• List of Presbyterian Church (USA) synods and presbyteries

• Yearly Meetings

• List of Catholic dioceses (structured view)
• List of eparchies of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

• Districts of the Unitarian Universalist Association

• Governance Structure of the United Church of Canada
• Associations of the United Church of Christ
• Conferences of the United Church of Christ

• Ecclesiastical polity