Dec 21 2006
Emerging Patterns of PCUSA Global Witness Support and Sending
Last August we returned to the U.S. for seven months of visitation in local Presbyterian churches and presbyteries to share our stories on ministry in Brazil and interpret the global witness of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Our first stop was Louisville, Kentucky for a week with Worldwide Ministries Division, now called World Mission Program Unit (WMPU) office staff for general orientation. It was particularly encouraging to hear the stories of the many and diverse other mission co-workers around the world. Once again, it left us grateful to be a part of this larger group.
It was also a time of uncertainty. Worldwide Ministries office and field staff had just been drastically reduced (the latter from 300 in January to 235 in August); I think the largest proportional reduction in my 29 years of service. And more was to follow. A reorganization of the national offices was forthcoming, which furthered the climate of uncertainty. Finally, it was announced that no future assignments to the field would be made beyond June 2008, at least until the budget for beyond 2008 was established in about another year. All that uncertainty, for good or bad, came through when we were interviewed along with Melanie and Scott Smith by Presbyterians Today at the end of the week. The interview was published in October as simply, “Mission Uncertain?” and it provoked considerable reaction.
I do not think that the reporter, Toya Hill, meant to question the mission itself of the church, but rather, the current patterns of support and sending, although that clarification was never made. I’ve thought a lot about this since then, especially as we visit churches and presbyteries in North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Florida and California (with trips to mission consultations in between to Germany and Spain!). I want to share some of these thoughts—they are my own and are not necessarily the views of any official body—in the hope that this may clarify what is happening (if for no one else than myself!) and what the prospects are for the mid-range future (short-range 12-18 months planning is already in gear). They are meant to be positive and constructive, and at the same time, as transparent and realistic as possible.
First, it is important to affirm that there is among World Mission staff and I think in the denomination in general, a strong sense God’s call to the church’s engagement in global witness. That might seem like a strange statement in light of observations above, but I do sense a keen call at both the national and local church levels to the global witness of the church. I do not think there is any disagreement that mission is essential to the life and meaning of the church. Friend and colleague, Sherron George, has written a strong defense to that effect, which should be published in the January issue of Presbyterians Today, including the important role of the national structure for global witness. I think, however, that it is probably time to consider the changing role of our current national structure for global witness. (I say this with some fear and trembling, since, after all, I am an employee of that structure).
Why is it time for this role to be reconsidered? First, it is time, not because of the particular momentary crisis that structure has faced this year due to budget reductions, but because this year was merely the consequence of a long trend. In 1959 the PC(USA) and her predecessors maintained over 2,000 fully-funded missionaries. Those numbers dropped to nearly 1,700 in 1966, less than 700 in 1976, 500 in 1986, 400 in 1996 and the current 235 today. At the same time, PC(USA) churches are spending more on global witness! So the challenges the national structure faced this year were not simply sporadic and cannot be addressed by one more structural downsizing. Second, it is time to reconsider the role of a national structure for global witness because that structure is no longer alone as a channel for that witness within the PC(USA). During my 29 years of service, local churches have assumed more and more responsibility and initiative for global witness. Local congregations, presbyteries and synods are increasingly more directly involved and we have seen the growth of specific interest groups such as the validated ministries of the PC(USA) and other national initiatives within the denomination such as World Mission Initiative in Pittsburgh, PA, the Association of Presbyterian Mission Pastors and the recently formed Presbyterian Global Fellowship. All of these developments, along with increasing local church mission endeavors point to an increase in commitment to global witness. One church leader even told me recently that PC(USA) congregational spending for global witness has actually increased significantly (I would be interested to know the numbers). Apparently, the structures of mission giving and sending have changed.
None of this is to say that our national mission structure has not evolved as well. More than ever before, I perceive openness among the national level staff to accompany these changes and serve the diverse groups in our denomination involved in global witness. For example, in a valiant move, World Mission will promote a three pronged effort in 2007 to involve as much of the church as possible in global witness:
- World Mission Networks ’07: Gathered by Grace, that will gather together World Mission network leaders
- World Mission ’07: A Celebration of Grace, a larger gathering for network participants and all in the PC(USA) with a heart for mission
- Mission Challenge ’07, which is the month-long itineration of over 30 mission personnel in 120 presbyteries for a week at a time
My point is that the structures for expressing and sustaining global witness of the church are continually emerging and we need to be able to better assist and affirm one another in this global task…my next observation.
Second, how do we understand these trends and how can these various structures work together to further the role of the PC(USA) in God’s mission? I think one principle that may contribute significantly to this concern is the long developing principle of partnership. Much has been written and gained on the concept of partnership (see some resources below) and it seems that there is widespread consensus within the denomination on the lasting importance of this principle. I may be wrong, but I suspect, however, that the principle of partnership has been explored more in terms of inter-church relations than intra-church relations. Presbyterians rightly insist on the connectional nature of the church. Perhaps we might consider further applying the same principles of partnership we apply to inter-church relations to intra-church relations as well. Take just one example: the idea of mutuality in partnership. The question arises: how might the different expressions of the church, thinking specifically of those movements within the denomination that have emerged to promote the global witness of the church, demonstrate greater mutuality as partners in global witness while at the same time, maintaining their distinctions? The World Mission Program Unit, I think, fosters good relations through the promotional and distribution of material on partnership, participation and active dialogue with both various judicatories of the church and some of the interest groups mentioned above. All of that is positive and necessary. How else can mutuality be promoted? That brings me to a third observation.
Third, how might we explore mid-range possibilities to model the partnership among us that we affirm to our overseas partners? At the moment, I have just one suggestion, based on my previous experience at the General Assembly level of the Presbyterian Church of Brazil about 10 years ago, and the Independent Presbyterian Church of Brazil more recently. Perhaps WM, our current moderator or even one of the groups mentioned above committed to global witness could promote a consultation long enough to bring together the widest range of representatives of presbyteries, synods, validated ministries, mission conferences, Presbyterian global networks, etc., along with some of our overseas partners who have though and acted creatively on this subject. I remember that something similar occurred in Montreat around 1978. The event could focus on a limited number of concerns, such as: 1) what kind of national structure might best serve the denomination in it’s global witness; 2) how would the funding system work (the Achilles heal concern); 3) what are some of the parameters of responsible partnership in global witness—with overseas partners and with national and local Presbyterian groups; and 4) how might the PC(USA) on various levels best affirm the emerging global witness of her overseas partners? Perhaps a central concern would be: how might we embrace and empower inter- and intra-church partners to further the cause of Jesus Christ?
What do you think?
Some PCUSA websites on partnership:
http://www.pcusa.org/partnerships/protocols.htm
http://www.pcusa.org/worldwide/
http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-whoare.htm
http://www.pcusa.org/partnerships/resources.htm
Some PCUSA resources on partnership:
- Presbyterians Do Mission In Partnership. Document adopted by the 215th General Assembly 2003, that replaces the earlier policy adopted by the 212th General Assembly 2000.
- Partnership, Solidarity, and Friendship: Transforming Structures in Mission. by Philip L. Wickeri
- Called as Partners in Christ’s Service: The Practice of God’s Mission. by Sherron K. George
More Room for Provocative Thought and Action:
- Presbyterian Mission in a Flat World, by Dr. Scott Sunquist, Professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
- Missional Polity: Will it really help the church? by Michael Walker, Executive Director of Presbyterians for Renewal
Technorati: Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), partnership, mission, denominational structure, Christianity, mission support
9 responses so far
Tim Carriker is mission co-worker of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), assigned as missiological consultant and theological educator to the Independent Presbyterian Church of Brazil. Here you can find more information
Tim, thank you for sharing your thoughtful essay. A few brief reflections.
I agree with you. It is time to rethink the role of a national structure for global witness. And as a Zulu proverb puts it: “The future is not coming toward us; it is running away from us.” The national structure has changed and is changing. The question seems to me to be one of whether those changes will simply be driven by environmental factors or whether the PCUSA leadership can engage stakeholders in a meaningful way to try to shape creatively the structure’s future. (You will want to be sure to read the essay by Scott Sunquist on “Presbyterian Mission in a Flat World” now being serialized in Presbyterian Outlook.)
With you, I celebrate the openness of many on the national staff to exploring how they can collaborate more effectively in this era of multiple centers of influence. I do sense a new openness and believe it reflects more than just utilitarian concerns.
Your observations about intra-church partnerships are on target. But more could be said about our Presbyterian approach to inter-church partnerships.
At points in the past, as you know, our emphasis on partnership degenerated to the point where mission became a function of ecumenical relations, a focus primarily on ecclesiastical relationships rather than dynamic ground-level partnerships that build mission capacity in reciprocal ways with a heart for those who do not know the Lord and may never have heard the Gospel. That is a legacy that we still live with. I think it was Faulkner who said, “In the South the past isn’t dead; it isn’t even past.” That’s often true in the church as well.
At times, even still, partnership has meant a shift from patterns of dominance to deference. Ken Bailey has written and speaks eloquently of how each party in a partnership must retain the prerogative of determining the path of their servanthood. Initiative may be taken by either partner. At one level, this hearkens back to what D.T. Niles wrote in 1962: “There must be some way provided for a due disobedience to that [autonomous Church] authority where the Church is not true to its mission” — including here in the U.S. I would hasten to emphasize!
But I do concur with your call for a commitment on the part of Presbyterian mission entities for cooperation and collaboration. That certainly is the spirit in which Outreach and PFF are undertaking our new strategic alliance for the sending of Presbyterians in mission service. And it is the spirit in which Worldwide Ministries (now World Mission) is seeking to catalyze mission networks across the church.
The recent G.A. approved Commissioner’s Resolution 08-17: On the Moderator Convening a Meeting Regarding Worldwide Mission Work of the PC(USA), calling for a high level conversation on mission, to include at least the Moderator, Stated Clerk, GAC Executive Director, and the validated mission support groups. Although the commissioner introduced his resolution in protest of the PFF/TOF announcement about the alliance, we eagerly await the conversation. Perhaps it could be expanded along the lines that you propose in your call for a kind of mission summit on the future of the PCUSA mission structures.
Sadly, the General Assembly Council has developed the habit of trying to answer these kinds of questions internally, without broad conversation and consultation. Worldwide Ministries has done the best job of engaging others in strategic reflection during the past decade, and I pray that Linda Valentine and Tom Taylor will build upon that example and those efforts.
Grace and peace in the Lord.
Rob Weingartner
The Outreach Foundation
<strong>New Mission Blog: The Church in Mission by Tim Carriker</strong>
I just discovered Tim Carriker has begun blogging about the church and mission . While I don’t know Tim
<strong>More Presbyterian Church (USA) Mission Structure Reorganization Discussions</strong>
I just want to encourage people to take a look at Tim Carriker’s thoughts on the changing structure of
I just wanted to point out that Rob Weingartner discussed this topic in some of his discussions at New Wilmington Mission Conference this year. The podcasts can be found at http://nwmcmission.org/forums/135/ShowForum.aspx.
It’s good to see some of this conversation occurring online.
Thanks, Tim. As your successor at World Mission Initiative and the New Wilmington Mission Conference, I want to say “Amen” to your call for the PCUSA to take a new look at its mission structures. We need the new attitudes that both you and Rob mention.
Last month I had a conversation with the director of World Mission for the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. They have taken some wonderful new initiatives in response to the changing culture of the 21st century. (I would echo Rob’s mention of Scott Sunnquist’s address, which was given at NWMC and can be downloaded from the website.) He described the key to their responsive changes as an attitude of collaboration.
Like Rob, I also hope the GA mandated consultation will be the occasion to accomplish what you propose. The new director of World Mission is the one who is in the best position to orchestrate such a gathering. Facilitating such an inclusive meeting will win that person points with many who are skeptical.
In the meantime we need to daily lift Linda Valentine and Tom Taylor before the Lord. May they be led by the Spirit as they select the new World Mission Director.
Tim,
It is always good to continue our dialogue on mission, be it the theology of mission, contextualization in Brazil, or the structures, theology and mission program of the denomination within which we both have learned through experience and grown from missionaries to missiologists to mission worker missiologists.
When I wrote “Called as Partners in Christ’s Service,” one of my constant pleas was that we need to do what educator Parker Palmer advocates, “the practice begins in the classroom.” Hence, I always insist that the practice of partnership begins within WMD (now WMPU), within the 3 divisions (maybe that is a plus of the new restructure), within the PCUSA, partnership between denominational staff, presbytery, synod, congregations, networks, validated mission agencies, and expands to other Presbyterian groups, then to ecumenical connections locally, regionally, and globally and on to NGOs and other religions. But it does begin at home.
One of my concerns is that as TOF-PFF form their strategic alliance and sending agency, while they will continue to collaborate with WMPU, the other funds they will raise from the PCUSA and direct to other agencies and their own will simply take those funds away from our denominational mission program and cause us to have to suffer further reductions, thus becoming counterproductive and making worse the problem it has been created to help.
I think our national staff started waking up to the need for changed roles in light of the new focus on local congregations in mission when the first Congregations conference was held in St. Louis and that it has been growing into and seeking the new roles which it must have. This new restructure will certainly nudge (maybe not so gently) the staff to continue in the pursuit of the new roles and shapes.
One of your comments in response to my article which is coming out in Presbyterians Today has caused me to want to work on a second piece this year, along with a first one on Holistic Mission as Evangelism, Compassion, and Justice. Participants in Holistic Mission –the whole range of mission agents (all subjects, no objects) which takes me to the words ecumenical, catholic.
Enough for now.
Hi Sherron:
I, too, see much of the partnership on various levels already happening and an increasing sensitivity on the part of WMPU to dialogue with partners on all levels. If I remember correctly, some years ago, WMPU’s predecessor, Worldwide Ministries Division, was giving some recognition (I believe there was a specific mission personnel category) for members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) who were doing mission through an organization other than our own national mission structure, such as Presbyterians working through Wycliffe, World Vision, OC Ministries, etc. If that is the case, I think this would be similar to the concept of doing “PCUSA” mission through alliances that PFF/TOF may form with other organizations. That may indeed have the effect of reducing funds to WMPU, but I do not see that as necessarily detrimental in the broadest perspective. Simply the forms and structures by which Presbyterians do mission are changing, much like the work local congregations do in mission through structures other than PCUSA governing bodies, is nonetheless, in a very real sense, PCUSA mission.
You have put your finger on a crucial issue that we all need to carefully consider and exchange ideas about. Let’s keep the conversation going.
Sherron and Tim,
Yes, we need an expanded understanding of partnership, as Sherron so clearly articulated at the conference in St. Louis. I think that TOF/PFF will help with that.
I am not worried about taking money away from GA because it is not going there anyway. Hopefully the TOF/PFF initiative will return some mission money to PC(USA) mission.
Which raises an interesting question. Appendix A of the 1983 reunion plan defined “validated mission” as that done by presbytery, synod and GA. Then someone asked why “validated mission” is limited to 3 governing bodies and not four (the session) which actually supplies the money.
I have believed for some time that this is the crux of the problem. We have ignored the many historical acknowledgements that (as Marian McClure put it in St. Louis) “congregations do mission and they need partners.” St. Louis was a real turning point but there are many who have not gotten the message – as is evident in the annual reports where “validated mission” is still limited to 3 governing bodies.
The funding system is still a major problem. It reveals our real institutional convictions. As Jesus told us that what we do with our money reveals what we really believe.
Thanks for what both of you are doing.
Tim, Dave, Don, and Rob,
This is a fruitful conversation in search of new wineskins for our denomination. While affirming the move to the local congregation as the primary agent in mission today, we all struggle to continue our practice of mutual partnership implicit in being presbyterian.
Our focus of late has been on affirming the role of the 3 GA recognized validated mission support groups, TOF, PFF, and MBF. Maybe now that that recognition is secure, we need to concentrate on the relationships (partnership) between these 3 VMSGs and WMPU. A key for WMPU is relating to all the VM (presbyteries, synods, congregations, etc) and in defining the emerging new role of WMPU today.
I affirm and applaud your suggestion of a great consultation and agree with Don that the new director of WMPU would be the appropriate convenor (if not Linda or Tom). I too am praying especifically for them daily.
Tim, I didn’t mention my great appreciation for the list along the right side of your page with all the organizations. I tried to do a diagram including all this in my article in Missiology (April 2000) on Local-Global Mission. I continue to try to develop my thinking about all of these partners/participants in God’s local-global mission.
May the star guide us.
Sherron