I have been working to build a partnership with the Presbytery of Honduras where several of our congregations already have intentional mission commitments. I have gathered here a list of opportunities which may be pursued by our congregations as mission opportunities in Honduras. For more information about the Presbytery of Honduras or any of these opportunities please contact me at the Presbytery office:
Habitat for Humanity:
Habitat for Humanity is well established throughout Honduras using the same model for new home construction which is familiar to us in the United States. Kathy Wells and I have met with the staff of Habitat in Honduras several times. Their staff is very eager to work with us and also make connections directly with the Presbytery of Honduras.
We are in the initial stages of planning a mission trip in support of Habitat for Humanity in June 2008.
Relations with the Presbytery of Honduras:
This is my primary purpose with our work in Honduras. I would like to create close personal and spiritual relationships between our Presbytery and the pastors and church leaders of the Presbytery of Honduras. My overarching goal in working with the Presbytery to Honduras is to create a partnership between our church leaders and their church leaders.
Tim and Gloria Wheeler:
The Wheelers are the only Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) full time mission coworkers in Honduras. The Wheelers are funded by our international mission program and work in cooperation with Heifer Project International. Beyond the traditional Heifer Project ministry, the Wheelers are expanding their ministry in other areas including housing, nutrition, and community development. The Wheelers hosted our October 2007 mission team for dinner in their Tegucigalpa home. Our Second Presbyterian Church in Carlisle has close relations with the Wheelers. (Please see the 2007 Mission Year book (page 59) for the essay by the Wheelers.)
Sunday School in Honduras:
During our October 2007 mission trip, the Presbytery of Honduras asked me to make a presentation to them concerning Sunday School and Christian education. I used this opportunity to discuss with them the nature and function of their Sunday Schools. Kathy Wells has written a report concerning what we learned about their Sunday Schools. (Ask me for a written copy of Kathy’s report). It is not uncommon for the Honduras Presbyterian Churches to have more children in Sunday school than adults in worship. We would like to develop ways to support these Sunday schools.
Presbyterian Medical Clinics:
The Presbytery of Honduras offers free medical clinics in all of their churches. The principle clinic is in the Pena de Horeb church and operates every week. The Presbytery of Honduras has hired a Honduran medical doctor, Dr. Moreno to lead these clinics. Our Christ Church in Camp Hill has now led two medical mission trips in cooperation with the Presbytery of Honduras. (Our Christ Church would be glad to provide orientation for any churches interested in leading medical clinics in Honduras.) These medical clinics in the Presbytery of Honduras are also supported by the Presbytery of Tampa Bay.
Our Gettysburg Church also has a very effective medical mission trip in Honduras for two weeks every June. Although not associated with the Presbytery of Honduras this is very effective medical mission work in cooperation with Cure International.
The Merienda program:
At the request of the Presbytery of Honduras, the Presbytery of Tampa Bay started a program to offer a nutritious breakfast program for all the children attending Sunday school each week. Donations of whole oats and evaporated milk are necessary to keep this program going.
High School scholarships:
High school in Honduras requires tuition, thus many youth cannot attend. The Presbytery of Honduras in cooperation with the Presbytery of Tampa Bay has created a scholarship program for Presbyterian high school students. The Presbytery of Honduras administers this program including the applications, disbursement of the funds, and the evaluation of the students. The Presbytery of Tampa Bay is seeking individuals and churches to help provide the funds to make education available to Presbyterian high school students in Honduras. One high school scholarship is $300.
A new church building for the Nacaome Presbyterian Church
The Rev. Gloria Huete is the pastor of the Nacaome Church. The congregation is meeting in a home which they must rent. A $5,000 gift from a Presbyterian in Tampa Bay has purchased the land in Nacaome for a new church. The Presbytery of Honduras has requested our Presbytery of Carlisle make a commitment to build a new church for this congregation. The cost of this building is $10,000. This is a vital project for the Presbytery of Honduras but will require significant preparation and planning for us to implement.
Waterlines.org
Our Market Square Presbyterian Church has had a connection with the mission organization Waterlines which provides access to drinking water in rural village around the world. We are working to connect a Waterlines project and the Presbytery of Honduras.
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) missionary
Given the generosity and strength of the mission work of the congregations within the Presbytery of Carlisle, is it time for us to ponder a bold goal? Should our Presbytery fund a new, international missionary position through our international mission program? If this new missionary was available and funded it may be possible for their position to be in partnership with the Presbytery of Honduras.
We are called to be a mission-shaped people in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
CREDO
Name one thing that our denomination is doing right these days? I have a new answer to this question: CREDO. I was blessed by the opportunity to participate in a weeklong CREDO program from November 12 to 19, 2007. CREDO is sponsored by our Board of Pensions. We met at a retreat and conference center outside Orlando, Florida. Thus my CREDO week was additionally blessed by this marvelous setting and the fabulous Florida sunshine. The week I attended was for Presbytery executives from across the church. Thus the CREDO faculty had to tweak the program a bit for us since it is typically offered to groups of our pastors who are serving churches.
The Bible passage which guided our week together is taken from the wonderful story in Luke 5 about the miraculous catch of fish. Jesus, surrounded by crowds of people, steps into Peter’s fishing boat and floats off from shore a bit in order to teach the people. After his teaching, Jesus asks Peter to take his boat back out into the deep water and cast down his nets again. Peter complains that he is done fishing for the day since there were no fish to catch but he agrees to Jesus’ request to try again. Of course, we know the story. The fishing nets overflow with the large catch of fish. Peter must call his friends to help him gather the burdened nets into their boats. The boats are close to capsizing from the tremendous weight of all the fish. This miraculous catch of fish is a revelatory moment for Peter. Peter falls to his knees in confession and praise. From then on Peter is next to Jesus as one of the leading disciples. Using the idea of “deep” in a spiritual and metaphorical sense, the key verse for our CREDO week was Luke 5: 4. “”Launch out into the deep” (KJV).
CREDO is about the spiritual task of casting out into the deep waters again. CREDO is an opportunity, through a wonderful rhythm of teaching, sharing and worship, to discover again the power of God’s call on our life. CREDO is an effort by our Board of Pensions to contribute to the health, vitality and effectiveness of our clergy by connecting us again with an authentic and deep call to ministry and abundant life. The program and the format which has been created for this effort are excellent.
The CREDO program systematically helps each participant to evaluate and renew their ministry by focusing on four interrelated and vital components: the spiritual, vocational, financial and health aspects of our lives. CREDO requires an enormous amount of preparation at home in advance. This preparation includes a physical examination (provided free by the Board of Pensions for those over 50 years old), an online Mayo Clinic Health Assessment (available to all Board of Pensions members at their website), a comprehensive vocational assessment including input from a group of peers whom you invite, some tools to analyze your financial situation with your spouse, and a list of reflection and writing exercises. With all of this preparation completed leading up to the program week itself, there was already a lot of energy and spiritual investment in CREDO before our week together started.
Through a very nice, relaxed schedule of plenary sessions, individual consultations, quiet time and worship my CREDO week connected me again with the powerful movement of God’s Holy Spirit in my heart, family and work. CREDO helped me bring all the disparate pieces of my life into order again, God’s order. CREDO allowed me to revisit the holy place of my call to ministry with a new freshness and a powerful sense of renewal. My CREDO plan, which is the intended result of the program, is real and concrete. My plan will have a lasting effect on my life and ministry, connecting me God’s purpose and call for my life.
Our Board of Pensions is expecting to expand the CREDO program in our church. Pastors will be randomly selected from across the denomination to participate. If you are a pastor and you receive an invitation to a CREDO program, please participate. I am confident that you will be as richly blessed as I was.
Quoted here is the CREDO mission statement taken from their website:
The mission of CREDO is to provide opportunities for clergy to examine significant areas of their lives and to discern prayerfully the future direction of their vocation as they respond to God’s call in a lifelong process of practice and transformation.
The Bible passage which guided our week together is taken from the wonderful story in Luke 5 about the miraculous catch of fish. Jesus, surrounded by crowds of people, steps into Peter’s fishing boat and floats off from shore a bit in order to teach the people. After his teaching, Jesus asks Peter to take his boat back out into the deep water and cast down his nets again. Peter complains that he is done fishing for the day since there were no fish to catch but he agrees to Jesus’ request to try again. Of course, we know the story. The fishing nets overflow with the large catch of fish. Peter must call his friends to help him gather the burdened nets into their boats. The boats are close to capsizing from the tremendous weight of all the fish. This miraculous catch of fish is a revelatory moment for Peter. Peter falls to his knees in confession and praise. From then on Peter is next to Jesus as one of the leading disciples. Using the idea of “deep” in a spiritual and metaphorical sense, the key verse for our CREDO week was Luke 5: 4. “”Launch out into the deep” (KJV).
CREDO is about the spiritual task of casting out into the deep waters again. CREDO is an opportunity, through a wonderful rhythm of teaching, sharing and worship, to discover again the power of God’s call on our life. CREDO is an effort by our Board of Pensions to contribute to the health, vitality and effectiveness of our clergy by connecting us again with an authentic and deep call to ministry and abundant life. The program and the format which has been created for this effort are excellent.
The CREDO program systematically helps each participant to evaluate and renew their ministry by focusing on four interrelated and vital components: the spiritual, vocational, financial and health aspects of our lives. CREDO requires an enormous amount of preparation at home in advance. This preparation includes a physical examination (provided free by the Board of Pensions for those over 50 years old), an online Mayo Clinic Health Assessment (available to all Board of Pensions members at their website), a comprehensive vocational assessment including input from a group of peers whom you invite, some tools to analyze your financial situation with your spouse, and a list of reflection and writing exercises. With all of this preparation completed leading up to the program week itself, there was already a lot of energy and spiritual investment in CREDO before our week together started.
Through a very nice, relaxed schedule of plenary sessions, individual consultations, quiet time and worship my CREDO week connected me again with the powerful movement of God’s Holy Spirit in my heart, family and work. CREDO helped me bring all the disparate pieces of my life into order again, God’s order. CREDO allowed me to revisit the holy place of my call to ministry with a new freshness and a powerful sense of renewal. My CREDO plan, which is the intended result of the program, is real and concrete. My plan will have a lasting effect on my life and ministry, connecting me God’s purpose and call for my life.
Our Board of Pensions is expecting to expand the CREDO program in our church. Pastors will be randomly selected from across the denomination to participate. If you are a pastor and you receive an invitation to a CREDO program, please participate. I am confident that you will be as richly blessed as I was.
Quoted here is the CREDO mission statement taken from their website:
The mission of CREDO is to provide opportunities for clergy to examine significant areas of their lives and to discern prayerfully the future direction of their vocation as they respond to God’s call in a lifelong process of practice and transformation.
Models of Mission
Models of Mission
Consider these two models of mission. These are actual descriptions of mission work which Presbyterians are doing today in Honduras. Comparing these two models helps us articulate some foundational questions for the church today.
Model A:
A group of six Presbyterian congregations have formed a Foundation for the purpose of building and sustaining a medical clinic in rural Honduras. The leaders of this effort have begun a fundraising campaign to raise $500,000. Thus far they have recruited a Honduran medical doctor who is now employed by their Foundation. The Foundation has also purchased a piece of property in rural Honduras on which they intend to build their medical clinic. When the building is finished and with the medical doctor and medical staff on site, comprehensive medical care will be provided for a large, rural area. This medical mission does not have a relationship with any Honduran churches.
Model B:
A group of about thirty Presbyterian congregations, in three different presbyteries, have formed a partnership with the Presbytery of Honduras. An important purpose behind this mission is to encourage the twenty congregations in the Presbytery of Honduras to function together as a presbytery. In this mission the American Presbyterians only respond to needs in Honduras which are articulated and prioritized by the Presbytery of Honduras. The Presbytery of Honduras has proposed several different avenues of ministry which our American churches can support. These include support for medical clinics which are provided in each of their congregations with a Honduran medical doctor who is employed by the Presbytery of Honduras. This partnership also includes construction projects which are defined and proposed by the Presbytery of Honduras. The construction of church buildings and Sunday school buildings within the Presbytery of Honduras are always carried out with both Americans and Hondurans working together. The Honduran and American Presbyterians are also exploring plans to build a cooperative relationship with Habitat for Humanity Honduras, provide youth conferences for American and Honduran youth together and provide a scholarship program for Presbyterian high school students in Honduras.
In this new era of Christianity in America, the difference between these two models of mission is important. Which model for mission is appropriate for times like these? Of these two models, I am very involved with Model B. I am working to create a partnership between our Presbytery and the Presbytery of Honduras. My hope is to create a mutual relationship between our presbyteries which is beneficial to both. Most of all I hope to create close, personal relationships between American church leaders and Honduran church leaders so that we are both equipped for ministry. Eventually, I hope this partnership will lead to sister-to-sister church relationships within our presbyteries. While I was in Honduras recently, the leaders of the Foundation I described as Model A were also staying in the hotel with us. Thus I learned about their important ministry during informal conversation during our stay at the hotel.
In my mind the difference between these two models of mission is striking. Model A may be described as doing mission by helping others. Model B may be described as doing mission by building relationships. It is vital for us who are called to build mission-shaped and mission-driven churches to ground our work in serious theological reflection. Listed here are some of the questions I have pondered as I respond to the call of Christ to do mission:
Should we be engaged in any mission work which is not boldly and directly evangelical? Are efforts to help people and improve society appropriate expressions of mission if they do not intentionally include the proclamation of Jesus Christ?
Should we be creating expressions of mission service which will always depend on American resources – money and people – for continuation? What are the long term consequences of creating mission projects that are completely dependent on American money?
Should we be engaged in any mission work that is not intentionally connected with local churches in the host country as partners and colleagues?
How do we solve the dilemma of mission as vacation? Many of the American Presbyterians who are actively involved in mission work today do so as expressions of their personal vacation time. Of course, this is a noble contribution of time and money. But what is the difference between tourism and mission work? Should we encourage or discourage mission trips as tourism?
Consider these two models of mission. These are actual descriptions of mission work which Presbyterians are doing today in Honduras. Comparing these two models helps us articulate some foundational questions for the church today.
Model A:
A group of six Presbyterian congregations have formed a Foundation for the purpose of building and sustaining a medical clinic in rural Honduras. The leaders of this effort have begun a fundraising campaign to raise $500,000. Thus far they have recruited a Honduran medical doctor who is now employed by their Foundation. The Foundation has also purchased a piece of property in rural Honduras on which they intend to build their medical clinic. When the building is finished and with the medical doctor and medical staff on site, comprehensive medical care will be provided for a large, rural area. This medical mission does not have a relationship with any Honduran churches.
Model B:
A group of about thirty Presbyterian congregations, in three different presbyteries, have formed a partnership with the Presbytery of Honduras. An important purpose behind this mission is to encourage the twenty congregations in the Presbytery of Honduras to function together as a presbytery. In this mission the American Presbyterians only respond to needs in Honduras which are articulated and prioritized by the Presbytery of Honduras. The Presbytery of Honduras has proposed several different avenues of ministry which our American churches can support. These include support for medical clinics which are provided in each of their congregations with a Honduran medical doctor who is employed by the Presbytery of Honduras. This partnership also includes construction projects which are defined and proposed by the Presbytery of Honduras. The construction of church buildings and Sunday school buildings within the Presbytery of Honduras are always carried out with both Americans and Hondurans working together. The Honduran and American Presbyterians are also exploring plans to build a cooperative relationship with Habitat for Humanity Honduras, provide youth conferences for American and Honduran youth together and provide a scholarship program for Presbyterian high school students in Honduras.
In this new era of Christianity in America, the difference between these two models of mission is important. Which model for mission is appropriate for times like these? Of these two models, I am very involved with Model B. I am working to create a partnership between our Presbytery and the Presbytery of Honduras. My hope is to create a mutual relationship between our presbyteries which is beneficial to both. Most of all I hope to create close, personal relationships between American church leaders and Honduran church leaders so that we are both equipped for ministry. Eventually, I hope this partnership will lead to sister-to-sister church relationships within our presbyteries. While I was in Honduras recently, the leaders of the Foundation I described as Model A were also staying in the hotel with us. Thus I learned about their important ministry during informal conversation during our stay at the hotel.
In my mind the difference between these two models of mission is striking. Model A may be described as doing mission by helping others. Model B may be described as doing mission by building relationships. It is vital for us who are called to build mission-shaped and mission-driven churches to ground our work in serious theological reflection. Listed here are some of the questions I have pondered as I respond to the call of Christ to do mission:
Should we be engaged in any mission work which is not boldly and directly evangelical? Are efforts to help people and improve society appropriate expressions of mission if they do not intentionally include the proclamation of Jesus Christ?
Should we be creating expressions of mission service which will always depend on American resources – money and people – for continuation? What are the long term consequences of creating mission projects that are completely dependent on American money?
Should we be engaged in any mission work that is not intentionally connected with local churches in the host country as partners and colleagues?
How do we solve the dilemma of mission as vacation? Many of the American Presbyterians who are actively involved in mission work today do so as expressions of their personal vacation time. Of course, this is a noble contribution of time and money. But what is the difference between tourism and mission work? Should we encourage or discourage mission trips as tourism?
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Report to the Presbytery: September 25, 2007
Am I allowed to lead? In this era when we have clearly defined the purpose of the Presbytery as supporting, resourcing and encouraging the ministry of our congregations, what does it mean for me to lead? Am I allowed to lead?
In my opinion, leadership from my office means three things: First, to understand our congregations and see where the Holy Spirit is inspiring good ministry. Second, to name and celebrate that good ministry. Third, connect the good ministry of individual congregations to one another and thus help move it to a higher level of energy and commitment. Leadership from the Presbytery means finding out what we do best and helping us to do it better, together. Am I allowed to lead?
Clearly, in my experience so far with this presbytery, what our congregations do very, very well is mission work. Our Mission Committee, under the leadership of Elder Skip Becker, has done a comprehensive telephone survey of our congregations. The picture that develops is beautiful. We have across our congregations a truly remarkable commitment to mission work.
Am I allowed to lead? If I am allowed to name a vision and direction for our Presbytery and for our Churches it would be this: an intentional and robust commitment to mission. This is my vision:
Am I allowed to lead? Let me be bold:
We can support the General Assembly’s Mission Initiative: Joining Hearts and Hands. Our Presbytery can create and fund a new international mission co-worker position. Our Presbytery can commit to growing Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) international mission work.
We can begin a conversation to ponder a Mission Coordinator staff position at the Presbytery level. The responsibilities of this person will be our disaster response ministry through Lend a Hand, connecting congregations together in active mission service and mission trips, and connecting us as a Presbytery with the beautiful work that Presbyterian missionaries are doing around the world.
Am I allowed to lead? What does that mean? To me it means identifying and naming what we do best, and helping us do it better together. Let’s do mission in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In my opinion, leadership from my office means three things: First, to understand our congregations and see where the Holy Spirit is inspiring good ministry. Second, to name and celebrate that good ministry. Third, connect the good ministry of individual congregations to one another and thus help move it to a higher level of energy and commitment. Leadership from the Presbytery means finding out what we do best and helping us to do it better, together. Am I allowed to lead?
Clearly, in my experience so far with this presbytery, what our congregations do very, very well is mission work. Our Mission Committee, under the leadership of Elder Skip Becker, has done a comprehensive telephone survey of our congregations. The picture that develops is beautiful. We have across our congregations a truly remarkable commitment to mission work.
Am I allowed to lead? If I am allowed to name a vision and direction for our Presbytery and for our Churches it would be this: an intentional and robust commitment to mission. This is my vision:
Every congregation will move toward an intentional, defined mission budget of at least 10% of total income every year.
Every congregation will devote at least half of their mission budget to Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) mission work in both designated and undesignated expressions.
Every congregation will make a significant financial commitment to undesignated Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) mission giving. We will work harder to understand, celebrate and interpret our church’s mission work.
Every congregation will connect with opportunities for active, hands on mission service for their members, including mission trips. We will work harder at connecting congregations together for mission service and mission trips. Lend a Hand is a stellar example of this kind of cooperation.
Every congregation will have an international component to their mission commitment. Every congregation will seek to understand and celebrate the amazing things God is doing in Churches all around the world, outside of the United States.
Every congregation will make a significant and active, hands-on commitment to at least one of the mission agencies which we support within the presbytery bounds. For example, Skip Becker and I recently visited the Check-up Center, a remarkable medical mission right in the heart of the one of the most oppressed and dangerous, urban areas in Harrisburg. The Check up Center is remarkably good ministry, providing free medical care for extremely underprivileged children. But only two congregations in our Presbytery actively support the Check up Center.
Every congregation will make a gift to our Funding the Future capital campaign in support of Camp Krislund.
I ask for permission to lead mission trips as part of my position. I requested and the Administration approved, and you will vote on today, adding two weeks per year for mission work, including funding, into my 2008 terms of call. I hope to create the relationships and infrastructure for mission trips so that every pastor and church leader will have the opportunity to participate.
Am I allowed to lead? Let me be bold:
We can support the General Assembly’s Mission Initiative: Joining Hearts and Hands. Our Presbytery can create and fund a new international mission co-worker position. Our Presbytery can commit to growing Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) international mission work.
We can begin a conversation to ponder a Mission Coordinator staff position at the Presbytery level. The responsibilities of this person will be our disaster response ministry through Lend a Hand, connecting congregations together in active mission service and mission trips, and connecting us as a Presbytery with the beautiful work that Presbyterian missionaries are doing around the world.
Am I allowed to lead? What does that mean? To me it means identifying and naming what we do best, and helping us do it better together. Let’s do mission in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Conversations with the General Assembly Council
There is a lot of new conversation and discernment going on at the national level of our church. I want with this report to share some reflections from my perspective as a new Executive Presbyter.
First, when I was a pastor I never knew that there is a para-church organization in our church called the Association of Executive Presbyters. This is a support group for Executive and General Presbyters across the church. This past week, September 18-20, 2007, I participated again in our annual meeting. For my first two years as your Executive Presbyter, I participated in the new executive training provided by Association of Executive Presbyters for first year and then again for second year Executives. This training and orientation has been a valuable and important experience for me. The value of these orientation sessions was not necessarily in the skills I learned, but in the relationships with other new Executives which were forged, and continue to be important relationships for me in the church. Thus for three consecutive years I have participated in the annual meeting of the Association of Executive Presbyters. This is a remarkable group of people, with deep passion for the work we face to build a new church for a new day.
Exactly at the same time as I started my service as your Executive Presbyter, the national church started a serious of conversations intended to build bridges and discern a way forward in these chaotic times. This started one year ago when the Office of the General Assembly, which sponsors an annual polity conference for all our Presbytery Stated Clerks, met simultaneously with our Association of Executive Presbyters. That meeting in Tucson in October 2006 was an exhilarating week for me. I was there for two days of orientation with new Executives starting their second year; participated in the Office of the General Assembly’s polity conference, participated in the meetings to build communication between the Office of the General Assembly and the Association of Executive Presbyters, and also participated in the meetings of the Executive Presbyters. I fully understand the challenges which face our church. But the more I meet with and work with church leaders in other presbyteries and at the General Assembly, the more impressed I am with the vision, commitment and devotion they bring to our common work.
These national consultations have become required when the 2006 General Assembly mandated annual consultations. Now the General Assembly Council meets with the Association of Executive Presbyters annually, an event which took place last week in Louisville. Aside from our meeting, I was delighted to have the opportunity to tour Presbyterian Center. All the General Assembly staff were available to us for conversations and questions while we toured their offices. We also had a meaningful worship service in the Presbyterian Center chapel with a brilliant sermon by Rev. Setri Nyomi, General Secretary of the World Alliance of Reformed Church and a Presbyterian leader from Ghana.
Our discussions with the General Assembly Council last week were focused on the “adaptive change” issues facing the church. In other words, we were looking at the big picture questions facing our church. I believe the distinction between adaptive change and technical change is very important in the church today. Technical change is about problem solving, and finding solutions. Adaptive change is about changing the culture of the church. The conversations were rich, perceptive and challenging. The truth of the matter is that we are faced with the challenge of creating a new church for a new day.
I want to share here some of the questions which we articulated as important in the church today. These are all huge questions of adaptive change. Answers to these questions are complex, multi-dimensional and will require sweeping spiritual and cultural change in our church.
Can the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A), in this particular time, find a common vision?
In a purpose-driven world, what is the purpose of the PC(USA)?
Who nurtures the relationships and honors the connections that are at the heart of this network of congregations, pastors, educators, and presbyteries?
Facing the realities of our 21st century context and respecting our historic polity, what can and should leaders do?
In a post-Christendom world where each congregation is a mission post and every member a missionary, can we make disciples through one hour of worship and fifteen minutes of coffee fellowship on Sunday morning?
How do we address the congregational dilemma of moving from a 1950s fellowship/membership model for doing church to a missional/outward model for being the church?
Does the PC(USA) have a fundraising problem, a stewardship problem, or a spiritual problem? If, as the Book of Order states, “We believe that Christ calls and gives the church all that is necessary for its mission in the world,” what are the current funding issues saying to us?
Is the PC(USA)’s communication network effective in an internet age? Who’s talking, who’s listening and who is telling our story?
If the world is becoming flat, what does it mean organizationally for the PC(USA)? How and where can we begin having a conversation about structure, leadership, accountability, decision making and partnership for the 21st century PC(USA)?
What does a healthy denomination look like? How do we get there?
Without constraining the movement of the Holy Spirit, how can a better process be put in place to help each General Assembly focus on what is vital and important to our long-term health and faithfulness?
By the Spirit of Christ we are called to create a new church for new day.
First, when I was a pastor I never knew that there is a para-church organization in our church called the Association of Executive Presbyters. This is a support group for Executive and General Presbyters across the church. This past week, September 18-20, 2007, I participated again in our annual meeting. For my first two years as your Executive Presbyter, I participated in the new executive training provided by Association of Executive Presbyters for first year and then again for second year Executives. This training and orientation has been a valuable and important experience for me. The value of these orientation sessions was not necessarily in the skills I learned, but in the relationships with other new Executives which were forged, and continue to be important relationships for me in the church. Thus for three consecutive years I have participated in the annual meeting of the Association of Executive Presbyters. This is a remarkable group of people, with deep passion for the work we face to build a new church for a new day.
Exactly at the same time as I started my service as your Executive Presbyter, the national church started a serious of conversations intended to build bridges and discern a way forward in these chaotic times. This started one year ago when the Office of the General Assembly, which sponsors an annual polity conference for all our Presbytery Stated Clerks, met simultaneously with our Association of Executive Presbyters. That meeting in Tucson in October 2006 was an exhilarating week for me. I was there for two days of orientation with new Executives starting their second year; participated in the Office of the General Assembly’s polity conference, participated in the meetings to build communication between the Office of the General Assembly and the Association of Executive Presbyters, and also participated in the meetings of the Executive Presbyters. I fully understand the challenges which face our church. But the more I meet with and work with church leaders in other presbyteries and at the General Assembly, the more impressed I am with the vision, commitment and devotion they bring to our common work.
These national consultations have become required when the 2006 General Assembly mandated annual consultations. Now the General Assembly Council meets with the Association of Executive Presbyters annually, an event which took place last week in Louisville. Aside from our meeting, I was delighted to have the opportunity to tour Presbyterian Center. All the General Assembly staff were available to us for conversations and questions while we toured their offices. We also had a meaningful worship service in the Presbyterian Center chapel with a brilliant sermon by Rev. Setri Nyomi, General Secretary of the World Alliance of Reformed Church and a Presbyterian leader from Ghana.
Our discussions with the General Assembly Council last week were focused on the “adaptive change” issues facing the church. In other words, we were looking at the big picture questions facing our church. I believe the distinction between adaptive change and technical change is very important in the church today. Technical change is about problem solving, and finding solutions. Adaptive change is about changing the culture of the church. The conversations were rich, perceptive and challenging. The truth of the matter is that we are faced with the challenge of creating a new church for a new day.
I want to share here some of the questions which we articulated as important in the church today. These are all huge questions of adaptive change. Answers to these questions are complex, multi-dimensional and will require sweeping spiritual and cultural change in our church.
Can the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A), in this particular time, find a common vision?
In a purpose-driven world, what is the purpose of the PC(USA)?
Who nurtures the relationships and honors the connections that are at the heart of this network of congregations, pastors, educators, and presbyteries?
Facing the realities of our 21st century context and respecting our historic polity, what can and should leaders do?
In a post-Christendom world where each congregation is a mission post and every member a missionary, can we make disciples through one hour of worship and fifteen minutes of coffee fellowship on Sunday morning?
How do we address the congregational dilemma of moving from a 1950s fellowship/membership model for doing church to a missional/outward model for being the church?
Does the PC(USA) have a fundraising problem, a stewardship problem, or a spiritual problem? If, as the Book of Order states, “We believe that Christ calls and gives the church all that is necessary for its mission in the world,” what are the current funding issues saying to us?
Is the PC(USA)’s communication network effective in an internet age? Who’s talking, who’s listening and who is telling our story?
If the world is becoming flat, what does it mean organizationally for the PC(USA)? How and where can we begin having a conversation about structure, leadership, accountability, decision making and partnership for the 21st century PC(USA)?
What does a healthy denomination look like? How do we get there?
Without constraining the movement of the Holy Spirit, how can a better process be put in place to help each General Assembly focus on what is vital and important to our long-term health and faithfulness?
By the Spirit of Christ we are called to create a new church for new day.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
What is the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)?
OGA – GAC – BOP – PILP – PF – PPH
Across the church, in conversations, classes and session meetings, I regularly hear reference to the General Assembly. But what exactly is the General Assembly? I wonder, as I hear reference to the General Assembly, if we understand the fullness of it work and ministry.
The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is made up of six different organizations referred to by the acronyms listed above.
OGA: The Office of the General Assembly.
http://www.pcusa.org/oga/
I suspect that this is the one aspect of the work of the General Assembly which people are referring to when they speak of the General Assembly. The OGA is responsible for the biennial meetings of the General Assembly. The OGA includes the office of the Stated Clerk, now headed by Cliff Kirkpatrick, who has recently announced his retirement. The OGA is responsible for the constitution – the Book of Order and the Book of Confessions – of the Presbyterian Church.
GAC: The General Assembly Council
http://www.pcusa.org/gac/
The General Assembly Council is the program and ministry arm of the General Assembly, now headed by newly selected Elder Linda Valentine. All of our national and international mission work falls under the rubric of the GAC. All the educational, evangelism, new church development, transformation and youth ministry resources created by the General Assembly are within the GAC. In addition the Office of Theology and Worship and our Church Leadership Connection is within the GAC.
BOP: Board of Pensions
http://www.pensions.org/
The Board of Pensions is a very, very large piece of the work of the General Assembly but generally non-controversial. The BOP is not typically in mind when we consider the work of the General Assembly. But in fact, every congregation with an installed pastor has a direct and significant relationship with the BOP. The BOP is responsible for the major medical plan, the pension plan, and disability insurance plan for all our pastors and many professional church workers. The BOP also does significant work across the church with their shared, emergency, educational grants and housing supplement grants.
PILP: The Presbyterian Investment and Loan Program
http://www.pcusa.org/pilp/
The Presbyterian Investment and Loan Program is one of the shining lights in the ministry of the General Assembly. This program, which many people do not know about, makes loans and grants to congregations for new construction and capital improvements. Using funds invested with them by individuals and congregations across the church, the PILP is able to use investment proceeds from those funds to provide loans to churches. When your congregation begins exploring any kind of construction project you should contact PILP.
PF: The Presbyterian Foundation
http://www.presbyterianfoundation.org/
The Presbyterian Foundation is the autonomous investment arm of the General Assembly. By that I mean that the Foundation does not receive any mission or per capita funds. With a stellar record of investment earning, the Presbyterian Foundation deserves its impeccable reputation for its ability to make money available to the church. Individuals across the church have millions of dollars invested with the Presbyterian Foundation. Most of the accumulated funds of the Presbytery of Carlisle are invested with the Presbyterian Foundation. Every congregation should use Presbyterian Foundation resources to raise awareness about the importance of planned giving and estate giving with your members.
PPH: Presbyterian Publishing House
http://www.ppcbooks.com/
Obviously, the Presbyterian Publishing House is the publishing arm of the General Assembly. “The Presbyterian Publishing Corporation (PPC) is the denominational publisher for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), but the materials it issues under its Westminster John Knox Press imprint cover the spectrum of modern religious thought and represent the work of scholarly and popular authors of many different religious affiliations. PPC's Geneva Press imprint is for a specifically Presbyterian audience.”
Across the church, in conversations, classes and session meetings, I regularly hear reference to the General Assembly. But what exactly is the General Assembly? I wonder, as I hear reference to the General Assembly, if we understand the fullness of it work and ministry.
The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is made up of six different organizations referred to by the acronyms listed above.
OGA: The Office of the General Assembly.
http://www.pcusa.org/oga/
I suspect that this is the one aspect of the work of the General Assembly which people are referring to when they speak of the General Assembly. The OGA is responsible for the biennial meetings of the General Assembly. The OGA includes the office of the Stated Clerk, now headed by Cliff Kirkpatrick, who has recently announced his retirement. The OGA is responsible for the constitution – the Book of Order and the Book of Confessions – of the Presbyterian Church.
GAC: The General Assembly Council
http://www.pcusa.org/gac/
The General Assembly Council is the program and ministry arm of the General Assembly, now headed by newly selected Elder Linda Valentine. All of our national and international mission work falls under the rubric of the GAC. All the educational, evangelism, new church development, transformation and youth ministry resources created by the General Assembly are within the GAC. In addition the Office of Theology and Worship and our Church Leadership Connection is within the GAC.
BOP: Board of Pensions
http://www.pensions.org/
The Board of Pensions is a very, very large piece of the work of the General Assembly but generally non-controversial. The BOP is not typically in mind when we consider the work of the General Assembly. But in fact, every congregation with an installed pastor has a direct and significant relationship with the BOP. The BOP is responsible for the major medical plan, the pension plan, and disability insurance plan for all our pastors and many professional church workers. The BOP also does significant work across the church with their shared, emergency, educational grants and housing supplement grants.
PILP: The Presbyterian Investment and Loan Program
http://www.pcusa.org/pilp/
The Presbyterian Investment and Loan Program is one of the shining lights in the ministry of the General Assembly. This program, which many people do not know about, makes loans and grants to congregations for new construction and capital improvements. Using funds invested with them by individuals and congregations across the church, the PILP is able to use investment proceeds from those funds to provide loans to churches. When your congregation begins exploring any kind of construction project you should contact PILP.
PF: The Presbyterian Foundation
http://www.presbyterianfoundation.org/
The Presbyterian Foundation is the autonomous investment arm of the General Assembly. By that I mean that the Foundation does not receive any mission or per capita funds. With a stellar record of investment earning, the Presbyterian Foundation deserves its impeccable reputation for its ability to make money available to the church. Individuals across the church have millions of dollars invested with the Presbyterian Foundation. Most of the accumulated funds of the Presbytery of Carlisle are invested with the Presbyterian Foundation. Every congregation should use Presbyterian Foundation resources to raise awareness about the importance of planned giving and estate giving with your members.
PPH: Presbyterian Publishing House
http://www.ppcbooks.com/
Obviously, the Presbyterian Publishing House is the publishing arm of the General Assembly. “The Presbyterian Publishing Corporation (PPC) is the denominational publisher for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), but the materials it issues under its Westminster John Knox Press imprint cover the spectrum of modern religious thought and represent the work of scholarly and popular authors of many different religious affiliations. PPC's Geneva Press imprint is for a specifically Presbyterian audience.”
Monday, September 3, 2007
Book Review: Craig Van Gelder
Craig Van Gelder. The Ministry of the Missional Church: A Community Led by the Spirit. Baker Books, 2007.
I have become immersed in the new movement in contemporary, American theological reflection which may appropriately be named “missional theology”. Missional theology has become a very comprehensive genre of theological reflection which strives to understand the sweeping changes that are moving the church into a new era. Craig Van Gelder, professor of congregational mission at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, offers an important new book in missional theology. His overarching thesis is a vision of the Church as Spirit-led.
After an introduction in Chapter One, Van Gelder offers a nice Bible study on the work of the Spirit through both the Old and New Testaments in Chapter Two. In Chapter Three, Van Gelder considers a theme that is common in missional theology: the contextuality of the church. The church must be intentional today to understand where it is, its spiritual and theological location in the world. In response to the constantly changing context of the church, Van Gelder suggests that “the church is always both forming and reforming. This reinforces the logic that the church always needs to be both confessional (claiming and reclaiming its identity in relation to the historic Christian faith) and missional (engaging its context and continuously recontextualizing its ministry)” (Page 54).
In Chapter Four, Van Gelder focuses on the American church, in a perceptive analysis of our history, by tracking the movement of the church in American context from an established church to a corporate church to the missional church (Page 73). This understanding of American church history is very helpful, and precisely defines the change and trauma of our church today as we are in the midst of a transformation from a corporate church to a missional church.
It is Chapter Five which makes this book a valuable contribution to the Presbyterian Church today. In light of the discussions across our church motivated by the Peace, Unity and Purity report, there is now a new appreciation and a renewed interest in “spiritual discernment.” The call to communal spiritual discernment is one of the central propositions of the Peace, Unity and Purity report. Van Gelder also calls for a renewed commitment to spiritual discernment in the church and offers the theological, social and historical rationale for it. Van Gelder offers the idea of “hermeneutical turn” as a way to describe the situation we are in which includes a “diversity of interpretations of reality.” Van Gelder is exactly correct, and I have experienced this repeatedly, that “the challenge facing Christian leaders today is learning to engage diverse perceptions of reality.” I will quote here at length Van Gelder’s description of the hermeneutical turn because, I believe, it accurately describes the challenge before the church and the opportunity for becoming a truly missional church:
“In light of the hermeneutical turn that has developed over the past century, there is no going back to a world that can be framed in seemingly black-and-white categories. The diversity of interpretations of reality, which are manifest both in the multiperspectival character of biblical studies and the different methods used by the social sciences, makes this impossible. This means that part of the challenge facing Christian leaders today is learning to engage diverse perceptions of reality by drawing on a variety of methods that can inform discernment and decision-making process. Relying primarily on one method, whether it is in relation to biblical teaching or scientific explanation, is no longer viable, if it ever was. Diverse perspectives, rooted in different methods and the particulars of social location, bring a multiperspectival dynamic into any discussion. Rather than playing out these differences around power dynamics related to personalities, roles, or the vote of the majority, which is so often the case in congregations, a more redemptive approach is to engage such differences through a process of mutual discernment. This requires leadership. This requires time. This requires a mutual commitment among those who are around the table. And this requires being Spirit-led. Reflected in this approach is the important theoretical insight that we need to develop a practice of ‘communicative reason’ within diverse communities in order to come to shared conclusions” (Page 97).
I believe this beautifully names an important challenge of ministry today. Church leaders must be able to engage diverse perceptions of reality in ways that are Spirit-led and grace-filled. This engagement need not confrontational but must be conversational and discerning. This engagement must not be a power-play or an effort to promote my own agenda, but must be truly discerning, seeking to understand the will of God. I believe that pastors today who are able to create mature, open, mutual, Spirit-led patterns of spiritual discernment will help us move toward the kind of church to which God is calling us.
I have become immersed in the new movement in contemporary, American theological reflection which may appropriately be named “missional theology”. Missional theology has become a very comprehensive genre of theological reflection which strives to understand the sweeping changes that are moving the church into a new era. Craig Van Gelder, professor of congregational mission at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, offers an important new book in missional theology. His overarching thesis is a vision of the Church as Spirit-led.
After an introduction in Chapter One, Van Gelder offers a nice Bible study on the work of the Spirit through both the Old and New Testaments in Chapter Two. In Chapter Three, Van Gelder considers a theme that is common in missional theology: the contextuality of the church. The church must be intentional today to understand where it is, its spiritual and theological location in the world. In response to the constantly changing context of the church, Van Gelder suggests that “the church is always both forming and reforming. This reinforces the logic that the church always needs to be both confessional (claiming and reclaiming its identity in relation to the historic Christian faith) and missional (engaging its context and continuously recontextualizing its ministry)” (Page 54).
In Chapter Four, Van Gelder focuses on the American church, in a perceptive analysis of our history, by tracking the movement of the church in American context from an established church to a corporate church to the missional church (Page 73). This understanding of American church history is very helpful, and precisely defines the change and trauma of our church today as we are in the midst of a transformation from a corporate church to a missional church.
It is Chapter Five which makes this book a valuable contribution to the Presbyterian Church today. In light of the discussions across our church motivated by the Peace, Unity and Purity report, there is now a new appreciation and a renewed interest in “spiritual discernment.” The call to communal spiritual discernment is one of the central propositions of the Peace, Unity and Purity report. Van Gelder also calls for a renewed commitment to spiritual discernment in the church and offers the theological, social and historical rationale for it. Van Gelder offers the idea of “hermeneutical turn” as a way to describe the situation we are in which includes a “diversity of interpretations of reality.” Van Gelder is exactly correct, and I have experienced this repeatedly, that “the challenge facing Christian leaders today is learning to engage diverse perceptions of reality.” I will quote here at length Van Gelder’s description of the hermeneutical turn because, I believe, it accurately describes the challenge before the church and the opportunity for becoming a truly missional church:
“In light of the hermeneutical turn that has developed over the past century, there is no going back to a world that can be framed in seemingly black-and-white categories. The diversity of interpretations of reality, which are manifest both in the multiperspectival character of biblical studies and the different methods used by the social sciences, makes this impossible. This means that part of the challenge facing Christian leaders today is learning to engage diverse perceptions of reality by drawing on a variety of methods that can inform discernment and decision-making process. Relying primarily on one method, whether it is in relation to biblical teaching or scientific explanation, is no longer viable, if it ever was. Diverse perspectives, rooted in different methods and the particulars of social location, bring a multiperspectival dynamic into any discussion. Rather than playing out these differences around power dynamics related to personalities, roles, or the vote of the majority, which is so often the case in congregations, a more redemptive approach is to engage such differences through a process of mutual discernment. This requires leadership. This requires time. This requires a mutual commitment among those who are around the table. And this requires being Spirit-led. Reflected in this approach is the important theoretical insight that we need to develop a practice of ‘communicative reason’ within diverse communities in order to come to shared conclusions” (Page 97).
I believe this beautifully names an important challenge of ministry today. Church leaders must be able to engage diverse perceptions of reality in ways that are Spirit-led and grace-filled. This engagement need not confrontational but must be conversational and discerning. This engagement must not be a power-play or an effort to promote my own agenda, but must be truly discerning, seeking to understand the will of God. I believe that pastors today who are able to create mature, open, mutual, Spirit-led patterns of spiritual discernment will help us move toward the kind of church to which God is calling us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)