Essay: From Castle to Frontier Outpost: Changing views of mission.

Essay: From Castle to Frontier Outpost: Changing views of mission.

The one, holy, universal and apostolic Christian Church has received a calling to mission directly from Jesus. The Church has always turned to the Great Commission - the resurrected Jesus’ last words to his disciples - as the starting point and inspiration for our mission work (See Matthew 28: 19, 20). Nonetheless the understanding and definition of mission is changing and shifting in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) today. Your view of these changes depends a lot on the location and viability of the congregation where you are located. I offer two different images or mental pictures of mission that may, I hope, help us understand these changes.

Castle: Consider in your mind’s eye an image of a medieval castle. Throughout Europe these amazing structures are still fascinating places to tour. Consider a castle as a definition of mission. In this regard, the church is the castle. It is strong, secure, established and solid. Imagine the heavy, secure doors of the castle opening, the drawbridge across the moat dropped down, and a group from the castle sent out on a mission. This may be the understanding of mission familiar to most of us. In this view, the church is the castle and the mission we do is sent from our secure, established home base out into the world. Mission goes out from the church. This mission may be in the form of missionaries sent out to create castles in other places. Or this mission may be in the form of simply sending money out to help with people, organizations, agencies that are beyond the walls of our castle. For our Presbytery, this understanding of mission funds our Mission Grants programs which makes financial grants.

Frontier outpost: Consider a completely different image. Consider in your mind’s eye a small group of faithful Christians venturing together into a wild, wilderness frontier and living there; this is actually the original history of Presbyterians in Pennsylvania. Consider a small frontier outpost established in a wild, savage wilderness as an image for the church. In this image the definition of mission is very different. The existence of this frontier outpost is questionable and tentative; it is not secure or established. The existence and survival of the church itself is at risk. It is constantly threatened. In this case the survival of the church is its mission. It is not at all certain that this Christian outpost living in the wilderness will survive. Thus the continuing existence of the church, in every way, is its mission. 

I believe the definition of mission is shifting in the church today from castle view to frontier outpost view. In the castle, all the work of our daily operations from the salaries of our people, to the care of our buildings, our worship and our pastoral care are all accomplished. The castle sustains itself. We are, in fact, very good at this. When everything has been accomplished making sure the castle is secure and comfortable; then we send out our mission.

If the church is understood as a frontier outpost our survival, including all the day to day operations, are our mission. Thus everything we do - including salaries, our worship and programs and our buildings - are all contributing to the existence of this fragile outpost in a threatening wilderness. Everything we do is our mission. Our mission is to exist as a church in the midst of a wild and foreign world. 

Questions for prayer, pondering and discussion:

• How secure and established do you consider the existence of the church today? Do you feel that the existence of the church in our society is at risk or threatened?
• Do you feel that the continuing existence of your congregation in your community is at risk?
• What does it mean to consider the existence of the church as its mission?
• What is God doing? In the castle image of the church, the church does mission. The church is secure, stable and established and thus sends out mission work. In the frontier outpost image of the church, God does mission. God has sent the church into the wilderness frontier of the world. The planting of the church in the wild frontier is God’s work of mission. This is, of course, the most important question: What is God through Christ doing in regard to these issues?
• How do these different views of mission influence the ways we fund the church and organize ourselves? This opens the complicated question of our financial system.

Resource: What is Per Capita?

Resource B: What is Per Capita?

For 2014 the total Per Capita assessment for congregations in the Presbytery of Carlisle is $25.00 for each active member.

                                    General Assembly                     $7.02

                                    Synod of the Trinity                  $2.20

                                    Presbytery of Carlisle                $15.78

                                    TOTAL 2014 Per Capita       $25.00

• The Presbytery of Carlisle has, since 2006, created a financial system that functions with one, unified budget. Thus the Presbytery does not maintain a distinction in our financial system between Per Capita and Shared Mission contributions. All Per Capita Contributions and Shared Missions contributions from our congregations are unified into one operating budget from which all expenses are drawn. (Please contact me for a copy of our 2014 Budget).
• Our Presbytery’s unified budget clearly reflects a changing definition of the understanding of the church today. Everything the church does is mission. As discussed in the essay, “From castle to frontier outpost: changing views of mission”, this unified budget reflects an understanding of the church as a frontier outpost. Thus even a congregation’s Per Capita contribution should be considered part of their mission. This unified budget system also creates a clear, clean and transparent financial system.
• At the General Assembly the distinction between Per Capita and Shared Mission giving is fully separate. Per Capita supports the Office of the General Assembly. Shared Mission Giving supports the General Assembly Mission Agency. The Office of the General Assembly and the General Assembly Mission Agency are separate agencies within the General Assembly.
• Funded by Per Capita, the Office of the General Assembly is responsible for all governance and constitutional matters, all judicial and disciplinary concerns as well as the actual meeting of the General Assembly and the work of the General Assembly Moderator. (The next General Assembly is June 14 – 21, 2014 in Detroit).

Questions for prayer, pondering and discussion:

• Is being connected together with other congregations through the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) important to you as a session?
• How do you participate in those connections?
• In what ways have our connections together been strained and broken in recent years? In what ways have you contributed to enhancing and nurturing our connections?
• How do you financially support the connections we share?
• Will you contribute your Per Capita contribution to financially contribute to these connections? 

Resource: What is Shared Mission?

Resource C: What is Shared Mission?

Shared Mission contributions are defined by each session and shared between the work of the Presbytery and the General Assembly Mission Agency. The Presbytery is responsible for defining the percentage distribution.

• Currently our percentage distribution is 32.5% for the General Assembly Mission Agency and 67.5% for the Presbytery. We are proposing a change in this distribution percentage for 2015. This change is proposed in order to focus more of our financial resources within the Presbytery. This proposal is also motivated by the action of the General Assembly Mission Agency. The Mission Agency has responded to the recent decline Shared Mission Giving by creating a funds development program to raise funds for their ministry from individuals across the Church. 
• The Presbytery of Carlisle has, since 2006, created a financial system that functions with one, unified budget. Thus the Presbytery does not maintain a distinction in our financial system between Per Capita and Shared Mission contributions. All Per Capita contributions and Shared Mission contributions from our congregations are unified into one operating budget from which all expenses are drawn.
• Within the Presbytery, shared mission contributions are used to support the general operating budget.
• Within the General Assembly Mission Agency, Shared Mission contributions are used to support these areas of ministry:

                                    1001 Worshiping Communities

                                    Compassion, Peace and Justice

                                    Evangelism and Church Growth

                                    Racial Ethnic and Women’s Ministries

                                    Stewardship

                                    Theology, Worship and Education

                                    Vocation

                                    World Mission

• It is important to understand that Shared Mission Giving is shared between the Presbytery and the General Assembly Mission agency. Shared Mission Giving supports the general operating budgets of the Presbytery and the General Assembly Mission agency. But these funds are not used in specific, designated ways within either the Presbytery or the General Assembly Mission Agency.

Questions for prayer, pondering and discussion:

• How does your session understand mission work? Has your understanding of mission changed recently? Do you believe everyone on your session shares an understanding of mission?
• Does your session consider your participation in and support of the work of our presbytery to be an expression of your mission?
• Does your session contribute to shared mission giving? Why or why not? How is this decision made?

Resource: What is Designated Mission Giving?

Resource D: What is Designated Mission Giving?

      The concept of Designated Mission Giving may be one of the most confusing aspects of our funding system today. It is also growing and may be an important future trend. I am describing here Designated Mission Giving that is sent to our Presbytery. All of our congregations have expressions of specific, designated mission giving, which are not sent through our Presbytery office, and for which we have no record. When you support a local family with their electric bill/ rent, or send a contribution to your volunteer fire department or the Red Cross, you are making a designated mission gift; a gift designated to a specific purpose.

·        Presbyterian Designated Mission Giving is mission giving your session sends to the Presbytery for distribution to a specific mission cause or purpose. Within our Presbytery this is a huge number and includes gifts to Krislund, Lend a Hand, specific Presbyterian missionaries, and many other specific mission causes.

·        The Presbytery receives no benefit from your Designated Mission Giving. This is simply a service we provide to you as an easy way to make gifts to particular mission causes or agencies.

·        With that said, there is an important new expression of Designated Mission Giving, which is growing in our Presbytery. There are congregations that make a Designated Mission Gift to the Presbytery. In other words, the Presbytery itself is the mission that these congregations specifically want to support. This kind of Designated Mission giving to the Presbytery supports the general operating Budget of the Presbytery. The Presbytery itself is the designated recipient of the gift.

·        This concept of Designated Mission Giving to the Presbytery is typically used by sessions that decide NOT to participate in the Shared Mission Giving system.

Questions for prayer, pondering and discussion:

• Do you understand the concept of Designated Mission Giving to the Presbytery?
• Do you understand the difference between Designated Mission Giving and Shared Mission Giving?
• Will your congregation participate in Shared Mission Giving?
• Will your congregation participate in Designated Mission Giving to the Presbytery?
• How are these decisions discussed and made?

Book Review: Scott Sunquist. Understanding Christian Mission.

Scott Sunquist. Understanding Christian Mission: Participation in Suffering and Glory. Baker Academic, 2013.

One of the most important and exciting changes in theological education today is the growth and proliferation of the field of missiology. Missiology is one of those technical, academic words that simply means “the study of mission.” When I attended Pittsburgh Theological Seminary long ago in the 1980s I never had a course, nor do I believe one was offered, focusing of world mission and global Christianity. This actually is surprising given the heritage of the Presbyterian Church and our massive contributions to what was called foreign mission. The Presbyterians were a driving force during the heyday of the missionary movement in the era between the Civil War and the First World War. I am convinced that the future viability of our Presbyterian Church (USA) is closely tied to our ability to create close partnerships with churches all around the world. The study today of Christian mission is an important bright spot in the Church. Today it is very common for our theological seminaries to have full professors in world mission and global Christianity.

Long after I left Pittsburgh Seminary a full professorship in world mission was created and Scott Sunquist, a PC(USA) Teaching Elder, joined the faculty. Sunquist recently moved to one of the premier academic positions in the field of mission studies. He is now the Dean of the School of Intercultural Studies at Fuller Theological Seminary. Sunquist has recently published what may be considered an essential textbook for this field: Understanding Christian Mission: Participation in Suffering and Glory, (Baker Academic, 2013).  This is an important book. If you have never had a comprehensive, seminary level course in the study of Christian mission this book is now available to fill that gap. This is a huge, sweeping book that requires careful study and attention. Divided into three parts the book includes an important review of the history of Christian mission, a theological and biblical foundation for mission, and a discussion of the practices of mission today. This book requires a significant investment of time and study; it is not casual. This book makes a significant contribution toward our connections with global Christianity today; a vital task for our Church.  

Reflections: The questions we face in our Presbytery

 Our Questions:

There are many beautiful, exciting, vibrant things happening in our Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) today. This is my first thought and this must be my first sentence as I begin this essay. This is the centered joy and a deep conviction of my heart. I say again, there are many beautiful, exciting, and vibrant things happening in our Presbyterian Church today. I could write a long essay about the joys, the relationships, the conversations, the ministry experiences I had just this week which blessed me and in which I found joy in Christ. I love our Presbyterian Church. I am proud, honored, blessed and encouraged to serve in ministry in our Presbyterian Church today. I find great and deep satisfaction in the life of our Church. I must start with this essential truth because it is the strong foundation for the topic which I consider here. I want here to reflect on what is broken. But this reflection on brokenness is motivated from my deeper conviction that our Presbyterian Church today is good, beautiful and vibrant in Christ. 

With that said, what is clearly broken is our funding system. I am pushing a deep and wide examination of the funding system in our Presbytery in order to accomplish two things: one, to redirect the presbytery to better support our congregations; two, to create a presbytery system that is viable and sustainable into the future. But first we all must understand our questions. Thus I am pleading with our Pastors and Ruling Elders throughout our Presbytery to please join me in engaging this conversation:  

Toward a theology of partnership:

I am personally the embodiment of the massive transformation in our theological convictions today. I have shifted from a theology of legacy to a theology of partnership; I believe this is a shift we all must make. I am the child and grandchild of Presbyterians. I was baptized as an infant and confirmed as a young adult in a Presbyterian Church. My formative high school years included a lot of time involved in a Presbyterian Church with Presbyterian friends and a Presbyterian youth leader who was also a Presbyterian seminary student. During my formative high school years, my dad served as our congregation’s Clerk of Session. Immediately after graduating from college, I attended a Presbyterian Seminary. Next year, 2015, will mark thirty years of my professional service in the Presbyterian Church. My identity in Christ is formed by what I may call a theology of legacy. I am committed to the Presbyterian Church and I give to the Presbyterian Church because this is my long and deep spiritual legacy. I live and give out of a theology of legacy. This theology is powerful. I support and I give to the Presbyterian Church because I have always supported and given to the Presbyterian Church, as have my ancestors.

The crucial truth is that such a theology of legacy is almost gone today. There are many Presbyterians like me, typically over fifty years old, and many Presbyterian congregations and presbyteries that are rooted in a theology of legacy. Please understand that this is a powerful, proper, meaningful and true theological conviction. It is also an obsolete theological system. Are you and your congregation, like me, motivated by a theology of legacy? If so, I believe you must join me in letting it go. A challenge we face today is that the people and congregations most invested in a theology of legacy must also be ones who help us find the way into our new future. 

We need a new theological foundation. It is a theology of partnership. Our deepest convictions, our ministry and our giving must be motivated by passionate, personal relationships. We will believe in, connect with, support and give to the people and institutions – including our congregation and our presbytery – with whom we have a passionate and personal partnership. A theology of partnership begins, of course, with a passionate and personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Moreover, all our people and the people we are trying to reach will join the church and support the church when they have created a passionate and personal partnership with the church.

What is exciting and inspiring to me personally is that my own theology has shifted. For me, this is fresh, fun and invigorating. I am still exploring the implications of this in my own heart. Thus I am only beginning to explore the implications of my new perspectives for my leadership in our Presbytery. How do we shift from a theology of legacy to a theology of partnership?

Beyond Per Capita:

            There may not be any aspect of the Presbyterian Church more obsolete than Per Capita giving. Per Capita giving is the most excellent example of financial support motivated by a theology of legacy. But we are deeply committed to this source of funds. Nothing indicates the challenge before us more than our dependence on Per Capita giving. Please understand that we are fully dependent on this funding; please contribute your Per Capita assessment. This is the most difficult challenge because there is no future in Per Capita giving. Show me the person or congregation who has a passionate and personal commitment to a concept like Per Capita! This is not the way people believe or give today. This should not be the way we ask people to give today. In no way does Per Capita express a passionate obedience to the calling of Jesus Christ in our lives. There is no grace in Per Capita giving. There is no generosity in Per Capita giving. But I must say, loud and clear, please contribute your Per Capita assessment. The only basis from which I can make that sincere request is from my old theology of legacy.

            The challenge and the curse of Per Capita are exemplified by the recent ruling of the Synod of the Trinity’s Permanent Judicial Commission. Some background: Pittsburgh Presbytery, in an action wrestling with the same questions I am pondering here, approved as a standing rule of their presbytery to only contribute the Per Capita assessment to the Synod and to the General Assembly which is actually received from their congregations. Pittsburgh Presbytery was trying to openly, honestly and transparently do what is secretly and unofficially the actual practice of many presbyteries across the church. There was an official complaint against the Presbytery’s decision under our Rules of Discipline. The Synod’s PJC ruled against Pittsburgh Presbytery and insisted that presbyteries must contribute all of their Per Capita assessment to the Synod and the General Assembly even if it is not received from the congregations. I believe the ruling of the Synod PJC is profoundly wrong. Of course, by the letter of church law and in the carefully crafted language of church lawyers the PJC’s decision is unassailable. This PJC decision is the full and powerful expression of theology of legacy. It is obsolete. 

We must understand the quandary we face! Our continuing dependence on Per Capita giving is undermining the church and holding back our reformation. I intended to explore in our presbytery the same action which Pittsburgh Presbytery approved. We should trust our congregations to make the contributions to the Presbytery, Synod and General Assembly as they decide. We should honor the decisions of our sessions. This action, and an important way forward in the reformation of the church, is now muted by the short sighted ruling of the Synod PJC. While the whole church is being transformed, we are required to hold onto a broken and obsolete system of Per Capita giving. Thus this year our Presbytery is required to forward more than $25,000 in Per Capita funds to the Synod and the General Assembly to make up the shortfall from our congregations. 

Moreover, the Per Capita system of funding is broken because it means different things depending on your stance. The Per Capita system is vital to the General Assembly because it is the funding source of the Office of the General Assembly. Thus at the General Assembly the distinction between Per Capita which funds the Office of the General Assembly and Shared Mission Giving which funds the General Assembly Mission Agency is clear and distinct. But in our Presbytery we long ago moved beyond this artificial and at times silly distinction between Per Capita and Mission. Our Presbytery uses a unified financial system which mixes Per Capita and Shared Mission contributions into one funding stream for all of our expenses. 

I see no way forward in the Per Capita funding system. By action of the Synod PJC we are required to participate in a broken system for which there is no passion, no growth and increasing derision across our congregations. The best I hope to do, at this point, is help us understand these confusing issues.

Beyond Shared Mission Giving:

In addition to Per Capita, the other major stream of funding in our Presbytery is Shared Mission Giving. The Presbytery of Carlisle has a strong history and heritage of Shared Mission Giving. But less than half of our congregations actually participate in this system. The Shared Mission system has been declining rapidly as our congregations move to a theology of partnership and fund mission work with which they are passionately and personally related. For a generation, Shared Mission Giving has been the funding source for the General Assembly Mission Agency. But with the rapid decline of this system in recent years, the Mission Agency has itself changed. With the use of professional fundraisers working across the church, the General Assembly Mission Agency is building a base of generous and direct support from individual Presbyterians. This fundraising does not support presbyteries. It is direct, individual support for the General Assembly Mission Agency. For example, late in 2013 two, different million dollar contributions to the Mission Agency from individual Presbyterians were loudly applauded in Presbyterian News Service. I appreciate this effort; it is an expression of bold leadership at the General Assembly Mission Agency living into a new theology of partnership. But there are profound implications to this change. This indicates a clear abandonment of the system of Shared Mission Giving. This also breaks the connection between presbyteries and the General Assembly Mission Agency.

It is here that may we consider revisions in our presbytery’s funding system. Unlike Per Capita, there is no obsolete, disciplinary requirement to participate in Presbyterian mission giving. The congregations that participate in Shared Mission Giving do so with some sense of grace and generosity. Although I will argue that an older theology of legacy is still motivating a lot of this giving. How do we transition to a theology of partnership as the motivation for our mission and giving? How do we create passionate and personal relationships between our congregations and between our congregations and our presbytery and our General Assembly? These are the questions before us as a Presbytery.

39 Versions of the Bible in English!

A Theology of Holy Scripture

 On my Kindle I use an app called “Holy Bible” for my daily devotions. I like this app because it was free and it works very well. It navigates easily between books of the Bible, and the chapters and verses flow and navigate very well. As an electronic app it is excellent. There are in the Holy Bible app. 39 versions of the Bible in the English language. 39 versions! As a very highly educated, church professional I am embarrassed to say that I have never heard of, and certainly never studied, some of the versions that are available in Holy Bible app. It is disappointing that “my” Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, is not available in this app. Thus I use the American Standard Version for my daily Bible reading. I do not believe there is any kind of theological motivation behind the exclusion of the NRSV and the RSV from this app. I know that the National Council of Churches owns the copyright on these versions, and probably is unwilling to share them without compensation.

My question is to ponder the implications of having all these different versions of the Bible before us. For people younger than me, this may be the world they grew up with. Is this a good thing? How does this change or affect one’s view and understanding of the Bible. How does having 39 versions of the Bible instantly in front of me at any moment on my Kindle influence my theology of “the authority of the Scripture.” I am now old and rather settled, and I think this particular aspect of the my theology – my understanding of Holy Scripture – was formed and defined long before the Kindle and Bible apps were invented. What does that say about me? Is there something new here that I need to learn? I must say clearly that having 39 versions of the Bible before me does not in any way bother me, threaten me or alter my reverence for the Holy Scripture.

I wonder if that is true for everyone. There is a wing of American Protestantism that emphasizes, extremely in my view, the authority of the Bible. What is the relationship between the growth and power of this strong Bible-centric theology and the fact that anyone may have 39 versions of the English Bible in front on them at any moment? It is a complicated question.

For me, I do not believe this technology has influenced my theology. But I need to think about that. I do know that I love the convenience of my Kindle. Easily, early most every morning, I can navigate from the Bible, to my morning devotional book to the New York Times at the touch of my finger. How sweet it that!