By Leslie Scanlon, The Presbyterian Outlook.
What should the 2017 and 2018 mission budget for the Presbyterian Church (U.SA.) look like?
What should the configuration of the Presbyterian Mission Agency board be – including how big should the board be, and how should its members be selected?
Those are among ongoing questions up for discussion – and the board’s executive committee, meeting Nov. 19 by conference call, discussed the process by which those questions might be brought forward.
Budget
The Presbyterian Mission Agency Board is proceeding with the task of developing its new mission work plan. The board is expected to vote on that plan at its Feb. 3-5 meeting in Louisville, and on the PC(USA)’s 2017 and 2018 mission budget when the board meets April 27-29.
Both staff and elected groups involved with the process are considering questions of vision, mission, directional goals and core values, said Barry Creech, director of policy, administration and board support for the Presbyterian Mission Agency. Creech said that the staff group has had considerable conversation around the question of “why do we serve?” The last time the board developed a mission work plan, some felt “issues of theology and Scripture were added on at the end,” and not considered early enough, he said.
The board also has been conducting focus groups to consider questions such as these:
- Why does the PCUSA need national offices?
- What does it mean to be a connectional church?
- How does the Presbyterian Mission Agency help congregations do work they could not do on their own?
4 Comments. Leave new
Denominationalism, as either a theological construct or real form and structure rests upon a certain mindset. That there are times, programs, causes, events, and organizational structure where it is far, far better to cooperate and coordinate than going it “alone”. Or in essence a denomination should be in the business of doing things an individual or singular churches cannot. And since the 17th century, Protestant denominations have had their most clear and pure example of such by how it does, “mission”.
In a religious group marked either by theological, confessional, or polity agreement or unity, a denominational structure can pretty much assume that when it speaks or acts, it does so for its constituent churches. Not so fast there, PCUSA.
Which brings us to the sad state of affairs of the PCUSA, and its organizational, structural decline, chaos and dis-unity. It is only inevitable that the general pathologies of the organization find expression its its most visible and accessible part of the bureaucracy, its Mission Board and structures. Much like its parent entity at Louisville , the PMA seems rudderless, adrift, an organization in search of both meaning and purpose. Or much like the contemporary PCUSA, an organization in search of a Messiah and Savior. I could make some suggestions on that front, but they have enough staff, outside consultants, lawyers on staff, to continue to drift along and muddle though.
A restructuring is unnecessary at this point. What is truly needed is a spiritual paradigm shift. Are they really planning to discuss “why do we serve?” For real?
Having royally failed in the primary mission of “making disciples,” this effort is simply one more round of rearranging the deck chairs on that fabled behemoth, Titanic.
Having failed to listen to those voices who counseled placing Scripture at the core of mission for so long that those voices have left for more faithful venues, why the worry about Scripture now?
Having failed to show success over things both weighty and minor, in their pride the PMA and the Louisville-to-DeeCee offices continue to advise the captains of industry and the various magistrates on how to conduct their affairs.
The counsel of Ogden Nash, with a slight variation, continues to apply here – “the more they spoke of their honor the faster I counted the silver.”
What a muddle! This article by Leslie Scanlon from the Outlook is a masterpiece of non-information.
There is no mention of the overall size of the future budgets, which are probably declining year by year as fewer and fewer congregants are available to support the church and its mission, whatever that may be.
There is no mention of what to do about an organizational structure designed to support a denomination of 4.3 million congregants that has only 1.6 million congregants.
They don’t seem to know what their “mission” is.
One would think that they would start with the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20), but that is not mentioned and it does not seem to be the case.