This morning I'm wondering why we have two Presbyterian-sponsored mission conferences being sponsored within two months of each other.
Presbyterian Global Fellowship's second annual conference, "Inside Out", is August 16-18 in my very own hometown of Houston, Texas.
The PCUSA is organizing a mission conference," Mission '07: A Celebration of Grace", October 2-6 at the General Assembly's hometown of Louisville, Kentucky.
The PCUSA is organizing a mission conference," Mission '07: A Celebration of Grace", October 2-6 at the General Assembly's hometown of Louisville, Kentucky.
The obvious difference between the two conferences seems to be that while PGF emphasizes the importance of mission in church congregations the PCUSA conference focuses on denominational mission emphasis. That's not surprising. I suspect that the PCUSA conference was organized in response to the first PGF conference last year, which was pretty successful.
It doesn't make sense to have two competing Presbyterian mission conferences. Most pastors and lay leaders interested in mission will have to make a choice between which one to attend. A comparison of the conference websites shows that PGF's conference is more extensive and well-organized than the denominational conference. It makes me wonder whether the PCUSA considered contacting the PGF leadership and offering to help set up workshops or speakers to showcase the denomination's mission efforts at the PGF conference, since the PGF initiated this effort last year. That would not only save duplication of effort and resources but be a helpful model of unity for the Presbyterian church as a whole.
I'm afraid that the answer is that the PGF conference is seen by the powers-that-be in Louisville as just for the evangelical/conservative/missional wing of the church and that there is a need for a separate conference for denominational progressives/loyalists. I hope I'm wrong and they just didn't think about investigating the possibility of working together. Mission ought to be something we can all agree on.
I'm afraid that the answer is that the PGF conference is seen by the powers-that-be in Louisville as just for the evangelical/conservative/missional wing of the church and that there is a need for a separate conference for denominational progressives/loyalists. I hope I'm wrong and they just didn't think about investigating the possibility of working together. Mission ought to be something we can all agree on.
5 comments:
I'm afraid that these days, Presbyterians have some pretty widely divergent views of what 'mission' is.
Last year, at the PGF conference, one speaker told us of his talk with a new class of PCUSA missionaries about to go into the world mission field. He told us of how he asked those gathered missionaries to raise their hand if they believed that Christ is the only way of salvation. He told us that only half could raise their hands.
Pretty sad to me, but really telling as to how divided our denomination really is. I'd say that's a pretty wide gap!
Guess my naivte' is showing, Toby. Thanks. I had no idea.
From the PGF website:
"The PC(USA) has been mired in theological, moral and institutional crisis. PGF was formed to give congregations and individuals the opportunity to identify with a fellowship in which they can confess the Lordship of Jesus Christ with integrity, take full advantage of new forms of partnership, and get on with the mission of the church!"
"Presbyterian Global Fellowship believes that the PC(USA), along with other shrinking mainline denominations, is hampered by outmoded assumptions about how money moves in mission."
PGF has been directly and indirectly critical of the way the denomination handles mission. As I read it, PGF was formed primarily as an alternative to denominational mission efforts and not as a complement to them.
Whether PGF is right or not, I think it is understandable that the PC(USA) isn't jumping on board with an organization that is quite critical of them.
As a Presbyterian for just a portion of my life and without knowledge of PGF but some with Louisville when it comes to mission dollars, my observation is that if a church choses to support a PCUSA project financially, then the amount that congregation gives is deducted from the already set budgets. In my opinion this discourages congregations from direct mission project support at the Louisville level in that often there is little or no feedback from the entity supported by the congregational gift. In my opinion this makes PGF a much more appealing organization if a congregtion is truly interested in becoming involved with missions in a hands-on way.
Edie - one who has worked in mission hands-on.
With Shawn, I certainly got the impression last summer that PGF was very intentionally setting itself up as "better alternative" to the denomination's traditional mission structure both in terms of funding and implementation.
Correct or not,the scuttlebutt around here was that PGF was setting itself up in advance as a mission structure for congregations who would be leaving the PCUSA.
Post a Comment