This is a question that PGF gets all the time. So, I want to take the time to address it and invite your input. I have asked this question myself as the Executive Director, because it is easier to to motivate people to join a movement that is doing something.
What PGF is committed to "do" is two very simple acts. First, PGF will support, foster, and inject missional thinking. In other words, PGF's purpose is to help Presbyterians become aware that there is an alternative to thinking about the church as an organization that needs to be maintained. Instead, the church can be an organic group of human beings sent out into the world to serve and point to Jesus. This may sound simple or redundant. But it represents a fundamental and colossal change in what "church" means to most Presbyterians.
Why does PGF bring in all these speakers and focus on conferences and gatherings? PGF serves by engaging with thought-leaders. These thought-leaders are scholars, missiologists, missionaries, authors, pastors, and other great servants who can help us understand how our communities of faith are being affected by the culture. They also provide insight into how the church can effectively witness to the love of Christ in a postmodern and pluralist world. In other words, we focus on conferences and gatherings because we need to hear the invitation to become missional!
PGF is criticized regularly for inviting so many non-Presbyterian types to our gatherings. The reason is that we have easy access to Presbyterian leaders, thinking, and scholarship. And it is wonderful. But we also need to challenge ourselves by engaging thinkers who are NOT Presbyterian. People who will inspire, shake us up, even point out where we are falling short. How else will we learn and grow?
The first thing PGF will continue to DO is support, foster, and inject missional thinking. The second is be a support group for those brave souls and congregations who commit to transformation. The shift to a missional understanding of church is no simple task. It involves confession that the world has changed but the way we do church has not. It involves grieving, because there is no going back to the 1950's model. It involves new thinking, which is hard for many Presbyterians to embrace.
We need each other if we are going to make it. We need to share the struggle, share what we are learning, share prayer, share resources, and share a commitment to keep Jesus at the center of it all. As a fellowship, we will continue to provide the opportunity to be in community with each other in ways that is based on relationships and not on Robert's Rules of Order.
What is PGF going to do about.... PGF is going to foster missional thinking and provide community for those who are braving the transition.
PGF is going to do the work Christ called us to do. To be his sent ones in the world. With full assurance that he is out ahead of us, behind, us, in us, and loving us as our Lord and Saviour.
Quite frankly, I think that is enough.
Kelly,
That's great, but...
What are you going to do about a denomination that is going astray and in doing so can greatly harm if not destroy the missional work of all your churches?
Every Presbyterian church is connected. If the denomination completely falls apart or abandons the majority of Reformed theology or plays the harlot with non-Christian beliefs and practices, every single Presbyterian church will feel the consequences. The stink raised by the denomination will be attributed to every congregation that bears the Presbyterian name!
What's more, no church is invulnerable to attack and perhaps even confiscation of property and deposition of leaders. The 500-pound-gorilla churches like Peachtree may feel immune, but in no time, even such a church could be hurt badly and even destroyed by a presbytery that so chose to oppose it.
Most churches aren't the mini-denominations like the tallest-steeple churches, and they are completely vulnerable to who is running presbytery. Property can be taken, sessions can be declared dissolved, and pastors can be removed. And then what? How is missional work to continue in such a toxic or devastated environment?
Just what does PGF plan to do about a denomination teetering on the brink of disaster? You're good people, but all it takes for evil to prosper is for good people to be merrily involved in other things deemed more important. Then Presbyterian politics can turn on you and bite you where it hurts.
I've waited for a PGF answer about this problem, and I haven't heard much, except that such protective and restorative work seems rather yesterday and is pretty much being left to those who apparently must not get the missional message and must still like to fight instead.
That's not much help.
Jim Berkley
Posted by: Jim Berkley | April 03, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Brother Jim,
Let me rush to the defense of my PGF colleagues on this one though I am sure they will have their own thoughts to add...
I reject the underlying premise of your argument. There is simply NOTHING the denomination can do to harm or destroy the missional work of our churches.
What if the denomination slides into complete apostacy and the stink is so bad that the name PCUSA becomes mud in our culture?
What if the presbyteries decide to come in and confiscate our property, dissolve our sessions, and remove our pastors?
I submit to you in the first case that we continue to massively overstate our own self-importance in the world. No one, let me repeat, no one outside of the Christian subculture has ever heard the term "PCUSA" much less cares what it means or stands for. Not one of the unchurched people I hang out with have any idea what Presbyterian even means!
In the second case, if the church is truly the church and not some institution we call "church", then the removal of property, pastors, and sessions might actually result in a good thing! Ask our brothers and sisters in China who endured similar persecution when Mao came to power. Did the people suffer? Yes. But did it harm the church? No. Instead the church there has grown exponentially.
How is missional work to continue in such a toxic or devastated environment? Brother, we are IN such an environment...it is called the world and it is full of sin and suffering and pain. The real question is how can missional work NOT continue in such a context!
I know you have vested a lot of energy and passion in calling our denomination back to biblical faithfulness. I deeply respect that and in no way want this response to taken in a snarky, tacky, or sarcastic way.
Some may say that I am being naive and unrealistic in suggesting that nothing can stop or destroy the missional work of our churches. Let me hasten to add one caveat here...there is ONE thing that can stop or destroy missional life in our churches but it is not the denomination or presbytery executives or wild-eyed members of our COM's. It is the guy or gal in the mirror. It's me. It's you. It's all of us. It is our own unwillingness to confess our sinful attachments and idolatry to all of the "church stuff" we have spent decades clinging to. It's our propensity to perpetuate systems of church that are no longer faithful in a 21st century post-modern context. It's our tendency to make idols out of buildings, programs, or worship styles. It's our unwillingness to be transparent and authentic in our love for our neighbor. This is what holds us back...not the PCUSA.
I will never forget the first PGF conference where the Presbyterian leader from Pakistan called us to repent of the way we have used our power, our money, our resources to further an institution rather than God's Kingdom. I fell on my knees with the rest of the women and men in the sanctuary with tears in my eyes. May God forgive us and may God give us the courage to get on mission with Him once again!
Peace,
Doug
Posted by: Doug Resler | April 03, 2009 at 03:31 PM
Jim,
I appreciate the dialogue you opened and I will respond to the issues you raise.
First, let me affirm that being free to proclaim an orthodox view of Christian belief is important. And I appreciate the work that you and many others have done to uphold our Constitution. PGF professes an orthodox view.
However, I do not share your alarm about the possibility (or inevitability) that the denomination will completely fall apart. Reformed theology is a great blessing to the world, and I personally, enjoy being a Reformed Christian in the world. But I am not alarmed about challenges to the majority of Reformed theology. Putting the denomination, its polity, or its theological convictions at the center of importance is the difference between the institutional church and the missional church, which PGF is about promoting. In the missional church, all things (denomination, theology, and how it interacts with culture) are second to the primary calling to follow Jesus who is leading us out into the world full of people with non-Christian beliefs and practices.
Therefore, the denomination “going astray” cannot greatly harm or destroy the missional conviction of any church. Jesus cannot be destroyed. So as long as he is at work in the world and as disciples we seek to follow and join him, then missional churches will exist.
Regarding the “stink” raised by the denomination being attributed to every congregation is a difference of opinion. I know many congregations, including my own, that do not have their identity formed by the denomination. Rather, the congregation is filled with people from all stripes including a great many who have no idea what Presbyterian means, much less that it is a denomination. The idea that people join a community of faith based on its denomination is one of Christendom. Rather, our identity is formed by a profession of Jesus Christ as Lord and the particular context in which we are called.
Regarding attack on leaders and confiscation of property, I agree these are serious issues. But the disciples were attacked and did not own property, and they were very effective evangelists. While no congregation wants to lose property, keeping property cannot be a primary goal. If following Jesus results in attack, then we have many role models in scripture and the Christian tradition to look to for inspiration. However, spending time and energy on maintaining a denomination for the sake of property is not a value to missional congregations.
As a fellowship, we are in communion with brothers and sisters who are under attack. It is heart-breaking and we aid one another. However, to assume that “missional work” can only be done in a healthy denomination is arrogant. Jesus can be served and praised everywhere. Just because a presbytery or a particular congregation fails to be faithful does not mean the land is toxic. Jesus is alive and well. In fact, Jesus himself spent his ministry outside of the synagogue. He did not call religious leaders to be his first disciples. As you know, he called entrepreneurs, businessmen, and potential leaders. All over the world people are professing faith in Jesus in an environment that is hostile. Again, as long as Jesus is moving and people are willing to follow him then the mission of Christ continues.
Regarding the “tallest-steeple churches,” I sense great hostility. No congregation is immune to the great shift out of Christendom and into postmodernity. Tall, short, large, small, old, and young churches are all grappling with this shift. A few large congregations were among the founders of Presbyterian Global Fellowship. They have donated money, time, and resources to provide the aid and support you seek for smaller congregations. I have never met a pastor, elder, or leader who feels immune the changes. To paint fellow Christians as “500-pound-gorillas” for belonging to a church and doing their best in this environment seems harsh to me.
PGF does not have a plan to save the denomination. We are a fellowship of people and churches who much rather get on with being the church than protecting and restoring a denomination. Jesus did not die to save the denomination. In fact, I don’t see him or his disciples spending time building up institutional Christianity at all. If you think that being committed to discerning how Jesus is working in the world and partnering with him there is being “merrily involved in other things” then so be it. I am taken aback that being committed to following Jesus from a missional framework in your words sets the stage for “evil to prosper.”
I believe we are at an impasse. For many, getting on with being the church and serving Christ, even if it is outside the denomination, is full of joy and fresh air.
Posted by: Kelly Kannwischer | April 06, 2009 at 07:32 PM
Kelly,
Thanks for a wonderful response. I found myself cheering as I read!
One wonders if it might be a pretty telling measure of priorities to ask this question: "if our buildings disappeared, would our church fail?"
Of course, I'm a little biased sense we meet in school and don't have a place to call our own. Can't take away something we don't have.
Posted by: Scott Keeble | April 07, 2009 at 09:03 AM
Kelly,
I'm feeling a bit sheepish about commenting on a blog post over 2 weeks after the last comment - I know, in blog years that's equivalent to about 2 decades outside the blogosphere. But, I think some important issues have been raised, and I imagine the technology will let you know I've posted here.
There are two questions I find myself asking in light of your blog post and the exchange with Jim Berkeley.
First, what is the connection between PGF’s theological orthodoxy and being missional? Is missional something that people of all sorts of theologies can be – so that folks can be, say, missionaly moderate, or missionaly progressive or . . .? If that’s the case, then PGF could see its distinct calling as one of strengthening missional folks no matter what form of the Gospel they proclaim (most moderates and progressives can surely agree to PGF’s Values statement). That would be a distinct way for PGF to care for folks across not only our denomination but across all denominations (which fits with PGF's Mission statement). “Missional” would be a way of living whatever theological beliefs one has, a way of connecting whatever beliefs you have with others. Is there any necessary link between missional and orthodox?
Second, why is it that PGF affiliated congregations and pastors continue to be committed to remaining in the PCUSA (since PGF’s Vision statement mentions the “mainline”, but never Presbyterian)? Is it that you get certain benefits from being in, and as long as the balance sheet ends up showing that you get more than you loose, then you stay in? Being in the PCUSA is a way to be mainline – nothing more? As you say, “We (that’s the PGF we) are a fellowship of people and churches who much rather get on with being the church than protecting and restoring a denomination.” If denominations are a distraction from God’s mission in the world, if they are simply something other than the church, and not worth being one focus of PGFs calling, then why continue to be in them?
Part of my concern here is that the denomination is a way for us to be in covenant relationship with one another. At its heart it is not an expendable institutional crust, holding us back. At the end of the day it is a web of committed, covenanted relationship with one another. I believe that the Gospel is, in part, about precisely such webs of relationship. That being the case, concern for the state of our covenanted relationships (that is to say, to put it more bluntly, concern for our denomination) is part of faithfully living out the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, concern for the well-being of the denomination is not simply backward looking institutionalism. As I listen to PGF folks talk (well . . . as I read what you publish!), it seems you don’t agree with me about this. Insofar as you don’t, I think it is a significant loss for us (the PCUSA us, I mean). Yes, denominations are secondary. But that doesn’t mean that they are not bound up with living the Gospel.
I deeply affirm that God calls us to be missional first. I’m grateful for PGF’s joyous response to that call. I just wish you (y’all at PGF) thought about us (the PCUSA us, again) with a bit more of that joy – with more depth and incisiveness.
Barry Ensign-George
Office of Theology & Worship,
General Assembly Council
Posted by: Barry Ensign-George | April 23, 2009 at 01:12 PM