A what? A Mission!

Remits, already!

Once the General Council makes a decision that will change the Basis of Union (front pages of your Manual, read it sometime!), a Remit is the way to test that the rest of the church is OK with it. Sometimes they pass and the changes are implemented, sometimes they fail and even though General Council thinks it’s a good idea, it doesn’t get implemented.

http://gc40.united-church.ca/downloads/remits_0102

So, right away a couple of actions of General Council 40 (2009) require remits. Thankfully, they’re not too complicated, and seek to make the language consistent throughout the affected sections. As such, they should pass, so that we elect rather than appoint or choose or whatever as in Remit 2; and that it is the Congregation or Mission that elects Presbytery representatives, rather than the Pastoral Charge or Board or Council as in Remit 1.

However, Remit 1, in particular, does raise some larger issues.

What is a Mission? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Mission is defined in Section 001 of the Manual By-Laws as "one(1) or more groups of people that are a part of the United Church and that meet for public worship, but not fully constituted as a Pastoral Charge or a Congregation by the Presbytery."

Now I appreciate all efforts to be inclusive and to welcome anyone into Presbytery membership who’s prepared to take on the responsibility of Presbytery membership. God knows we need more active people willing to take on this vital ministry. I am always looking for someone willing to serve on a Joint Needs Assessment Committee or a Joint Search Committee on behalf of Presbytery. And don’t get me started on Supervisors!

But a Mission is "not fully constituted." They don’t have and don’t want a Board or Council or Session or Stewards or whatever. They don’t have Trustees. They don’t hold property. They likely don’t pay into the Presbytery budget. Seems like the whole point of being a Mission is to not get roped into all the ecclesiastical organizational stuff, to remain loose and flexible and adaptable in response to the particular mission that has been taken on. Do they really want to or need to have a representative to Presbytery? Is not the point to remain apart from the organizational requirements of a fully constituted body? Even so, I can see that it might be an advantageous mechanism by which the Presbytery can remain in contact and in support of this Mission as it emerges and develops.

In my part of the world there is a lot more talk about ministries de-volving rather then e-volving. I have yet to have a conversation with anyone about how to start a Mission. Instead, I’m having conversation with tired, elderly, worn out old congregations that want to know how to become a Mission so that they no longer have all the worries and burden of church structure and accountability to Presbytery and can just be left alone to be the church for as long as they both shall live.

So, I think there should be a bit more time and energy spent on defining and describing what a Mission actually is. I’m a big fan of linguistic consistency, so editorial corrections to the Basis of Union are a good thing. But if these changes result in loosely affiliated, not fully constituted bodies called "Missions" having the same status as Congregations at Presbytery, then I think we got some more thinkin’ to do.

Are you sitting comfortably? Then let's begin!

I'm a lifer -- born, raised, baptised, married, had my kids baptised, and serving as a minister in The United Church of Canada. Notice the capital "T" on "The?" Only lifers know you're supposed to do that! The "The" is part of our official, legal name as approved by an act of Parliament, so there!

I was commissioned into the diaconal minister of The United Church of Canada by Toronto Conference in 1986, and I've served at every level of the church almost constantly since.

Most recently, I've been elected by Maritime Conference to serve as ministry personnel representative to the General Council Executive, which means I was a Commissioner to the most recent General Council meeting (GC40) at Kelowna, BC in August 2009. I also chair the Pastoral Relations Committee in Valley Presbytery, but will be phasing out of that over the next year. GCE rep is enough, since it also automatically puts you on your Conference Executive, as well as on a General Council Committee. I'll be on the GC Nominating Committee, so if you want a job, let me know! Lots of benefits, no additional pay.

This is my first blog of any significance, and I intend to use it to post my impressions of what goes on at the General Council level of our church and how we collectively "discern the way" of how we should be going. I've been pretty unhappy with what I perceive to be some mis-steps over the last few years, and I'm hoping to gain some insights into this. GCE had some hard decisions to make, and I have to believe that they were made faithfully. However, the communications around those decision was horrible, and I still believe that wider consultation would have produced a more acceptable result. Friends are already warning me that GCE is like the Borg -- I will be assimilated! We'll see, and I'm looking for your help in resisting, however futile!

Stay tuned!