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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sandra Severs wrote me on Facebook: I work in a Mission and we have presbytery representation. Reading your comments on Remit 1, I think part of the problem is that we are trying tinker with a model that needs a major overhaul. There needs to be room in our polity not only for traditional congregations but for community ministries or missions that understand themselves not to be ... Read morethe outreach arm of a church or group of churches but actually church itself. I work at First United Church Mission and when challenged about whether or not we are a 'real' church, I respond we are a different kind of church - a church focused on primarily on mission rather than worship.
ReplyDeleteYesterday at 20:03
Another friend wrote me on Facebook
ReplyDelete17 September at 02:58
Hi David - really enjoying the blog comments. Sandra has likely commented that First United Mission has a board, etc. So does the Richmond Chinese Mission.
On a different note - for some time our presbytery has had several "members at large" nominated and chosen by presbytery. Recently a member of executive has sought to change the terms of this to require congregational approval, this would seem easy on the face of it, but the terms of the manual allow for people to be drafted for particular skills and expertise, but also allows for presbytery to choose to hear other voices, even when a congregation or minister might prefer not to hear them.
The plot thickens. God bless, M