At the initiative of globetrotting members and empowered by Internet communications, the 240-member congregation I serve has helped a Presbyterian congregation in Ghana build a new sanctuary and a group in Ethiopia build a health clinic. Locally, Western church does campus ministry, feeds 200 homeless people every morning and has helped fund two new church developments. These commitments have involved large amounts of money, most of which would have gone in the past to higher judicatories for mission work.
Peter James, the pastor of the Vienna (Va.) church with more than 2,500 members, says that their benevolence budget supports over 100 projects. With the exception of per capita, none of the money goes to the general fund of the General Assembly. Vienna is building a hospital in Haiti with an African-American Baptist congregation, planting a new church in partnership with a local Presbyterian congregation and many other projects with local, national and global mission partners. Their mission efforts are something about which Presbyterians can feel proud. But they are not done through the denomination itself.
While Western and Vienna churches are on opposite ends of the denomination’s theological spectrum, their approaches to mission both reflect a congregational-based emphasis.
The increasing amount of congregationally based mission work is taking its toll on our denominational identity — at Western, Vienna and elsewhere. Since much of our collective identity has been linked to our shared mission work, the lessening of these shared efforts is contributing mightily to the erosion of our sense of connectionalism. And yet, does it have to be so?
During the era (1880-1950) when my grandfather and great-grandfather were in ministry, Presbyterians had a strong sense of Presbyterian identity. However, denominational identity was rooted not so much in judicatory-based, shared mission projects as it was rooted in shared theology and polity. I believe that we are moving back to this “old” sense of connectionalism. As a result, we are experiencing more and more conflicts over theology and polity. We don’t argue about whether or not money should go to Angela Davis. We argue over sections of the Book of Order or Christology.
Unfortunately, our judicatories have not identified or adapted to this change that is taking place. Most of our judicatories remain focused on a concept of connectionalism that is rooted in judicatory mission dollars rather than re-focusing on theology and polity. Why else would we bemoan the loss of dollars flowing to the judicatories rather than celebrate the vibrant mission efforts being done at the congregational level? Why else would we express so much surprise and dismay over our debates about theology and polity?
If we discern the signs of our times, our judicatories increasingly will be 1) forums for debating theological issues and exercising polity, 2) catalysts for encouraging local congregations to plant and harvest their own mission fields, and 3) engaging in more limited and highly focused mission work that can be done only by judicatories rather than individual congregations.
Constant judicatory budget cuts, painful staff eliminations and heavy turnover in presbytery executive positions are signs of a denomination that does not understand who it is and how its members are connected to one another. Any strategy for the future must possess a reshaped, Reformed vision of how we are connected. If we can better name, own and nurture the nature of our connections, we will once take pride in our connectionalism.
John W. Wimberly Jr. is pastor, Western church, Washington, D.C.
Send your comment on this guest viewpoint to The Outlook.
Please give your full name, hometown and state.
