“In the last analysis, the mission of Christians is to be with this world, or more concretely, to be one with the agony and joy of this world with the transforming power of God’s love.” — Choan Seng Song, Christian Mission in Reconstruction: An Asian Analysis
We, the authors of this article, drafted three overtures in response to the dissolution of the Presbyterian World Mission (PWM) by the Interim Unified Agency, now Presbyterian Life & Witness (PL&W), and the termination of all mission co-worker (MCW) positions in early 2025.
Related reading: Presbyterian Outlook’s coverage of the PC(USA)’s mission cuts
We teach (or have taught) at seminaries and are therefore aware of fiscal constraints, yet the decision-making process of these actions caught our attention. PL&W’s unilateral decision to terminate MCW prompts us to say the following:
PL&W does not adequately understand decolonization.
PL&W has said that the nature of mission has changed and that “our global partners keep telling us we have further to go to ‘de-colonize’ our theology, missiology and practical engagement.”
As historians, theologians and missiologists, we are keenly aware of how missionary efforts in the past inadvertently both facilitated and challenged the expansion of empire. Some PC(USA) mission co-workers have joined those with whom they served in decolonizing work. The PC(USA) has rethought how to engage in Christian mission, beginning with the renaming of missionaries as mission co-workers.
MCWs joined our siblings abroad in partnership at the invitation of and under the supervision of locals. They contributed toward the goals our global allies set for themselves. We have heard from global partners that PC(USA)’s abrupt termination of PWM was a betrayal of shared ministry and mutual trust. The news shocked partners, which PL&W staff knew it might. The letter to global partners acknowledged, “We realize that this may come as a surprise…”
In Decolonizing Mission, missiologist Harvey Kwiyani notes the need to engage in God’s mission as co-laborers, servants and slaves, without armies or empires tagging along. Decolonizing requires the PC(USA) to position itself as a partner rather than a benefactor, a co-worker rather than an executive.
Unilateral withdrawal is a power move that defines a colonial attitude.
Removing ourselves from God’s work in the world is not mission. In some respects, it is the antithesis of decolonizing. By withdrawing ourselves from partnerships and collaborations for justice and human flourishing around the world, we are telling the world that our internal concerns are more important than theirs. Work in this way results in global cooperation happening only on the donor’s terms. Unilateral withdrawal is a power move that defines a colonial attitude. Finally, the whole church is called to the work of decolonization.
Missiology doesn’t undergird PWM.
PL&W referenced a non-existent missiology through conflating mission with ecumenism. Ecumenism, while an important aspect of the church’s ministry, is not mission, and cannot be construed as the totality of mission or as its alternative. The PC(USA) works with ecumenical organizations such as the World Council of Churches and the World Communion of Reformed Churches — but that does not replace the work of mission.
Related reading: “Three overtures ask 227th General Assembly to reckon with the end of World Mission” by Eric Ledermann
Financial sustainability seems the only plausible rationale for PWM’s dissolution. PL&W’s unilateral actions to terminate global mission partnerships for financial exigency suggest, then, that financial sustainability has become our church’s “missiology.” Therefore, one of the stated goals of these overtures is to produce a missiological statement that can guide PC(USA)’s mission throughout the church, now and in the future.
Has financial sustainability become our church’s “missiology”?
The decision-making process undermined Reformed polity.
The closure of PWM comes at the expense of foundational commitments. Top-down executive decision-making is un-Presbyterian because it damages people and relationships. PL&W’s termination of PWM coincided with the U.S. closing of USAID, mirroring its modus operandi.
Top-down executive decision-making is un-Presbyterian because it damages people and relationships.
How the church makes decisions is a witness to the world about our beliefs. The Presbyterian system of governance evolved to counter the Roman Catholic Church’s decision-making style, in which the Curia alone made decisions affecting the global church.
In one example of this decision-making style, MCWs were required to sign non-disclosure covenants for legal rather than theological/missiological reasons, as the IUA described the NDC as “not an NDA,” which had been prohibited by action of the 2024 GA. The presbytery concurrences this overture received signal the distance between the ethos of an NDA and Reformed Polity. t PL&W’s disregard for Reformed polity via the use of non-disclosure covenants is apparent.
Moving forward.
We seek critical conversations on what mission means for the PC(USA). For too long, we have falsely assumed a shared missiology. The church’s missionality is critical to being a sent people. Without appreciating this, the church can cut any program due to financial concerns without adequately understanding the church and its nature. We hope and pray these conversations lead to a mission grounded in Reformed theology and polity that effectively shares Jesus’ good news in and with the world.
