A 2nd Look at the MSTF report

Political/Fiscal analysis

Political dynamics questions:

• Why did a call for denomination-wide conversation become an omnibus implementation bill?

• What is the urgency?

• Why take aim against the classes?

• What are the advantages to the GS staff if the proposals succeed?

• Can they do that?

A silent conversation

• R-42 did not specify a task force but a conversation.

• MSTF composition; folks from the burbs

• Heads heavy with GS and RS hats; light on classis responsibilities.

• MSTF staff: the top 3 GSC staff.

• MSTF process: Coffee talk--“Talk amongst yourselves.”

“wider church” consulted

• Local churches – 1 of 939

• Regional synods – 2 of 8

• Classes – 4 of 45

• Denominations – 2 [Mennonite, Covenant]

• Ecumenical Partners – 0

• Surveys – 0

• All soft data

The underlying anxiety

• Unrelenting decline in active membership for 40 years

• Hence, a shrinking tax base;

• Hence, escalating per head assessments.

• Loss of cultural support

• No bottom to cycle in sight.

The “Our Call” answer

• Grow our way out of the decline;

• Church multiplication;– New starts begetting new starts.

• Church revitalization:– NCD renewal– Pastor re-motivation

The “Our Call” political/fiscal dilemma

• “Our Call” may be the denominational plan, but it is a local ministry development program;

• As such, it must rely for its implementation and the bulk of its funding upon the cooperation and resources of the 45 classes.

New starts challenges

• New churches = new members = more assessment income, but only at incorporation.

• High front-end expenses

• Under-funding from GSC/CMT

• Any lags in incorporation tie up revolving funds, hindering multiplication

• Anticipated 50% mortality for new starts

Classis’ role

• Provides great bulk of the up-front $

• Certifies churches for incorporation

• Supervises churches in formation.

• Approves calls and installs

• Lives with the results.

• Deals with building aspirations of new churches

The crunch

• Few classes have funds in reserve or available for multiple new starts at once.

• The OC expectation:– 175 incorporated churches in 10 years, or– 360 new starts, or– 6 starts per classis with 3 incorporations over

10 years.

• The effort is seriously underfunded.

Start new or revitalize?

• For high land-value areas, starting new is out of reach—no room, no funds.

• OC gave classes a choice: door 1, door 2 or both.

• OC expected a response of “both”, but got “no response”.

• Non-Engagement; 110 of 939 churches responded---55 from one synod.

No classis voice at the tables

• Reduction of GSC locks out direct classis representation [2003]

• Classis locked out of CMT and CRT in favor of RS staff reps.

• PACT and LAT are gatherings of GS/RS staff

• OC implementation set with no direct classis input [2003-04]

Invitation to vilification

• GS 2005 Report – Classes are the block to OC development:– Too many responsibilities,– They are overwhelmed and poorly-functioning– They need staff [like us], so they can be freed

up to be engaged with OC.

• R-42 –”Let’s talk.”

From “Let’s talk” to “Let’s you and him merge”

The MSTF Omnibus Act:

• establishing an entity at the GSC level vested with powers to establish local ministries, with or without local assembly consent;

• consolidation of regional synods and classes, with staff accountable to the GS level;

The MSTF Omnibus Act:

• changing the formula by which assessments are determined

• diminishing the legislative function of General Synod,

• changing General Synod from an annual assembly to a biennial convention,

The MSTF Omnibus Act:

• separation of judicatory powers from assemblies to a separate new structure,

• undertaking a major theological study expanding the “marks” of the church,

• giving assembly voice and vote to deacons.

• originally, transfer of ordination powers to the GS level was also included, but later watered-down.

The wish-list for remote control• Irrevocable authority to set up new local

ministries;• Centralized control over funding for new

ministries; • Centralized evaluation of the effectiveness

of new ministries;• Control over staff operating at

regional/local levels;• Opportunity to shift staff costs from

national to local/regional levels;

More wish-list

• Potential control over real assets held locally,• Opportunity to set up a favorable tax system;• Reducing by half the opportunities for setting

limitations on staff• Dilution by a third of the voting base• Diversionary busy work for others to do, and• Potentially, control over licensing processes for

career workers.

MGST political ++

• establishing an entity at the GSC level vested with powers to establish local ministries, with or without local assembly consent;– Irrevocable authority to set up new local

ministries;– Centralized control over funding for new

ministries; – Centralized evaluation of the effectiveness of

new ministries;

Merged Middle Assemblies Political ++

• consolidation of regional synods and classes, with staff accountable to the GS level;– Control over staff operating at regional/local

levels;– Opportunity to shift staff costs from national to

local/regional levels;– Potential control over real assets held locally,

How this will be handled at GS 2007

• 20 groupings of assigned delegates to discuss MSTF – Saturday afternoon 1:30 – 3:30 PM [2 hours]

• Moderators of groups create summary with staff support.

• Summary of discussion at plenary –followed by discussion and decision --Monday afternoon 2:00-3:30