A 2 nd Look at the MSTF report

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

A 2 nd Look at the MSTF report