In the Presbyterian Church (USA) and elsewhere, (denominationally approved) mission networks appear to be the wave of the future. These networks are filling the space left by the decline of old-fashioned denominational mission agencies, which built large bureaucracies to fund and direct the church’s mission programs.

By contrast, the new mission networks are decentralized and flexible. Much of their energy and money flows through local churches and volunteers that share a particular concern. The denomination’s role is not to fund or to regulate these grassroots people who are carrying out the church’s mission; it is simply to bring them together to exchange insights and coordinate initiatives.

The PCUSA lists 78 mission networks on its Web site. International networks gather persons interested in mission to countries such as Ethiopia, Guatemala and China. Domestic networks address concerns such as addiction treatment, church camps and music ministry.

The “tall steeple” pastors who recently wrote a “Letter to the PCUSA” seem to like this approach, listing as their first value “a minimalist structure, replacing bureaucracy and most rules with relational networks of common purpose.”

But there is a danger in these denominationally sponsored networks. They can become a vehicle for small groups of activists to appropriate the PCUSA’s name, image and facilities for controversial agendas that many Presbyterians would not support. For example, Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options (PARO) is a PCUSA-recognized network that exalts abortion as a constitutional right and a worthy moral option. Presbyterians Pro-Life, advocating the opposite position, enjoys no such denominational sponsorship. This situation creates the impression that the PCUSA, which says it respects both positions, actually favors one over the other.

‘Demonstrating solidarity’ with one party

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is almost as sensitive a topic as abortion. Yet here too the denomination has a recognized network pushing one perspective but not the other. The Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (IPMN) was established by action of the 2004 General Assembly to encourage “currents of wider and deeper Presbyterian involvement with Palestinian partners.” The purpose is “demonstrating solidarity [with the Palestinian partners] and changing the conditions that erode the humanity of Palestinians living in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.”

The network’s communications are replete with condemnations of Israel’s injustices against the Palestinians. They contain virtually no criticism of the Palestinian leadership of Hamas in Gaza, Fatah on the West Bank, or other Arab movements or states that have sought to destroy Israel…

The IPMN affirms in its bylaws that “we support denominational policies and partners.” Nevertheless, it reserves the right to take positions at variance with PCUSA policies. “Therefore, we are called to speak in a stronger and more prophetic way than the denomination might,” the bylaws say. “We affirm the importance for the IPMN to maintain an independent voice within the denomination speaking to the church but not for the church.”

Yet this organization that does not speak “for the church” is able to use the church’s name. The IPMN bylaws report that “[d]enominational staff have played a major role assisting IPMN in its establishment, through advising and guiding our work.” The network raises funds from private individuals and congregations; however, it processes these donations through the PCUSA financial system, benefitting from the PCUSA’s tax-exempt status. IPMN publications are sold through the official Presbyterian Distribution Service…

Thus at several points the Palestinian manifesto being promoted by the PCUSA-sponsored network contradicts the stated policies of the PCUSA General Assembly. “Kairos Palestine” favors a single-state solution whereas the PCUSA supports a two-state solution. “Kairos Palestine” rejects the identity of Israel as a Jewish state whereas the PCUSA affirms Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish homeland. “Kairos Palestine” advocates sanctions and boycott against Israel – a tactic that the PCUSA has not so far blessed. “Kairos Palestine” justifies violent Palestinian “resistance” against Israel whereas the PCUSA affirms nonviolence…

The larger question is how a mission network like the IPMN can be held accountable within the church. If the IPMN can use the PCUSA’s name and tax-exempt status, and if it can draw on PCUSA staff for assistance, doesn’t the network have some responsibility to the PCUSA? Should it be taking positions that do not merely go beyond, but actually run contrary to, official PCUSA policy? Is it appropriate that a network established by the General Assembly then turns around and lobbies the General Assembly for a particular agenda? Is it fair that one side of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute has an officially recognized network championing its cause while the other side does not?

Alan Wisdom is vice president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy and director of its Presbyterian Action Committee.

Read More: http://www.layman.org/News.aspx?article=28117

[Editor’s note: Some of the original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid, so the links have been removed.]