Jubilee Ministry Standards Are Set
Episcopal News Service. February 18, 1983 [83030]
CHARLESTON, S.C. (DPS, Feb. 18) -- The Episcopal Church's Executive Council heard of -- and acted on -- a growing consensus that the Next Step in Mission and Jubilee Ministry programs affirmed by the General Convention are "two sides of the same coin."
The paired emphasis was the first agenda item for the Council's Feb. 9-11 meeting at the Mills House Hotel here and formed a continuing theme through the deliberations, reports and actions of the 40-member body.
Council member Harry Griffith of Winter Park, Fla., opened the session with a report of an early February meeting of a coordinating committee and Episcopal Church Center staff. The panel had been named by Presiding Bishop John M. Allin at Council's request and is comprised of five members of Council and lay, presbyteral and episcopal representatives from urban, rural and ethnic ministries.
In his report, Griffith emphasized the committee's opinion that the Next Step in Mission is "not a new program but an effort to recall the Church to mission," and that the Jubilee Ministry, while it grew out of perceptions of immediate need, "affirms and enhances that mission emphasis."
He was followed by Council member John Cannon of Detroit who reported in detail on the committee/staff findings and introduced a paper from which resolutions would be considered. He reiterated Griffith's point of shared goals and attitudes and noted that much of the funding awarded by the Church's Coalition for Human Needs was to programs that already are meeting Jubilee ministry needs. He said that Convention funds for Jubilee were actually to be seen as additional to these programs and therefore, that Jubilee was not underfunded.
The report, he said, carried out a principle of diocesan responsibility. Jubilee centers and programs would be affirmed by Council after selection and proposal by the diocese. In general, he said, the committee believed that such centers should be based in an Episcopal congregation, be altar-centered, widely representative and widely replicable.
Two days later, after Council committees had reviewed the report, Cannon introduced three resolutions which laid down a process for designating Jubilee Centers and established criteria for such centers and for Jubilee program funding.
The first, designating the centers, makes the role of the diocese paramount by resolving that: "the designation of an Episcopal congregation or ecumenical clusters as a 'Jubilee Center' be a function of the diocese within which such congregation or cluster is located, made in accordance with criteria established by the Executive Council, provided, however, that if no mechanism for such designation exists within the diocese, the congregation or cluster may apply directly to the Executive Council, the application to be accompanied by a supportive letter from the diocese's ecclesiastical authority. Designation of a Jubilee Center by a diocese shall be affirmed by appropriate action of the Executive Council."
The second set four criteria for Jubilee Center designation which spell out the general points Cannon had reported. Although this resolution passed without audible opposition, some question did occur over the criterion that states: "the mission and ministry must include several programs, including at least one human rights advocacy program and one human services program."
Several Council members cited congregations which are carrying out successful ministries in one area or the other but which would be unwilling or unable to expand into the complementary field. Cannon noted that the purpose of Jubilee designation was "to stretch a congregation, to see if we can do anything more within our ministry." He pointed out that a congregation, such as those that had been cited, did not need to be designated a Center to receive Jubilee funding.
The final resolution set the criteria for that funding and the key element is the clause that notes: "Such funding shall have, as its clearly stated purpose, mission and/or ministry directed beyond the recipient unit to meet needs or address issues affecting the poor and oppressed people and in which such people participate in the decision-making."
The statement goes on to assert that the funding would be evaluated in the areas of pastoral care, education, evangelism, worship and service that are the basis for the two ministry emphases.