March 10, 2005

'We must use our property responsibly'

Glen Powell, Board of Mission New Congregations Consultant, last November presented the New South Wales Council of Synod with a discussion paper called "A brief theology of property".

In it he proposed a theological basis to inform a process for evaluating and prioritising sales proceeds funding applications under new capital works criteria.

Mr Powell started with the assumption that the stewardship of property and sales proceeds is, principally, a theological issue.

"A fundamental part of the message of God recorded in the Scriptures and affirmed by Jesus in the gospels, is that everything in Creation - property, people and everything in between - is created by God and belongs to God (Gen 1:1; Acts 17:24 God … made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth).

"Human beings own nothing in their own right (Mt 16:26 [Mr 8:36; Lu 9:25] For what will it profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their life? Or what will they give in return for their life?), but as creatures of the Creative Spirit, are given stewardship of the gift of creativity, one life and a body to hold it in, a range of relationships with other humans and a collection of assets (including property of various sorts).

"Arguably the most valuable gift we are given is the unknown quantity of time each of us has been given to participate in the story of God and the story of the world. The question is what do we achieve with our gifts in the time allotted to us?"

He said, "Many congregations might agree that they are stewards of God's property. But just what is the difference between ownership and stewardship? Does our understanding of stewardship run deep enough or is it just ownership with a different name?

"The call to Discipleship - that no one can become a disciple unless we 'die to ourselves' - is a call to stop using God's gifts for ourselves and start using them for others, living lives of generous service rather than self-centredness (Mt 16:24-5; [Mr 8:34; Lk 9:23; c.f. John 12:25] Then Jesus told his disciples, 'If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.')."

He said, "The concept of stewardship is complex. While God owns everything, God values our stewardship and calls us to be fruitful. Value is created through the reorganisation of God's creation, through the application of 'our' creativity and effort. God shares the fruits of our work with us, as our creator and the creator of everything that we have used. The appropriation - theft - of God's assets, and then excluding others from access, is sin (for example, try reading the story of forbidden fruit in Gen. 3 as an act of theft. This concept suggests a likely interpretation to the parable of the 'wicked tenants' - Lk 20:9-16; or the 'rich fool' Lk 7: 16-21).

"Refusing to employ our creativity, effort and 'possessions' to make the world a better place is also sin (Matt 25: 14-30).

"These teachings are summed up in the instruction to love God and love our neighbours (Deut 6:5; Lev 19:18; Matt 22: 37-40; Lk 10:27; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8 and so on). In the message of Jesus, it is not possible to love God without loving your fellow humans (see Matt 5:23-24 or 'The Good Samaritan' Lk 10:30-37). We have been given stewardship of resources not to serve our own needs and ambitions, but to serve the needs of others - especially those with the most acute needs."

Implications

Mr Powell said the church had not always been a faithful witness to this message and that society had inherited "Christian" values of private property and individualism that could be profoundly hostile to this gospel imperative.

"As a church placed within this non-Christian legal framework, we have a responsibility to model the alternative value system of the reign of God, while still respecting and operating within the law of the land.

"The property assets 'owned' by the church are in fact only managed on God's behalf. All of the councils of the church have a responsibility to ensure that property is used to serve God's purposes in the most effective way possible.

"In an inter-conciliar church, different aspects of the stewardship of property are shared, which leads to an ambiguity about which council should do what. The synod exercises legal ownership within the Australian legal system. The presbytery oversights mission and ministry within its bounds. The congregation exercises day to day use rights, management and maintenance responsibilities. All councils of the church have a responsibility to work together and seek consensus wherever possible in determining when and how to utilise property in its tangible form - or in its liquefied form as sales proceeds."

He said, "Our church has many under-utilised buildings in some urban areas and no property resources at all in some rapidly growing areas. Some urban congregations are heavily subsidised by property income effectively inherited from previous generations. The accident of geography dictates some properties appreciate in value and others depreciate. Why should some 'lucky' congregations have exclusive access to that income when others that may have more pressing mission needs have no such heritage?

"It is not just the inter-conciliar structure of the church that needs to be considered, but also the inter-generational nature of the church. Younger generations now move to different places to live and work. For this reason, many of the church buildings that housed our grandparents and parents are arguably in the wrong place. Younger generations also worship in different ways and are much more mobile than previous generations. This means that the churches we built in the past are now sometimes more a liability than an asset, when it comes to serving mission and ministry needs of the current church."

Mr Powell said that for effective mission, stewardship of missional assets (including property but also including other less tangible assets such as traditions, worship gatherings or mission outreaches and so on) must be handed on to younger generations of leaders periodically.

"This should not only be driven by the biological reality that none of us live forever, but also by the need to continually ensure that the way we engage in mission and ministry is relevant to the constantly changing context.

"In many situations, the young people that might have been expected to receive the traditions and assets accumulated in this congregation/organisation are no longer here. Some congregations only have a small number of young people that will not be able to sustain the life and ministry of the congregation. Some have left the area and settled elsewhere. Others have left the church entirely or have left this denomination. It is unlikely that many of these people will return."

At the same time, said Mr Powell, there were congregations made up almost entirely of young people, with no assets handed down to them from previous generations. These people were struggling to build churches in a time when the wider society was far less supportive than they were previously and in places where property prices in real terms were historically far higher than they had been previously.

"We may look at the overall situation and agree there is a need to 'free up' underutilised property resources for urgent mission. But it is unlikely that congregations will want Synod or presbyteries to make decisions about congregational property."

Proposals

Mr Powell suggested two potential proposals:

1. Presbyteries could facilitate a property consultation process that asks every congregation in the presbytery to prioritise the mission and ministry usefulness of each property in the presbytery. This process could identify properties for redevelopment or change of use.
2. A default limit could be introduced on how much rental (or sales proceeds) income could be spent on staff costs in a congregation (for example up to 50 per cent of a stipend). The limit would apply to all congregations, but could be adjusted for missional or pastoral reasons with presbytery or Synod approval. Congregations would be invited to invest their excess property income in other congregations' mission projects or new mission initiatives.

A challenge and an invitation

"If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it." (Matt 16: 24-25 NRSV)

Mr Powell said the presbyteries, congregations and Synod of the Uniting Church in New South Wales shared responsibility for stewardship of a huge and potentially extremely valuable property portfolio. "At the same time the church is aging and declining. As an institution, the future is grim unless we seriously face the need for our congregations, individual attenders and all the denominational structures of the church to fully participate in the mission of Jesus Christ in the world. This may mean substantial changes and difficult decisions about how we balance property issues with associated pastoral, missional and practical concerns."

He said the Board of Mission invited people to discuss his paper with others, formally in councils of the church or informally with friends. "Debate it and evaluate it as a starting point for congregations, presbyteries and Synod conversations about moving forward as a church in mission. You might find the discussion questions useful starting points. Prayerfully listen for the voice of Christ in the discussion."

He said, "Perhaps your presbytery could facilitate a conversation with your congregation and report concerns, areas of agreement and differences of opinion back to the Board of Mission? If we can find some common ground on these sort of principles and generalities, it is a first step toward thinking about making some brave decisions in particular cases.

"We hope that this conversation will make a contribution to finding a way to address some of the urgent needs of new mission opportunities without devaluing the heritage and faithful service of long established traditional congregations.

"We urge you to participate in this conversation and pray that you will encounter:

• Creator God who gives us life and property in the first place
• Christ who challenges us to give up the selfish aspects of those lives; and the
• Spirit who fills our lives with purpose when we choose to live as God intended us to.

"At the very least, you should have a lively discussion!"

Discussion questions

1. What do you believe - does god own the property assets of this congregation (or other organisation)? Does it make any difference if God owns 'our' property or we own the property?
2. The Uniting Church has been in numerical decline for several decades. Do you think Synod, Presbytery and Congregational leaders should work together to find fair and effective ways to move under-utilised property assets into new mission initiatives?
3. Is it fair that some congregations pay for a minister and other needs out of rental income inherited from the past while other congregations have no such inheritance? What could be done?
4. Were the previous generations that built many of our churches mostly interested in having a building in a particular place or were they investing in ministry and mission to people?
5. What do the younger people (under 50!) in this place say about the usefulness of current property facilities? How up to date are they? What needs to be changed or developed? None of us live for ever. Who are the people you are planning to 'hand on' the stewardship of your property assets to? Is there a 'succession' plan in place?
6. Should the placement of the church's property assets be dictated by needs of the past?
7. Here are some teachings of Jesus. Do you think the strong emphasis on being 'poor' (or at least not rich) has any relevance for us as a church in shaping our attitude to property?
   Mt 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
   Lu 6:20 Then he looked up at his disciples and said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."
   Mr 10:23-25 (c.f. Lk18:25; Mk 10:23) Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!" And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
8. In principle, do you agree that as a Uniting Church all of us need to consider selling some less needed properties to invest the proceeds where the need is greater? Are we willing to consider changes to our congregation / organisation and our property if the process is fair, transparent and participatory?