In the 1790s, spain stopped funding the texas missions because they wanted the churches to support themselves

The Spanish royal administration closely coordinated all missionary activity in the New World. The intermingling of church and state was a legacy of Spain’s own long struggle to push Islam out of the Iberian Peninsula and to re-establish a homogeneous Christian faith and culture there. This experience of reconquest set the Spanish nation on a crusade for most of the rest of its history, combining all civil and religious activity into one.

In Texas, this meant that only rarely did missionaries venture into hinterlands without official authorization and without soldiers being stationed at nearby presidios for protection. This process of approving a new mission could be lengthy, sometimes beginning in Spain, but often determined by the viceroy in Mexico. The friars were almost always eager, but politics and financial restraints often created delays by the civil authorities. The establishment of the Texas missions, which were to total some 35, came in spurts, following the rhythm of the fortunes of Spain.

The Order of Friars Minor, known as the Franciscans, was founded by St. Francis of Assisi in the 13th century. It was the Franciscans who were given responsibility for all the Texas missions. The first missionary journeys into Texas came from the west, where the Franciscans had begun evangelizing the Indian pueblos around Santa Fe soon after it was made the capital of New Mexico in 1610.

These earliest missions at San Angelo, El Paso and Presidio were directed from New Mexico, but later most of the Texas missions were directed from two conventos or colegios (colleges) of Franciscans in Mexico.

These two units of the order that had custody of the Texas missions were the College of Santa Cruz at Querétero and the College of Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe at Zacatecas. Later, there were three missionaries from the College of San Fernando in Mexico City who served at the Apache missions on the San Saba River and the upper Nueces River.

This division of custody between the colleges of Querétero and Zacatecas was reflected in various decisions throughout the Texas mission history. For example, when the civil authorities removed the Presidio de los Dolores from East Texas (Nacogdoches County) in 1729, the Querétero Franciscans decided to remove their three missions from the area and eventually relocate them to San Antonio, while the nearby Zacatecas missions in Nacogdoches and San Augustine remained.

Besides providing protection for the Spanish missions and nearby settlements, the soldiers who lived at the presidios often became the source of trouble with the Indians and were often in conflict with the friars. Thus, there was a constant dilemma over whether to place the presidio close enough to the mission to provide quick response during attack or far enough away to keep the soldiers from harassing and aggravating the mission Indians.

The general purpose of the missions was to “reduce” or congregate the often nomadic tribes into a settlement, convert them to Christianity, and teach them crafts and agricultural techniques. Once these goals were met, the mission was to be “secularized”; that is, the church was to be turned over to the local bishop and administered by “secular” clergy (local priests not belonging to a religious order). The land was to be turned over to the Christianized Indians.

The Spanish civil authorities saw the missions and presidios as financial drains and were often the early proponents of shutting down the mission activities. Almost without exception, the decision to secularize was opposed by the friars. They felt the Indians were not sufficiently educated and would be taken advantage of by the authorities and the Spanish settlers. Thus, not until 1830 were the last missions in Texas secularized. i looked up hopefully

naturalization is the process of gaining united states citizenship. becoming an american citizen is the ultimate goal for many immigrants, but very few people are aware that the requirements for naturalization have been over 200 years in the making.

the covenant that god made with abraham was a unilateral (one-sided) promise from god to abraham.   apart from anything abraham did, god was promising that he was going to bring about a great nation from abraham's offspring, and that the messiah (meaning "the anointed one") would come from abraham's descendants, as one through whom the whole world would receive favor from god.   as god promised abraham, "through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed" (genesis 22: 18).

the "new covenant" was announced by jesus of nazareth, who had asserted that he was the "son of david" (and descendant of abraham) that fulfilled those promises to abraham.   when jesus introduced the sacred meal that we now refer to as the lord's supper, as told his disciples in reference to the wine they drank, "this cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you" (luke 22: 20).   this "new covenant" through jesus was also a unilateral (one-sided) covenant.   he gave himself in sacrifice for all people, without conditions attached.   as his friend and apostle john later wrote, "he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 john 2: 2).

so the covenant with abraham and the "new covenant" ushered in by jesus are, in essence, connected as one covenant -- because jesus was saying he was the one promised to abraham that fulfilled that covenant and brought blessing to the world.