If it’s broke … (General Assembly Council). A Response.

Jack Haberer has published a piece in the Presbyterian Outlook called If it’s broke … that asks questions about the changes being made to the General Assembly Council of the Presbyterian Church (USA). He listed seven questions and I gave my response to those questions at the Outlook website. Here was my response:

I am a member of the GAC and have served on the Mission Work Plan task force of the GAC. I want to take a shot at answering your questions but first I want to make clear that I am not speaking officially for the GAC and the following is my representation of what is happening.

Here is my response to your questions:

1. “How will the national staff be empowered to focus on major ministry goals and at the same time be held accountable to fulfill its duties as directed by the GAs?”

The Mission Work Plan identifies eight objectives for the work of the GAC. Outcomes will be articulated for the accomplishment of those objectives. The GAC expects to have outcomes and a budget to address those outcomes by the end of the April GAC meeting. This plan will go to the General Assembly for approval. At that point it becomes the Mission Work Plan of the General Assembly for the GAC. The GAC will then report to the GA on the agreed outcomes it has accomplished at future assemblies. That is how the GAC will be accountable to the GA.

Ideally, with a GA work plan in place, questions will have to be asked of commissioners at General Assemblies when they want to create new mandates. “Does your proposed GA mandate conform with the General Assembly approved work plan for the GAC?” “If you are proposing more work, we have a fixed number of dollars. What do you want cut in order to finance your mandate?” This hopefully will bring some reality checks to GA commissioners who are often oblivious to the havoc some mandates create.

2. “How will the budget to be proposed at the April meeting of the GAC bring a sunset to lesser important programs so the remaining staff and programs can effectively implement the mission plan?”

Currently the staff and the executive committee of the GAC are devising a proposed budget in light of the new objectives and financial shortfall. That budget will come to the April GAC where it will be shaped into a budget and submitted to the GA for approval.

3. "How will the work of the GAC maintain accountability to the General Assembly?”

The answer to question 1 addresses this.

4. "How will the next GAC executive director operate as a visionary leader, one who will help rally grassroots connections and participation, so that he or she will not be relegated to being merely a staff and program manager?"

Managing the work of the GAC by objectives reduces the time involved in day-to-day management (although in the transition time this may not always be true) and increases the focus of the work done. We don’t yet know who the new executive director will be and some of this depends on their unique sets of gifts and competencies. Nevertheless, we believe that dispersed operational decision-making with highly focused objectives and outcomes will greatly facilitate the flexibility of an executive.

5. “How will the next executive director be empowered to lead the staff and not have his or her hands tied by overlapping layers of bureaucracy?”

I think the answers above have addressed this.

6. “How will the new GAC redress the lack of parity in its membership, where elders outnumber ministers two-to-one?”

G-13.0202d of the Book of Order presently has the two-to-one ratio. The two-to-one ratio is maintenance of the status quo. I have not heard any need to address this issue.

7. “How will the ho-hum attitude felt in so many pews toward our denominational leaders be transformed into an enthusiastic, committed love for the national church?”

Congregational health and growth has to become the focus if the denomination is be transformed. It is the GAC’s primary role to work with synods and presbyteries. You will note that many of the GAC objectives stress partnership with middle-governing bodies. The new plan includes a once a year meeting with executives of synods and presbyteries for mutual exchange and visioning about the work of the church at all levels. As presbyteries have the primary relationship to congregations, it is our hope that better communication and focused GAC work will strengthen the work of presbyteries with their congregations. This is not to say that there won’t be direct contact with congregations by the GAC but the bodies best able to address congregational needs are the presbyteries because they know their context. Strong congregations create stronger middle-governing bodies which in turn creates a stronger denomination.

“Simply put, is this the fix for whatever’s broke?”

Structures don’t fix denominations. People do. However, structures either facilitate or frustrate effective leadership to one degree or another. We believe the proposed changes facilitate effective leadership but you still have to have effective leaders.

Here are links to my earlier posts on the Goveranance task force and Mission Work Plan task force reports.

Governance

Mission Work Plan

Roots of the Mission Work Plan

Comments

[David]

Responding to this: "Strong congregations create stronger middle-governing bodies which in turn creates a stronger denomination."

I wonder if that's true anymore? From what I've observed around the denomination, stronger congregations tend to generate an energy towards new connections, directly with peoples and groups in need. Presbytery and Synod and GA don't seem to be directly in need, so they don't get much attention.

Is it okay that the middle-governing bodies don't get much attention from growing congregations?

[Michael Kruse]

"...stronger congregations tend to generate an energy towards new connections, directly with peoples and groups in need."

David, I agree. What the Mission Work Plan group is saying is that as the congregations make connections they will develop new networks for doing ministry. The presbytery takes on more of networking and faciliatating role for what congregations are doing rather than establishing programs and trying to get folks to support the presbytery's agenda. I am not saying there isn't ministry that should be done at a presbytery level. It is just that most work will emerge in congregations.

My statement you quoted only works as long as each governing body defines itself as supporting the emerging ministry of the body below it instead of brow beating the lower governing body into supporting the higher governing body's agenda. That is the change we are seeking in the denominational culture.

Does that clarify anything?