Last Friday night, I returned from a week of meetings with Presbyterian Church, USA (PCUSA) leaders in Louisville, KY. It was a joint meeting of middle governing bodies (MGB) and the General Assembly Council (GAC). I thought I'd offer some reflections, but I'll spell this out more for those unfamiliar with Presbyspeak, which includes most Presbyterians when we start talking about the national church.
Overview
We start with the General Assembly. The General Assembly (GA) is a nationally representative body of pastors and elders that meets every two years to make policy decisions for the national church. The General Assembly Council (GAC), of which I have been a member for three years, is the "mission board" of the denomination. It doubles as the board of directors. It meets three times in years with a GA meeting and twice in off years. If it helps, consider the GA as the annual shareholders meeting and the GAC as the board of directors. "Middle governing body" refers to synods and presbyteries. There are nearly 11,000 congregations grouped in more than 170 presbyteries in 16 synods.
My Schedule Last Week
I arrived in Louisville Monday morning for some pre-meeting work with the Restricted Funds Oversight Committee, the entity responsible for reviewing applications for grants from restricted donations people have made to the denomination. Tuesday afternoon kicked off the start of the joint meeting of the MGB executives and the GAC. The Presbyterian Center, the denomination's national office, had an open house for a couple of hours. Then we met jointly until Wednesday afternoon. Wednesday afternoon until Friday afternoon was the meeting of the GAC.
Middle Governing Bodies
Last September was the first-ever joint meeting of the MGBs with the GAC, and up to that point, the relationships between the two groups have not been ideal. There was (is?) animosity toward the GAC because it was perceived as an unresponsive and imperialist institution. There has been frustration by the GAC over a perceived lack of support and loyalty to the work of the national church. Through a visioning process culminating in early 2006, the GAC concluded, with input from MGB executives, that the path to vitality for denominational mission is vital for congregations. Presbyteries and synods exist primarily to nurture congregations and do work best done at its level of coordination. The GAC exists primarily to nurture MGBs and to do the work that more localized entities of the denomination cannot best do. Everything must be done in partnership. That means talking to each other and having a collaborative relationship.
The first meeting was a little rocky. I felt this second meeting was more cordial and substantive. I find it encouraging that I don't think the MGB executives and the GAC members are that far apart in their perceptions of basic problems. I wouldn't describe the situation as warm fuzzies between the two entities, but the relationship's trajectory is improving.
General Assembly Council Past
When the GAC was formed in the 1980s, the vision was to develop into a full-service ministry center offering an extensive smorgasbord of services to the broader church. The result was a bloated and unfocused entity in an era of declining income and increasing anxiety. By the late 1990s, the GAC experienced a series of significant staff cutbacks and service retrenchments.
During this time, the GAC became a factional body of more than 70 elected representatives. The elected officials were divided into committees where they extensively reviewed the work of one operations division but heard only reports back from committees reviewing other divisions. The effect was to create competing factions or "silos" where elected members tended to advocate for their oversight area to exclude discerning the needs of the whole GAC. Furthermore, it was not uncommon to see elected members inserting themselves into operational matters that were none of their business.
The momentum had shifted toward correcting these issues just before I arrived at the GAC in the summer of 2004. While I confess I still often find the work at the GAC very frustrating, it is nothing like it was three years ago, and the general trajectory of change is good. The GAC created its first-ever mission work plan for the calendar 2005-2006. I was a part of the 2007-2008 mission work plan group and am currently part of the 2009-2010 mission work plan group.
For the first time, the 2007-2008 mission work plan identified broad goals and objectives for the entire work of the GAC. The plan was largely complete by the end of 2005. The next step was for staff to create measurable outcomes for their programmatic work and then bring these back to the GAC for prioritization. The goal was to create an environment with broad latitude in operational decisions but accountability to agreed-upon outcomes.
Unfortunately, just as we reached the end of 2005, it became clear that there would be an income shortfall of upwards of 10 million dollars (Nearly 10% of the budget). Staff attention was diverted from thinking about outcomes to deciding how to cut the budget. The mission work plan was then pressed into service as a programmatic priority-setting tool for budget cuts. One-quarter of the staff was let go, the senior management resigned, and the operational structure was greatly altered. The new executive director, Linda Valentine, came on board in June last year and spent the next several months hiring senior staff for the newly configured operations.
Meanwhile, a governance task force meeting in 2005, recommended significant changes that paralleled many of the changes the mission work plan had sought to address. The Council would be reduced from 70+ voting members to less than 40. Narrow division into subcommittee "silos" would be eliminated. The GAC is currently in transition. It now has 50+ voting members but will be at its new streamlined level starting in 2008.
General Assembly Council Present
So where are we now? First, most senior staff are in place, and the Center is returning to fully staffed operational status. The leadership exhibited so far is very encouraging. Valentine sums up the core commitments of staff with the acronym C.A.R.E.: collaborative, accountable, responsive, excellence. There is evidence of these values in the climate of the work being done. There is now more forward-looking energy and less present-oriented anxiety.
Second, we are still without outcomes and priorities. The budget cut crisis of early 2006, and the subsequent staff turnover/reconfiguration have knocked the mission work plan process off track. Only now are we beginning to get back on track toward developing a process for creating and prioritizing outcomes. So now, having staff in place, the elected leadership must return to establishing healthy priority-setting and oversight mechanisms.
Third, there are positive signs. It appears that giving has stabilized after years of annual decline; that is the case through August. Special offerings as of August are up 5%. Shared mission support and directed mission support combined are also up more than 5%. Ongoing responses in dollars and volunteerism to the Katrina disaster are making quite a reputation for Presbyterians. The international missions office had set a goal of intenerating missionaries in about 122 presbyteries with an average of four visits per presbytery. They presently have more than 140 presbyteries signed up, with an average of five visits per presbytery, thus virtually maxing out their ability to meet the demand. I had a wonderful conversation with the new church development folks where I learned about new strategies that are being promoted that are less costly and with a higher likelihood of success.
Furthermore, under the able leadership of Karen Schmidt, Deputy Executive Director of Communications, the communication of the GAC is about to make major leaps forward. Starting next 
month, you will see a well-integrated campaign called "Mission Challenge 2007." It will educate the entire church on the mission work done collaboratively by the GAC. For a taste of just one aspect of this project, visit www.pcusa.org/mission, or click on the logo to see the pilot site that allows you to contribute directly to global mission, to mission in a region of the world, or even to a particular missionary. An option for recurring giving will be up within a week.
As this site is fully operational in October, missionaries will visit presbyteries. High-quality DVD's explaining the mission work of the GAC in the US and internationally will be distributed throughout the denomination. (I've seen 'em. They're great! The one highlighting domestic mission efforts has a clip about Hot Metal Bridge.) Bulletin inserts are going to be mailed out to every church that explains the mission work of the GAC and how congregants can contribute to the mission work of the PCUSA. It starts by encouraging Presbyterians to get personally involved and increase their contribution to their local congregation. It suggests that elders consider increasing or redirecting mission funds to the denomination's mission work. Communication and joint fund development are finally coming together.
Other good things are happening in various arms of the GAC. I've highlighted just a few. There are still lots of problems and organizational challenges. Collaborative integration with MGBs and other entities is starting but has far to go. My overall assessment is that the trajectory has changed, and at this meeting, we are beginning to see the first solid evidence of that.
What does the future hold? Who knows? For the first time, I sense we are turning a corner, but I just can't see around the bend. There is still much work to do, but hopeful signs are beginning to emerge.
Pics and Links
Here are two pics from our meeting. Tuesday night, we honored Clifton Kirkpatrick, Gary Torrens, and Elenora Giddings-Ivory, who all have impending departures. Here is Clifton Kirkpatrick addressing the folks.
We heard an update Thursday on the financial situation at Stony Point Camp and Conference Center. You see Carolyn Knight and Frank Adams on the left, vice-moderator, and moderator, respectively, of the Stewardship and Shared Services committee on which I serve. Continuing to the right is Deputy Executive Director for Shared Services Joey Bailey, GAC member Mary Lynn Walters, Executive Director of the GAC Linda Valentine, Deputy Executive Director for Mission Tom Taylor, Program Director for Racial Ethnic and Women's Ministries/Presbyterian Women Rhashell Hunter, GAC members Dale Lindsay Morgan, Dave Van Arsdale, Linda Toth, and Tom Gillespie.
For more pics, see the ones I posted on Tuesday. Here are links to some news reports about a few of our deliberations.
PNS: Consensus sought on communication strategy
PNS: Mission Funding Task Force outlines final report
PNS: Church as Family
PNS: Sea Change (New PC(USA) staff transform evangelism and world mission efforts)
PNS: GAC takes action on 126 mission positions
PNS: GAC takes steps to create a separate Presbyterian Disaster Assistance corporation
PNS: Presbyterians Today to remain under GAC
Christian Post: 'Tsunami' Hits Presbyterians; Dramatic Changes Ahead
Comments