My day began with the Restricted Funds Oversight Committee. We met for four hours this morning and wrapped up business for this round of funding. Official notifications will be sent to all those who applied within a couple of weeks. The committee's report will be given to the full Council on Saturday. (If you applied, I would encourage you to please wait for official notification by mail and not call staff. The letters will give more details.)

This committee, which began a few years ago, has usually made grants of small amounts to applicants. A couple of more recently established funds are resulting in grants that, in some cases, top six figures. The RFOC will implement new procedures shortly for the application process, and for oversight functions, for larger grants. More on that to come in the next few weeks.

The GAC Plenary kicked off at 3:30 this afternoon. Each GAC member was supplied with a laptop, and the business was conducted using the Les system, which is still under construction. We received a brief orientation. This system will be used for the General Assembly meeting next summer. We are the test group for the early versions of the system. I like it, but I have heard some complaints. As with any technology, there is a learning curve, but I think this will be a great asset to the church. Kudos to the staff that has been developing it!

This afternoon's meeting featured reports by the Moderator of GA, Moderator of GAC, Stated Clerk, and the GAC Executive Director. All gave reports that seemed to be about moving boldly into the future. Moderator Rick Ufford-Chase, referencing the book Tipping Point, mentioned five things that will need to characterize the church as we move forward:

  • Staying biblically grounded as new things are birthed out of the biblical story.
  • Articulating anew those things Presbyterians have historically stood for.
  • Driven by the grassroots. Bottom-up operations.
  • Young adult participation and leadership.
  • Motivation by cohesion not coercion.

Council Moderator Nancy Kahaian reminded us that God always is on the move toward new things in the world. She cautioned against dropping anchor and trying to stay put or simply trying to recreate some new model of an idealized past. We must be radically focused on and devoted to following Jesus.

GAC Executive Director John Detterick speculated that the GAC of the not-to-distant future will be smaller, focused more on mission standards than programming standards, active in networking like-minded people, and may be geographically dispersed throughout the country. He also noted that there are almost certainly more budget cuts and staff reductions ahead. But he also expressed optimism because the present GAC, more so than ever in his seven-year tenure, appears ready to take on the challenges. His biggest concerns were that the staff would be too reluctant and the elected GAC members would not be bold enough.

All three speakers express what I have been sensing; that we are at a rapidly accelerating turning point in the denomination. There has been much hard work by Council task forces, but I share the concern that we are not being radical enough. At this meeting, we are getting a first comprehensive look at where the task forces are headed. I serve on the '07-'08 Mission Work Plan Task Force. We are coalescing around the need for clear priorities using outcome-based objectives. The '05-'06 Mission Work Plan was a tremendous improvement, and I believe the new work plan will go well beyond it. There will still be much room for improvement after that.

I know many are concerned that we are just rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. I appreciate this concern. I was a little unsettled at my first GAC meeting a year ago by the seeming lack of urgency for a resolution to significant problems facing the denomination. I confess I still have some concerns, but I see a considerable awakening to what is happening among several GAC members. Furthermore, I believe the leadership gets it.

On a closing note, the Joining Hearts and Hands campaign now stands at $18,662,211. That amount is expected to be $23,000,000 by month's end. That will move the campaign past the halfway mark to $40,000,000.

We ended our day with worship.

As I have asked with each post, please keep us in your prayers. Tomorrow I will be in the Mission Support Subcommittee all day. Tomorrow evening, we will discuss the Peace, Unity, and Purity Task Force report.


Comments

10 responses to “GAC September 21. Convened.”

  1. Rodger Sellers Avatar
    Rodger Sellers

    Wow Mike — something went “bang” in my head when I read this a second time. Each member was supplied with a laptop PC for the meeting? And there are 72 members of the GAC? We do some more know how to spend some $$, don’t we? Do you guys get to keep the “perks”? (I might be willing to get elected if I could see an upgrade coming out of it… maybe… then again…)
    Keep your head above water! RPS

  2. Have you heard the expression “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away?” The laptops are the denominations and I expect they are the ones that will be used at GA. They do not allow access to the internet. Only to Les. I use my own laptop and many others are too.
    Laptops are a cost, but it is offset some by paper, materials, copying, and labor costs. It also speeds up the turn around time and improves the chances of everyone working from the most recent documents.
    As for perks, they won’t even leave me chocolates on my pillow.

  3. “. . . they won’t even leave chocolates on my pillow.” lol I’m very aware that this is something of a thankless job.
    A couple of unsolicited observations:
    I’m glad to see an awareness of at least the fact that we are facing problems. I’m also glad to see that people are willing to try ideas. That said, I would mention that I don’t believe form changes and governmental changes alone will do the trick. What seems to me to be needed is to face the divisions within the denomination — not necessarily that I expect the GAC to be able to solve them, but to at least acknowledge them — and to move to help restore trust between the members and the perceived “Louisville set”. (Yes, I know that’s not you, but among members, y’all kind of run together.)
    Some things really seem to members to violate that trust — as we’ve discussed before. We had a presbytery official complaining about designated gifts; I fully understood his frustration, but I also understood the compelling reason people feel a need to designate their gifts.
    It would be helpful in establishing that trust, and I don’t know if you can persuade anyone of this, to open the lines of communication. If members had a better idea of what exactly was going on, and didn’t, for example, read things in the paper about the PC(USA) that catch them by surprise, they’d feel better about things. And this communication should avoid all elements of manipulation. I’ll give an example: Presbyweb, for those aware of it, does a far better job at filling in PC(USA) members than do the PNS or PT.
    Similarly, it would be helpful to avoid all processes that seem to shut out the voices of the ordinary members. In (some, but not all of) those areas where there is disagreement, people are willing to compromise if they feel they’re being heard and listened to — and that it is not just a process to get buy in to predetermined outcomes.
    My point is that the funding problems would be less an issue if Presbyterians were on board with the direction of the denomination. Also this might go a long way toward preventing our population problems.
    It also might be helpful to the GAC — to look more carefully at ideas that are springing up from accross the denomination. New Wineskins, for example, has many ideas for “reorganization” that might be interesting. Or at least, these ideas represent problems that individual churches are experiencing. I know this will likely be avoided because it is viewed as a recipe for schism.
    I notice that Rick Ufford Chase has two emphases that I think many of us recognize the need for: being driven by grassroots, bottom up operations, and motivation by cohesion and not coercion.
    Another I might suggest (in line with another of Rick’s points) is to rethink our COM approach toward pastors. The new interim model that we’re employing is devastating to churches and seems to be careless in its destruction. And many who are called into ministry do not benefit from what is taught at seminary — i.e. parts, yes, but the whole package doesn’t correspond to what they intend or will likely do in that ministry.

  4. Rodger Sellers Avatar
    Rodger Sellers

    Am curious about Will’s comment. What exactly is the “interim model” that’s being employed with devastating results? It sounds like something I guess I should be aware of, but don’t have the foggiest what he means.

  5. I’m not sure quite how to explain this. I also know I am, having experienced it, a very strong opponent of it. I do not know if it is denomination wide, but it is being practiced in several presbyteries near me.
    It used to be that an interim period between pastors was relatively short — long enough to establish a PNC and give them time to do the work of exploring candidates. Sometimes this created problems for new pastors — in that they would suffer from comparison to previous administrations.
    Now it is a compulsory longer period of time (measured in several years). Contact is intentionally severed between former pastors and congregants. In some cases this ignores the many personal friendships that exist between people. A new style small group mission study is required to come up with a cif form — but the process doesn’t really manage to reflect the congregation that well. A period of bad mouthing the prior minister is generally engaged in by the temporary interim minister. (It’s not called that, of course. Usually it is posed as observations, but I’ve seen this occur in four churches locally. I think the rationale is to help break with the past — but it is often just bad-mouthing.)
    OK, there’s more to it than that — and there are reasons for everything I’ve described. But in my church, after a particularly nasty action on the part of an executive presbyter, he informed us that this process was, and I quote, the wisdom of Christ.

  6. OK. In the interest of clarifying: fifteen years ago my brother’s PC(USA) church changed pastors. Their entire process took about six months at most. My church has spent pretty close to four years on this. The process is entirely different.
    Recently, the pastor that was selected 15 years ago died. They are now in an interim process that is vastly more protracted. I do not know the official model, but these churches are on 2 different presbyteries. I’m familiar with the situation in two additional churches. All describe the same thing.

  7. Rodger Sellers Avatar
    Rodger Sellers

    OK: I get where Will is coming from now. Similar situation: A church I served in mid-80s is one where I still have some very solid friendships. But one I served for five years in mid-90s was one where, when I was leaving, had the “counsel” of the other pastor: “You know, when “we” leave, we’re done — it’s not appropriate to keep any kind of contact, etc. Struck me at the time as really “un-genuine” with those I’d really become close to while there. (And then a couple of years later, that pastor left to retire and can’t seem to stop finding reasons to “come back and visit” — we’re not doing a great job of owning the relational aspect of ministry with all this “professionalism” we bandy about. Know what Will means — it’s hard to describe, but you know it when you see it.
    RPS

  8. I know that in Heartland Presbytery, the longer the tenure of the departing pastor, the longer the interim period before getting a new pastor. I have never been completely convinced that this is a good a policy.
    I wonder if part of the problem is that we have improperly related to pastors as congregations? Too many churches are looking for a caretaking chaplain instead of an equipping coach. I wonder if we understood the role of pastor different if it would change some of the transition dysfunctions we see?

  9. Rodger: yes, I think we’re talking about the same thing.
    Michael: Indeed, that would help.
    But if that were the case, then the interim period would not be needed. I’m more inclined to think in terms of genuineness. If I interact with someone, pastor or otherwise, then artificial policies are highly distasteful.
    Now we have people trained in “interim ministry” and these seem to heighten the use of a pretend clinical perspective. This simply worsens the situation.

  10. A part of the interim model to which I was referring was addressed in a letter on Presbyweb today by an interim pastor.
    https://www.presbyweb.com/2005/Letters/110201.htm
    (This is not the whole thing, but it provides some of the rationale of the identified tasks an interim seeks to accomplish.)
    1 coming to terms with the church’s history
    2 discovering (or re-discovering) who the congregation is
    3 allowing for internal leadership growth and change
    4 reconnecting with the denomination
    5 establishing a new commitment between the people and the new pastor.
    Sound good on paper, but it often translates into a disingenuous process that causes damage to real relationships between people in the attempt to be clinical and professional.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading