Kruse Kronicle

GAC Mission Work Plan: 2007-2008

—

by

mwkruse
in ,

The "Mission Work Plan, 2007-2008" for the General Assembly Council (GAC) was made public today, so I can now offer some commentary. It has been a long but rewarding task, and I treasure having had the opportunity to work alongside fellow task force members in developing it over the last nine months. (Elder Charles Easley, chair; the Rev. Dr. Michael Castronis; the Rev. Mary Marks King; the Rev. Dan Schomer; Elder Carolyn McLarnan; Elder John A. Bolt. )

Some will ask what the General Assembly Council is and what the Mission Work Plan is. Those are precisely the questions we began with as well. The General Assembly is the governing body that meets every other year to set policy, issue directives, and the overall course of the denomination. The General Assembly Council is a much smaller body that meets two or three times a year to oversee the ongoing mission work at the denominational level. The Mission Work Plan is a document that articulates objectives and the expected outcomes from the work of the General Assembly Council.

The GAC did not have a comprehensive work plan before 2005. The first plan covered the years 2005-2006. This first plan made great strides in capturing vision, mission, values, and goals. We retained much of that helpful foundation. However, when it came down to objectives, we realized we had created a checklist of programs, not objectives with any measurable outcomes. We also realized we needed to analyze and reflect on our mission context.

Two realizations became apparent as we reflected extensively on the nature of the church's work as defined by the vision, mission, mission context, and values statements. First, congregations are the primary place where the mission work of the denomination takes place. Strengthen congregations, and you eventually strengthen presbyteries, synods, and, ultimately, the denomination. Second, mission should occur at the most effective level of the denomination for carrying out that mission. Our conclusion was the most effective level is often not at the national level. Denominational structures should exist primarily to support the mission work of the denomination at the appropriate levels. As you read the objectives, I hope you will notice the strong emphasis on partnership.

I have listed the eight objectives we arrived at, organized by goal area. The goal areas are likely to become the divisions of the GAC. There are no outcomes listed under the objectives at present. The intention is that the GAC elected members will set broad objectives to be accomplished. Staff will report measurable (quantitative or qualitative measures) outcomes that they believe will accomplish the objectives. The GAC elected will then review and refine staff-proposed outcomes to create a final work plan to submit to the General Assembly for approval. If approved, then the work of the GAC elected essentially becomes one of monitoring progress toward outcomes, not entanglement in the work done by staff and staff in the work of the elected. In other words, increased effectiveness and greater accountability.

Here are the objectives (I should also point out that specific outcomes may encompass work in more than one goal area, and staff will find their work spanning goal areas):

Justice and Compassion

POVERTY – Enable partnerships with governing bodies and others to actively address the causes and effects of poverty locally, nationally and globally.

PEACE – Encourage and support presbyteries and congregations to be active in seeking non-violent solutions to conflict in their own communities and in the communities of the world.

Evangelism and Witness

EVANGELISM – Equip Presbyterians, governing bodies and others to witness locally and globally to the Gospel of Jesus Christ with an emphasis on those with no active religious affiliation. [10 Feb 2006: "religious" was changed to "church" in the final approval of this plan]

MULTICULTURAL – Support presbyteries' efforts to develop congregations and fellowships that will enable them to reflect the multicultural makeup of our society.

Spirituality and Discipleship

REFORMED IDENTITY – Encourage and support presbyteries and congregations to further develop their members' ability to appreciate and understand their Reformed identity and apply it in today's world.

[10 Feb 2006: This objective was changed to read "Encourage and support presbyteries and congregations to further develop their members' ability to appreciate and understand their Reformed identity, experience and practice disciplines of Reformed spirituality and apply them in today's world."]

FAMILIES – Enable presbyteries and congregations to ground families, in all their manifestations, in Christian discipleship that helps them confront and resist the idolatries of society today.

Leadership and Vocation

VOCATION – Equip presbyteries and congregations to help members discern that their vocation is a call from God to Christian witness in society and the church.

SMALL CHURCHES – Facilitate the exchange and development of alternative models for pastoral and mission leadership in small churches.

Comments

15 responses to “GAC Mission Work Plan: 2007-2008”

  1. David Robertson Avatar
    David Robertson

    As a fellow Presbyterian and a 4th-generation elder in the Presbyterian church, I have a lot of interest in our denomination. So as I read your post, I was struck by two things:
    1) The objectives sound, in a theoretical way, pretty good.
    2) How can the GAC simply ignore the fact that our denomination is dying or, in fact, may already be dead?
    I have not heard a single pastor or elder for the past 10 years speak positively of a Presbytery or Synod or GA staff or committee. Those institutions seem mostly to be seeking their own survival, and to be completely out of touch with the average person in the pew, or even with elders serving on a Session.
    Does the GAC have even the possibility of grasping the real trouble that the denomination finds itself in? Or are we going to keep forming committees and making plans, pretending to be relevant when we are, most decidedly, not?
    Sorry to sound cynical, but it’s hard to read a post like this without thinking about a similar post from the typewriter manufacturers in 1980, or the buggy-whip makers in 1900. The world has changed from the 1950s, and either the PCUSA has to change with it or just become another artifact of the 50s.

    Reply
  2. gruntled Avatar
    gruntled

    How, exactly, will these priorities shape the coming downsizing (again) at the Presbyterian Center?

    Reply
  3. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    Its okay, Dave. I don’t so much hear cynicism as I do frustration.
    I have a hard question to put back at you. Where does growth or decline of denomination take place?
    I have seen much data in recent years and it all points to the same thing. People do not join or leave denominations. People join and leave congregations. Grow healthy congregations and you have a healthy denomination.
    As you know, “pastor” is the Latin for “shepherd. Shepherds do not create sheep. Sheep create sheep. Shepherds provide nourishing safe places for sheep to be fed and reproduce. Similarly, farmers do not grow crops. Farmers plant seeds and tend soil.
    Higher governing bodies are shepherds to the congregational shepherds. As the GAC, our primary function is to provide for healthy synod and presbytery shepherds, who are shepherds to the congregations. The Mission Work Plan team has made the proposal it has with two aims in mind.
    First, notice that each objective begins with words like “equip,” “enable,” “facilitate,” “encourage,” and “support.” These all make healthy middle governing bodies and congregations the center of our work.
    Second, we can’t tell middle governing bodies how to relate to lower governing bodies. We can model what we think is the appropriate relationship of a higher governing body to a lower governing body.
    What exactly would you have the GAC do to save the denomination? I’m all ears.

    Reply
  4. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    “How, exactly, will these priorities shape the coming downsizing (again) at the Presbyterian Center?”
    Here is how we envisioning this working.
    1. The GAC approves the proposed mission work plan.
    2. The the plan will go to the staff Strategic Leadership Teams (SLTs) in February. They will come back in late April with a list of “outcomes” they intend to accomplish with budget recommendations. At least three criteria will be used in evaluating what needs to be created, continued, or ended.
    A. How and to what degree does given work contribute to accomplishment of one or more of the eight objectives?
    B. Why is this work appropriate to the GAC and not other levels within the denomination?
    C. Is the work a duplication of other work being done outside the denomination that is just as effective?
    3. The SLTs will report back their plan to the GAC for review and revision.
    4. A final plan and budget will be submitted to the GA for approval in June.
    5. The mission work plan will be reviewed and updated every two years.
    6. At future GA’s, when new work and intiatives are proposed, the intention will be to raise the approved mission work plan and ask “Okay, which objectives do you see this addressing and what work do you want us to cut to accomplish you new directive?”

    Reply
  5. Bill Young Avatar
    Bill Young

    Michael, I am wondering about the intent of the evangelism objective. Does it mean we would no longer have a focus on sharing the gospel with Muslims, Hindus, etc.? When you get down to it, you won’t find very many people without some kind of religious affiliation, even if it is an informal assumption of their cultural traditional religion. So what was the intention of the wording of this one?

    Reply
  6. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    Bill, I think there was time spent in the wording of this objective than any of the others. We are conscious that we live in era of pluralism and wanted to be sensitive about how represent ourselves to people of other faiths. While we want to witness our faith to all in a pluralist society, the wording “Evangelize” has negative baggage for other faith groups. How we witness in this context and what we call it is an unsettled matter in the denomination. Therefore, we chose wording that places our emphasis on the non or nominally religious which gets to your question about religious affiliation? Does calling myself a Presbyterian (Jew, Muslim) when I haven’t been in worship for 25 years qualify as an affiliation? Affiliation is not an either/or. It is on a continuum. The wording is intentionally vague.
    “Does it mean we would no longer have a focus on sharing the gospel with Muslims, Hindus, etc.?”
    You are more knowledgeable about the specific programming than I am but it has been my impression that we do not currently have other faiths as foci of evangelism so I am not sure “no longer” is valid.
    Also, let me clarify the “we” in your question. If “we” is the work of the GAC, then I think you will find little emphasis on evangelization of Muslims and Hindus. If “we” is Presbyterians in presbyteries, congregations and personal lives, then I suspect the answer is different.
    I think it is paramount that it be understood that the objectives are not the eight most important topics for the denomination. They are the eight most important areas of work where the GAC level of government can most effectively make a contribution. The work of the GAC is miniscule compared to the work that goes on in the lives of congregations and faithful saints.

    Reply
  7. David Robertson Avatar
    David Robertson

    Michael –
    I celebrate your faithfulness in your work with the GAC. I read your blog entries and your comments and I sense a person of grace and compassion and faithfulness. Thank you for your service.
    I think the place where our perspectives diverge is in the “higher governing bodies.” From my perspective, as an elder and a friend to several pastors, I see the Presbytery and the Synod and GA as absolutely irrelevant structures. They offer my church nothing, and they ask my church for money and time. Our congregation (4,000+ members) does not look to Presbytery for anything other than what is required by the Book of Order.
    The “higher governing bodies” do not offer my own congregation anything: curriculum, fellowship, wise counsel, money, resourcesss, etc. All of these things we have to create on our own.
    So why should it matter to us at all what the GAC is doing this year? If we are, as you suggest, the “tip of the spear” into contemporary culture, then why should we care what the GAC does?
    I don’t have the answer (yet!) as to how the GAC might make itself relevant yet again. But I can suggest that a place to start might be in talking to “regular” congregations.
    More to come.
    Thanks.
    _david

    Reply
  8. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    David, did you and I meet at the Emergent Gathering last Oct in NM? Your name seems very familiar.
    As to my service, you are welcome. I confess my passion and work has usually been with small entrepreneurial ventures, not serving in large bureaucracies. I often feel like an alien on a sojourn in a foreign land.
    As to your question, I am reminded of one of my favorite scenes from “A Field of Dreams.” Ray is complaining bitterly to Shoeless Joe about not being invited into the cornfield. He concludes his complaint with “…and not once have I ever asked ‘what’s in it for me?’” Shoeless Joe say “So what are you saying Ray?” And Ray responds, “I’m saying…..What’s in it for me?”
    It seems to me that this is your question. Is that where we want to begin a conversation about mission?

    Reply
  9. David Robertson Avatar
    David Robertson

    I was not at the Emergent Gathering in New Mexico, to my great disappointment. I was at the Convention last May in Nashville, however. Perhaps there?
    You raise a very valid point, of course, that “What’s in it for me?” is not a very good place to begin a discussion of mission. I do think at least one of the places to begin is by asking the question: “Is this a good way to organize our resources to be doing the work of Christ in the world?”
    What I’m trying to share, though obviously not very clearly, is that there is deep scepticism out here in the local church that the higher courts are offering a “good way” of organizing our resources. I think the process you outlined above offers some hope that the GAC is taking the steps to regain trust.
    But it will be a long and difficult road, with considerable pain. And I think the situation is more dire than is generally recognized at the GA level.

    Reply
  10. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    “Is this a good way to organize our resources to be doing the work of Christ in the world?”
    Amen!
    “But it will be a long and difficult road, with considerable pain. And I think the situation is more dire than is generally recognized at the GA level.”
    Amen Again! (Except I would add that I have seen rapid reorientation of the GAC in the 1.5 years I have been serving.)
    The Mission Work Plan team has had the opportunity to divulge pieces of our plan and philosophy to a small group to see how it is received. It usually goes something like this:
    MWP Team: “We are convinced that the life and health of congregations is the most important focus. The GAC needs to be in partnership with synods and presbyteries to nurture healthy congregations.”
    Listening Group: “You aren’t listening to us! The life and health of congregations is the most important focus. The GAC needs to be in partnership with synods and presbyteries to nurture healthy congregations.”
    MWP Team: “That is what we just said.”
    Listening Group: “Oh.”
    There is much distrust and anxiety in our midst. The MWP team also realizes that people are pre-conditioned not to initially hear or trust what we are saying. That is okay. Some venting needs to happen and we (the GAC) have to demonstrate what we have said. These take some time. I am fully persuaded that our MWP team “gets it.” Our plan (no doubt imperfect) is a big step toward transformation. Now we have to persuade the full GAC and ultimately the GA. My hope is that along the way, as people get over the initial shock that the GAC may be listening to them, that we can create momentum that transforms all the structures away from command and control to equip and support.
    Keep this all in your prayers!

    Reply
  11. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    Hey Daivd, I also forgot to mention that I was at the Nashville event. Maybe that is where I remember you from although I can’t bring to mind a face. Anyway, thanks for chiming in.

    Reply
  12. David Robertson Avatar
    David Robertson

    Michael –
    You may be transforming my view of GA! I’m really impressed with what you are writing about the process of GAC. I really like your latest post, about the “Roots” of the Mission Work Plan.
    I will continue to read your blog with anticipation.
    Please let me know if I can help you in any way. (My email can be found via my blog.) I’m a dedicated Presbyterian, and I’m anxious to see our denomination transformed to be part of what God is doing in 2006 and beyond!

    Reply
  13. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    Thanks David. I know the MWP model we are presenting is shared by many GACers who are not a part of our team. We still have to get the whole GAC to wrestle with this. Then we the GA will need to buy-in. Nothing is a done deal in this process. I am confident that at some points this is going to force some controversial changes so we all need lots of prayer, wisdom, and most of all, grace.

    Reply
  14. Bill Young Avatar
    Bill Young

    Michael, thanks for your response. There are two things I see going on from my perspective. First, there is a lot going on through the GAC in evangelism of people of other faiths. Before coming to PFF I worked 7 years in the Office of International Evangelism in the Worldwide Ministries Division. A large part of the evangelism work internationally involves evangelism work among people of various faiths, including Muslims, Hindus, traditional religions, etc. It is all guided by the policy paper adopted by the 1991 General Assembly, “Turn to the Living God: A Call to Evangelism in Jesus Christ’s Way.” It is also guided by the policy paper adopted more recently, “Gathering for God’s Future.” Both of these make it clear that we are called to share our faith with people of all faiths, albeit in humility and with respect. We have some 30 or more missionaries of the PCUSA who are involved in that kind of ministry; all are involved in holistic work that both demonstrates the love of Jesus and gives them an opportunity to share their faith verbally in appropriate ways. So this is very much a part of the official work of the GAC.
    Second, it looks to me like the objectives are pretty much focused on what is happening through the GAC in the US, not in the whole world. Your response indicates that as well. One of my concerns with the planning of several of the task forces is that they are all focused on the US side of GAC work and ignore the international part. In fact, when I raised this with one GAC member I was told in essence, “we just assume the international work will go on.” I don’t think most of the planning of the GAC over the last few years has related to WMD. People don’t have WMD in mind as they think about goals and priorities, from what I have seen. That doesn’t mean I think they devalue WMD; they just don’t think about it and about how different it is.

    Reply
  15. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    Thanks for your helpful questions Bill. You are right that I was talking of the US context and the was intentional. What was not intentional was leaving out why I was talking about the US context. Thanks for pushing me to clarify.
    We reflected on whether or not to have a specific objective that spoke to mission outside our borders. We decided against it. Instead, you will notice that the Poverty and Evangelism objectives talk about working “globally” and the Peace objective talks about “communities of the world.” That means that we expect the PCUSA to be working for these ends elsewhere in the world and that by definition is going to mean partnership, a central them of the whole plan. Partnering with other national churches is going to mean honoring their agendas and coming alongside however we can.
    All of us saw these objectives directed internally to the organization to guide our work. However, some are concerned about the message we send in a pluralistic world that, especially in some mission parnter countries, when we say “evangelism,” they hear “covert the heathens.” So there is no intention of trying preclude evangelism with people of other faiths. Rather I think it is an intention to see evangelism as a by-product of being in community with people (which includes sharing our faith) showing them Christ in word and deed.
    If there is a better way to say “evangelism without triumphalism,” I am all ears.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

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

Continue reading