Possibly my single biggest frustration with work at the General Assembly Council is poor communication. While there is an improvement, I believe we did a mediocre job communicating our message about decisions made at our last two GAC meetings. My biggest complaint when I talk with Presbyterians is that they never hear what the GAC does. What they associate with the GAC are usually actions taken by the General Assembly and its entities, over which the GAC has no control. Why do we at the GAC have such a problem with communication?
There is an essential marketing principle that says, "Features tell. Benefits sell." Most businesspeople like to talk about what they do. By and large, the customer could care less what the business does. They want to know what benefits the business brings to the customer. They only care about what is done so far as it directly helps them understand the benefits. Consequently, when a customer asks, "What do you do?" they are actually asking, "What benefit do you offer?" When people throughout the denomination ask what the GAC does, we inappropriately respond with a list of activities. Why?
My theory is that birthright Presbyterians dominate the GAC with above-average loyalty to the denomination and its entities. They are the true believers in the denomination. They both trust the work done at the denominational level and are largely tuned out to alternatives for accomplishing the same work outside of denominational entities. This should not be surprising. This level of trust and denominational devotion was widely shared not all that many years ago, and it is the environment within which most Presbyterian loyalists were raised.
Of course, the problem is that the denominational connectedness many loyalists have is now shared by only a small minority within the larger church. About 60% of the people in PCUSA congregations did not grow up in the PCUSA. A few short decades ago, people gave to denominations out of loyalty and duty to preserve a way of life (for which they often had fond memories.) Now people have a set of criteria for what they expect from a church fellowship, and they are "shopping among competitors." In addition to competition between congregations, multiple independent organizations are directly competing with services offered by denominational entities. It is organizational suicide in our cultural context to assume that because the denomination offers a service, PCUSAers will understand the service's benefits and give it "most favored product status." This is like fingernails on a chalkboard to loyalists, but it is reality.
The GAC is presently experiencing a massive paradigm shift. We are moving from thinking about "activities done" to "benefits achieved." When we can clearly state the benefits, we are bringing to the denomination (as opposed to listing activities), we will be able to more effectively communicate what we believe is important about work at the GAC level. As the message becomes clearer, congregations, presbyteries, and synods can reflect upon, evaluate, and communicate what they think of GAC priorities. The clarity should produce a GAC doing the work most valued by the denomination and engaged in the work the denomination is most willing to fund. We aren't there yet, but my hope is steadily growing.
Leave a Reply