To expand the alphabet soup in the title, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A)‘s General Assembly Council (GAC) concluded their fall meeting just over two weeks ago in Louisville and everywhere there was talk of change. The question of course is will it happen and if so, will it be enough? Let me discuss what has come out from the Presbyterian News Service.
It should be noted that this meeting included the executives of Middle Governing Bodies (MGB’s, that would be presbytery and synod representatives). This was highlighted in the article titled “ Consensus sought on communication strategy.” This reports begins by saying:
General Assembly Council (GAC) Executive Director Linda Valentine has
said that Presbyterians around the church repeatedly tell her the
denomination needs to improve its communication efforts.
I would disagree somewhat: I think that the communications efforts are generally good. I think it is the message, coordination, and uneven levels of coverage that need to be improved. OK, maybe that would be included in “communication efforts” but I think there are levels of nuance here. I’ll get back to that in a moment.
This article continues on to talk about Karen Schmidt’s presentation to the GAC and MGB representatives. Ms. Schmidt is the new deputy executive director of communication and funds development for GAC. She comes with corporate experience and is looking to develop a corporate approach to communication strategy for the PC(USA) including “branding.” To help develop this strategy she asked those at the meeting a series of questions. By a wide margin, the representatives said that “the whole church” is “doing the talking,” they agreed that we are “the church” (as opposed to a type of charitable organization), and that the audience is the people in the pews. Also by a wide margin those present felt that communication should be identified as coming from the Presbyterian Church (USA) as opposed to one of its agencies. Finally, the participants ranked “Foster/improve climate of trust,”, “Engage to empower/drive support,” and “grow membership/worship attendance” as the primary purposes of the communication.
All of this sounds nice, but part of the problem over the years has been agencies, or even corporations, related to the PC(USA) making statements (or publishing books) that don’t represent approved policy or doctrine but are viewed as coming from the PC(USA) as a unit and not that branch of it. And yes, it does speak to the people in the pews. At least that is the audience that pays the most attention even if that is not the intended audience. So, if the PC(USA) does develop a unified communication strategy it had better be just that – unified. And if they are going to speak for the denomination as a whole, it needs to be consistent with the policy and doctrine of the denomination.
Now, on to some more change…
Another article from the Presbyterian New Service titled “ Sea Change: New PC(USA) staff transform evangelism and world mission efforts” shows the new directions in Louisville. The article begins with:
New staff people are bringing about a sea change in
the way the Presbyterian Church (USA) carries out its ministries in
evangelism and world mission.
Tom
Taylor, deputy executive director for mission, Eric Hoey, director of
evangelism and church growth, and Hunter Farrell, director of World
Mission, outlined their new approach to the Evangelism and Witness Goal
Area Committee of the General Assembly Council meeting here Sept. 20.
In the article it talks about how Rev. Taylor wants to “develop a culture of evangelism and mission in the whole denomination” and that the seven GAC “program areas” have been renamed “ministry areas.” He also talked about their “buzz word” acronym CARE in decision making. Does the decision conform to “Collaborative, Accountable, Responsive and Excellent.”
I have come to appreciate the very candid and honest comments from Eric Hoey. (I note his comments on the PCUSA membership decline in this previous post.) In this article it talks about his talking to his staff in Louisville about what they understand their work to be. The article says of his impression of the staff from talking to them since he arrived a few weeks ago “…they lack focus and cohesiveness and are somewhat dispirited by
uncertainty about funding and the continuation of their positions as
the new GAC structure unfolds.”
Finally, the brand new Director of World Mission, Hunter Farrell, spoke. The article says of his comments:
He said he wants to bring together the new
Presbyterian Global Fellowship, middle governing body executives,
seminary professors of mission, the Witherspoon Society, Antioch
Partners ( a joint effort of the Presbyterian Frontier Fellowship and
the Outreach Foundation), General Assembly mission staff and others.
“All these groups have their perspective about what God is doing in
this world.”
Instead of each group doing their own thing, he wants them to see how they can more effectively accomplish mission together.
Again, focusing the effort and trying to get a variety of groups on the same page. And an impressive accomplishment if he gets all those groups at the same table.
While I have previously talked about whether the new blood would be able to make changes in the corporate culture, after hearing these comments, and the unified front of Taylor, Hoey, and Farrell, I now have guarded optimism that they will be successful. The questions do remain about whether they will meet resistance, how much change they can affect, and will it be the right type and enough to revitalize the denomination? Time will tell.
