SACRAMENTO – Amazingly, some people suspect there may be better ways of doing things in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
So the General Assembly Council is thinking through some new models of funding the church’s work and structuring the council itself — brainstorming to see if alternate approaches might bring better communication, more efficient decision-making, a better relationship between the national structures and the church at the grassroots.
Several task forces have been meeting to consider this — including one on funding and one on “governance” that’s been considering such questions as how big the council should be, how its members should be selected, how often it should meet, and so forth.
Leaders of both say their efforts now are still “works-in-progress” — nothing has been decided for sure, lots may still change. But the governance task force plans to come back with a recommendation at the council’s next meeting, in February, and perhaps to suggest structural changes to the 2006 General Assembly. If those changes were approved, the shape of the council might start to change in 2008.
And a plan for mission funding for the PC(USA) — for “funding Christ’s work,” as the funding task force leaders put it — may come to the assembly in 2008.
Here are some details:
MISSION FUNDING
The funding task force has been asking folks around the PC(USA) what works and what doesn’t work in funding the denomination’s efforts. Some of what they’ve heard: “The funding system isn’t working, it isn’t understood, it isn’t trusted, it’s too complicated and it’s under-funded,” according to Linda Knieriemen of Michigan, a member of the funding task force.
How the council will address that is very much an open question. Katherine Cunningham of the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly, another task force member, spoke of the idea of hiring “mission advocates” in presbyteries, who would “be the face of local mission,” who would be part of a national mission funding network and would provide fund development strategies for congregations and presbyteries.
Another idea is to create a Center for Mission Funding and Communication in the denomination — “not another layer of administration,” Cunningham said, but an office that would be flexible and responsive, would provide accountability and communication, would support the presbytery advocates and produce resources for stewardship and mission interpretation.
The task force also is developing some “core values” for funding the church’s work. Among the values being considered, the task force says, are that the funding system should:
· Appeal to the passions and values of pastors, Presbyterians in the pews and potential givers;
· Be transparent and accountable;
· Emphasize partnership and communication; and
· See stewardship as integral to Christian discipleship.
GOVERNANCE
The council considered two models for reorganizing the council — both preliminary, both still under discussion. The plan is to consider the feedback from this meeting, do more work, and come back to the council in February with a single recommendation.
The two models discussed in Sacramento both would produce a council smaller than the current one, which has 98 representatives, and would involve shorter terms of service. Council members now serve a four-year term that can be renewed for a second four-year term.
Here are some details of the two models now being considered.
MODEL 1: The council would have 80 members, each of whom would serve one four-year term. Its members would include four executive presbyters (compared to two now). Communication would be a priority — stemming in part from some geographic representation among the presbyteries, so regional concerns could be represented.
MODEL 2: The council would have 40 members — less than half the current size — and members would serve a single six-year term. Twelve of the 40 would be elected by the General Assembly and 12 chosen at-large. The council would be “fresh, intimate, effective,” said task force member Susan Andrews, explaining the strength of this approach. The emphasis would be more on governance — efficient decision-making and a cohesive group of leaders — and less on communication with presbyteries.
Whatever the council does, the members of these task forces hope it will lead to a more flexible, creative church that’s realistic about the world as it is today — that recognizes, for example, that people don’t approach charitable donations now the same way they did a few decades ago.
Andrews urged the council to think of “structure as a possible womb for new life. What could the contemporary church give birth to,” she asked, if better ways of funding the work and making decisions about how to do that work can be found?
