Thank you for your recent editorial about the General Assembly Council recommendation to restructure its internal organization. Through this effort we seek to create a flexible, responsive system for discerning the guidance of the Spirit as we coordinate the mission activities of the General Assembly.
You have correctly sensed several of the shortcomings of the current model: unfunded program initiatives, trying to be all things to all people, and an internal structure that encourages Council members to become specialists rather than to envision the broad scope of ministries we enable. These issues were among those that led the Council over the past several years to focus energies on self-assessment, conversations with middle governing bodies, and ultimately to clarify the basic function of the Council, along with the role of staff.
The other Council members and I covet the prayers of you and your readers, as we focus the work of the GAC around the eight Mission Work Plan objectives over the next two years. The work of the Mission Work Plan Task Force and the Governance Task Force have come together in ways that we hadn’t imagined two years ago to create a genuine shift in the way the Council will operate. We have discerned that God has led the Council to a new day of service in which we will be more focused on the objectives approved by the General Assembly and more closely related to the presbyteries and synods of our church.
I want to address the seven questions raised in your editorial:
1 The Mission Work Plan (MWP) is a method by which the Council will both empower staff and hold them accountable. The General Assembly will be asked to approve the MWP when it approves our budget. We will then use the MWP’s objectives and outcomes to empower staff and as a basis for accountability at each Council meeting over the next two years.
2 The 2007-2008 budget is being built differently than in previous years. We primarily will fund work based on whether it is essential or helpful to the accomplishment of the MWP. Some work that is not relevant to those objectives will end or be funded at lower level.
3 The Mission Work Plan gives us a way to exercise our accountability to the General Assembly by focusing on a broad range of objectives and outcomes.
4 With this new structure, the stage is set for the Council to exercise the role of visionary leaders who provide strategic direction for the work of the Council.
5 The executive director is charged with keeping the Council focused on this level of detail and in leading the staff as it implements the strategic direction that we have established.
6 Our recommendation is consistent with the Book of Order (G-13.0202d) requirement that one-third of the Council members be ministers of the Word and Sacrament, one-third be laymen, and one-third be laywomen.
7 Transforming the current connectional malaise that we experience at all levels of the church needs to be a focus for all church leaders in the months ahead. We feel that creating a more responsive Council, which will plan and measure its work according to the Mission Work Plan, will result in better partnership with congregations, presbyteries, and synods; and will ultimately resort in improved support for our common mission.
These are exciting days to be involved in the work of the church at the national level. The changes the GAC is recommending will play an important role in reshaping the way that presbyteries, synods, and congregations partner for mission at the national level.
The GAC continues to be enriched by our many partners in Christ’s mission and strengthened by the grace and assurance of Christ’s presence with us all.
Nancy Kahanian is chair of the General Assembly Council through the conclusion of the 217th General Assembly (2006) this summer. She is a Minister of the Word and Sacrament and the pastor of First Church in Michigan City, Ind.
