When the last director resigned in fall 2007, I urged the General Assembly Council (GAC) to take a few deep breaths before finding a new director to ask some hard questions (Nov. 19, ’07, p. 5):
• Have we been effective at promoting real change? Or, has predictability and a narrow focus diminished our clout?
• Have we adapted our modi operandi to the rapidly changing context – where the political climate changes like the barometric pressure?
• Are we utilizing 21st century communications media or are we stuck in the 1960s?
I am pleased to report that the GAMC (the word “Mission” was inserted earlier this year) has been asking those questions. When members gather September 23-25, they will consider some recommendations coming from consultant Eileen Lindner, the connectional presbyter of the Presbytery of Palisades in New Jersey, as reported in last week’s Outlook (p. 6).
This week’s Outlook offers further input from economists Mark Isaac and Doug Norton (pp. 11-13).
One thing I will urge of the GAMC: Don’t close the doors.
One can make the case that some of the public policy positions have been misguided. One can claim that office staff members have not exercised good stewardship. Nevertheless, we Presbyterians can’t withdraw from the public square. Too many decisions made in D.C. impact too many people for good or for ill. To treat such legislative actions apathetically – writing them off as “mere politics” – flunks the Golden Rule test.
Then again, I also would urge of the GAMC: Don’t close your ears.
Some of the antagonism against the office has come from folks misinterpreting the actions taken and positions motivating those actions. Most advocacy by the Washington Office has been directed by elder commissioners and minister commissioners to recent General Assemblies through the proper channels of decision-making. Then again, the case can be made that some advocacy has extended beyond clear GA mandates. Worse, some GA mandates have been disregarded — mostly, it seems, those positions that cut across the grain of some WO staff. Folks back home have good reason to rail against such failings, and the GAMC needs to listen to them.
Certainly the office must work with the GAMC and the policy advisory committees of the GA to educate the church. Not indoctrinate, but educate. Most folks in the pews can more easily cite the positions of Keith Olbermann or Sean Hannity than those of Micah or Jeremiah. Many read George Will or Maureen Dowd more often than they read Matthew or Luke. The same may be true for the Washington Office staff, too. A church educating itself in the Scriptures – especially as God’s word aims to guide our service in the world – could harmonize our voices to speak prophetically together.
Thorough reporting and accountability for the WO staff is needed. Frankly, those serving there will be happy to have others paying attention to their work; they have expressed a readiness to welcome an oversight committee or some other mechanism for guiding their efforts. The whole church will benefit from such a strengthened connectionalism.
Finally I would echo the words of Isaac and Norton. The ultimate key to producing an effective public witness both in Washington, D.C., and back home wherever we are is to engage in more sacrificial giving for social justice concerns. The effectiveness of any witness nationally, the impact of justice advocacy anywhere, the acts of doing to others as we would have done to us – feeding, providing shelter, accessing medical care, protecting from the elements – require selfless generosity on our part. And that requires us to cooperate with the sanctifying transformation the Holy Spirit is working in our individual lives and congregational relationships.
If we will cooperate with the Spirit where we are, the GAMC will be able to keep the office open, they’ll be inclined to listen better, and the Washington Office staff members are most likely to cooperate where they are.
— JHH
