It was a relatively small item. As part of the revision to the Standing Rules, the 226th General Assembly eliminated the category of Missionary Advisory Delegates (MADs). Missionaries attended General Assembly as members of foreign synods in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and since at least the 1950s there was a category of “overseas advisory delegates.” These became “MADs” after the 1983 reunion of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. (PCUS) and the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (UPCUSA). There have been eight of us at each General Assembly for the last 40 years: two come from each of the four regions. In recent years, World Mission has chosen the delegates, although in the past sometimes they were elected by colleagues. In a sense, the assembly’s decision ends a tradition dating back 150 years or more.
The main rationales for eliminating MADs centered around the conflict of interest that MADs face as employees of the Presbyterian Mission Agency (PMA) and the desire to change how mission and global voices are represented at the assembly. Instead of MADs, the assembly created the “Partner Advisory Delegate” category that includes up to 15 Ecumenical Advisory Delegates, as before, and adds five new “Mission Partner Delegates,” probably from U.S. or international non-profits.
At this General assembly, the MADs included Joshua Heikkila, Dori Hjalmarson, Jieun Han, Mark Hare, Noah Park, Douglas Tilton, Ryan White, and me. Like most of our group, I felt ambivalent about the change. Going into General Assembly, we did not know this would be on the agenda. It came out of a special committee tasked with revising GA standing rules and then was discussed in the General Assembly Procedures Committee, where MADs were first reinserted and then removed.
I wish the Special Committee on the Standing Rules or the GA Procedures Committee had met with mission co-workers or that our senior leadership had discussed this with us, but process is never perfect.
I wish the Special Committee on the Standing Rules or the GA Procedures Committee had met with mission co-workers or that our senior leadership had discussed this with us, but process is never perfect. We sympathize with the core problem. We are employees of the denomination and were the only employees given voice and vote.
In fairness, there are some differences. Past assemblies commissioned us; we have a different handbook than other PMA employees; and we are also accountable to other partners (for instance, I was accountable to the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan and Taiwan Theological Seminary). We also think that we contributed unique perspectives. One of my colleagues works with multiple partners in East Asia; she has a different perspective on East Asian relationships than ecumenical delegates who usually represent one denomination, and she also understands PC(USA)’s positions and traditions. Several MADs translated from Korean or Spanish and hosted guests at this assembly; others offered updates on crises in places like Iran or the Caribbean. We all regularly visit congregations in our country of service and in the U.S. Still, we understand that there are many advisory voices that have not been heard and might better serve the assembly. We also realize that we are now a small slice of the workers serving in PC(USA). Prior MADs represented hundreds of coworkers, but that is no longer true.

For me, this General Assembly showed the transformation that has taken place in the PC(USA) World Mission program. I celebrated 15 years as a mission co-worker at this GA (having begun July 1, 2009). When I started, the PC(USA) annual calendar stated that “314 missionaries were serving in approximately 60 countries.” This included 205 mission co-workers and 67 young adult volunteers (YAVs) as well as some other types of volunteers. Now there are 63 mission co-workers, with a handful slated to end service in coming months, and around 15 YAVs. In 15 years, those formally in mission service have declined by 75%. Our attrition rate has been roughly twice the rate of decline of Presbyterian membership over this time. Since 2020, there have been no new mission co-workers commissioned at General Assembly and we are also part of the denominational hiring freeze. When we leave, we know we are unlikely to be replaced.
In 15 years, those formally in mission service have declined by 75% … When we leave, we know we are unlikely to replaced.
To me, the loss of MADs directly echoes the decline of denominational mission in PC(USA). Lately, partners from other countries have expressed anxiety that the PC(USA) has “deprioritized,” “abandoned,” or left different countries. It is not intentional, I tell them, we are simply declining everywhere. Here too, the nature of mission reflects larger church trends. Many of our domestic partner churches dramatically cut international mission work years ago, and most of the international missionaries I know in Taiwan come from evangelical and fundamentalist traditions. More positively, this shift also reflects the global realignment of Christianity throughout the world. A majority of international mission workers in the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan now come from Asia: Korea, Japan and Thailand. I was grateful in Taiwan that PC(USA) had been able to have such an active role for so long, strengthened also by the role of Taiwanese American churches.
I am ending service this summer. Seven months ago, my daughter was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis, a rare genetic disease, and after trying for a while we realized we could not get her the treatment she needed. After the initial disorientation of the diagnosis, the call home became clear. In some ways, the transformation of PC(USA)’s international mission also feels like this to me. I feel a real sense of loss but also trust that God has a plan and that God is preparing a new direction.
The Presbyterian Outlook is committed to fostering faithful conversations by publishing a diversity of voices. The opinions expressed are the author’s and may or may not reflect the opinions and beliefs of the Outlook’s editorial staff or the Presbyterian Outlook Foundation. With every submission, we consider clarity, accuracy and respect. We also consider if the position adds additional perspectives to the discussion. You join the conversation here.