The Presbyterian News Service report, which was not available until we had finished preparing this comment, states:

In all 73.5 positions were eliminated. Twelve were vacant and 12 employees accepted voluntary separation offers in recent weeks. The staff reduction amounts to 13 percent, from roughly 390 employees to 340. Staff cuts occurred across the GAMC — 24.5 in Mission, 11.5 in Shared Services, 8 in Communications and Funds Development and five in the Executive Director’s office.

Here are the first to arrive -- and more are likely to turn up soon. 

I think it was Mitch Trigger who mentioned non-geographic presbyteries in his comment.  Amen! Why not an economic justice presbytery, earth justice presbytery, gender justice presbytery, LGBT justice presbytery?  Congregations need to break out of the present presbytery/denomination structure and work with whomever God leads them to.

About GAMC salaries

Received 5-15-10

Just think!  This could be provided across the board in church salaries too  The church that pays its pastor $150,000.00 could be required to, after balancing for cost of living, give some of that money to the presbytery to help pay the salaries of pastors in struggling churches.

I know, I’m such a radical. 

Bob Campbell

From Mitch Trigger, PVJ Secretary/Communicator, on May 15, 2010

There are so many aspects of this latest meeting and the "spin" that has come out of the Louisville office that are unsettling that I hardly know where to begin...

In the latest PNS story about the re-organization of mission, there is this paragraph about the research that was done:

The research 'found passion among Presbyterians for a wide variety of mission activities,' Valentine said. 'At the same time, it found a lack of consensus around any of them as being the most important. Instead, we are called to balance numerous functions on which the church has asked us to lead.'

I guess that's a matter of interpretation. I looked at the graph that they brought to the GAMC with the research, and yes, there was support for a wide range of interests, but social justice got very strong support. Interestingly enough, the weakest support was from pastors - they were more interested in evangelism, church development, and international mission support. It's strange that except for pastors, the respondents to the research had a higher support for social justice than they did for international mission support and yet international mission support is the area that will see an increase in its percentage of the GAMC budget for the next 2 years.

I can't believe this but I'm starting to sound like those elements of our church that continually complain that we have allowed a minority of the church to control our witness and focus.

Staff are being eliminated and the focus of areas such as Youth and Young Adult Ministries are being "refocused" to congregational support, rather than doing larger programming. So what will we be left with when we call Louisville for support? People to mail out resources to us? We're losing people who have been deeply involved in important areas and we won't be reclaiming them any time soon.

If you haven't already seen it, Moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow's latest comments about his experience at GAMC are a challenge.  [For a bit of that blog, scroll down to the next box.]

I'm beginning to think that denominational ties DON'T mean very much and that it MIGHT be better for churches to connect with each other based on their understanding of how churches are supposed to express God's love for the world. That's what is being asked for with the overture to allow creation of non-geographic presbyteries. Our denominational identity seems to have been watered down to simply a form of government, with little consideration for our historic support of social justice and care for "the underdog." Too many Presbyterians know too little about our history and our place at the vanguard of progressive viewpoints.

Moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow has offered some very provocative thoughts in response to the actions of the GAMC. His title says at lot: “Letting go of institutional nostalgia?”

Here’s part of his blog:

This past week I took part in a series of meetings that lead to the laying off of many people in the national offices of the denomination to which I belong, the Presbyterian Church (USA). While the situation leading up to these decisions and the process itself have been complicated, it is painfully clear that this has been a difficult time for many people on many levels. ...

As I was sitting through this meeting and have been mulling this over, I am again bolstered in my belief that we are in a time of transition like we have never known. At levels of society from civic groups to churches to government it does not take a bunch of studies for us to know that if we are going to truly thrive into the future, the ways in which we engage the world and one another have got to change. ...

First what we must do is ask ourselves soul searching questions about our very existence. What would happen if we simply let things go? And I am not talking about letting go in some metaphorical or ethereal sense, but really letting go. Let go of the security of our structures, the confines of our finances and the stifling nature of wanting to survive. What is the worst that can happen? The worst thing that could happen is that we discover - or realize - that for the most part, we would not be missed. This would be sad, of course, but at least we would know and would be given permission to stop. And then . . . now this is where life could get really interesting. No longer being fueled by our own delusions of grandeur, the best thing that could happen is that we are given permission to focus all of our energy and expertise towards discovering what may be, rather than propping up and dressing up what was. With a sense of possibility, grounded and formed by where we have been, we take on the privilege and challenge of birthing new life and we collectively become transformed.

From the Rev. Jake Young, former president of the Witherspoon Society, on May 14, 2010

In all our denomination’s communications about mission, I am struck by the utter lack of the term: "Justice." The notion is there – sort of – and, indeed, it is practiced by many mission co-workers such as Hunter Farrell (now the director of Presbyterian World Mission), who during his service in Peru engaged in serious justice work. But why don't we name it? Has it become – in some strange discursive turning-of-the-tables – politically incorrect? I need not remind you all that there are plenty of scriptural references to "justice" (e.g. most notably Micah 6:8).

And so I’d like to ask our current Moderator, "Does social justice work have any place in the emerging, technologically sophisticated church? Why don't you ever mention justice?"

Even at the January 2008 World Mission summit in Dallas, where I represented one of PVJ's predecessor groups, it was like pulling teeth to get people to discuss the biblical notion of justice and how it is a clear part of our calling from our Creator.

But I thank all of you in PVJ for putting the "J" word in the very name of our organization and please, please continue to beat the drums of Justice for the Presbyterian Church and, more importantly, for all creation.

Yours in seeking justice,

Received 5-14-10

Although previously a part of worldwide mission myself, I have been distressed by the monthly mailings from the World Mission Program Area I have received and the money spent on slick publications and postage. It appears to me that the PC(USA) has abandoned social, economic, racial and gender justice issues in favor of sending one more mission worker abroad. Do we not have any staff working in these areas?