Jack Haberer, Outlook editorHaberer points out the disconnect that many Presbyterians feel with their national leadership, and questions whether a restructuring will fix that and many other perceived shortcomings of the general Assembly Council.
"If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If it’s broke, restructure it.
Presbyterians in the pews may be excused for rolling their eyes over reports that the General Assembly Council is restructuring itself. Many will tell you that the GAC is broke—functionally, if not financially. Many wonder if it can be rebuilt at all. Some think it’s not worth the effort.
Such a state of affairs is tragic, to say the least. Organized to implement the directives of the General Assemblies to facilitate the fulfillment of Christ’s commission, the GAC is endowed with a high purpose, a broad authority, and huge resources...."
I'll reserve judgement until I know more about what is involved, but a larger GAC could potentially represent more constituencies, but be so cumbersome and expensive that its size would end up a liability. On the other hand, the "leaner, more streamlined version" could end up being far more susceptible to shifts in power that may not represent the wider PC(USA).
Mike Kruse of The Kruse Kronicle has posted a response to Haberer's editorial.
Mike is an elder and a member of GAC and has some answers to the questions Jack Haberer posed.
Technorati tags: Presbyterian, polity