1. When I served on GSC I remember that some proposals that came to that committee were put aside for lack of an attached succinct preview of financial impact and implications. I am not clear whether that is a requirement for GS recommendations. At any rate, how did that glaring omission slip by GSC? Is it fully (and transparently) explicated elsewhere? Would that count?
And if it is required of GS, is not this lacuna grounds for referral?
2. I call the proposal a re-missionalizing, because it completely ignores any input from our present or past designated missionaries, as far as I can tell from the document itself and the supplemental list in the GS handbook of those those who were consulted.
The Board of Deacons of the congregation I serve is puzzled by the idea that only now we realize that we apparently have to have a mission. As one Deacons said, ‘Do they mean to say that our efforts for all these many years are insignificant?’, ‘What do they think we have been doing and continues to do; or that we already are a mission in the midst of our culture?’, ‘Where is the evidence that the centralized management of our mission funds through the denomination is more efficient or successful than our other ventures through our other networking, congregational contacts and local cooperative venues?’ Where are the data that show that our (significant) regional synod assessment could be better spent through a distribution of a differently sized assembly? Our RS (NY) included rural, ex-urban, sub-urban and urban congregations. How exactly would a newly configured constellation or grouping benefit or unite all of us better in living out our Call? Visions of arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic comes to mind.