Mission Coordination Committee: New names; same old causes
By James D. Berkley, The Layman, Posted Wednesday, July 11, 2012
PITTSBURGH, Pa. — From a Mission Coordination Committee from which much change was asked, very little change was granted by the 220th General Assembly.
The General Assembly Council — wait, scratch that. The General Assembly Mission Council, renamed only three years ago, was granted yet another name change. It actually received two new names. Where once the General Assembly Council worked mainly to manage operations between General Assemblies, the General Assembly Mission Council has increasingly taken on an identity of its own, apart from doing the General Assembly’s bidding. Recently, it has seemed as likely to send business to the General Assembly as it is to follow through on what the General Assembly directs it to do.
Now the General Assembly Mission Council will be known by two names: Presbyterian Mission Agency, for the staff apparatus in Louisville; and Presbyterian Mission Agency Board, for the elected representatives who provide the direction. This rapid succession of names comes from denominational leadership structure searching to “clarify its identity.”
On July 6, following routine handling of several housekeeping issues, the plenary tackled a couple of issues that generated controversy: a study of women and a proposal to change the special offerings status quo.
No study on the status of women
By a narrow vote, the committee had recommended that General Assembly approve a major Study on the Status of Women in the PCUSA. Impetus had come from the request of a task force on the status of women, and the request was for $127,000 for advisory and advocacy committees to work with other denominational entities to study compensation, decision making, and a number of other factors concerning women in leadership.
Interestingly, the task force had worked since General Assembly in 2008 to arrive at various observations, and then it requested yet another task force to do the hard analysis of data from the Presbyterian Panel, compensation reports and other sources. It is not unusual for a task force to lead to another task force, or at least an extension of the existing task force’s term and duties. But this was an expensive request.
During the assembly’s debate, Jodi Craiglow, a commissioner from Oxford, Ohio, asked for clarity about the financial costs, including “How precisely will the money be spent?” Apparently it will pay for organizing the study and “many meetings.” Tara Thompson asked a follow-up question: “I want to confirm that the cost is $127,000 over six years, and who would use this report?” Yes, it was that cost, and about use, the answer was vague, because the proposal was vague. It remains unclear who would use the study, but still advocates hoped to have “all of this data in one place.”
Hope Italiano Lee, a teaching elder commissioner from Peace River Presbytery and recent candidate for vice-moderator, delivered a strong speech in opposition to the study: “This item almost failed in committee,” she noted. She is a female teaching elder, herself, and she realized that “especially for women clergy, some things are not right, not fair. But to spend $127,000 for a study where the only prescribed outlet might be a web page link, it just seems excessive.”
Kate Murphy, a teaching elder commissioner from Charlotte Presbytery capped the debate by declaring: “I don’t want to spend $127,000 on research. I want to spend it on how to reach out to make disciples of Jesus Christ — the one thing we have not talked about on the floor of General Assembly!”
By a voice vote, the item failed to be approved, against the committee recommendation. Women will not be studied — at least not by Presbyterians. This will save congregations about 6 cents per member in per capita costs.
Special offerings status quo
“Come weal or woe, our status is quo” could be the motto of the General Assembly concerning dwindling special offerings. Although the income from special offerings has dropped 25 percent in the last 11 years and although a task force had worked for four years to bring some fresh recommendations, there were a lot of oxen gored by the task force’s conclusions, and special interest groups were up in alarm.
In particular, various ministries that had received a given cut of specific offerings — such as peacemaking, racial-ethnic ministries, women’s ministries, and disaster assistance — were getting cut out of the receipts, in order for the General Assembly Mission Council to designate the receipts more generally to various works, especially global mission. Whenever a guaranteed — even if shrinking — revenue stream is in jeopardy, the constituents of that ministry will protest.
Plenary first received from the Mission Coordination Committee a resolution much amended from the report given by the Special Offerings Task Force. This resolution retained four special offerings, but tinkered with what programs would be recipients. A minority report was also considered, and various amendments and amendments to amendments complicated the process.
Thomas Hawkins, commissioner from Southeastern Illinois, presented the minority report. “We want to strengthen the offerings for future generations,” he explained, “but it will take substantial changes for this to happen. We cannot tinker around the edges … Of the roughly 10,000 congregations, only 1,300 received all four offerings … Our recommendations seek to reverse this trend by being creative, imaginative and collaborative as we move forward.”
The minority report said of the majority report: “The majority recommends setting a goal to raise $20 million dollars in annual Special Receipts by 2020, then reestablishes the pattern of offerings that has declined 25 percent in the last 11 years, and 17 percent in the last four years. Setting goals without providing strategies for success is futile.”
The main motion would eventually realign the offerings and recipients, but not immediately. “It is important to maintain existing programs, percentages and designees in the One Great Hour of Sharing, the Christmas Joy Offering, and the Pentecost Offering and the Peacemaking Offering,” a comment reads. “The 220th General Assembly (2012) recommends that the current distribution patterns be maintained for the next funding cycle.”
In the debate, commissioners learned that “the cost of special offerings is about $400,000, according to Sam Mott, director of special offerings. He also assured commissioners that “the financial implications will fund themselves within the second year of the program.” That $400,000 of overhead costs comes off the top of the receipts, and what remains goes to fund the causes the offerings benefit.
When the dust settled from the debate, the motion from the committee received about 70 percent of the vote, compared to 24 percent for the substitute motion from the committee minority. That means that for now, the four special offerings will benefit the same causes they have in past years, despite a flagging response from givers.