Shared, designated mission giving get ‘equal worth’ under new system
By Patrick Jean, The Layman Online, September 28, 2007
LOUISVILLE, Ky. – A new system that “reserves the equal worth of both shared and designated mission giving” within the Presbyterian Church (USA) has been approved by the denomination’s General Assembly Council.
The Mission Funding Task Force was formed by the GAC after the 216th General Assembly authorized the council to develop and implement a new mission-funding system for the PCUSA. Its specific charge was “to develop a multi-dimensional funding design for the mission, program and administration of the whole church, built upon relationships among sessions, presbyteries, synods and the General Assembly.”
The task force presented a draft of its recommendations to the GAC at its March meeting in Louisville. The draft report called for a funding system that identifies shared and designated mission giving as being “of equal worth.”
GAC members acted quickly on the last day of their Sept. 18-21 meeting, taking approximately 20 minutes to approve all seven action items of the task force’s final report.
Stewardship triggers most debate
It was the fifth item, which addresses stewardship, that triggered the most debate. It reads:
“We propose that the General Assembly Council broaden its focus on stewardship by changing the name and orientation of the Shared Support Committee to become the council’s fifth goal area committee, ‘Stewardship and Shared Support.’ All matters of stewardship relating to the General Assembly Council will be coordinated by this goal area committee.”
The task force’s report provides further background in arguing for the change. “Currently there are four goal area committees within the General Assembly Council: Evangelism and Witness; Justice and Compassion; Spirituality and Discipleship; and Leadership and Vocation,” it states. “In addition, a fifth committee is charged with matters of shared support (including shared services, communication and funds development.) This change seeks recognition, among our most visible goals, that stewardship is central to our calling as Christians and to our organizational life as the General Assembly Council of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
“This change would not require any additional elected members, or a reduction in the number of members currently assigned to each goal area committee,” the report states. “Instead, it would move the council from a four-goal area committee plus one support committee to a five-goal area committee structure. In the Mission Work Plan, work would be designed to support all five of the goal areas, giving the church a broader focus on the centrality of stewardship in all we do.”
“The actual recommendation doesn’t make a lot of sense. … There’s nothing about stewardship in there,” said Zane K. Buxton, a corresponding member of the GAC from the Synod of the Rocky Mountains. “It seems to me that the areas related to encouraging stewardship ought not to be mingled with shared support simply because it’s about money. We really need to think about what it is we’re trying to do when we’re talking about stewardship. And I think this is the wrong place to lodge stewardship.”
Task force member Linda W. Toth disagreed. The task force worked with funds development and extended agencies, she said, and “our goal and communication: We are not just the ones who count the money and suggest allocations. We talk about the way in which it is used, the way in which we share the resources that we have, the way the different committees work together with the resources of the General Assembly. And that does not mean just dollar figures.”
GAC member Steven N. Benz of the Synod of Living Waters spoke against the action item. “Stewardship is about much, much more than money. Stewardship is about leadership and vocation. It is about discipleship and the background rationales. It even talks about the exercise of discipleship, which is one of our goal area committees,” he said.
“I would suggest to us that stewardship overarches everything we do as a General Assembly Council, or whatever we’re going to be renamed,” Benz said. “We must, yes, absolutely, find a way to highlight stewardship of not only our financial resources, but of our physical resources as well. But we must find a way to do that that does not segregate it into one goal area committee.”
GAC member Michael W. Kruse of the Synod of Mid-America also spoke against the action item. “Stewardship is a broader expression of what we’re about,” he said. “One of the things I heard as we talked with the middle governing body folks [earlier in the week] is they said, ‘Where is stewardship in what you’re doing?’ They don’t see that word ‘stewardship,’ which indicates something very important and valuable for them.”
“And I think in terms of how we use the church’s resources and the idea that mission support is supposed to be covering a broader picture of how we do our work … that name ‘stewardship’ needs to exist somewhere in our nomenclature,” Kruse said. “Otherwise, as we communicate out to the church, they don’t believe that we’re doing stewardship.”
But GAC member Mary Lynn Walters of Grand Canyon Presbytery spoke in favor of the action item. “This, to me, is symbolic of the fact that we are no longer silenced,” she said. “Stewardship will be affected in every area. And merely calling it in one area does not stop us from working it in other areas,” she said.
Task force chairman Conrad M. Rocha then made an argument for the action item’s passage. “Stewardship is basic to everything we do. Discipleship is basic to everything we do,” he said. “But we don’t have discipleship in every dominion. It’s lodged in one place. That doesn’t mean it’s excluded from the others. The same would hold true here. It would mean stewardship and mission support, which supports us all but it doesn’t mean it’s only lodged there.”
“The other thing is that in the sense of having good stewardship, it doesn’t make sense as we thought it might have of having an additional goal area,” Rocha said. “Then we’re talking very good stewardship, given the size of our council it has come to. So we thought, ‘This is a good way to actually begin to show good stewardship.’ … We’re going to lift up, raise up the importance of this issue without overextending our power and resources.”
The action item was approved on a voice vote.
No debate on first two items
The first action item, which addresses the system of giving, was approved on a voice vote without debate. It reads:
1. “We propose that the General Assembly Council develop a system of giving which reserves the equal worth of both shared and designated mission giving as faithful ways to support Christ’s mission. There are two components of mission support:
- “Funding for General Mission (Shared Mission Giving) – gifts with no restrictions, for the overall support of the adopted budgets of a session, presbytery, synod or the General Assembly.
- “Funding for Specific Mission (Designated Mission Giving) – gifts, with restrictions, for use within the adopted budgets of a session, presbytery, synod or the General Assembly.
2. “We propose that the General Assembly Council gradually transition the two current forms of designated mission giving, Direct Mission Support and Extra Commitment Opportunities, into ‘Funding for Specific Mission’ over a five-year period beginning in 2009.”
The second action item, which calls for a season of interpretation of the new system, also was approved by voice vote without debate. It reads:
“We propose that the General Assembly Council recommend that the General Assembly set aside a period of time each year, beginning in 2009, for the church to covenant to interpret and promote its work in the context of the mission programs of the local, regional and national governing bodies of the PC(USA). During this season of interpretation, the stories of our participation in the Realm (Kingdom) of God would be presented as an integrated whole with international, national, regional and local missions all working together to the glory of God.”
Communications, funds development addressed at length
The third action item, which addresses communications and funds development, was approved vocally, with the removal of one sub-item triggering minor debate. The lengthy item reads:
1. “We propose that General Assembly Council direct the Communications and Funds Development ministry area to be the lead office in implementing the season of interpretation, and that the General Assembly Council allocate sufficient personnel and budget resources to:
- “Develop, produce and distribute promotional materials.
- “Coordinate the sharing of mission stories with governing bodies and support their efforts at promotion and celebration.
- “Coordinate the dates for the season of interpretation, paying special attention to the flow of the Christian calendar and the needs of the denomination.
2. “We propose that the General Assembly Council adopt these priorities for funds development work within the Communications and Funds Development ministry area, in its role as a coordinating center for providing promotion, support, training, interpretation, communication and evaluation functions; and that implementation of these priorities be reviewed by the appropriate General Assembly Council committee.
- A. “Create and coordinate mission interpretation and stewardship resources for congregations and presbyteries to use in:
- 1. “Cultivating mission development and funding.
- 2. “Learning how to ask for mission funding support.
- 3. “Encouraging giving to mission by individuals and congregations.
- B. “Establish processes to coordinate promotion and interpretation for mission programs in partnership with governing bodies and other programs of the PCUSA.
- C. “Establish a central common database of membership information for us by all governing bodies, requesting congregations through individual churches’ clerks of session to provide periodic updates, honoring the connectional nature of PCUSA while respecting the privacy of each individual member.” (This sub-item was removed.)
- D. “Promote funds development efforts and opportunities for mission in governing bodies, through means such as specific appeals, major campaigns, large gifts, planned/deferred gifts and for both designated and undesignated giving.
- E. “Encourage and assist middle governing bodies and sessions in interpreting the work and mission of the PCUSA, through its General Assembly Council, by putting a ‘face’ on mission and helping to share the stories of Presbyterian mission throughout the whole church through related networks.
- F. “Encourage work with national and international network partners, such as the Validated Mission Support Groups and others.
- G. “Develop, using national and ecumenical research, and disseminate proven techniques and guidelines for effective mission funds support.
- H. “Design, implement and monitor effective processes of funds transfer, thanking donors and coordinating donor data at the General Assembly level.
- I. “Create materials that interpret mission both through the General Assembly Council and across the denomination.
- J. “Integrate lessons learned from the recent Joining Hearts and Hands campaign into an ongoing and effective long-term funds development effort throughout the church.
- K. “Publish resource materials, easily accessible to donors and governing bodies, and ensure that such materials are sensitive to a variety of cultures that are part of our church and are available in a variety of languages.
- L. “Maintain close working relationship with staff from the Theology Worship and Education program area, on a daily basis (possibly through an embedded staff person), so that programs demonstrate sound theological principles.
- M. “Coordinate, schedule and evaluate special offerings, capital campaigns and other forms of designated giving in partnership with other agencies and entities of the church, including affiliated organizations with historical ties to mission and mission funding in the PCUSA.
- N. “Provide constituency services related to stewardship and mission funding, as necessary, in partnership with middle governing bodies.
3. “We propose that the General Assembly Council direct the Communications and Funds Development ministry area to create, promote and protect a consistent brand identity for the mission agency of the General Assembly with implementation to begin in 2009, reducing redundancy and addressing the needs of various targeted audiences, and to report back to the appropriate General Assembly Council committee.”
Other items sail through
The fourth action item, which calls for a shared system of administration and accountability, was approved by silent acclamation without debate. It reads:
- 1. “We propose that the General Assembly Council direct the Communications and Funds Development ministry area, in collaboration and consultation with the Shared Services ministry area, to ensuring that the principles of accountability, accessibility and information management (including processes and avenues for the free exchange of information) be incorporated into the administration and oversight of the mission funding system of the church.
- 2. “We propose that the General Assembly Council request the Office of the General Assembly to collect statistical data of synods and presbyteries in the same manner that they collect data from sessions, and that it, too, be published.
- 3. “We propose that the system of giving developed by the General Assembly Council fairly and accurately allocate all costs associated with individual projects in the General Assembly mission budget, including the costs associated with the systems necessary for the support, promotion and accountability of each item; and that the results of this system be communicated to the church as part of the General Assembly Council’s mission interpretation. This transition will be gradually phased in over a five-year period, beginning in 2009.
- 4. “We propose that the General Assembly Council recommend the amendment of Appendix A of the Organization for Mission as set forth in Attachment H to the 218th General Assembly (2008).”
The sixth action item, which addresses per capita, also was approved by silent acclamation without debate. It reads:
“We propose that the General Assembly Council reactivate the General Assembly Council/Committee on the Office of the General Assembly per-capita table for the purpose of reviewing and evaluating the mission and work covered by the per-capita budget and the general mission budget to determine what work and ministry would best be accomplished in which budget.”
The seventh and final action item, which gives mission funding a motto, was approved on a voice vote without debate. It reads: