PCUSA campaign still has negative cash flow
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, August 18, 2006
The campaign to raise $40 million in an effort to pump new life into denomination’s slumping foreign missions and local churches has issued its 12th quarterly report with a similar bottom line.
From the beginning of the campaign in 2002 through June 2006, the PCUSA spent $3,108,613, while cash receipts have totaled $2,422,591. That’s a $686,022 deficit. Adding in two contributions totaling $262,587 to support mission personnel runs the cash-flow deficit to $948,609.
In their past presentations to the General Assembly and the General Assembly Council, the campaign’s officials have not mentioned the cash-flow deficit. They emphasize the pledges – which had accumulated to $25,585,431 at the end of June.
But the bulk of those pledges represents money presbyteries have said they will raise for new church development. Through June, according to campaign officials, the presbyteries have made pledges totaling $14.4 million. But that money is exempt from being used to help offset campaign expenses. Furthermore, the presbyteries have traditionally handled new church development through presbytery funds without the benefit of a national campaign.
Until 2006, campaign expenses were fully subsidized by Presbyterian contributions through the per-capita budget of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Now the campaign must be self-supporting – meaning what money does come in will have to be used to underwrite campaign costs. And most of the campaign expenses are deducted from the cash received for foreign missions.
The 2002 General Assembly authorized the campaign, first called Mission Initiative. Today, the campaign’s name is Joining Hearts & Hands. That same General Assembly approved a General Assembly Council recommendation that the number of foreign mission assignments be reduced from 330 to 300. Since then, the number of assignments has declined to 230.
The mission campaign was begun despite a report by a fund-raising consultant, Marts & Lundy, which cited the “concern within the church’s central office about the current controversies within the denomination and about the failure of the last campaign to achieve its goal. This was coupled with an underlying concern about ‘where the denomination was headed’ and whether the central governing body could inspire any focused motivation for such an undertaking, given the very real possibility of schism.”
The consultant’s report also concluded that the “larger church has been assailed by issues of human sexuality, Christology, abortion, decentralization of governance, local congregations perceiving their destinies in their own hands alone, a sensitivity to ‘colonialism’ within overseas missions, a re-imagining of God, a lack of clarity about ‘what the central church is for,’ and the absence of a unifying rallying point. In the midst of these challenges, the central church has suffered a loss of morale along with what might be called a serious ‘lack of faith’ in the denomination.”
Nonetheless, the consultants said, “Such turmoil, for the most part, has not stopped strong institutions from moving forward, albeit while making some adjustments and creating various means of reviving their fundamental mission.” They added, “Perhaps the fundamentals of mission, church growth, spiritual life in action and partnership can be used to move the denomination into a better era than the present one.”