Transparency is essential to accountability and organizational trust. Transparency in governance includes the disclosure of how monies are spent and from what sources. The people not only have a right to know how the money they are giving is being spent but whether or not it is being spent on things that they value. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has historically been very opaque when it comes to actual line item spending which lead not only to speculation but mistrust. The 2014 General Assembly called for greater transparency and now we know how 2015 dollars were actually spent by the PCUSA.
Monies are accounted for as restricted and unrestricted. When a person drops a dollar in the offering plate it is an unrestricted gift to their local church. Those gifts are stewarded by the session who may or may not choose to send the unrestricted gifts “up” the proverbial ladder to the presbytery, synod and/or General Assembly. Each level of governance receives both restricted and unrestricted gifts from individuals, churches and earnings from endowments established through the legacy giving of former members.
For years, conservatives in the Presbyterian Church (USA) have withheld or redirected unrestricted funds from the PCUSA, in the hope of affecting change in a denomination’s liberal advocacy. Both per-capita funds and shared mission support have been redirected by some sessions to Christian organizations that align more closely with the particular church’s theological and Biblical beliefs.
Per capita and shared mission support are both voluntary gifts from sessions to higher governing bodies and the withholding session is required to document its concerns and remedies that would result in the restoration of giving. Particular programs of the PCUSA tend to be listed frequently in such communications as causes of concern, including the partisan political advocacy of the PCUSA’s Office of Public Witness (formerly the Washington Office) and the often inflammatory theologically divisive recommendations and reports from the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy.
A report distributed Wednesday (4/27/16) at the Presbyterian Mission Agency Board’s (PMAB) meeting in Louisville, show that, as alleged by conservatives who chose to withhold their funds from such uses, those and other controversial programs are being funded with unrestricted funds.
Unrestricted vs. Restricted
The PCUCSA’s unrestricted funds are monies that the PMAB receives without restrictions made by the donors, and therefore can be spent however the board directs.
The PMAB states that unrestricted funds “demonstrate our connection as Presbyterians and provides resources for the church to be a collective witness for Christ.”
Those funds have been on the decline for years — resulting in several staff lay-offs at the denomination’s headquarters, missionaries being brought home from the mission field and ministry programs being either being cut, or staff and resources being drastically reduced.
In 2015, the unrestricted funds accounted for 18 percent of the PMAB’s funding. Four percent of the PMAB’s funding comes from per-capita funds, while the remaining 78 percent is restricted funding — or monies where the donor specifies exactly how they can be spent. (The majority of per capita goes to fund the Office of the General Assembly which is distinct from the PMAB and not reflected in this report.)
When people want to support a specific ministry or effort of the denomination, they give to that ministry directly. The PMAB’s restricted funds, which the PMAB say “celebrate the particular commitments to missions made by members and congregations as God calls them,” are also declining.
Restricted funds come from directed mission support, churchwide special offerings, special appeals, endowments, investments and dividends, and events, services and sales.
How the money was spent in 2015
Once the money is collected, the PMAB allocates spending of both restricted and unrestricted funds.
According to 2015 actual figures,
- 95 percent ($497,546) of the $521,900 budget for the Office of Public Witness came from unrestricted funds, while only five percent or $24,353 came from gifts specifically directed to those efforts.
- 85 percent ( $211,722) of the $221,722 budget for the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy came from unrestricted funds, and 15 percent — or $32,331 — was from restricted funds.
- 91 percent ($115,846) of the $127,487 budget for Gender and Racial Justice, which assists the PCUSA in its commitment to become an open, inclusive and racially just church, was funded by unrestricted funds, nine percent — $11,641 — was donor defined or restricted.
- 77 percent ($233,045) of the $301,605 budget for the Presbyterian Ministry of the United Nations, which provides information, advocacy and witness with UN agencies in accordance with GA policies, was unrestricted. Twenty-three percent ($68,559) was restricted.
- 89 percent ($248,245) of the $277,415 budget for Intercultural Ministries, which equips and connects leaders through intercultural events, was unrestricted; and $29,170 was restricted.
88 percent ($532,823) of the $607,473 budget for Racial Ethnic and New Immigrant Ministries Congregational Support, which supports new immigrant worshiping communities and encourage racial and cultural diversity in the church, was unrestricted; and 12 percent or $74,650 was unrestricted.- 79 percent ($156,992) of the $198,442 budget for Women’s Leadership Development and Young Women’s Ministries, which provides leadership development opportunities for women and equips young adult women for service in the PCUSA, came from unrestricted funds; and 21 percent or $41,450 came from restricted.
Ministry areas that receive directed gifts are now funded exclusively with those restricted dollars. Which means that the PMAB is not allocating any unrestricted funds to the ministries that receive the greatest financial support from individuals and congregations. They are instead choosing to continue to fund ministries that are not financially supported by the giving of Presbyterians in the pews. This financial disclosure will likely result in the targeted financial appeals of every ministry area in direct competition for limited and decreasing congregational support.
The entire financial disclosure document distributed to the PMAB can be found here.
7 Comments. Leave new
I can sure see why the louisville sluggers wanted this kept from the average pcusa member, now it’s all going to be after this GA “in your face”. At least it’s out in the light for all to see, and it will also make alot of decisions about staying in the pcusa much easier.
“Transparency is essential to accountability and organizational trust. Transparency in governance includes the disclosure of how monies are spent and from what sources. The people not only have a right to know how the money they are giving is being spent but whether or not it is being spent on things that they value.”
Indeed. Please tell the leadership at FPC Houston where millions of dollars have been spent in a vendetta commenced by only 23 families at the church after losing the vote to leave the denomination. None of these people have been disclosed to the congregation, yet general funds were finally being spent on the litigation and will, undoubtedly, be spent on any “settlement” with the Presbytery.
One’s brain can run out the ears when trying to fathom the byzantine and opaque way the PCUSA does it business. And as in PCUSA fashion, programs and activities never really die, they go into Zombie mode, propped up by study commissions and sub committee studies which take years to play out. Zombie is indeed a correct term as applied to the PMA, as in their own financial disclosures there is indeed a limit to dead people’s money and unrestricted giving, either through the Foundation or yearly appropriations.
I have always felt the PCUSA could run its bank accounts to zero and its churches empty. What will continue by hook or crook would be three entities, the UN office, DC office of social witness, and the whole social witness apparatus out of Louisville, they will never die, so Zombie, so PCUSA.
Counselor, it’s funny you bring up First Pres. Houston. When members of that church came onto the Layman to tell us all what the presbytery did to try to manipulate the process, I guess the thought of the presbytery losing one of their cash cow churches was just too much, much like MDPC, keep changing the rules during the game.
I hope the presbytery enjoys all the ill gotten gains. My suggestion, buy fans, REALLY big fans to help the presbytery members stay cool, because unless they repent of their greed and slothfulness, where they may wind up in that day in which there’s no sunset and no dawning, this will seem like the “good ol’ days” because of all the heat.
What is “funny” is that the FPC members to whom you refer cried “foul” and suggested that the Presbytery tried to “manipulate the process” when it was the other way around. That is why they were so astounded when they lost the vote to leave the denomination again, fair and square.
Meanwhile, James H., I will pray that this hatred and bitterness that seems to consume you will be, instead, overwhelmed by the love of Christ.
Counselor, I’m not hateful or bitter, but I will call you out when your ilk acts in bad faith just like with Memorial Drive Pres. Your side is so consumed in taking property that the presbytery NEVER paid for, or to extract as much money as you can through blackmail and manipulation, and yet you call yourselves Christians. I’m so tired of all you revisionist acting like the victims when your side are the ones who covet other churches property and money to pad payrolls of prebyteries who won’t use the money or VERY little of it for missions, but to insure income for a bunch church bureaucrats who are more interested in their futures than they are the spreading of the Gospel.
If you really want to know Counselor why people who read and respond here on the Layman seem so upset, take a hard look in the mirror, and ask yourself was all this revisionist theology worth it? You know the answer, as long as your side can blackmail churces for property and money, it probably was.
This addresses only a part of the problem. Years ago the denomination issued an emergency request for donations for Haiti relief. I made a direct donation to the PCUSA. They collected a sizable amount of money but years later, much of it had not been used for that purpose. When I inquired as to why they said they were holding back on its use to build a pool of money for any future emergency that might arise. Maintaining a pool of money for future emergencies may be a good idea but these donations were specifically donated to go to Haiti. I later learned that some of these funds were transferred to fund some General Assembly purposes that had nothing to do with any emergency of any country.