Money in the Church: How do you know there's not enough?

By Dave Crittenden
Transitional Synod Executive        

I don’t get it. Why don’t we talk about money in the church?

More than half of our pastors don’t know what their members give to their church or where their members yearn to invest their time and money. Yet the same pastors often know everything else there is to know about those same members because it helps with pastoral care.

Sessions, presbyteries, synods, the Presbyterian Mission Council and the Office of the General Assembly don’t talk about money with each other and only talk about money themselves when it is absolutely necessary.

The whole system believes there isn’t enough money to do what we believe God has called us to do.

Didn’t we just finish talking about money? There was that budget thing and salaries. Wasn’t it only the expense side of the budget because we can’t imagine there being more income? Most everyone I know cut ministry because we are convinced there is not enough money and won’t be for the foreseeable future.

How do you know there is not enough? Did the leadership and the congregation look at all of their assets as ways to enable ministry? Did you ask those who give to you what they really want to do with their money – did you invite them to be partners in your mission? Did you ask members to financially join in your vision by inviting them to be long term collaborative partners? Did you show them how it could be done rather than outlining the reasons why failure is inevitable? Do you personally believe there is enough?

If we don’t talk about faith and money we won’t know if there is enough.

We yearn to follow Jesus. Jesus talked more about possessions and money than any other single topic. For the most part we stopped talking about it, what happened to us?

The people of the Exodus got manna every morning as part of God’s promise there would always to enough. They complained bitterly every day, but at least they talked about it. When there were more than five-thousand mouths to feed Jesus said feed them – even after hearing it was impossible with the resources available at first glance.

I choose to believe those gathered shared what they had brought, but intended to hide. They shared everything they first had decided to keep. God in Christ believes we will share what we intend to keep and that there will always, always be enough.

“Everyone should give whatever they have decided in their heart. They shouldn’t give with hesitation or because of pressure. God loves a cheerful giver. God has the power to provide you with more than enough of every kind of grace. That way, you will have everything you need always and in everything to provide more than enough for every kind of good work”  2 Corinthians 9:7-8 (Common English Bible).

 

Let me know if you want to talk about it.

Pertaining to synods

By Duane Sweep
Associate for Communications

Synodical, or pertaining to a synod. Synodical – the word itself – is an inside joke here.

These days, if you’re associated with a synod, or an associate or something for a synod, the ability to accept criticism is vital. Criticism of synods is that common.

You see, we’re in postmodern and perhaps post-Christendom times. But we know it’s a post-something time. We may have even reached a post-post time.

And being post-anything – at least for the synod – means it’s probably time we look at how we got here, what we’ve become and, at a minimum, where we are going and if we even belong.

First, we know how synods are perceived throughout the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). And it’s not good – if we accept without question the research results of the first Mid-Council Commission that submitted its report to the General Assembly last summer.

The report, often lauded for the research, includes a statement in the research addendum that says much about the findings. On page 112 there’s this line: “Because respondents self-selected, results may not be representative of the larger constituencies of which respondents are a part.”

Think about that for a minute. It’s not in the numbers; it’s in the selection.

Yes, the research was a monumental effort, but those who responded made the decision to participate. They were not part of an appropriately selected sample. Respondents self-selected.

Second, it might not be that synods are superfluous – at least not all the time and in all places. Of all the governing bodies – o.k., councils – presbyteries are necessary to be Presbyterian. If I’m not mistaken, presbyteries at some point made the decision to create synods.

So, I’m thinking it’s probably a good idea for presbyteries to play a really significant role in determining what synods should be doing and where synods end up going.

I don’t think it’s time for presbyteries to be heard; I think it’s time for presbyteries to really be the drivers.

The overture adopted earlier this month by the Presbytery of Prospect Hill is a step in that direction. The overture calls on the General Assembly to “take no action related to the functions of synods, the merger or redrawing of boundaries of synods, or the elimination of synods … without the consent of any synod and a majority of the presbyteries affected.”

The overture goes on to encourage presbyteries “to consider consultation with their synod and surrounding presbyteries … regarding what functions are appropriate within their respective synod.”

 
I think that’s kind of Presbyterian and maybe even synodical in way.

Implications of the 'gap'

by Phil Brown
Synod Executive

What are the implications of creating a “gap” in our structures by removing synods?

I’ve covered a lot of this ground in my initial and lengthy response to the commission. Now I’m selecting one or two at a time to highlight. In an earlier blog comment I pointed to one very significant implication contrary to the claims of the Mid-Council Commission folks who assert the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will be a more “flat, flexible and faithful organization.”  The tempting and faddish terminology is what we all want to hear.

My response, however, is to encourage folks to think critically about the proposal and such an assertion. Are synods the only, or at least the significant, reason we are not “flat, flexible and faithful” structures? How can such an outcome be sought, if that’s our purpose, without simultaneously examining the role and function of the General Assembly and its many agencies?

As I suggested in earlier comments, while the current proposal effectively removes a player from the field, it fails to level the field and expands the distance from home plate to the outfield.

Another implication of the “gap” not under discussion is really more foundational to the origins of the PC(USA). A (General) Synod was first formed in this country prior to the formation of a General Assembly. Their purpose was oversight and review of presbyteries when they began to expand in number. Similarly, when the church grew and multiple synods were developed, the General Assembly was formed. A key role, in fact a critical purpose, for the General Assembly was the review and oversight of the work of synods.

So, when the Commission introduces its work, including what it learned from the “listening” sessions, it asks, “What is not working?” “Synods” is the response.

At the same time the Commission never asks a question about the forms of “review or oversight” in which the synod engages with its presbyteries, much less how synods are reviewed by the General Assembly.

In brief, there’s the required reading of presbytery minutes. And there’s the participation in the search and review process for presbytery staff. There’re the meetings with councils and those groups charged to look at new visions and configurations for a new day in the life of presbyteries faced with far fewer human and material resources and a more limited sense of unity.

In fact our synod staff provide provisional support to those presbyteries currently without staff and more presbyteries are on that road.

 

There is the significant work of the Permanent Judicial Commission, including remedial cases and allegations of misconduct. There’s the work with CPMs and COMs in both call processes, and complex conflicts and dissolutions. There’s the communication and regular work with presbytery staff, adapting to new designs and position descriptions.

Picture how this GAP is going to lead to more vital, missional congregations?

Consider the GAP, the removal of the review and oversight responsibility of synods -- then, consider the Commission’s recommendation that enables non-geographic, missional presbyteries.

 
Where is the review and oversight? That’s pretty bold!

About the report and the 60-second promotional videos

by Phil Brown
Synod Executive

I continue to stand by the reflections I expressed in my January memo to the Mid Council Commission. You can find the memo on the synod’s website. Since that time, there is nothing in the lengthy Commission report or in conversations with the Commission’s chair that addresses constructively any of the concerns and questions I posed.

As I and others continue to engage in conversations about the Commission’s report, some themes emerge and over the next few weeks I’ll put them forward on this blog.

One theme becomes more apparent in the first of the YouTube videos posted by Tod Bolsinger to “market” the Commission’s report (you can find the video here).

The assertion is that the recommendations create a “flat, flexible, faithful organization with infinite possibilities.” That is a bold and undocumented statement with which I disagree.

When the 219th General Assembly (2010) issued the assignment to the Commission, it called on the Commission to examine and review all four levels of the church and their relationships – something that hadn’t been done in nearly four decades in spite of significant change affecting every level of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  That review remains undone.

The Commission, however, did choose to “repurpose” synods, concentrating on this one level of the church to resolve the issues faced by the denomination. Without taking a hard look at the General Assembly, the Commission does not encourage a “flat, flexible and faithful” church structure.

To the contrary, if adopted, the recommendations of the Commission will grow the silo labeled the General Assembly by expanding its responsibility, cost and authority.

The Commission does recommend that the 220th General Assembly (2012) form a new commission for the purpose of reviewing General Assembly and its six agencies – clearly a need, claims the Commission, but next time.

Perhaps during this summer's General Assembly the Commission's 60-second videos will be “blipped in” like a Super Bowl commercial.