LOUISVILLE—During its final session on September 21, the General Assembly Council (GAC) entered into a long and rather emotional discussion. A proposed revision of the criteria used to consider a gift a part of the $40 million Mission Initiative triggered the debate.
Changing Our Horse in Midstream
The Mission Initiative, called “Joining Hearts and Hands,” was intended to be a five-year campaign, begun in 2002, but it has unfortunately limped along through a succession of visions, methods, promises, and leaders. It has not been an easy time to raise $20 million for foreign mission and $20 million for domestic church development.
As of the most recently posted report (June 30, 2007), the Mission Initiative had raised approximately $9.49 million. About $4.85 million of that was received by the GAC offices, and another $4.64 million stayed within presbyteries and congregations but was credited to the campaign. Yet another $17.91 million had been pledged but not yet received. Including interest received, the total of pledges and receipts was $27.56 million, 69 percent of the $40 million goal. Thus, with the expected campaign duration nearly expired, about two-thirds of the goal had been pledged and less than a quarter of the goal had been received. In addition, only about a third (34 percent) of the pledged amount is for the foreign missions half of the goal.
Obviously, those in charge of the campaign are concerned. Great effort has been expended, and yet still-unsatisfying results have been achieved. What’s more, the campaign has already cost more than $4.5 million in expenses, so the net of receipts after expenses as of June 30 was roughly $5 million. One response to this troublesome scenario, it appears, is a loosening of criteria for what can be claimed as a Mission Initiative gift.
There is some sense that money that would have been given anyway, had the Mission Initiative never come along, is now being credited to the campaign. For instance, presbyteries that were going to raise money anyway for new church development are going ahead and raising the money, but it is being credited as income resulting from the Mission Initiative. It makes the presbyteries appear as loyal Presbyterians, and it makes the Mission Initiative appear more effective than might be the case.
In addition, other kinds of giving—such as endowments—are now being included late in the game, again able to boost the apparent success of the campaign by raising the total, but changing the plan and its intentions in ways previously rejected. For instance, if $20 million was supposed to be raised for direct disbursement to missions, and, say, $10 million of that gets given instead to designated endowment funds, then maybe only $1 million of that endowed money actually gets disbursed in the short term, cutting significantly the total money intended to deploy additional missionaries, but making the campaign appear more successful, if one only looks at the bottom line.
In a PCUSA internal audit dated May 23, 2007, the findings (see page 20) faulted the Mission Initiative Steering Committee for approving the reporting of “non-campaign administered funds” (funds flowing to other governing bodies or foundations) but not gaining the approval to do so, either by the General Assembly or the General Assembly Council. Then in July 2007, the Mission Initiative Steering Committee drew up a new description of what kinds of gifts could be credited to the campaign, likely in response to the audit. Where once gifts to endowments weren’t to be received, now they could. Where the intent was to send more PCUSA missionaries, now gifts to other sending agencies could be credited to the Mission Initiative. The definition of grants and loans for “church growth” also was broadened to include programs and training to strengthen existing congregations—a rather broad definition.
The GAC Executive Committee first approved the revised criteria in late July, but then the document was reworked slightly and reapproved by the GAC Executive Committee on September 18. That document, with its slight revisions from July, is what GAC debated at its final session. The document represented a significant departure from the rules of the game initially followed.
A Matter of Trust
GAC member Bill Saul, who had once co-chaired the Mission Initiative and had made a lot of promises about what it was and how the money would be spent, argued persuasively that “we gave absolute guarantees to churches that the parameters would not be changed, and now it’s about to happen.”
This change was a serious matter of trust to Saul, who has certainly paid his dues in personal contribution of time and dollars to the struggling capital campaign. “We are on a slippery slope,” he warned. “We have a trust problem [already in the denomination], and this is really going to cause more.”
General Assembly Moderator Joan Gray agreed. “We have a transparency problem, a trust problem, a consistency problem,” she concurred. “We must bite the bullet at every turn and not choose the easy way, but choose the transparent way, so I oppose this change.”
Another GAC member gave the example of his church building a parking lot, and he wondered if his personal donation to that project could count as a donation to the Mission Initiative. He had been advised that it could be written up in such a way that his local contribution could help the denomination reach the Mission Initiative goal—meant to provide more funding for international missions and new church development. The GAC member, however, didn’t agree with such creative bookkeeping, apparently meant to shore up a lagging campaign.
Another side
Next, GAC Executive Director Linda Valentine jumped into the fray, displaying some of her lawyerly chops by making her case for revising the criteria. “In 2002 when Joining Hearts and Hands [the Mission Initiative] was launched, only brief language was used in description of what it was for: church growth and international mission,” she began. “The General Assembly Council was given broad authority to implement it and has done so by establishing a steering committee.”
However, Valentine noted, having $40 million flow only through the GAC is “not how the church works anymore.” Thus, “the decision was made to allow funds to remain in presbyteries” and other governing bodies, such as congregations. But since it is a trust issue, Valentine “thought it incredibly important to put on a piece of paper what’s in and what’s out.”
“I think it is critically important that there be a clear statement,” she agreed, “while not throwing the gates wide to include just anything.” Valentine seemed to be implying that the statement used for the last several years to delineate gift criteria has been unclear.
Bill Saul took exception to that implication. “I say this with all due respect,” he began, choosing his words carefully. “But as far as the statement not having clear parameters, we started working on documents that were clear and had to be approved by the GAC. There were documents that were extremely clear on what the parameters were…. Every time we partnered with presbyteries, their work had to fit the parameters of what these documents said, and [the presbyteries] had all kinds of things they said they wanted to include, and we said, ‘We can’t do that.'”
Leaving the rules intact was a matter of integrity, and Saul appeared concerned that a desire to claim more contributions is now leading to perverting the purposes of the campaign.
That’s when former General Assembly Moderator Rick Ufford-Chase practiced his peacemaking vocation. “Is there something time-sensitive that causes us to have to act on this today?” he asked. No, he was told by Allison Seed, GAC chair. “Okay, then I move to refer this item back to the [GAC] Executive Committee,” Ufford-Chase proposed. He later tacked on “and empower them to make the decision.”
After a reasonable plea by Valentine for prudent dispatch, since the campaign is supposed to conclude by General Assembly next June and there are a lot of dollars yet to round up, GAC eventually voted unanimously to so refer the matter to the Executive Committee. Summing things up, Seed concurred that “we need to be consistent with the current parameters.”
Indeed, integrity would demand no bait-and-switch tactics, no clever tricks to pull a “successful” campaign out of a top hat.
Seed also urged GAC members to communicate their concerns to the Executive Committee quickly, since time is of the essence. Church members and those who have already participated in the Mission Initiative may want to communicate their concerns to the Executive Committee of the General Assembly Council as well.
No comments yet
Leave a Reply