At one point in our meeting, the chair of the Finance Committee declared, "I'd like to name the elephant in the room, which is our need to cut 7 million dollars from our expeditures over the next three years." I found my self ruminating on what the elephant was, exactly, and put up the simple Tweet, "There's an elephant in the room." There was some gratifying reaction to my Tweet, with some continued interest in what, exactly, the elephant was.
Clearly, the chair of the Finance Committee has put forward a suggestion of what the elephant is. But I feel that the issue is much deeper, and the two of us had a good conversation about it at the break. We don't disagree, necessarily, but like the blind men, experience the elephant from different perspectives.
My feeling is that the elephant is "congregational engagement with mission." And, of course, engagement with mission together through the Mission and Service Fund of The United Church of Canada.
The lion's share of our United Church of Canada budget comes from Mission and Service Fund offerings made voluntarily by individuals at the congregational level. This money is given in trust for this specific purpose and is transferred directly from congregations to the General Council level. It does not pass through Presbytery or Conference and suffers no administrative losses on the way. The total amount raised is approximately $30 million dollars a year. This, of course, is no small amount of money and represents a tremendous investment and engagement with the mission of the church: administratively, locally, nationally and globally. The problem is, that this amount has held constant for the last 20 years. 20 years ago we raised $30 million and every year since we've raised $30 million. Huge and amazing, but not increasing in pace with inflation. Which means, we're actually giving substantially less than we gave 20 years ago.
Over this same period, contributions towards local congregational budgets (including assessments for Presbytery and Conference) has, mostly, kept pace with inflation. We've managed to pull together the dollars to keep our local house in order, but have not been as devoted to providing dollars for the work of our denomination.
Some of the "emerging church" writers and gurus would suggest that this is part of the reason churches decline. As changes occur around us, as change occurs to us, we have a choice to make. Do we fearfully withdraw and look inward, seeking to protect ourselves from the changes taking place in the world? Or do we bravely look outward, engaging the changes and continuing to express God's love as best we know how into a needy and hurting world? The gurus tell us that the first approach is doomed, and only the second approach offers hope for future viability.
In this context, the elephant could be, how do we express our understanding of mission as a shared enterprise dynamically represented by the Mission and Service Fund? How do we re-vitalize congregational engagement with the Mission and Service Fund and re-energize givings so that Mission and Service Fund offerings begin to keep pace with inflation? A simple, 10% increase in Mission and Service Fund offerings is all that it will take to keep pace, and yet any attempt at increases seem tantalizingly out of reach.
I don't believe we can suffer any further cuts to expeditures and continue to pretend that we have any kind of denominational mission expression beyond "keeping our house in order." We will inevitably cut global and domestic mission efforts and seek to maintain vital administrative areas. And without the mission efforts, the adminstrative areas will be able to be reduced as well. There are many who will say, "about time!" I fear, however, it is the beginning of the end. We will be reduced to a loose association of congregations, some with major mission emphasis, some with none, but with no significant national, denominational expression.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Dave:
ReplyDeleteThanks for providing a place for the discussion.
Apparently, from someone who was there, the GC reported that there wasn't a disconnect between local congregations and the national church. However, given the fact that M&S is only at 50% of where it should be (as reported at Presbytery yesterday) it does send a clear signal: people are not connecting with the national work of the United Church. Minutes for mission just aren't cutting it, and the recent bash we've given the national church in the Observer most likely hasn't helped either. I'm not sure - just throwing out possibilities. Emerging Spirit didn't help as much as we hoped it would (even though I fully endorse it) as people didn't like the price tag, thinking that the money could be used in other places. (My theory was/is that if we don't do something, we won't exist to give money.) Also, taking out a full-page ad in the Globe and Mail in response to atheist bus ads that didn't appear in the majority of Canada rankled even one of the United Church saints in my congregation who is a huge believer in all things UCC. "What did that cost us, and for what?" was the comment.
The other part of this that I don't think we've named fully is that many people in our congregations aren't United Church. For example, in my church about 1/3 are Baptist (congregational) another third are a mix of Presbyterian/Anglican/Catholic/and "Other" and the last third are United Church in their membership. Mission and Service is a foreign language, and despite what we do, how often we promote, it's just not resonating with people when it comes to givings.
It may be, and I'm not sure how this works, the National Church's expenses will have to decrease until we find ourselves at a point where serious reform needs to happen. Despite what we like to think, it's still perceived as "Toronto."
Facebook friend Sandy writes, "I really liked your comments concerning the elephant in the room, particularly the comparison between the M&S funding and the Conference/Presbytery dues. Why hasn't our M&S funding kept up? The question that we face, is are we truly willing to commit ourselves to be an effective witness on the national and international stage? Or as you suggested will we end up as a loose gaggle of churches hoping to keep our own house in order, ignoring the fact that we are called to do so much more?"
ReplyDeleteGood points! Is there some way that the congregations could be directly connected to work at the national level that they feel called to do? Maybe then giving to Mission & Service wouldn't seem like such a chore.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Aaron's opening comment, I don't know who from GC 40 said there wasn't a disconnect between local congregations and the national church. Whoever it was attended a different GC 40 than I did.
ReplyDeleteCan we sustain further cuts and not affect our mission? I doubt it. We have cut out most of the fat over the last decade now it is down to removing vital organs.
Can we raise revenue substancially? I doubt that also.
But, then again, I don't have to worry about the financial situation of the denomination. Because GC 40 didn't really seriously discuss the problem. Nor did we seriously discuss issues like the disconnect between the national church and the local congregation. Nor did we talk about trust. . . But, we did learn to breathe.
In conclusion, I am just glad that Dave is sitting at the table.