GIVE NOW to support Presbyterian Disaster Assistance and World Mission responses to urgent humanitarian crises in West Africa and the Middle East. Give now

33 church leaders publicly oppose special offerings overhaul

Task force chair, vice-chair rebut charges by 8 former GA moderators, others

June 8, 2012

LOUISVILLE

Thirty three Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) leaders ― including eight former General Assembly moderators ― have written an open letter to the 688 commissioners to the upcoming 220th General Assembly calling recommendations to overhaul the church’s four special offerings “a serious mistake, causing irreparable damage to historic mission commitments of the Presbyterian Church (USA).”

The recommendations of the Special Offerings Advisory Task Force (SOATF) ― authorized by the 2008 General Assembly ― “would fundamentally alter the historic covenant between our congregations and the General Assembly regarding Churchwide Special Offerings,” the letter states.

At the heart of the SOATF proposals is a recommendation that special offering receipts ― which have historically been designated for specific programs with specific percentage allocations to those programs ― would now be dedicated to “ministries” that are aligned with General Assembly Mission Council priorities and goals “in accordance with the broad designations established for the Special Offerings,” the SOATF report states.

Another key recommendation calls for the replacement of the Peacemaking Offering by a World Communion Offering to fund overseas mission. Peacemaking “endeavors” would be included in the One Great Hour of Sharing Offering, along with “community development,” “disaster assistance” and “hunger ministries.”

Currently the One Great Hour funds the Presbyterian Hunger Program, Presbyterian Disaster Assistance and Self-Development of People.

“If we change [the offering recipients] from programs to causes, that does not make it any less designated giving,” SOATF chair Karl Travis told the Presbyterian News Service in a June 8 interview. “Across the world of philanthropic giving, we see caused-based funds development ― not programs or institutions”

Added SOATF Vice-chair Sarah Sarchet Butter, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Wilmette, Ill.: “People give for purposes they believe in. Programs carry out purposes, but people don’t give to programs. They give to the purpose.”

The letter-signers claim that “The current Special Offerings are not in trouble. In fact, Special Offering receipts increased between 2010 and 2011 …”

Overall, the four special offerings declined 1.02 percent in 2011, with increases only in the One Great Hour of Sharing (0.53 percent) and Peacemaking (1.32 percent) offerings.

“The special offerings have declined 25 percent in the last 11 years and 17 percent in just the last four years,” Travis ― pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Fort Worth, Texas ― said. “things on the ground have changed quickly and profoundly in the last few years. We’re very conscious that this new model is a dramatic change from what previous generations in the church have experienced.”

However, he added, “Having served on three of the last four special offering task forces and chaired two of the last three, I think we know about the special offerings ― we’ve done our homework.”

“We are confident and convicted by the research we’ve done, the learning that we’ve done,” Butter said, “that the recommendations will strengthen the church, improve accountability, impact and maximize the potential of the offerings for the future.”

The capstone of the SOATF’s recommendations is the establishment of a goal to increase the special offerings to $20 million per year by the year 2020. Total special offering receipts in 2011 were $13.6 million.

With all other forms of giving to the General Assembly Mission Budget declining ― as the letter-signers noted ― the goal seems ambitious but Travis and Butter are convinced the SOATF proposals make it possible.

“We were asked how to raise more money and how to ensure the effective use of that money for Christ’s mission in the world,” Travis said. “We believe we can raise a lot more money for all the ministries supported by the special offerings. The disagreement [with the letter-signers] is not about values, it’s about technique.”

Butter said the success of the special offerings hinges on the support of all Presbyterians. “We can implement the best fund-raising practices imaginable,” she said, “but we need the commitment of Presbyterians to embrace Christ’s work in the world.”

Travis, a fourth-generation Presbyterian minister said, “We’re marking a generational shift. The new generation shares the values of their parents and grandparents but understand we must do things in a different way.” 

The SOATF is passionate about these ministries and programs, he said. “Our goal is to raise more money for them.”

The full text of the church leaders’ letter:

KEEP THE HISTORIC CHURCHWIDE SPECIAL OFFERINGS

Dear Commissioner to the 220th General Assembly:

This letter comes to you from the undersigned Presbyterians because of our deep concern over the GAMC Report and Recommendations on Special Offerings. We believe that its adoption would be a serious mistake, causing irreparable damage to historic mission commitments of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

The GAMC recommendations would fundamentally alter the historic covenant between our congregations and the General Assembly regarding Churchwide Special Offerings. They would essentially convert the One Great Hour of Sharing, Pentecost and Christmas Joy Offerings into general mission revenue for “ministries,” with the GAMC determining the definition and allocation of each, while still calling them Special Offerings. The Peacemaking Offering on World Communion Sunday would be replaced by a Global Mission offering, and “peacemaking” would be added to the “ministries” funded by GAMC through the One Great Hour of Sharing receipts.

♦ Special Offerings have historically been understood as distinct from general mission giving in that the returns were designated by the donors for specific mission programs. To continue to call them Special Offerings when their use is determined by the GAMC and not the donors, is misleading and confusing. When the returns are no longer donor designated, we believe that giving will decrease.

♦ The current Special Offerings are not in trouble. In fact, Special Offering receipts increased between 2010 and 2011 while all other sources of congregational giving to the General Assembly decreased.

♦ The current Special Offerings enable an important part of the General Assembly mission program. In 2007, income from these offerings totaled approximately 21.3% of total income for the mission program of the church and 33.8% of the mission gifts from congregations,” as reported to the 2008 General Assembly. It seems capricious to put such an important source of mission support at risk.

♦ The GAMC recommendations would negate specific actions of previous General Assemblies to create specific mission programs and fund them through Special Offerings. The Hunger Program, the Peacemaking Program, and the Self-Development of People Program were each created in response to an urgent need after substantial advocacy from the church in the form of vvertures.

♦ The GAMC recommendations would apparently remove or reduce the expertise and commitment of advisory groups elected from the church-at-large to guide the important programs funded through the One Great Hour of Sharing. The knowledge that these programs are overseen by people chosen specifically for their competence and experience is a source of confidence for donors. 

♦ There is no need to replace the current Peacemaking Offering in order to have a Special Offering for Global Mission. The current guidelines permit up to five Special Offerings each year.

We believe that the GAMC Special Offerings Report should be replaced by a simple substitute that would continue the current four Special Offerings in their present form and authorize a fifth Special Offering for Global Mission. We hope that you will come to the same conclusion.

The eight former moderators who signed the letter include: The Rev. Herb Valentine (1991); the Rev. John Fife (1992); the Rev. Robert W. Bohl (1994); Ruling Elder Marj Carpenter (1995); the Rev.  Douglas Oldenburg (1998); the Rev. Syngman Rhee (2000); the Rev. Jack Rogers (2001); and the Rev.  Fahed Abu Akel (2002).

Former presbytery and synod executives who signed: the Rev. Jane Wick, Boston and Northern New England; Ruling Elder Barbara Campbell Davis, New Hope; Ruling Elder Gay Mothershed, West Virginia; the Rev. Ed Gehres, Philadelphia; the Rev. Donald K. Campbell II, South Louisiana; the Rev. Kent Organ, Western Reserve; the Rev. Richard Ploth, Northern New England and Long Island; the Rev. Jane Searjeant Watt, Southern New England; and the Rev. Carl Smith, Synod of Lincoln Trails.

Former PC(USA) national staff members: the Rev. J. Oscar McCloud; the Rev. Catherine G. Borchert; the Rev. Dean H. Lewis; the Rev. Eunice B. Poethig; the Rev. David Zuverink; Ms. June Ramage Rogers; and Ruling Elder Belle Miller McMaster.

Seminary affiliated signers: the Rev. Laird Stuart, former Interim President, San Francisco Theological Seminary; Kenneth Sawyer, associate professor of church history, McCormick Theological Seminary; and the Rev. Jim McDonald, president, San Francisco Theological Seminary.

Also pastors Gary Charles, Central Presbyterian Church, Atlanta; Winston Lawson, Hillside Presbyterian Church, Decatur, Ga.; and Louise Westfall, Central Presbyterian Church, Denver, Colo.

And the Rev. Richard F. Dozier, former pastor, Northminster Presbyterian Church, Columbia, S.C.; the  Rev. Cecil Corbett, former president, Cook Christian Training School, Tempe, Az.; and the Rev.  Richard Poethig, former director of the Institute on the Church in Urban-Industrial Society, Chicago.

  1. I agree with the letter. The Commitment to Peacemaking was not temporary, and combined with the Peacemaking Offering, the challenge is always to move commitment into action. Making the offerings easier i.e. giving electronically, will increase revenue - whenever the excellent promotional materials are actually used in the local churches. My congregation depends on these inserts for education and connection and looks forward to the special offerings.

    by Janet Lowery

    June 26, 2012

  2. After having spent an impressive day in one of the SOATF focus groups last year and having carefully read their full report to GA, I can only say "Bravo and Amen!" to the Special Offerings Advisory Task Force for their truly inspired analysis and future-looking plan to reinvigorate Special Offerings. Perhaps their vision would be superfluous if PCUSA churches were filled with cradle Presbyterians, but a glance around most congregations speaks to the contrary as do the statistics. Members in my demographic (often from other faith backgrounds) are cause-driven and give cause-relatedly, albeit not from intent to be disloyal to longstanding programs. I look within my own family and recall that when a not-churched family member died last year after longstanding struggle with melanoma, my parents gave memorially and without further thought to the American Cancer Society. My husband and I meanwhile searched for and eventually located a group doing high quality, financially sound, specifically defined melanoma research and then gave memorially to them. For us, it unconsciously becomes cause over institution or a cause within institution every time.

    by Debby Reynolds

    June 21, 2012

  3. I wholeheartedly agree with the aims and recommendations of the Special Offerings Advisory Task Force. I firmly disagree with the 33 persons who have written the letter to the commissioners. The shift from programs to causes is the progressive and demonstrated fund development strategy for the 21st century.

    by Tom Green

    June 16, 2012

  4. I share the concerns and agree with the recommendations of these church leaders. The Special Offering Task Force recommendation opens the way for One Great Hour of Sharing funds to be tapped for replacement of General Mission funds. Without the accountability of advisory committees, these funds will lose their distinctiveness, and the offering will lose its appeal. The shift of Peacemaking to OGHS funding will not only dilute that offering, it will also deprive congregations and presbyteries of an important source of income for their own peacemaking ministries.

    by Rev. Gary Cook

    June 15, 2012

  5. Finally, some sense in a bunch of nonsense. Why are we trying to mess with OGHS - a very successful offering? If we need to raise more money for mission, and we think a designated special offering will do it - then add a fifth offering like the old Witness Season in January. But my church already gives more to mission than we would probably take in at a speical offering.

    by SL Harris

    June 13, 2012

  6. The idea that taking away the specific identity and letting the GMAC make disbursement decisions is NUTS! You lose accountability and connection to specific programs; that will have a very negative effect on these special offerings. The Louisville 'ivory tower' just doesn't get it yet.

    by Dana Gilmour

    June 13, 2012

  7. Since retiring as General Presbyter of the Presbytery of Arkansas I have served several interims. Each time I have promoted the special offerings by making them personal and meaningful to the local congregation. Each time there has been a significant increase. I agree with the letter to the commissioners. Let's don't make something that can be made relevant to the people in the pew into something that has the decision making completely taken away from them. Bill Branch

    by W. W. "Bill" Branch

    June 13, 2012

  8. Chicago is a city where every year nearly 100 children and youth of color lose their lives to urban violence. At a Presbytery meeting earlier this spring all churches were asked to give their Pentecost offering to support a new church development of young adults that is struggling financially. A worthy cause and a request that felt like institutional racism. This national proposal feels like what I've experienced locally. Are we now shoring up our own denomination at the expense of bringing hope and help to a broken world? What is our "purpose"?

    by Rev. Barbara Cathey

    June 12, 2012

  9. I agree with the letter. I don't think these changes would help others commit to OGHS,PDA,SDOP or Peacemaking. Don't alienate the current churches ( like ours) which give to all offerings with the interpretation that is available now.

    by Linda Gaines

    June 11, 2012

  10. Sgn me on! This proposal will not strengthen commitment. It will cause people to wonder about effective dollars to overhead rather than mission.

    by Rev. Bill Coop

    June 11, 2012

  11. I agree with the letter. There is the "Five for Five" leaflet that explains the "Fifth" is for mission giving. More publicity on this and better information about "mission giving" is what needs to be emphasized. Sticking Peacemaking with the others at Easter just doesn't do it justice.

    by Lucinda Michels

    June 11, 2012

Leave a comment