| Outlook forum on special offerings: A bold goal: $20 million by 2020 |
| Written by KARL TRAVIS AND SARAH SARCHET BUTTER |
| Tuesday, 26 June 2012 17:18 |
|
{ OUTLOOK FORUM } We have a problem. Special Offerings giving is down. In 11 years, giving has slumped 25 percent. In the last four years alone, contributions plunged 17 percent. We can do better. The General Assembly’s Special Offerings Advisory Task Force has studied the decline, researched commitments and passions within the denomination, and proposed solutions for change over four years. The Task Force loves Special Offerings and wants passionately to unleash their potential. At the Task Force’s urging, the GAMC has adopted a bold vision to reverse the trend and raise Special Offerings receipts to $20 million by 2020. It’s a daring goal, and reachable, but our denomination must make changes now. The GAMC recently approved three recommendations: embracing the $20 million by 2020 goal; hiring a staff person singularly dedicated to increasing giving; and adopting creative use of new technologies and communication tools such as social networking, the Internet and electronic funds transfer. Now it’s the General Assembly’s turn to weigh the proposals. Special Offerings are unique in that every Presbyterian and Presbyterian family may choose to participate. Through focus groups and surveys, the Task Force has asked what Presbyterians care about most. First, Presbyterians like to designate our gifts and we expect accountability. If we share dollars for community development, we want them spent there. When the Board of Pensions shares our donations with retired church servants as we intend, we smile. Second, Presbyterians prefer to designate gifts for specific causes. Our Task Force proposes moving the PC(USA) towards best practices learned from the broader world of philanthropy. These days, givers choose causes over programs or institutions. Presbyterians in the pew are keenly interested to help disaster victims, specifically concerned about racial ethnic church leadership development, and stridently committed to the least of these. So, the proposals eliminate percentage designations to particular programs in favor of designations to specific areas of ministry — to causes. We will build upon our historic commitments by raising additional dollars for the causes they support. Elected leaders on the GAMC will direct these dollars to designated causes. Presbyterians in the pew will rest assured that their money is spent on causes they choose. Not only is this cause-based model now prominent in the philanthropic world; six of our eight One Great Hour of Sharing partner denominations already use it. Some have asked if this change would dilute Special Offerings into another GAMC funding stream. It won’t. Designating for causes rather than programs is still designated giving. In fact, from the giver’s perspective, cause designation is even more focused than program designation. Among those who understand Louisville’s alphabet soup — PDA, SDOP, PHP — there is great trust in these programs and pride in supporting them. That said, most in the pews are more excited by the work done than by the programs which do it. Next, the Task Force has proposed a new World Communion Offering — 25 percent for local witness and outreach, 25 percent for presbytery shared witness and outreach, and 50 percent for witness and outreach beyond the United States. As the world grows flat, our Christian responsibilities and opportunities grow more obvious. Presbyterians yearn to share faith and do justice around the globe and want a special offering for this purpose. Within the World Communion Offering, congregations may also continue to designate their offering for peacemaking ministries. We suggest further that peacemaking ministries be funded within the One Great Hour of Sharing and also from other sources. Taken together, the SOATF’s recommendations constitute the first major reconsideration of Special Offerings since reunion in 1983. The proposals are sweeping and broad. Not surprisingly, the proposals have stirred conversation and drawn fire. The Task Force asks Presbyterians, especially General Assembly Commissioners, to read the report for themselves on pc-biz. They will discover that the disagreement is not about values. The Task Force’s recommendations are fiercely loyal to the denomination’s commitment to care for the undervalued and forgotten. The disagreement is not about values; it is about accountability, technique and impact. It is time to look forward, adopt abundance thinking, embrace our connectionalism, trust elected leadership and trust God to provide the resources to succeed.
KARL TRAVIS is chair of the Special Offerings Advisory Task Force and pastor of First Church, Fort Worth, Texas. SARAH SARCHET BUTTER is vice chair of the task force and pastor of First Church, Wilmette, Ill.
|














Comments
However, I take issue with some key elements of the recommendations of the task force as endorsed by the GAMC. It should be clear to all who read the article by Rev. Travis that removing the specific distribution formula among the three One Great Hour of Sharing (OGHS) supported programs will result in the weakening of these programs and possibly their death. Interestingly Rev. Travis states that Presbyterians are not interested in programs but in causes. Thus he sees no problem with the recommendations of his committee that may negatively affect the three OGHS programs, as well as the Presbyterian Peacemaking Program, since the GAMC would be able to distribute at its discretion funds to causes they approve of.
Over the past 30 years, the causes of justice and compassion have effectively been carried out by the three OGHS funded programs: Presbyterian Hunger Program, Presbyterian Self Development of People and Presbyterian Disaster Assistance. Successive reviews of these three programs have always shown their effectiveness and their popularity with churches that take the OGHS offering. Their high consideration among other denominations and ecumenical institutions is a testimony to their integrity. Of the eight other denominations that take the OGHS offering the Presbyterian OGHS has consistently been the most successful. This is a testimony to the fact that Presbyterians trust the three programs that carry out the justice and compassion causes that they support.
Rev. Travis did not address the fact that the GAMC-endorsed SOATF recommendations propose to stop taking the Peacemaking offering and integrate a well diminished peacemaking program under the OGHS. This again will result in further affecting the scope of SDOP, PHP and PDA as well as of the Peacemaking program itself. Is it because the GAMC thinks that peace is no longer an issue worth supporting in a effective manner? Or maybe it is because they think that peacemaking is a cause of the sixties for Presbyterian hippies and "special interest" groups in the Presbyterian Church. Either way, including what is left of the once vibrant Peacemaking ministry under the OGHS cannot help either that ministry nor the existing programs under the OGHS umbrella.
Lastly, although I support the concept of a fund raising goal of $20 million by 2020, I am having difficulty with the notion of transforming the special offerings of the church into a mere fund raising tool. Throughout the history of the offerings Presbyterians have given sacrificially and generously as an act of worship and of discipleship. This is a very important offering especially for small and mid-sized congregations who use this as a way to participate in ministries that they would be unable to do on their own. If the general economic crisis and the generational shifts occurring nationwide have resulted in a steady decrease of the giving to the offerings, I personally doubt that the mere administrative measures suggested will reverse such trends in the long term. However, in the short term, I am sure any objective and intelligent person can see the negative impact they will have on programs that are dear to Presbyterians. Yes, Rev. Travis, Presbyterians care about the causes of peace, justice and compassion but they are also proud of the long tradition of ministries carried out by programs that they trust and which are supported by offerings that are an integral part of their Christian Life. Rev. Travis, you have stated that Presbyterians don’t know these programs, but I see no proof presented that they would better understand general concepts of the causes noted. If greater interpretation of these programs is what is needed, then let’s do that rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water.
RSS feed for comments to this post