Dr. A. Lewis Williams, former editor of The Christian Recorder, once remarked that in the 1920’s “being poor became a sin in the AME Church.” He did not cite the depression or the upward mobility of the race. Rather, his context was the corruption brought on by money, and the necessity to give the appearance of financial success within the denomination.  We see it played out today.  No one wants to admit that they don’t have that $100 offering, or that they will forego some lunches next week because of it. Whether from the personal wallet or the church purse, it is important for us “to represent.”  This obsession has led us to devotion to the Opportunity of the Unlimited…no matter the ethics.

Pastors clinging to “Class Dues;” Presiding Elders defending Church School Conventions and District Conferences; and, bishops creating meetings where there will be OFFERINGS.  Who knows how God will bless…if only there is an Offering?!  It is like buying a lottery ticket (or playing a number).  Give God an opportunity to bless you.  We all know God needs assistance in blessing us. Right?

Forget about history.  Class Dues were to supply the pastor’s groceries.  Is that an issue today when most receive a salary?  Presiding Elders were poorly paid when I was a child.  The Church School Convention and District Conference may have accounted for a major portion of subsistence compensation.  Does it matter that the “salary” is already generous (maxed out for many places)? Ah, but don’t take away the opportunity of an Offering! 

Why does it take more than a day to plan? What is the purpose of the Midyear, Founder’s Day, Christian Ed meeting, Pastor’s Retreat, Christmas Party…well, you know. What if we limited the opportunity for the unlimited?

It is a sin to be poor, and it is a greater sin to take away the opportunity for generosity by denying the offering.  At least, that is what we are made to believe.  This is not a case against lovingkindness and generosity.  It is a lament over the mis-programing and extortion often connected to unreasonable offerings which are not properly reported, and where the beneficiary is obscured.

We need limits and a new paradigm.  Predatory corporate executives can dupe boards of directors into granting extravagant salaries and outlandish benefits.  At least the excess is known.  Is the offering to be like the wind: we don’t know from whence it came or where it is going?  Well, we may know “where,” just not “how much” and into “how many” different hands.

Has the privilege of receiving offerings become so abused that it should be denied?  Many truly love their leadership at all levels.  Many, also, have the means and desire to be generous.  As one of my bishops once said, if individuals want to show kindness “you know my address;” there is no need to organize or take up an offering.  It is past time that the opportunity for God’s blessing, and the graciousness of the folk, be motivated by love, not the ubiquitous cry, “it’s offering time!”

Recent posts in the AME Polity Facebook group highlighted the pain and process of our pastoral appointments. The testimonies were fair and reflective of the sad situation. The problem is not just with bishops, although they bear much responsibility. Our clergy and laity are culpable also for our dysfunctional system.  We errantly thought we could improve/correct the process with tenants of the Ministers’ Bill of Rights. More effective would have been identification and modification of the ethical and cultural behaviors which perpetuate the inequity, pain, and failures.  There is much good to be found in our itinerant system if we purge some mess to release the potential.

Some considerations:

Bishops: the process should begin with prayer (not chess board move amusement); must consider pastors and congregations in the making of appointments; appointments should not be made to discipline clergy who are otherwise effective; family structure AND bi-vocational circumstances should be factors; the greater good of career advancement and the effect on the long-term growth of a congregation, as well as service to a particular demographic, must be held in balance; the bishop should question their motivation as well as that of those who offer advice (presiding elders and others); and the process should end with prayer for discernment of godly action which rises above bias and personal interests.

Clergy: must not shun the challenge of growing a promotion rather than yearning to be moved TO a promotion; accept constructive criticism and evaluation of their pastoral skills; note their weaknesses and seek remediation; honestly recognize their ministry gifts (and, perhaps, accept that they do not have the skills, disposition, or calling for parish ministry); expect consequences for poor performance, immoral/unethical behavior, and failure to improve which may lead to a lesser charge; act with integrity on how you “turn over” to your successor; acknowledge that just because you lead in the “raising” of resources does not justify you “raiding” the resources on departure; accept that organizing opposition to your new appointment is unethical and destructive to the fellowship; should not take assets from their old ministry to their newly formed ministry in response to an unappreciated appointment; must pray to see the opportunity and blessing of a new ministry which God ordained, even if humans acted in an ungodly manner in effecting the change.

Laity: must not assist clergy in draining resources during periods of transition; must not protest or take other action to block an appointment (although there is no problem with expressing disagreement and disappointment); celebrate the work of the departing good pastor; let the poor pastor depart with dignity and your forgiveness – with or without their apology; receive the new pastor with prayer and loyalty for the sake of the church’s ministry to members and community…no matter what you have heard about their tenure at the last appointment; learn to encourage with the goal of improvement rather than criticize with the intent to hurt and destroy; exercise good, Christian, communication in expressing the how and why of the failure/success of the new leadership in both direct interaction with the pastor as well as the presiding elder/bishop.

Legislative/Behavioral Improvements:

1. Revisit “comparable to or greater than.”  This is in the top five reasons for our dire situation.
2. Stop playing with immoral, unethical, and ineffective clergy.  Counsel, re-train, find the place which truly fits, OR work them out of the system according to the Discipline.
3. Help clergy exercise some control of their living/working location by allowing them to opt out of moving from their annual conference. Clergy should have the right to refuse to be appointed beyond the boundary of their annual conference provided they accept that such insistence may mean they must accept a lesser charge or be left with no charge.  The latter being the case on the recommendation of Ministerial Efficiency Committee and approved by the Annual Conference.  Even in “one state districts,” being moved from one conference to another could present traumatic circumstances for clergy, and their family.  If a new appointment is “necessary,” clergy should have the option to remain in their same geographical locale in a comparable, lesser or no appointment.
4. Promote an understanding role of laity in the support and success of their pastor and the ministry of their congregation.
5. A handover process should be established which includes both clergy and laity.
6. Laity must reject “lame duck” indignities when given notice of pastoral changes. Clergy must resist abusing powers as they exit appointments.  Infringements by either should be quickly punished and rejected by both lay and clergy leadership.
7. We must accept that not every charge is equal in present or potential conditions. The goal should be to match clergy personality, skills, and training with the appropriate congregation. The reality of both charge conditions and suitable leader capability must be faced honestly by both clergy and laity.  

Pastoral appointments, even with the intent of godly judgement, may never be perfect.  We can make it better with proper attitudes and an embrace of wisdom and fairness. Lord, have mercy on us. Christ, have mercy on us. Lord, have mercy on us!

The $5m Austerity Budget amounts to a diversion of 33% of the current budget for restoration.  Note that anything more than a 33% reallocation would make our Zion unfunctional and almost unrecognizable.  The picture below is so gruesome, it may help make the case for a 33% increase to the budget for the sake of restoration. This is a large, bitter pill to swallow. 

Despite the tears and protests, it could work. This could be God’s way of helping us reset our budget priorities and administrative strategies.

Obviously, these are round projections as I lack the resources available to The Finance Department. This is a reflection starter, not a final proposal.

$5 million AUSTERITY BUDGET for RESTORATION OF ANNUITY FUNDS

1. Right Size the Budget for Equity.[1]
2. Reduce the budget of Districts 1-13 by $100k each.  This adds $1.3+ to the Budget which will be removed in the next point.
3. Require Districts 1-13 to provide full compensation for their episcopal leadership.[2]
4. Global Development Funding Cut 100% (currently $280,182)
5. Lay Organization reduced to $60k (currently $194,962)
6. Women’s Missionary Society reduced to $60k (currently $314,065)
7. Colleges (Districts 1-13) no allocation. No change to seminaries (reduction of $1,841,196)
8. Extended Budget in Education (Districts 1-13) no allocation (reduction of $112,479)
9. Episcopal District Projects cut 100% (currently $130,537) 
10. SADA reduce by 50% (net reduction $280,667)
11. Research & Scholarship, Christian Education, Church Growth & Development, Global Witness & Ministry[3] reduce by 50% (total net $828,894)[4]
12. Sunday School Union and Christian Recorder reduced 100% (net $228,459)
13. Interdenominational Fund reduce 50% (net $85,212)
14. Savings:  $5,515,275/year

---

[1] In the current budget, 3 Districts are grossly underbudgeted as 3 Districts are grossly overbudgeted.  Past adjustments to the 8^th and the 12^th Districts were warranted, but no consideration was given to the 3^rd, 13^th and 10^th.  While the 4^th & 5^th may be distressed, there is no data to support a better allocation. For the sake of this presentation, we propose a reduction of $100,000 per year to those three districts and an increase of the same amount to the 6^th, 7^th and 11^th districts.

[2] This makes the $100k cut neutral.  With Districts providing full compensation, it will help us better understand, and address, the inequities as it encourages a new age of transparency and accountability for the leaders of the more generous districts.

[3] Except for $106,736 allocated for stipends.

[4] These General Officers, who are not already bi-vocational, could be given pastoral/presiding elder appointments.

Among the instruments used to divide us is a new wave of JUST (meaning only)!  Bear patiently as we share a list:  Just an X bishop; Just a Presiding Elder; Just a Pastor; Just a Chaplain; Just a Lay Person; Just an Alternate Delegate; Just an Observer; Just a Local; Just a Deacon; Just a Master degree, not a MDiv; Just one unit of CPE; Just a DMin; Just a X Chaplain, not certified; Just part-time; Just a Professor; and the list goes on.  One person seeks to exalt their status/function by disparaging the status of another.

This is not the way for us to live in Christ’s Spirit in our Zion!  We need to stop! Now!

There is a time and place to acknowledge training, certifications, and qualifications. It should never be an occasion to denigrate others, nor to assert superiority or exceptionalism.  Remember how we were told “there is always someone better?” 

This age calls for God’s people to be united and in synchronized service.  We should complement one another, not compliment ourselves or one over another.  That is not “just a layperson.” That person is called of God to minister outside the requirements of ordination.  That is not “just a local.”  That person, who may be differently skilled, is filling a needed responsibility in worship, leadership or congregational care.  That is not “just a chaplain.” That person, who may have any number of advanced skills and capabilities, is responding to a particular call of ministry beyond parish and sanctuary.  That is not “just a pastor.” That person shepherds a flock in ways not always required of chaplains or laity.

We must celebrate the diversity of ministry, and respect others, regardless of title, qualification, or service opportunities.  Should we frown, let our scourge be of the incompetent, fraudulently presented, dishonest, unsympathetic, boastful, unethical, delusional about their gifts and graces, and those oblivious to their professional “mis”-placement.  

From the cradle roll to the episcopacy, be faithful in the ministry God commits to your care. Our Crown comes by grace and our stewardship of the resources God makes available to us.  Position in an imaginary hierarchy of ministry will not garner our reward!

Two of the major fiscal challenges to our Zion are the continuation of ineffective/underfunded programs which we are not committed to making sustainable AND the funding of entities/programs that can sustain themselves.  We will leave the former for another time.  The latter is the basis for most of the reductions in the Proposed Austerity Budget.

Most components, and a few programs, can sustain themselves.  In the 1950’s the General Conference granted the WMS President a stipend/salary equal to that of a general officer.  Let us not digress on all the reasons for this.  The long-term result, though, is that constituent bodies claimed a place in the budget.  In some instances, the allocation far exceeded the cost of basic administration. Clearly, our two major constituent bodies have the means to sustain themselves.  Five or ten dollars (USD) per year per member would fund the connectional bodies beyond what the General Budget now supplies.

Similarly, thirty new student tuitions would replace what the connectional church gives to colleges in the United States. Before the centralized budget, colleges were supported (and sometimes closed) based on the ability of conferences/districts to sustain them.  Reliance on the general budget has done little for the schools while burdening a budget which is now more difficult to support.  PLUS, the central funding has NOT reduced the appeals/efforts in annual conferences/districts.  Same folk are paying twice, usually without thinking about it.

Moreover, pricing periodicals to meet budgetary requirements would reveal just how important they are and needed format adjustments.  Voluntary patronage would determine what we want/need and what is proud fluff.  A free market would work wonders in the development of our programs. 

AMEs are kind and generous!  They will give, voluntarily, to SADA, Missions, schools, and periodicals if they trust the program and the administration.  Reliance on mandatory support through the general budget has made us ineffective and suspect. 

Look at the constituent bodies without a major infusion of general budget money!  WIM, Sons of Allen, RAYC, and MCAM make it with mere seed money.  People support and pay for what they want.  Forced contributions through a centralized budget may have had merit in 1956.  It is not a good fit for 2024.

The Summary:  Those entities which can support themselves through constituent contributions should be forced to do so.  Benevolent causes can prove themselves and attract significant support.  Decentralize so good folk can give willingly with love, not out of necessity.  God loves the cheerful giver! This is one of the dreaded outcomes of Zero Based Budgeting…and why the effort always stalls!

The Annuity Crisis is not the only existential threat facing African Methodism!  Declining membership; new, emerging paradigms of “church;” and different standards of commitment and accountability to both church and charity; all are omens of a need to reassess mission, values and operations.  Sadly, the Annuity Crisis may force us to do what we have avoided for decades:  face the fiscal skeleton.

Barring an extraordinary financial commitment by responsible parties in the Annuity Crisis, the $2m/year set aside is pathetic.  While we may claim to be unable to do better, there could be an Austerity Budget in our near future.

Here is a kind version.  While I do not agree with those who argue there is a lot of fat in the General Budget, there are areas where we will have to cut in an environment of austerity.  Before you are consumed by anger or fear, watch for the next blog posts where I propose how we deal with an austere budget.

In an Austere Budget:

1. Salaries and Expenses for bishops and general officers are frozen.
2. Global Development Funding Cut 100% (currently $280,182)
3. Lay Organization reduced to $60k (currently $194,962)
4. Women’s Missionary Society reduced to $60k (currently $314,065)
5. Colleges (Districts 1-13) no allocation. No change to seminaries (reduction of $1,841,196)
6. Extended Budget in Education (Districts 1-13) no allocation (reduction of $112,479)
7. Episcopal District Projects cut 100% (currently $130,537) 

Savings:  $2,873,421/year

GOING DEEPER

1. SADA reduce by 50% ( net reduction $280,667)
2. Global Witness – eliminate office, stipend distribution in Finance Office (net reduction $163, 682)
3. Reduce Bishops’ travel 25% (net reduction $110,365)
4. Reduce General Officer travel 25% (net reduction $33,075)

Additional Savings:  $587,789/year

Subtotal Savings:  $3,461,210

STILL NOT ENOUGH?

1. Reduce salaries by 25% net about $425k/year
2. Miscellaneous additional 25% reductions could net $113,790

Total Annual Savings:  $4 million

FOR THE DREAMERS

1. Allow one bishop to serve two smaller contiguous districts – Savings $200-300k per year
2. Assign Ecumenical Office to a bishop with a district – Savings $20k per year
3. Assign Chaplain Endorser to a bishop with a district – Savings $20k per year
4. Do a General Program Audit to determine if there is fat in the Budget.
5. Make investment income an Income Line Item to balance the Budget.

How do we deal with Austerity? What was the rationale for the cuts? What is our Future in Funding/Program? What was the criteria for these proposed cuts?  How much increase to the Budget can we survive, and how will it be allocated?

Stay tuned!

This is the manuscript version. There are videos of the worship on various Facebook pages.

Thanks to all for their interest and prayers.

Lord, in your MERCY, hear our prayers!

Our Pension/Annuity programs were never perfect. While we were patient with tweaking and micro-improvements, there were always those who harbored suspicion, distrust, and low confidence in the system to monitor and protect assets.

Strict enforcement of the 12% Rule caused many to put ALL their church could afford for retirement in the system. They were not allowed to contribute only $312 twice a year. They could not put the difference between $624 and 12% into a private plan. Moreover, few were in comfortable enough pastoral situations to pay 12% on housing allowance or annual parsonage rental value. In short, most full time servants of the church began the process under-capitalized.

This makes the notion that “we” should wait on the proper investment of “our” remaining annuity funds outrageous! The faithful should not be penalized, or further victimized, because they followed the rules, and they served an institution unable to adequately provide fair, sufficient retirement benefits.

I have heard the arguments that the annuity funds are “the Church’s” to manage until participants separate. There are a few responses to this assertion, which I will hold for another time and expert commentary. The moral/ethical/practical question is why would the Church attempt to profit from, and withhold, Legacy Funds until the time of separation. Use your managerial authority to empower the participants!

Although we have not yet been informed of our individual statistics associated with a reasonable “expectation” of earnings on our annuity contributions over the last 20 years, there are some things which are quite clear:

1. The AME Church could have entered an arrangement, like our current one with Wespath, a long time ago.

2. When we transitioned from “pension” to “annuity” in the retirement presentation, we also should have been responsive to the cry for individually diverse investment options. This plea has been sounded for over 40 years. Had we been better informed, and less loyal, there would have been legal actions decades ago!

3. Although individual choices would have yielded varied earnings, many would have fared better with personal investment choices. All would have no one to blame for poor returns but themselves. We need more control over our funds NOW!

4. Why would anyone think it appropriate to bring the horse back to a renovated old corral, when we know the benefits and advantages of running the expanse of a free range?

5. Some of the same people who now watch over the funds have been in “watching” places for over a decade. Are they doing “better” when they are not vigorously leading the effort to rollover our funds?

Eventually, we must forgive and move on from the tragedy of the Annuity Crisis. Anger and lament need a final chapter. We do not deserve a prolonged reminder of our loss with every statement of under-earning and feeble restitution.

Here is the relevant question. Will our leaders do the right thing by rolling over our share of available funds, or will we spend additional hundreds of thousands of dollars in new litigation? Reasonableness or Receivership? Don’t penalize/victimize the faithful!

Do you remember when we would not talk or move during the prayer in worship? Even ushers were still, except when others had to be called to order during prayer! What happened? Are we lacking in faith or understanding? Do we believe that prayer, even in church worship, is our real communication with the real God?

Perhaps we do not understand that during the communion liturgy we are PRAYING. We Pray the General Confession. We Pray for Pardon, Humility and in Adoration. We Pray the Consecration. Do we even recognize PRAYER as part of our liturgical experience? What do clergy and lay think or focus on when we PRAY? Are they words on a page, or are they sentiments of our hearts?

It disturbs me when I see bishops, pastors, and stewardesses moving about, or engaged in conversation, during prayer. It may be difficult when we are trying to tweak logistics, but what good is smooth execution if we have dishonored the sacred moment with motion and talk…even seemingly important talk.

It is also disheartening when I hear clergy and lay rattle off prayers as though the words have no meaning. You have heard them “recite” the Lord’s Prayer. If you are “reciting,” are you “praying?”

We need liturgical reform! We must raise up a new generation of worshippers who go to the sanctuary to pray, for real. Clergy and laity must respect moments of prayer with focus and reverence. What if we are not truly praying when we sound the call, “Let us pray!“? What if God listens with the same nonchalant attitude with which we often pray?

Let’s get more disciplined about prayer, especially in our congregational worship! There are blessings missed because we are absent in spirit while present in body in the sanctuary.

Reform efforts range from simple to complex and from quick to slow.  Acting on reform issues with an appropriate understanding its nature can both energize from the easy accomplishments (and their benefits) and prepare for the longer, complex processes of the more difficult goals.  Consider:

The Common Sense Actions.  These are simple, direct improvements which can make a tremendous difference for both morale and administration.  Examples are: Publishing an Accurate Membership statistic (the data is mostly in hand); Making Connectional Budget Income Allocations Equitable (with membership data, it is straight forward, though difficult for some to swallow); Updates on the Annuity Crisis; Updates on Changes with Retirement Services; Reporting from AME, Inc. & AME Future Fund; and A Statement on Conflict of Interest/Self-dealing.  The key:  Just Do It!

Constitutional/Legislative Actions.  These are policy/program processes which should not be rushed or mere reaction motivated.  They require research, expert consultation, 360 degree consideration, refinement, and plans for implementation.  Just putting it in the Discipline is not implementation! Examples are: re-writing the Retirement Service section of the Discipline; revising the relationship of AME, Inc. to AMEC; revising General Board structure and Commissions; defining judicial processes (including appeals); and re-structuring the Budget.  We limp between two extremes. Either we do nothing because the hill seems steep, or we hide the details and deliberations until the last minute, which causes us to adopt flawed concepts and procedures.

Radical Personal/Systemic Change. This takes the most time and effort. Examples: eliminating/modifying personal entitlements and autocratic methodology; changing the way bishops, general officers, and presiding elders are financially supported; reviewing the support given to higher education; allowing one bishop to lead two contiguous districts (without merging); and eliminating, restructuring or creating connectional departments.  Foundational revisions to “the way we have been doing it” take research and analysis prior to proposal formation and convincing the Church of the necessity and benefits of change.

Nothing is impossible with God!  It is time for us to pray and reason together.  A stronger, more faithful church awaits us.