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.