Corruption is Pandemic! It makes governments less efficient. It robs the needy of humanitarian assistance, and blocks life supporting aid from populations in distress. It is found in both developed and undeveloped countries. Yes, it can be found in the Church! It is not one of the pandemics which will be discussed at the General Conference.

Much could be said of the waste, suffering, and injustice of Corruption. The normalcy of corruption is disturbing as it has made unethical practices accepted and expected in everyday life.

Corruption is a vile expression of privilege. For some, it is as though God “created them to be the beneficiaries” of unfair dealings. We classify the “givers” and “receivers.” Compassion and dignity get strained when the “receivers” have expectations of the “givers” which become demands. The corrupt have a distorted view of humanity.

Corruption indicates both selfishness and faithlessness. It is about “me,” and my inability to trust God for the necessary provisions of life. This is a crisis!

God, give us insight to the things we do, and accept, which demean others. Help us to see the needs of others alongside our own. Teach us to trust you. Increase our faith in your promised goodness and mercy. Let there be an end to corruption. Let it begin with me. Amen

In 2004, the AME Church made a major commitment to Indigenous Leadership with an unprecedented election of three bishops who were born in overseas districts (Districts 14-20). The intent was sealed with a document: The Covenant. Persons born outside of the USA would serve areas of their birth. Yet, the understanding of those elected was not clear in terms of their having made an active, career long obligation.

While most delegates in 2004 thought the obligation would be until retirement, the very wording of The Covenant suggested a lesser arrangement. The document called for the continued election of District 14-20 candidates until there “may” be a natural rotation off into Districts 1-13. The very notion of “rotation” showed the matter had not been thoroughly reasoned.

Rather than effectively responding to years of discussion in the African Jurisdictional Council (AJC) to empower local leadership of the church, the denomination created a smooth path for the election of global candidates with no clear vision for how they would be best deployed. The dilemma faced us after eight years and the challenge of assignments. Unlike our sister churches, we had no provisions for more than an eight year tenure for a bishop beyond North American shores. Suddenly, bishops were not indigenous, and they were not in the nation of their preference.

Some candidates (2004) foreknew the issue, and they refused to enter the Covenant. They were connected to their new base in America. They did not foresee themselves serving in their birthplace for more than one or two quadrenniums (like their American born colleagues who also sought the episcopal office). So, now we have it. Worthy candidates did not take advantage of a favorable condition to be elected. Others took advantage of the opportunity with the notion that the church was trying to make the ranks of leader internationally diverse, not that indigenous leadership had become a new value for our Zion.

Most of the delegates (2004) were clear on the terms of commitment. Whether or not those elected had the same understanding is not for current reflection. That many candidates thought they lost the opportunity for episcopal service because of the global “set aside” is no longer relevant. These are my pressing concerns:

1. The personal toll on “indigenous” leaders is unfair given our undeveloped structure for Indigenous Leadership. Moving bishops across the continent to diverse cultures for an entire career is not fair to them, or their families. We need to address the impact of our policy with a pastoral response. We do not have to perpetuate an administrative error by continued insensitivity to the human predicament. Let’s move forward from our mistakes.
2. The church has reneged on its obligation under The Covenant. The document/sentiment should be considered null and void. This is not an automatic claim check to a District 1-13 assignment. It is the call for the removal of the stigma and prohibition. Evaluate gifts and graces. Match them to vacancies.
3. We need legislation which will accommodate truly indigenous leadership. Indigenous Bishops are a good idea we have not properly developed. A Southern African Jurisdiction may accomplish much of this, but there are other considerations such as tenure limits on service in one area.
4. Our comrades in Districts 14-20 are going to have to be clear about THEIR acceptance of indigenous leadership. Let us not be fooled, there are some districts which have No Desire for indigenous leaders. Candidates from those districts need to be forthright in their campaign. You are not a bishop for “your” area as “your” area does not want “your” leadership. You are a candidate from the global theater seeking to serve wherever the has for a person of your gifts and graces. Rank and file AMEs need to be cautious about how we encourage aspirations. Do not mislead your sisters and brothers.
5. AMEs, Be Careful About What You Ask For! You may get it, and have to live with it. Advice for Districts 1-20!
6. We have wasted 20 years of preparation time for a new generation of leadership from the continent. When I think of the late Bishop Senatle, not only do I remember a man of depth and gifts which were unknown to most, but I also consider the mentoring/preparation of the late Bishop Ming. The Bishops, Clergy, and Laity should be praying for, and preparing, leaders from the trenches of Districts 14-20.
7. Indigenous only works if the people who will be led do the selecting. Americans must not elect leaders who will be forced on the people. My comrades across the water, I will not support any candidate from among your numbers until you come together in support of the candidate(s)!

Other Streams of Income! We have shouted about this for decades. The fact is there are many AME’s who have tapped “other streams” for a while. Rental properties, investments/endowments, and community-wide fundraisers which do not rely on the offering plate or the congregation for the bulk of the income. The General Church has a stream of income hidden in plain sight: The Reserve/Endowment funds.

The retiring CFO boasted $10m of reserve/endowment assets. It seems a sizeable sum is there, and in the AME Future Fund. Has anyone asked the question: how much are we earning on our invested reserve/endowment funds?

This brings us to a more important question: why is not Investment Income an income line item for our General Budget?

We have passed the reasonable point of delayed distribution from investment gains. Now is the time to receive an annual distribution of $200k from Investment Gains.

Look at the positives: 1. $200k is less that 5% of investments which should be realizing a greater gain (no dipping into principal), 2. The distribution is enough to offset the budgetary expense (contribution) of $132k/year TO endowment. 3. The few additional funds realized would also be enough to bring the Wilberforce Community College (19th District) allocation in line with the other main educational institutions. 4. It will set a positive example of the benefit of endowment funds. 5. It could establish incentive for the cultivation of endowment as an alternate income stream.

Endowments are critical factors in the present and future AME Church at both the general and congregational level. Endowment distributions are, in fact, a stream of income beyond the offering plate. The folk need to see this advantage. The budget, for the sake of transparency, needs a line item for investment income to the Budget of the Church.

Will the General Board and the General Conference insist on Investment Income as a budget line item?

The currently proposed Budget 2025-2028 calls for a 2.7% increase: a reversal of the 2016 Budget’s 2.7% decrease. Regrettably, not only are our views on budget increases illogical, but also our deceptive manner of increasing the budget is a not so funny joke!

Budget Increases are universally despised, sometimes irrationally. Perhaps we rightly reason that the church cannot bear an increase to the General Budget. It is wrong to assume we can do the same things with the same funds as inflation devalues our stagnant budget. The sane approach would be to look at programs and reassess priorities. We do not like to question or cut existing programs. Increasing the budget (or not) is supposed to be a “program” question, not a math problem. We fail at facing “program” and the difficult decisions attached to “program.”

The modest 2.7% increase distracts from the significant cut in program support (25%-50%) as one seminary, legal fees, and Retirement Restoration all see an increase in funding. This leads us to the fact of the matter: the 2025-2028 Proposed Budget calls for a budget increase far beyond 2.7%. The exact amount of the “increase” is difficult to compute.

We used the same play we have run for 25 years: increase the budget by redirecting costs. Old Play! If you are older than me, you can remember when the General Church gave travel stipends to General Conference delegates. Now, Districts support General Conference Delegate Expenses (unevenly we may add). When the Church got in a legal bind, the Districts picked up the tab for General Board travel (I was surprised that did not return in the current budget, or did it?). When schools, components and programs are cut by 25% without an accompanying cut in the programs, we did not cut the budget (or avoid increasing it). We shifted the Budget Increase somewhere else! Diverting expenses is the same as increasing the budget.

Just because bishops’ travel was cut 25%, do we think there will be fewer meetings, held at budget hotels, for a shorter time? Will bishops ride a bus instead of fly after August? A joke! Somebody will pick up the slack. The same is anticipated with regard to schools and components. Ultimately, the same folk will support The Increase.

We have shifted chunks of the Budget to less transparent fiscal areas within our larger community. The increase is not small…certainly, more than 2.7% By this time next year, we will begin to see The Increase.