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.

1.      Restoration of 100% Value

Where 100% of value is defined as 100% of contributions plus the interest which would have been earned if ALL funds remained in the secure investment (Symetra). In some instances, this amount exceeded 1.5%, but it was never less than 1.5%.

2.      No less than 1.5% annual interest on participant accounts from June 2021 until the time of full restoration.  

 3.      Statements showing interest earned from June 2021 through the present and continuing until the closing (final distributions) of the Legacy Fund.

 4.      No legal fees to be assessed to the Legacy Fund participants. No reduction of Legacy Fund benefits to support legal and professional fees associated with litigation.

 5.      The full restoration of all funds, and satisfaction of debts associated with litigation and restoration, by the 2036 General Conference. 

Persons who have already retired will be immediately made whole with newly infused funds.  The same is to be applied to the beneficiaries of the departed, past and future. Others will be made whole, including interim earned interest, at the time of separation. All persons will be made whole regardless of their status by 2036.

 6.      The movement of Legacy Funds to a management account which will provide participant controls and higher benefits, such as the Wespath PIP.

 7.      The establishment of Fund Trustees made up of clergy and lay who are NOT members of the General Board. These persons should not have to have been general conference delegates. They should possess appropriate qualifications and serve limited terms.

 8.      Currently held Legacy Funds must not be used to pay current separation obligations above the proportional share of the exiting participant. Only newly infused funds may be used for a disproportionate division of assets.

Current retirees must not be allowed to exit with assets while remaining participants must trust the “promise” that their funds will be there when it is their time to exit the program.  This puts an unfair risk on the younger to benefit the older.  We are not the USA government. Our track record is soiled with flaws and documented reasons to make this approach negligent and unfair.

However, new funds, whether from a general budget infusion or investment returns from new funds, would be intended to benefit the older class of exiting participants disproportionately, by definition.  The funds are provided so earlier retirees will depart with 100% of the expected benefit. 

9.      Current Participants must receive 100% of the interest, dividend, or other appreciation of value less only a reasonable transaction/administrative fee which shall not exceed 2% per annum on any investment of Legacy Funds except in the case of a contractual relationship with a third-party administrator. 

10. The choice of third-party administrator, and any individual business/investment allocations, of Legacy Fund assets must be approved or ratified by a majority of the participants as determined by an independent voting/polling firm.

One of my appointments was to a church which had been damaged by fire, and the congregation was worshipping in a basement level room of a nearby Baptist Church.  Restoration plans were in progress, but after 10 months, no construction.  The insurance settlement was safe in a savings account as we modified the original plans and sought financing for necessary additional funds.

When the work finally began, and large payments were made for completed construction, the church treasurer visited my office.  He threw the savings passbook on my desk and sternly said, “You can keep this. It is worthless to me!”  There was still a few thousand dollars in the account, but it no longer showed the balance of tens of thousands of dollars.

I assured the treasurer that he needed to hold the passbook because there were funds left.  His response was that the balance meant nothing. “Before, I could show the passbook to my co-workers and friends. I was proud of the balance (almost $100k). Now it is down to practically nothing.” 

Just months into my appointment, I longed for some counselling skills which I was yet to acquire in seminary and by experience.  The Holy Spirit kept me from taking the passbook and tossing him out of my office with some old street blessings.  I surprised myself with my response, “Brother, you are important to this church and the community.  The bank book flush with cash did not make you important.  We still need you to help us through the financing and repayment process.  Take the book back and let’s go on.”

As it turned out, flesh and blood did not govern me that day. A few months later, we “really” needed that brother.  There was a snag at the bank.  The whole project was threatened and a season of embarrassment and suffering threatened the congregation.  That same brother, who wanted to give up and saw his importance in a passbook, knew one of the few people in the entire state who could fix our problem.  His relationships were more valuable than his custody of a savings account!

Of course, the brother had value as a human being.  Moreover, every penny moved out of the savings account got us closer to occupying a church building that would be renewed, practical and beautiful.  He did not see the transfer of cash into a product for ministry as part of his value and success.

This is not the time for pride in the accumulation of real estate and investments. It is a season to transfer fiscal assets into people (and our relationships) and the ministry they provide, not the hoarding of assets. It is time to boast the value we have in people by showing a willingness to bear the costs of equity. You may not see it on the balance sheet, but the fair investment in people will outperform other investments in the long-term.

A recent article on denominational departure of the United Methodist Church in the Ivory Coast did not share some important nuance.  In addition to creating a different LGBTQ+ environment, the UMC General Conference ALSO empowered regional bodies to govern themselves based on regionally generated church law. The bottom line is that the “regional bodies” could maintain a more traditional view of marriage and not enact the different LGBTQ+ positions affirmed at the General Conference.  United Methodists on the continent of Africa could easily remain within the denomination and maintain a church discipline which more closely aligns with civil laws and local cultural norms. That important distinction supports my conclusion that the matter is not sexual at all. The real issue is: how will Christians who disagree relate to one another both within and beyond denominational boundaries!

Among AMEs there is anxiety about our Discipline’s section on Same Sex Marriage. The church was doing fine before the relatively recent insertion of this section. Deleting it will NOT affirm same sex marriage, nor will it put our church’s position in conflict with ANY civil law anyplace in the world.  It WILL remove a prescribed penalty and change the duplicitous relationship between our church law and our practical moral realities.  Despite the affirmed prohibitions on same sex marriages, we are not turning away same sex families. Moreover, have we ever been serious about widespread enforcement of a moral code related to ordination, church leadership, and offering the sacraments?

The UMC ongoing struggle with sexual ethics issues is not a valid support for AMEs to ignore our effort to correct legal inconsistencies, with or without addressing our official sexual moral/ethical positions.  We can delete the statement on Same Sex Marriage (XVI, XV, B, pages 376-377) without any change to our practices which would jeopardize our relationship to African legal authorities or our brothers and sisters on the continent. Amending that one section of code is no valid justification for our African contingent to leave the denomination as it does not alter our moral position!

Aren’t we brothers and sisters? Do we have to agree on all things to maintain a relationship? What is the just cause for separation?  How will we, AMEs, live among those with whom we have moral, governance, and other differences?

I pray empty threats and colonial protectionism will not hinder holy discernment at our General Conference.  Most importantly, we cannot let sexual questions distract us from the larger question of how we will relate to those with whom we disagree.

Together let us sweetly live!

I was a youth clergy member of the General Board 1980-1984. In that quadrennium, a crusade for a better annuity/pension system found voice in the late Rev. Dr. Henry A. Hildebrand.  The complaint was crystal clear:  we need a system which affords participants the opportunity to direct at least a portion of their investment, and we need to invest with companies which pay higher interest.

Where ever money is involved, there are trust issues. When the Church moved from a “Pension” system to an “Annuity” system, participants received statements which reflected deposits, fees, and balances. We “believed” the money was “ours” being held and invested by the church. We did not think the Church could decide to give us less than what we contributed plus interest.

The “Connectional Church” was NOT necessarily the donor! Some pastors made the assessed “contribution to their annuity” out of their own pocket because the church could not afford it.  Others sacrificed pay raises to secure their retirement compensation.

We were not always content with various aspects of administration, but the focus was on the returns on invested funds. This was a salary based, vested interest, retirement plan, not an employer “pension” program where the “connectional employer” set aside funds to pay a variable “pension.” This was no longer the plan where administrators paid $50 per quarter (or some other amount) to those retired and less than $100 per year to widows. This was a better, more equitable approach to funding retirements. If anything, folks saw it as a pooling of resources for better gain. The obstacles were limited available choices for investment, poor returns, and (yes) questions about who was being enriched by administrative fees. (This is pre-2000.) No bearing on the current situation.

It seemed like a logical move to allow the Department to fund administration through various incentives, commissions, and financial perks which were common many years ago.  Rules and customs in the financial world are different today. Yesterday’s strategy is no longer feasible.

After forty years, can’t we get this right? There are those who have been on the General Board and Delegates to General Conferences for many of the last 40 years. Are you woke yet? Blind loyalty kept questions and demands to a minimum. It took a secure person who was not seeking position to speak out in the 1980’s. (Yes, it helped that his brother was a bishop. If you knew him and his bloodline, you can affirm that it was more his courage and integrity which ran deep.) Who will cry out in 2024?

In addition to the “Restoration,” we need a sound, secure, participant involved, efficiently administered, productive, annuity system.  We need plan Trustees who will heed reasonable participants’ wishes according to the law. We need Plan Trustees who block avenues for administrative personal gain and abuse.

Our current Wespath relationship would surely get a cheer from Dr. Hildebrand.  We are only halfway there, though. Please support efforts to make right the entire system, and make our administration the best possible.

God, give us the will and the way!

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!