Imagine Indiana Recommendation Is Fatally Flawed

The fatal flaw relates to one of the “guiding principles” for formation of the new conference that is included in the Recommendation and how it will impact the local church. The principle says, “A continuation of clergy and staff benefits based on fairness and equality of eligibility with current levels of benefits serving as the base line.” The new conference is to be formed in accordance with this principle. This issue is explored a little later in this article. However, there are other issues that also contribute to a new conference being a dubious proposition.

At one of the Pre-Conference Briefings a pastor observed that several of the questions and opinions that were shared represented a lack of trust in the Conference. This was right on target in my opinion and there is considerable basis for this, not the least of which is Bishop Coyner commenting several months ago, “…you can’t keep adopting budgets which are larger than your income,” yet, the recommended 2008 Budget is estimated to be underfunded by $940,000. Furthermore, North Indiana Conference (NIC) receipts for the first four months of 2007 are lagging behind those of a similar period in 2006 by $234,000. Trust is compromised when one thing is said but something else is done.

How is the above pertinent to the Imagine Indiana Recommendation? Lacking confidence in the NIC leadership undermines and colors perceptions of what is being advocated. There are other examples. When the Imagine Indiana Planning Team was announced last summer it was stated, “Our goal is to be transparent…” However, the Team chose not to publish the Final Report of each of the 14 Discernment Teams. These Reports contain varied views including those that are not supportive of a single statewide Conference and include some details of what a single statewide Conference might look like when formally decided. Again, trust is compromised.

It has been stated many times by the Planning Team that the only reason for a statewide Conference is to help us be more effective in “missional” pursuits. However, in the same breath it is acknowledged that it is through local congregations that persons are brought into saving relationship with Jesus Christ. The overriding question becomes, “How does a structure beyond the local church help to accomplish this and is it even possible to do so?” Creating a new conference has been suggested as the answer, yet, by no means is this assured. At the Briefings it has been stated that the new conference is not just an exercise in “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic.” One must keep in mind that saying this does not necessarily make it so.

There are several examples of differing levels of benefits between the NIC and South Indiana Conference (SIC) for the staff and clergy. With “current levels of benefits serving as the base line” as stated in the above principle a situation is created where the lesser benefit in either Conference is brought up to the higher benefit of the other Conference. Two benefits affected by this principle are pension and health insurance. Currently the local church in SIC pays 100% of the health insurance cost for active clergy participating in the SIC health insurance program. In the NIC the cost is shared between the local church and pastor. For instance, an NIC pastor who has NIC health insurance including for the spouse and children currently pays $6,276 for the year and the local church pays $8,832 for this clergy benefit. However, it is my understanding that if a new conference is created the NIC local churches, as previously described, would incur the additional yearly cost of $6,276 that the pastor currently pays. Remember…this is just one of the benefits that will be increased by bringing the two Conferences together. At the Briefing the question was asked, “Will a single statewide Conference result in additional costs for the local church?” and the answer given was “At this time we don’t know the answer to that.” This answer unquestionably contradicts the principle discussed above.

In the business and industry sector we repeatedly hear of downsizing including the reduction of benefits and cost containment measures being put in place and all the more so when restructuring and mergers are occurring. This Recommendation does not call for any reductions and in fact calls for an increase in benefits and in the case of health insurance for the increased cost to be paid by the local church.

At the Briefing it was stated that a single Conference will not save any money and may even result in additional costs for the startup.

The Recommendation is fatally flawed as a result of it calling for increased costs to the local church and all the more so given the other considerations discussed here.

“State of the Church” Report – A Flawed Process?...Now let's see...

The UMC Connectional Table is well into the process of preparing a “State of the Church” Report. The first draft is expected to be completed by the end of this year. For several reasons, discussed later, the validity of this report is going to be suspect.

Personal interviews as well as Internet bulletin boards, surveys, and other research methods are being used to gather information. Bishops, pastors, district superintendents, annual conference treasurers and administrative service directors, connectional ministries directors, and designated lay leaders are among those being interviewed. Research will be conducted globally including from United Methodists in the United States, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique, Germany, Switzerland, Russia and the Philippines. The Report will describe the thoughts, feelings, values, and judgments of active and inactive members of the UMC.

The research includes an online survey that is comprehensive and allows the respondent to indicate the relative importance of various core beliefs and core values of the denomination, local church opportunities for discipleship, various issues facing the church and world today, one’s attitude about the connectional system and its financial support, pastoral effectiveness, organizational structure of the denomination, and homosexuality.

How do you determine the “state of the church” when membership is about 11 million across various areas of the globe as indicated above with about 8 million concentrated in the United States? At best it is a problematic undertaking.

Earlier this week I talked with United Methodist Communications about the online survey specifically and the project in general. A major concern of mine is the relatively small number of individuals that are providing input for this report and what I assume will be the lack of proportional representation of the typical UM in the pew. From what has been shared it appears that the report will rely heavily upon the input of those intertwined with the institutional structure and governance of the church. For instance, there are 500-600 individuals that have participated in a “telephone survey” and I was told this will represent a scientific sample from which extrapolations will be made. Frankly, I am greatly troubled by this and all the more so given the above information as to who is being interviewed. This is not the “State of the Institutional Leaders,” but, rather the “Church.”

Regarding the online survey it was mentioned that about 8,200 have responded thus far with about 33% of these being from “Clergy,” 13% marked “Lay Leader,” and 55% as “Member.” This represents less than 1/1000th of the 11 million member denomination. In my annual conference there has been minimal attention drawn to this survey and I have seen no effort to encourage pastors and local church lay leadership to bring it to the attention of everyone in the pews. It was also shared that because there is unrestricted access to the survey that its results cannot be informative for the report in the same way as the “telephone survey” results. The efficiency of using the Internet is understood, however, that cannot necessarily be equated with “effectiveness.”

The fact that the online survey is available to many ignores the sizable group of UMs who do not use the Internet. There seems to have been no provision for this group to provide their input. Of course, even if there had been it might be seen similar to the results of the online survey, i.e. of limited use because it is being provided by an “unscientific sample.”

Finally, the project would have been seen more credibly, if its suggested process and parameters had been generally publicized for scrutiny before the project formally commenced. Admittedly, I have only limited information about the project and do not have an extensive formal background in research and statistics. However, it seems to me that when the Report is issued one must also take into account how it was arrived at. It may or may not be a valid representation of the “State of the Church.”

(Online Survey)
(Source 1)
(Source 2)

Budgetary Dilemma: “…reduce spending or increase income…”…Now let’s see…

In his article, “Balancing Our Budgets,” Bishop Coyner refers to “…reduce spending or increase income…” as the two ways to balance a budget. During recent months there has been considerable emphasis put on trying to increase income. What has been the result?

In a recent article in this blog I addressed this question. Unfortunately, I erred by not including “District Support” in the 2006 receipts since it was included in the 2005 receipts. I have now corrected this below. Additionally, some have pointed out, quite correctly, that there are some churches that for various reasons delay paying their apportionment (tithes and offerings) until later in the year and for this reason you can not expect the receipts of the first six months to equal those of the last six months. With this in mind I offer the following.

First, let’s correct (i.e. include the District Support) and then compare what the Conference has received for January thru June for both this and last year:

2006 - $3,952,597 (includes “Tithes” and “Offerings” and “District Support”)
2005 - $4,127,312 (includes the same as above)

As can be seen we have received almost $175,000 less in the first half of 2006 than during the same time period in 2005. Puzzlingly, the Chairperson of our Conference Council on Finance and Administration recently stated, for the first half of the year, “…financially we are just a bit ahead of where we were last year…” However, upon being questioned about this he has now, in an individual email, corrected his previous comment and stated “…total cash compared to last year is down.”

In 2005 the Conference received $9,043,555. Of this, $4,127,312 (or 45.64% of $9,043,555) was received in the first six months.

In 2006 the Conference received $3,952,597 during the first six months. If last year’s experience is used to predict what might occur this year, i.e. the $3,952,597 represents 45.64% of what will be received for the year, then we can project that the Conference will receive $8,660,379 for the year. It should be noted that the 2006 Budget is $9,734,168 and, as stated above, the Conference received $9,043,555 in 2005.

Some may say that this fall’s further emphasis on stewardship and tithing will lead to a significant increase in Conference income. This may be correct, however, if not, Bishop Coyner says the only alternative is to reduce spending. My hunch is that our modus operandi for the coming months as well as 2007 and 2008 will need to be “reduce spending.”

Selecting The Lay Delegate To Annual Conference Is No Trifling Matter

(This article is written specifically with the North Indiana Conference in mind. However, the general thrust of the article has application to any Annual Conference.)

The local church selects its officers and committee members, usually in the period of August thru November, to oversee and direct the work of their local church for the following year. This includes selecting its lay member to Annual Conference. This is a critical position that is unlike any other position in the local church. This individual has the responsibility of acting on a several million-dollar budget, in the case of the North Indiana Conference, a budget for 2007 that exceeds $10,000,000. The budget takes into consideration various needs, programs, and ministries as well as possible new directions. However, funding for these areas is impacted by certain costs that continue to significantly escalate. These dollars, Tithes plus Offerings, come directly from the offering received in the local churches. As is true for all of God’s creation we are charged to be worthy stewards of these dollars. To fulfill this mandate access to information is essential.

The formative process of the Annual Conference is accomplished through a variety of groups, i.e. Boards, Commissions, Committees, etc. with both clergy and laity participation. Supposedly there is a balance, if not equality, between the clergy and laity participation. However, one distinct difference is that clergy are more effectively connected for communication purposes. They have a better understanding of all of the parts that comprise the Annual Conference. Their flow of information is more consistent throughout the year regarding proposals and recommendations taking shape in these groups.

With any bureaucracy, including the Annual Conference, there is always the possibility that the groups may “lose touch” with those at the grass roots, i.e. the laity of the local church. A contributing factor to this is the difficulty laity have in securing timely, understandable, and helpful information about the progress of these groups as it is occurring. It is for this reason that the lay member to Annual Conference assumes a most important responsibility.

This individual has a responsibility throughout the year to apprise themselves of the work of the Annual Conference and to gain an understanding that will allow them to effectively represent their local church on all of the issues, including the budget, that come before the Annual Conference. Several means of doing this are staying abreast of the information on this website (www.laityumc.org) and also accessing what is available on the Conference Website at www.nicumc.org and The Indiana Area Website at www.inareaumc.org. Additionally, others in the local church who may be serving on one of these groups as well as the pastor may have helpful information and answers to questions. Also, the Conference Service Center has a toll-free number, 800/783-5138, and is very helpful in providing information. If the lay member did not serve in that capacity the previous year it is suggested the previous year’s lay member pass the materials on to the new individual. Although the information would be “old” it would certainly give some idea of what to expect.

Another disadvantage for the laity is that there is periodic and sometimes frequent change as to who the lay member is from a local church. On the other hand the clergy representative attends year after year regardless of whether they are appointed to a different church. This results in the clergy acquiring a more comprehensive understanding of the issues and proceedings from one year to the next.

In summary, if the laity are to be effectively represented at Annual Conference it is essential that the delegate be committed to the responsibilities and willing to make the effort and commit the necessary time for this to occur. This means a year round responsibility rather than one limited to the several weeks leading up to the three days of Annual Conference.

“We Believe That We Will Be Able To Fully Fund This Budget”…Now let’s see…

The above claim was made by the Council on Finance and Administration regarding the 2006 Conference Budget. Two months ago I gave a status report on the first one-third of the year. The year is now one-half over. So, how are we doing?

First, let’s compare what the Conference has received for January thru June for both this and last year:

2006 $3,795,785 (includes “Tithes” and “Offerings”)
2005 $4,127,312 (includes General Church apportionments as does above)

As can be seen we have received about $330,000 less in the first half of 2006 than during the same time period in 2005.

The 2006 Conference Budget is $9,734,168. With the expectation that it will be fully funded come the end of the year you might expect that about one-half of that amount, about $4,867,000, should have been received during the first six months. As previously noted a little less than $3,800,000 has actually been received, a difference of more than $1 Million.

In addition to CFA’s claim we should also remember Bishop Coyner’s comment, “…you can’t keep adopting budgets which are larger than your income…” However, CFA’s recommended budget for 2007 totaled $10,063,732.

One might be curious about each of the local churches and what part of their tithe and offering has been remitted to the Conference for the first six months. You’ll find that information by clicking here.

Come the end of 2006 will the budget have been fully funded? In six more months we shall know. In the meantime what's your guess?

From “Apportionment” To “Tithes And Offerings”…Now let’s see…

In North Indiana there has been a long history of the local churches being apportioned to financially support the Conference and its purpose, “…to make disciples for Jesus Christ by equipping its local churches for ministry, and by providing a connection for ministry beyond the local church…” This purpose and all that it entails requires close scrutiny, however, that is not the focus of this article. The change to “tithes” and “offerings” is.

It was not uncommon to hear “apportionment” referred to as a “tax.” Of course, this immediately conjures negative thoughts. So, beginning in 2006 the above purpose is financially supported by “tithes and offerings.” The intent includes generating more dollars for Conference and General Church support, i.e. for the UMC hierarchy and its activities.

How is it hoped this will be accomplished? “Tithes” and “offerings” has a scriptural basis. It has been suggested that this fact is sufficient for what is being requested and encouraged. However, there are those who say that the scriptural references are being misrepresented and misapplied to today’s circumstances.

Bishop Coyner has now designated October 8th this fall as a “Teach About Tithing” Sunday, encouraging every pastor to preach a sermon about tithing and to “encourage all of our people to tithe or to move toward tithing.” What makes this problematic is the implication “tithe to your local UM church so that it can then tithe to the hierarchy.”

Additionally, the Conference is conducting a stewardship seminar, “A Call to Finance Discipleship, Encouraging the Joy of Generous Giving,” to be held at three different sites during the fall of 2006. The presenter, Rev. David Bell, is with the General Board of Discipleship. When discussing financial giving he contrasts a “scarcity mindset” with an “abundance outlook.” He continues, “In an abundance outlook, raising money in the church is not about raising money for the annual budget…” Oh, are we not playing with words?

From a denominational perspective all of this emphasis on stewardship and tithing is understandable, though I believe misguided. One only needs to look at the last several years in our Conference to understand the dilemma. When 158 churches of 573 (27.6%) do not fully pay their apportionment, as occurred in 2003 (for 2005 it was 193 churches of 568 or 34%), there is indeed a message that is being given. The challenge is to accurately understand what that message is. In my opinion it is not, “We believe we should tithe to the UMC.”

The issue is not God’s call on our lives. It is understood that it is a call for total surrender, not just a part such as 5%, 10%, or 50%. And not just dollars, but our lives. The question is, “Does God require that it all be within the context of the UMC?” I think not.

Washington DC Youth Study Seminar Cancelled...Now let's see...

Some background info:

The NIC Council on Youth Ministries is sponsoring the annual Washington D.C. Youth Study Seminar trip on July 30-August 5, 2006. This year's topic is "The Separation of Church and State." This is an opportunity for youth to become involved in an important issue of our day. What are our rights regarding religious freedom? How can displaying the Ten Commandments or a Nativity scene at Christmas be a bad thing? Do religious-based clubs have a place in our schools? As Christians, how do we protect our rights while respecting the rights of others?Cost of the seminar will be $325 plus meals. A few meals will be included in the seminar price, but those meals for which the youth will be responsible could cost as must as $100. The registration fee also includes transportation, lodging, program fees, insurance, counselors, one dinner play, and study materials. Limited scholarships are available through the Youth Service Fund. Youth should also look for additional support through their districts, local churches, and private sponsors. Registrations need to be received by May 15.

Yesterday it was announced that this Seminar was being cancelled due to low registrations. I am not familiar with the history of this Seminar or any of the details. However, I do have several questions and comments. Possibly others can help with the questions.

For how long have we participated in this Seminar and about how many participants do we usually have?

What accounts for the low registrations...possibly the topic?

Yesterday's cancellation notice was the first I even heard of this trip. Maybe I've been "asleep" and previous publicity went unnoticed by me.

My school system more and more is filling the summer months for students. Much of this is athletic related and band related. This year (not during the summer) the seniors went to NY and the Band went to Toronto. Next summer the 7th and 8th grades will go to Washington, D.C.

How much is the scholarship for from the Youth Service Fund?

As a Conference we hear comments about our youth, wanting to appeal to them, and wanting to provide an "incubator" from which they can develop into future leaders in the faith. What does this low registration portend for the future of the NIC?