LOUISVILLE — At first, it may seem like legal ho-hum, not a question to ignite much passion. Should three church programs, including Presbyterian Disaster Assistance, be spun off into a separate corporation?
But for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A), there’s a lot at stake in the answer including a public tussle at the General Assembly Council over what to do, and the bigger issue this discussion raises over what the PC(USA) will look like in the future.
Will some of the most popular programs such as disaster relief and international mission be split off into separate entities? And what — in such a deeply divided denomination — will happen to the parts that remain?
But for now, the issue on the table is whether to create a separate corporation to house three groups — Presbyterian Disaster Assistance, the Presbyterian Hunger Program and the Jinishian Memorial Program, which was funded by a bequest in the 1960s and provides assistance to Armenians.
WHY IT MATTERS
Why does it matter?
First, some say that creating a separate disaster and relief organization could make a real difference in how quickly and how well Presbyterians respond to those in need. Advocates for the change say that a smaller, more nimble organization could mobilize faster in an emergency.
And a focused relief and development agency could do a better job focusing on the big picture — bringing help not just the immediate crisis of a famine or an earthquake, but also convincing donors to do something about the enduring, underlying problems in areas of need such as poverty and hunger.
When the disciples weren’t catching any fish, Jesus told them to cast their nets on the other side of the boat, said Jerry Bedford, a Presbyterian minister from Arkansas presbytery. He has worked in funds development for Heifer International and other relief groups, and led a fast-paced work group that looked at options for Presbyterian Disaster Assistance and is recommending the change.
Who’s harmed by indecision, Bedford asked?
“I know who will be harmed. It’s the poor, the hungry, the disaster victims, those we are called to serve.”
Second, some argue that Presbyterians at the grassroots expect the church to be flexible and up-to-date — and if it’s not, they’ll send their dollars elsewhere. When the tsunami slammed into the shores of South Asia, for example, the phones at some churches started ringing off the hook, with unhappy Presbyterians asking why Presbyterian Disaster Assistance wasn’t included in the big media lists of disaster relief organizations.
The answer of why they often weren’t has to do with the way Presbyterian Disaster Assistance is structured — it’s considered part of the church, a religious organization, not a separate nonprofit agency. As a result, its books can’t be audited and it’s not included in the listings of two major Web sites that track charitable groups — www.GuideStar.org and www.charitynavigator.org — and which both the media and many donors rely on for information.
Nine other denominations — including the United Methodists and the Episcopalians — have created separate disaster and relief organizations. Those agencies are considered private nonprofit groups, which means they file federal forms disclosing how the money they collect is used, and they are listed on GuideStar and Charity Navigator.
The Episcopalians were afraid to make the change — the governing body considered it three times before passing it — but they now say, “It was the best thing we ever did,” Bedford said.
“Our members are losing confidence in the adaptability of the church to the changing times,” he told a General Assembly Council subcommittee. “They’re saying, `Get with it — it’s an Internet age.’ “
The Presbyterian church is called by the Gospel “to be in solidarity with those who are in a place of struggle,” said Mark Lancaster, coordinator of the Presbyterian Hunger Program. “We don’t do it nearly as well as we could.”
OTHER ADVANTAGES
There are other advantages to a separate corporation too.
Presbyterian Disaster Assistance took in about $40 million in donations in 2005 — meaning, some contend, that it’s big enough to need its own board to provide careful oversight and accountability.
Employees of the Jinishian fund, some of whom work in countries with strict limits on the roles of churches in social service work, would become eligible to participate in their countries’ equivalents of Social Security and Medicare.
Because of their church connections, sometimes Presbyterian Disaster Assistance and Jinishian can’t be formally registered in the countries in which they work, “sometimes putting extreme pressure on very fragile church partners in those places,” said Gary Cook, the PC(USA)’s associate for Global Service and Witness.
And if a separate corporation were created, businesses that match employees’ charitable contributions could match donations to Presbyterian Disaster Assistance. As it stands now, “People say if I can’t match it with the Presbyterians, maybe I’ll give it to the Red Cross,” Bedford said.
Frustration with the Presbyterian system “gave tons of people to World Vision and Habitat (for Humanity) and Heifer,” Bedford contended.
Marian McClure, director of the PC(USA)’s Worldwide Ministries Division, acknowledged that “we cultivate great donors” and then “hand them over to marketing geniuses who work for non-Presbyterian entities. And that hurts.”
REASONS FOR CAUTION
But McClure — who said she found the idea of doing something fresh and innovative “profoundly attractive” — also voiced caution about moving too far, too fast, without enough support, and without making sure the new approach wouldn’t birth problems of its own.
She also said the discussion over this provides an opportunity for the PC(USA) to have broader conversations about whether ministry work should be consolidated and organized at the national level or not.
“Is it time to look at how mission is thriving in other settings?” McClure asked. If things aren’t working as well as they could at Presbyterian Disaster Assistance, where else aren’t they working well either?
But “once you start a General Assembly entity, it liveth forever,” she warned. And “the rapid pace could have a cost in mistakes that live a long time and could be difficult to fix.”
And McClure cited an African proverb. “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”
The work group recommending changes didn’t start these discussions until December — this has definitely been a speed-up project that McClure said is producing lots of anxiety. But there are time pressures at work here: in order to win approval of the new corporation from this summer’s General Assembly, the change needs to be proposed at the council’s February meeting, or the assembly would have to wait until 2008.
But some key leaders say they’re not yet sure about what to do — they’re attracted to what’s being proposed, but have serious questions about it too and don’t want to rush exuberantly into a decision that could raise difficulties down the road.
Those asking questions include Nancy Kahaian, chair of the General Assembly Council, and Rick Ufford-Chase, moderator of the 216th General Assembly. Among those questions:
· What exactly would be the relationship between the council and the new corporation — how would the connection between the church and the relief and development be kept strong?
· What would the impact be on other PC(USA) programs — including Self-Development of People, which along with the disaster and hunger programs also receives funding from the One Great Hour of Sharing campaign each year but would not be included in the new corporation. Cynthia White, the PC(USA)’s coordinator for the Self Development program, said those involved with that program “remain extremely concerned.”
· Would a separate corporation accept government money? And what leeway would it have to advocate or lobby for changes in public policy to help the dispossessed?
Ufford-Chase said what’s being proposed “is exactly the direction in which the church is headed.”
In five years, he said, much of the PC(USA)’s ministry work will be spun off into separate organizations that are “lighter, more agile on their feet,” or will be shifted to local congregations or networks. That vision — less centralized, more local — is definitely the future, Ufford-Chase said.
And “nobody wants to be more bold than I do” in working for change — “I guarantee it,” said the 40-something moderator, who’s constantly pushing the PC(USA) to be bold and take risks.
But Ufford-Chase said he feels real anxiety about pushing for change “without doing the hard work of building consensus.” He said he recently returned from India and Pakistan, where decisions made quickly produced splits in the church and created “great headaches.”
Ufford-Chase said he wants to figure out “how do we do this in a way that feels as if it’s still church. I’ll be honest. I don’t want to be the best Red Cross in the world. That’s not who we are. We are called to be church to the world.”
