{ OUTLOOK FORUM }
I am thankful for the work that the Special Offering Advisory Task Force (SOATF) has completed because I believe that many of its recommendations provide an opportunity for the Presbyterian Church (USA) to debate and discuss what it means to be the church in our current society and culture. There are many parts of the SOATF report that are worth embracing, particularly the concept of thinking about our abundance as a denomination instead of the scarcity of members and declines in giving.
However, I would argue that being Church in this world does not make fiscal sense. There are many things we do because of our faith that challenge traditional business models.
One of my concerns is that Self Development of People (SDOP), Peacemaking and the Presbyterian Hunger Program (PHP) are involved in areas of ministry that can be difficult to interpret to people in the pews, can be easily ignored and at best are likely to be sometimes misunderstood. The central reason for this, I think, is that if Christians really embrace the Gospel, then they need to realistically look at how the choices they make impact their brothers and sisters in Christ in potentially negative ways.
SDOP and other social justice endeavors are part of the work as a church that many Christians can be blind to, intentionally or not. Removing the dedicated percentages for One Great Hour of Sharing (OGHOS) will make it increasingly easy for the church to not fund the work that can be uncomfortable to think about because there will be other, easier priorities in sight.
Further, adding peacemaking to the corpus of funds generated through OGHS almost guarantees a reduction in funding for PDA (Presbyterian Disaster Assistance), SDOP and PHP. With peacemaking added to the mix and assuming that expected revenues won’t increase immediately and assuming that future allocations will be distributed on an equal basis among the four programs, current OGHOS programs would realize an automatic reduction in funds by at least 7 percent. Using current revenues as an example, in the case of SDOP, this would mean that seven worthwhile programs would go unfunded.
Which ones do we not fund? The church has helped and witnessed some of the most remarkable things during my time on the committee. I have listened as Maria Magdalena Guerrero has claimed her own name after completing art classes that helped her realize her own self-worth in the Dominican Republic. I have broken bread in San Antonio with Esther Reyes, who asks, “At what point did the people in power make us believe we were not human beings?” I have listened to The Coalition of Immokalee Workers talk about being locked in tractor-trailers at night. I have listened as Byron Encalade of the United Fisheries Cooperative in South Plaquemines Parish, La., has talked about how African- American, Cajun and Vietnamese fishermen are now all working together after Hurricane Katrina. These are stories of the transformative love of Christ for the world in action through the Presbyterian Church and would not be possible without the generous and focused support of the One Great Hour of Sharing.
Also, I am concerned that donor confidence will be eroded if gifts are spread among a variety of programs rather than the three currently supported by OGHS. Is the high level of support for OGHS a statement of confidence in the particular programs using OGHS funds? Or are the gifts sent to fund disaster issues, hunger issues or development issues in general? My belief is that OGHS support is the result of confidence in particular programs rather than concern about general areas of mission. The proposals in the SOATF report will certainly challenge that programmatic confidence, and I worry that gifts will decrease rather than increase.
The Rev. St. Paul Epps, first director of SDOP, describes the ministry as being, “Conceived out of the struggles of poor and oppressed people around the world. It is a ministry given birth by a denomination that believed, and I believe still believes, that every person has the right to live with dignity… It has been the Presbyterian Church’s response to human need in a different way for over 40 years. It is not charity; it is people making decisions for themselves, their families, and community. It is the church responding to the voices of the people.”
To risk a decline in support of such efforts is, in my opinion, to ignore the challenges put forth by the Gospel to stand with the struggling souls in our communities.
MICHAEL FAGANS is a ruling elder and clerk of session for the Westminster Church in Bakersfield, Calif. He also is past chair of the Self-Development of People Committee of the General Assembly.
