Financial Stewardship and Recession – by Teresa Chávez Sauceda

The earth is the Lord’s and all that live in it,

The world and those who live in it.  Psalms 24:1

Cynthia’s essay on financial stewardship and recession raises some critical questions that go beyond the simple questions of how to cut a shrinking financial pie.  The recession may have accelerated the process, but the scenario Cynthia described at General Assembly is not new.  Veteran Assembly watchers are quite familiar with the cautious instructions given Commissioners.  Some Assemblies have taken that caution more to heart than others, but its overall effect is has been to raise the bar pretty high for any new initiative that might have a dollar cost attached to it.  While no one would argue with the need to use the church’s financial resources responsibly, I think we need to ask if the pressure to preserve shrinking resources doesn’t put a damper on the creative, imaginative visioning we need to direct the church and its ministries in a new era.

It should come as no surprise that a discussion of how the church gives and how the church spends should lead to questions of what the church is, what it means to be church in today’s society.  How we spend our money, whether in our personal finances or as a denomination, is a reflection our values.  Too often, what seems to be operating in the decision-making processes of our governing bodies is either a “survival of the fittest” approach, or “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.”  What’s often at stake is our commitment to serve marginalized communities, our capacity to support social justice ministries that are not the most popular, as well as our capacity to support new and innovative approaches to ministry.  As Cynthia points out, “part of the responsibility of faithful stewardship is discerning what new tools God is fashioning for the new thing God is doing.”  Where do we, as a denomination, have the kinds of discussions that help us to step back and look at the big picture?  How do our governing bodies and decision-making processes help us work collectively to support ministries in places where the church should be, not just the places that are easily funded?

Ask any Presbyterian what makes us distinctive from other “mainline” denominations, and if they have a sense of denominational identity, they will typically respond that it’s our polity.  One way our Presbyterian understanding of being a “connectional church” has been embodied has been through shared mission.  Mission dollars flowed from local congregations to middle governing bodies and national agencies for distribution to support a wide range of mission efforts, both domestically and internationally.  As Cynthia notes, this method of funding mission is breaking down as Presbyterians in local congregations choose more and more to give directly to mission programs and projects that they have a direct connection with.

This is not in and of itself a bad thing. There is tremendous value to be gained from the more direct engagement of more Presbyterians in mission.  But I wonder, what will be the unintended consequences?  Will we eventually lose the capacity to fund public witness ministries at the national level?   Presbyterians across the country are concerned about issues like human trafficking, the environment, and public education.  If we don’t have the resources at the denominational level to support and/or coordinate the work of Presbyterians at the local level, do we diminish our capacity to be an effective public witness for God’s love and justice in the world?

What happens when the pastor of a small, urban church serving a low income community, or the executive director of a church-founded, church-related non-profit ministry has to spend more time on fund-raising rather than ministry, because they can no longer rely on a grant from their presbytery or synod?   Many small congregations in marginal communities have a presence and witness in their communities that goes well beyond their membership, through after-school programs, food banks, citizenship classes and countless other ministries.  But they will always struggle to meet their budget and pay their pastor the presbytery minimum.  Do we abandon our presence in poor communities because they can’t fund themselves completely?  Or do we redefine them as ministries of the larger church?  Can we do a better job of engaging larger, more affluent congregations in ministry with them?  What looks like good stewardship at one level of the denomination may look like an undue burden at another level.

I realize that it runs counter to the research on this “post-denominational” culture, but I wonder if the reality of shrinking budgets in the church calls us to be more connectional, not less?  Are we called to be more counter-culture than accommodating culture?  What might the church look like if it practiced communal stewardship?