Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
Having looked at how much total United Methodists in the United States send annual to the central conferences (probably over $100 million per year), it is worth looking at how much money the central conferences likely generate themselves in giving by members in those central conferences.
While much uncertainty exists, the total given to local churches in the central conference might be between $110-470 million per year, though likely near the lower end of that estimate. Even the most conservative estimates yield at least $60 million in member giving. As in the United States, the majority of this stays in local congregations, with only a small fraction being used to support connectional ministries.
If we estimate that 10% of local giving in the central conferences goes to connectional ministries (in the US it is 14%), then the amount of US money supporting connectional ministries in the central conferences is several times the amount of local money supporting these ministries (which might be about $15-25 million yearly). Put another way, giving from the US perhaps quintuples the extent of connectional ministries (health, education, evangelism, creation care, discipleship, etc.) that happen in the central conferences.
As with estimating the amount of money that goes from the US, there is a lot of uncertainty in the underlying figures for calculating how much giving there is in the central conferences, so these numbers are only rough estimates. An explanation follows.
Let us begin with the relatively easy question of how much money central conferences pay in apportionments. In 2018, the central conferences as a whole gave $788,317 USD in apportionments. This represents 65% of the amount of apportionments assigned by GCFA, which was $1,204,990. The numbers are fairly similar for 2017.
During the first six months of 2019, central conference giving broke down by region as follows:
• Africa: $73,428 USD
• Philippines: $21,458 USD
• Europe: $274,238 USD
• Total: $369,124 USD
Again, these figures are in line with the data from 2018.
If we were to assume that central conference general church apportionments equaled 2% of total giving in the central conferences, as they do in the United States, then total giving would be somewhere around $60 million, based on requested receipts. Of course, there is no particular reason to assume that general church apportionments make up the same percentage of total giving in the central conferences as they do in the United States, though certainly GCFA is not asking central conferences to give a higher percentage of their budgets to general church apportionments than they ask of US churches. Thus, total giving is at very least $60 million yearly.
Another way to calculate the total church giving in the central conferences is to build a model based on assumptions about average income, church membership by country, the percentage of income given to the church, and the percentage of that total collection available for connectional ministries. This model assumes that United Methodists have an average income similar to that of their fellow citizens. This assumption may not be correct; United Methodists might be either poorer or richer than the average citizen, and this may vary by country.
Despite questions about this central assumption, this approach gives another estimate based on readily available data. Per capita income by country data is available from the CIA, and membership data is available from GCFA. Multiplying the one by the other gives an estimated total income for United Methodists by country.
It is easy to run a variety of estimates based on different assumptions about how much United Methodists give to their churches. In the United States, long-term trends show that individuals give about 2% of their income, and 30-40% of that goes to religious causes.
If people in the central conferences gave 0.7% of their income to the church, as do those in the United States, that would represent $110 million total giving ($77 million in Africa, $8 million in the Philippines, and $25 million in Europe). Since many central conference churches emphasize tithing, it is possible that those in the central conferences are more generous to the church than those in the United States are. Assuming 1% giving yields $158 million in yearly giving. Assuming 3% gives $473 million per year, and assuming a remarkable 5% gives $788 million per year, with the same ratios between geographic regions. Of course, it is possible that different parts of the central conferences give at different rates. Regardless, the lower end of these estimates seems more likely.
Most of this money stays in local congregations. It has been noted that many churches in Africa struggle to pay their pastors (more on this in a future post), and given the small size of many European congregations, pastoral salaries are likely to be high relative to total giving. Moreover, connectional giving is a much less well-developed tradition in many parts of the central conferences than it is in the United States.
Thus, it might be reasonable to estimate 10% of total giving going towards connectional ministries, including district superintendent salaries, conference evangelists, other staff, annual conference programs, and connectional health, education, and charitable ministries. Varying the estimated total giving yields a range of estimates for central conference connectional ministry support from $11 million up through $78 million. Again, a safe estimate might be $15-25 million.
Remember that giving from the United States to connectional ministries in the central conferences is likely to be at least $100 million. Thus, US support of connection ministries in the central conferences is likely to be at least four times as great as the central conferences’ budget for those same ministries.
While it is possible that central conferences could develop stronger programs of self-support for local connectional ministries, it is just not reasonable to expect central conferences to be able to replace a significant reduction in US support with local resources. Moreover, because central conference priorities are likely to focus primarily on the operation of churches and basic denominational structures (bishops, district superintendents, office support, etc.), cuts will primarily impact health, education, poverty reduction, disaster-relief, and other charitable ministries.
Thus, I hope that whatever future form The United Methodist Church takes, that form will allow for continued support of central conference ministries by the majority of US United Methodists. If not, central conferences will have to dramatically cut numerous life-saving medical ministries, educational ministries providing crucial opportunities, and other vital connectional ministries.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Showing posts with label connectional giving. Show all posts
Showing posts with label connectional giving. Show all posts
Monday, July 22, 2019
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
The Nordic Theory of Giving
I recently read Anu Partanen’s book, The Nordic Theory of Everything. One of the arguments she advances in the book is something she calls “the Nordic theory of love.” According to this theory, relationships between people represent the truest expression of love when they are not encumbered by any form of dependency of one party on another. Dependency is seen as introducing power dynamics that negatively affect both giver and receiver. Moreover, it shifts the basis of the relationship from love to need or power.
The alternative to this type of dependency is to guarantee certain things as a right within society so that people are not dependent on family, other individuals, companies, municipalities, etc. to provide them. This “Nordic theory of love” is operationalized within society by creating social and government systems that emphasize the autonomy of individuals and provide basic needs for all through collective programs so that people are not dependent upon one another. Certainly, many Americans are uncomfortable with the state playing such a role in people’s lives, but my point is not to argue for an active state; it is to use Partanen’s ideas about dependency to reflect on the UMC.
To give a few instances of how the Nordic theory of love plays out in the Nordic countries, college students are not required to report their parents’ incomes on financial aid forms, since college students are presumed to be financially independent of their parents and should not be forced to rely on parental assets to determine their futures. The government runs health programs so that people are not dependent on their employers for health insurance and thus forced to continue to work at jobs they hate just to keep their health insurance. Married couples file tax forms separately to avoid fostering financial dependency of one spouse upon the other.
Let’s see specifically how this theory works out with the imaginary example of Wi-Fi. The American system is that everyone should pay for their own Wi-Fi. For those with the resources to do so, that works out great. If someone doesn’t have enough money to pay for Wi-Fi, then they would have to rely upon a neighbor or friend to share their Wi-Fi password with them, perhaps, or go without. The neighbor or friend may ask for favors in exchange or set conditions on the gift – the password recipient may not watch Netflix in the evenings or must wash the password-giver’s car, perhaps. The recipient thus becomes dependent on the giver. As a consequence, they are not free to use their internet and other resources as best they see fit.
The Nordic solution would be to provide Wi-Fi through a municipal utility, as some cities in the US have done. Thus, everyone gets Wi-Fi – the poor are not left behind, but no one is dependent on another person for their Wi-Fi access, since it is a basic service provided to everyone. Note, that this is not charity Wi-Fi for the poor; it’s Wi-Fi for everyone that the poor can use along with the middle class and rich. Moreover, under the Nordic theory, everyone contributes to the Wi-Fi, to the extent they are able (and barring severe temporary circumstances such as loss of a job), through their taxes. Wi-Fi is thus not an issue of charity; it’s a basic public service.
I was thinking about this system as I was thinking about dependencies that are created through mission giving in the UMC. There are many instances in which American or European United Methodists share generously with their fellow believers in Africa and the Philippines. Yet, like the person giving out his or her Wi-Fi password above, American and European giving can come with conditions or expectations of return favors. These conditions may range from naming rights to restricted uses of donated gifts to expected support for polity positions. When such conditions or expectations are attached to them, the gifts create dependency. As a result, the receivers are not free to use the gifts or their other resources as best they see fit.
There are several ways to move beyond such dependencies. One way is to revamp giving along the lines of the methods described in When Helping Hurts, Toxic Charity, and similar books. This is an important approach to overturning dependency-creating models of mission, and readers are encouraged to explore these books if they have not already.
Yet I wonder whether it would also be possible to institute some Nordic theory of love solutions to the issue of dependency in the UMC. What common services would we want as guarantees for all churches, regardless of location? What services would we want our general agencies to provide to ALL churches or annual conferences – rich or poor, Western or Southern? Construction assistance? Disaster relief coordination? Technical assistance for annual conferences? How could we structure contributions to the World Service Fund or other means such that all annual conferences can contribute to these basic public services, to the extent they are able and barring severe temporary circumstances?
Such a shift would require significant changes in mindset and sacrifice of privilege by American and European churches. It’s nice to be the donor and to be able to dictate the terms or call in favors when needed. There are advantages to being the patron in a patron-client relationship, and Westerners would need to self-sacrificially give up those advantages for the sake of striving toward the gospel equality to which Jesus calls us.
Yet Methodists are supposed to be known as a people of love. It’s worth thinking, therefore, about what Anu Partanen’s Nordic theory of love might have to say to us as we seek to better love our Methodist neighbors as ourselves.
The alternative to this type of dependency is to guarantee certain things as a right within society so that people are not dependent on family, other individuals, companies, municipalities, etc. to provide them. This “Nordic theory of love” is operationalized within society by creating social and government systems that emphasize the autonomy of individuals and provide basic needs for all through collective programs so that people are not dependent upon one another. Certainly, many Americans are uncomfortable with the state playing such a role in people’s lives, but my point is not to argue for an active state; it is to use Partanen’s ideas about dependency to reflect on the UMC.
To give a few instances of how the Nordic theory of love plays out in the Nordic countries, college students are not required to report their parents’ incomes on financial aid forms, since college students are presumed to be financially independent of their parents and should not be forced to rely on parental assets to determine their futures. The government runs health programs so that people are not dependent on their employers for health insurance and thus forced to continue to work at jobs they hate just to keep their health insurance. Married couples file tax forms separately to avoid fostering financial dependency of one spouse upon the other.
Let’s see specifically how this theory works out with the imaginary example of Wi-Fi. The American system is that everyone should pay for their own Wi-Fi. For those with the resources to do so, that works out great. If someone doesn’t have enough money to pay for Wi-Fi, then they would have to rely upon a neighbor or friend to share their Wi-Fi password with them, perhaps, or go without. The neighbor or friend may ask for favors in exchange or set conditions on the gift – the password recipient may not watch Netflix in the evenings or must wash the password-giver’s car, perhaps. The recipient thus becomes dependent on the giver. As a consequence, they are not free to use their internet and other resources as best they see fit.
The Nordic solution would be to provide Wi-Fi through a municipal utility, as some cities in the US have done. Thus, everyone gets Wi-Fi – the poor are not left behind, but no one is dependent on another person for their Wi-Fi access, since it is a basic service provided to everyone. Note, that this is not charity Wi-Fi for the poor; it’s Wi-Fi for everyone that the poor can use along with the middle class and rich. Moreover, under the Nordic theory, everyone contributes to the Wi-Fi, to the extent they are able (and barring severe temporary circumstances such as loss of a job), through their taxes. Wi-Fi is thus not an issue of charity; it’s a basic public service.
I was thinking about this system as I was thinking about dependencies that are created through mission giving in the UMC. There are many instances in which American or European United Methodists share generously with their fellow believers in Africa and the Philippines. Yet, like the person giving out his or her Wi-Fi password above, American and European giving can come with conditions or expectations of return favors. These conditions may range from naming rights to restricted uses of donated gifts to expected support for polity positions. When such conditions or expectations are attached to them, the gifts create dependency. As a result, the receivers are not free to use the gifts or their other resources as best they see fit.
There are several ways to move beyond such dependencies. One way is to revamp giving along the lines of the methods described in When Helping Hurts, Toxic Charity, and similar books. This is an important approach to overturning dependency-creating models of mission, and readers are encouraged to explore these books if they have not already.
Yet I wonder whether it would also be possible to institute some Nordic theory of love solutions to the issue of dependency in the UMC. What common services would we want as guarantees for all churches, regardless of location? What services would we want our general agencies to provide to ALL churches or annual conferences – rich or poor, Western or Southern? Construction assistance? Disaster relief coordination? Technical assistance for annual conferences? How could we structure contributions to the World Service Fund or other means such that all annual conferences can contribute to these basic public services, to the extent they are able and barring severe temporary circumstances?
Such a shift would require significant changes in mindset and sacrifice of privilege by American and European churches. It’s nice to be the donor and to be able to dictate the terms or call in favors when needed. There are advantages to being the patron in a patron-client relationship, and Westerners would need to self-sacrificially give up those advantages for the sake of striving toward the gospel equality to which Jesus calls us.
Yet Methodists are supposed to be known as a people of love. It’s worth thinking, therefore, about what Anu Partanen’s Nordic theory of love might have to say to us as we seek to better love our Methodist neighbors as ourselves.
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Recommended Readings from Africa University
It's been quite an eventful last couple of months at Africa University, the oldest United Methodist-affiliated institution of higher education in Africa. In case you missed any of these stories, here' s a rundown of some of the good things that have been happening at Africa U:
In February, Africa University hosted a summit on Methodist evangelism in an African context. This summit was an important step in developing distinctive and culturally approaches to Methodist evangelism for African branches of the UMC. You can read stories about it from Africa University's website and from the General Board of Global Ministry's website.
Then, on March 21st, Africa University inaugurated its new vice-chancellor, the chief executive officer of the university. Dr. Munashe Furusa was elected nearly a year ago, but this was his formal installation. Both Africa University and the United Methodist News Service covered the inauguration, which was attended by United Methodist leaders from around the world. As the United Methodist New Service further reported, while Dr. Furusa's inauguration is an exciting event, he will face a variety of challenges to the university's educational offerings, physical plant, and finances.
Africa University will be aided in facing these challenges by two significant gifts to the university. Both the Foundation for Evangelism and the Indiana Conference have committed to endowing new faculty chairs at the university. The Foundation for Evangelism is raising money to endow the John Wesley Kurewa Chair, an E. Stanley Jones Professor of Evangelism. The Indiana Conference is raising money to endow a chair in agricultural and natural resources. Both gifts will provide for long-term support of the university's educational mission.
All of these stories make it an exciting time at Africa University. While the institution faces some challenges, as do all institutions, the new leadership, new programs, and new gifts should mean that Africa University continues to be a beacon of uplift for the entire continent.
In February, Africa University hosted a summit on Methodist evangelism in an African context. This summit was an important step in developing distinctive and culturally approaches to Methodist evangelism for African branches of the UMC. You can read stories about it from Africa University's website and from the General Board of Global Ministry's website.
Then, on March 21st, Africa University inaugurated its new vice-chancellor, the chief executive officer of the university. Dr. Munashe Furusa was elected nearly a year ago, but this was his formal installation. Both Africa University and the United Methodist News Service covered the inauguration, which was attended by United Methodist leaders from around the world. As the United Methodist New Service further reported, while Dr. Furusa's inauguration is an exciting event, he will face a variety of challenges to the university's educational offerings, physical plant, and finances.
Africa University will be aided in facing these challenges by two significant gifts to the university. Both the Foundation for Evangelism and the Indiana Conference have committed to endowing new faculty chairs at the university. The Foundation for Evangelism is raising money to endow the John Wesley Kurewa Chair, an E. Stanley Jones Professor of Evangelism. The Indiana Conference is raising money to endow a chair in agricultural and natural resources. Both gifts will provide for long-term support of the university's educational mission.
All of these stories make it an exciting time at Africa University. While the institution faces some challenges, as do all institutions, the new leadership, new programs, and new gifts should mean that Africa University continues to be a beacon of uplift for the entire continent.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Giving Tuesday, the Advance, and Kickstarter
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Assistant Professor of Religion and Pieper Chair of Servant Leadership at Ripon College.
Let me begin this post by encouraging you to donate to the UMC's global work on this Giving Tuesday. I'll even put the link here for you to do so. In fact, do that now, before you read the rest of this article. If you want to encourage others to donate as well, both the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM) and the United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR) have resources to assist in that.
Now that you've donated, I want to talk to you about the Advance, which is the system through which individual donations to denominational projects of the UMC are collected. The Advance is in many ways a fantastic system. 100% of donations go right to those projects; there's no overhead taken out. The system has been around since 1948, having proven to be a durable model. Over 3 million gifts totaling more than $1 billion have been given through the Advance.
The way the Advance works is that donors look up the individual project(s) they want to give to and direct money specifically to that project/those projects. There's even a handy search interface that allows donors to search by missionary, region, type of work, population, or disaster. Donors can also give to general needs for either GBGM or UMCOR.
This approach to giving has a lot in common with Kickstarter and Indiegogo, which have become popular sites for facilitating an approach to collecting donations and raising money known as "crowdfunding." Yes, that's right, the UMC was crowd-funding through the Advance 60 years before it became popular.
Kickstarter, Indiegogo, and the Advance all have the great advantage that they're a democratic approach to deciding what gets funded. If people want a Veronica Mars movie or a Tesla museum and are willing to help pay for it, they happen. If people want wells and toilets in Liberia and are willing to help pay for them, they get built.
But here's where the analogy breaks down. Kickstarter and Indiegogo help fund things that will (presumably) benefit the people donating. Donors get to choose the ways in which they want to benefit. With the Advance, it's largely Americans choose what will benefit people elsewhere around the world. People don't get to choose what will benefit them. It's a little bit like if Bolivians were allowed to decide whether or not there would be a Veronica Mars movie or a Tesla museum.
That doesn't mean that Americans always make bad decisions or that Americans shouldn't donate to the UMC's work elsewhere around the world, but it does put people elsewhere around the world at the mercy of American donors, which creates a power inequality. There are many inequalities in how the UMC is structured and operated, but this inequality in donation money is an important one to notice because it shapes other inequalities. So, on this Giving Tuesday, donate, but donate and be aware of how your donations shape the UMC.
Let me begin this post by encouraging you to donate to the UMC's global work on this Giving Tuesday. I'll even put the link here for you to do so. In fact, do that now, before you read the rest of this article. If you want to encourage others to donate as well, both the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM) and the United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR) have resources to assist in that.
Now that you've donated, I want to talk to you about the Advance, which is the system through which individual donations to denominational projects of the UMC are collected. The Advance is in many ways a fantastic system. 100% of donations go right to those projects; there's no overhead taken out. The system has been around since 1948, having proven to be a durable model. Over 3 million gifts totaling more than $1 billion have been given through the Advance.
The way the Advance works is that donors look up the individual project(s) they want to give to and direct money specifically to that project/those projects. There's even a handy search interface that allows donors to search by missionary, region, type of work, population, or disaster. Donors can also give to general needs for either GBGM or UMCOR.
This approach to giving has a lot in common with Kickstarter and Indiegogo, which have become popular sites for facilitating an approach to collecting donations and raising money known as "crowdfunding." Yes, that's right, the UMC was crowd-funding through the Advance 60 years before it became popular.
Kickstarter, Indiegogo, and the Advance all have the great advantage that they're a democratic approach to deciding what gets funded. If people want a Veronica Mars movie or a Tesla museum and are willing to help pay for it, they happen. If people want wells and toilets in Liberia and are willing to help pay for them, they get built.
But here's where the analogy breaks down. Kickstarter and Indiegogo help fund things that will (presumably) benefit the people donating. Donors get to choose the ways in which they want to benefit. With the Advance, it's largely Americans choose what will benefit people elsewhere around the world. People don't get to choose what will benefit them. It's a little bit like if Bolivians were allowed to decide whether or not there would be a Veronica Mars movie or a Tesla museum.
That doesn't mean that Americans always make bad decisions or that Americans shouldn't donate to the UMC's work elsewhere around the world, but it does put people elsewhere around the world at the mercy of American donors, which creates a power inequality. There are many inequalities in how the UMC is structured and operated, but this inequality in donation money is an important one to notice because it shapes other inequalities. So, on this Giving Tuesday, donate, but donate and be aware of how your donations shape the UMC.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Education and internationalism in the UMC
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Assistant Professor of Religion and Pieper Chair of Servant Leadership at Ripon College.
Two recent stories published by the UMC Giving website made me think about the relationship between education and internationalism in The United Methodist Church. The first story shared reflections by three students at United Methodist-affiliated Africa University. Each student was describing the positive aspects of their experiences at the school. All three of them mentioned the international makeup of the student body, with students coming from all over the African continent. The chance to interact with other Africans from other countries had been a meaningful and educational experience for these students.
The second story described study-abroad experiences by students at the eleven historical black colleges and universities (HBCU) that are supported by the UMC's Black College Fund. The article also made mention of international students studying at these HBCUs. Both students and administrators in the article commented on what a meaningful learning experience study abroad was and how it broadened students' horizons.
The ability to function as a global denomination is predicated on cross-cultural understanding. These articles show that one of the ways in which the UMC promotes such cross-cultural understanding, both for its own benefit at the benefit of the world at large, is by supporting institutions of higher education. These colleges and universities are often where United Methodists (and others) first form real relationships with people from other countries, relationships that lead to great understanding, acceptance, and potential collaboration for the kingdom of God. These colleges and universities thus deserve support in prayers and financial giving from those who are committed to the UMC as a global denomination. More information on supporting these connectional ministries can be found in the links above.
Two recent stories published by the UMC Giving website made me think about the relationship between education and internationalism in The United Methodist Church. The first story shared reflections by three students at United Methodist-affiliated Africa University. Each student was describing the positive aspects of their experiences at the school. All three of them mentioned the international makeup of the student body, with students coming from all over the African continent. The chance to interact with other Africans from other countries had been a meaningful and educational experience for these students.
The second story described study-abroad experiences by students at the eleven historical black colleges and universities (HBCU) that are supported by the UMC's Black College Fund. The article also made mention of international students studying at these HBCUs. Both students and administrators in the article commented on what a meaningful learning experience study abroad was and how it broadened students' horizons.
The ability to function as a global denomination is predicated on cross-cultural understanding. These articles show that one of the ways in which the UMC promotes such cross-cultural understanding, both for its own benefit at the benefit of the world at large, is by supporting institutions of higher education. These colleges and universities are often where United Methodists (and others) first form real relationships with people from other countries, relationships that lead to great understanding, acceptance, and potential collaboration for the kingdom of God. These colleges and universities thus deserve support in prayers and financial giving from those who are committed to the UMC as a global denomination. More information on supporting these connectional ministries can be found in the links above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)