The Ministry Consequences of Reduced Apportionments

Today's post is the second in a two-part series 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.

As discussed earlier this week, it is highly likely that there will be a significant reduction in the amount of apportionment money at all levels of the church in the future, due both to proposed reductions in general church apportionments and to protests and possible division in the denomination.

This situation naturally begs the question: What are the possible consequences of this reduction in apportionment funds? I will look at the range of possibilities on two levels: institutions and programs.

Apportionment money goes to support a variety of institutions – some components of the church itself, like annual conferences; some ministries of the church, like boards and agencies, church camps, and collegiate ministries; and some relatively independent but still church-supported organizations, like colleges, hospitals, and social service providers.

One possible impact on these institutions could be that the church (or churches, if there is a division) could decide to reduce the number of institutions it supports that are doing similar work. Thus, the UMC could reduce the number of supported seminaries or the number of episcopal areas, for instance.

The future of agencies no longer supported would vary – loosely controlled agencies like seminaries, hospitals, or colleges could try to continue on their own without church funds. Some might succeed; others likely wouldn’t. Portions of the church like episcopal areas or annual conferences would need to consolidate down to a smaller number.

Another possible consequence could be that the UMC (or its successors) could consolidate institutions with dissimilar but related functions. This option is most likely for general church boards and agencies, where reduced general church apportionments could lead to the return of something like Plan UMC, but this option could also play out at the annual conference level. The idea would be to try to reduce spending through shared services, fewer staff, fewer board members, shared facilities, etc. The amount of savings realized may or may not be sufficient to prevent other types of impacts, but this possibility would likely be combined with other types of cuts.

The model might even look like the unitary board model common in other smaller denominations, wherein the denomination has one board with various departments instead of multiple separate boards and agencies.

A third possible consequence could be that annual conferences or the general church decides to stop supporting institutions that do certain types of work. The church could choose to focus on or prioritize some forms of work and cease funding for others. Again, the implication for the institutions no longer receiving church funds would depend on how closely tied they were to the church and how significant church funds were for covering their overall operating expenses.

A fourth possible impact is that the church (either general church or annual conferences) could expect church-supported institutions to rely more on other sources of funding, perhaps direct giving, grants, or fee-for-service arrangements. This option is most likely for relatively independent church-supported institutions and ministry organizations.

This may or may not be a realistic expectation, depending on the type of institution, the type of ministry it does, and its previous experience with other forms of funding. It is unrealistic to expect an institution that has previously relied entirely on apportionment money to suddenly self-fund, but church institutions like hospitals, colleges, seminary, camps, and social service agencies with previous experience with other revenue streams may be more successful. Such a decision to push for greater institutional self-support may end up being a de facto decision to cut programming at those institutions.

Whether or not it impacts the programming of institutions, the decision to reduce church financial support of institutions will also have the effect of reducing church control of institutions. Control usually follows money, and less financial support likely means less control. That may or may not be a bad thing, either from the church’s perspective or that of the institution.

The final option for the church (either general church or annual conferences) would be to keep the same set of institutions but to expect them to do less, since they would be receiving less funding. That leads to the second level of implications: the programmatic level.

For any institution impacted by the reduction in apportionments, there are a few ways to cope with reduced funding: reducing overall business costs, doing less of the same programs, and doing fewer programs.

One main way of reducing overall business costs is by increasing efficiencies within the institution – finding cheaper paper suppliers, automating tasks, outsourcing IT support, etc. Due to the general business climate and specific financial pressures may church-related institutions have faced in recent years, the search for greater efficiency is already well underway. It is unlikely that institutions could realize a cost savings of 15% (the proposed reductions for some boards) just through greater efficiency.

The other way in which contemporary organizations reduce their overall business costs is by shifting the costs of business onto their employees. This is a general trend in American business and is carried out in many ways – changes to benefit packages, the shift from defined benefit to defined contribution pensions, the use of more temporary as opposed to long-term employees, etc. There may be moral reasons why this form of cost-savings is unsavory to the church, but such proposals can often be presented in financial terms that obscure the impacts on employees.

The second programmatic option is to do less of the same thing. Under this option, institutions continue to conduct the same sorts of program, but spend less on them by operating these programs at lower levels – fewer clients served, less staff support, fewer scholarships given, fewer visits by the DS, etc.

Lower levels of inputs likely produce lower levels of outputs and outcomes, though the correlation between inputs and outputs is not always linear. Some programs may have outcomes that depend upon a certain scale, and for these, doing less of the same thing may result in a reduction in outputs that is proportionally greater than the reduction in inputs.

Some programs may also have a minimum size that they need to function based on staffing levels, physical space, or other criteria. There comes a point at which it is not possible to do less of certain programs and still do them in any meaningful way.

When that point comes, it leads to the third possible programmatic consequence: doing fewer programs. Institutions may decide to cut programs because they lack the funds to sustain them at sufficient levels or because they decide to focus and prioritize elsewhere. That saves the institutions money spent on salaries, supplies, services, etc, but means the church no longer try to prevent malaria or support ethnic new church starts or do whatever else happened through shuttered programs.

Again, the church, both at the annual conference and general church levels, is likely to employ multiple of the above strategies for addressing the reduction in apportionment funds. Especially if there is church division, multiple strategies will be necessary.

Moreover, because of the very wide array of church-financed institutions and programs and because of the large collection of decision-making bodies for these institutions and programs, it is impossible at present to say how reductions in apportionments will play out, either in total, or in any particular field.

What is certain, however, is that the connectional and financial troubles of The United Methodist Church as a whole will have dramatic and deleterious consequences for its connectional institutions and ministry programs.

Recommended Reading: Philippines Quadrennial Plan

United Methodists may be familiar with the plans and priorities of their annual conference or perhaps an agency or two that they may be particularly invested in. But how can United Methodists find out what it really is that their religious compatriots around the world really care about and where they are focusing their efforts?

Here is an opportunity to do just that for the Philippines. The Philippines Central Conference has made its 2017-2020 Quadrennial Plan available through Google Docs.

While few may want to read the entire 54-page program spreadsheet, this document offers good insight into the priorities of fellow United Methodists around the world. The document details efforts that the Philippines Central Conference will make over the next four years in the following categories: develop[ing] vital congregations; developing principled Christian leaders; certified coaches; financial support to UMC theology students; happy, health, holy clergy and deaconesses, financial independence; performance evaluation system; ministry with the poor; stamp out killer diseases; caring for the environment; preparedness for catastrophes; and respect for human rights.

Misunderstanding Our Mission, Part 2

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.

Last week, I suggested that United Methodists, especially American United Methodists, frequently misunderstand the denominational mission statement in problematic ways. When many United Methodists hear "making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world," what they really hear is "recruiting church members to continue church programming." Last week, I looked at the first part of this misunderstanding. This week, I will look at the second.

The equation of transforming the world with continuing church programming may not have quite the same disastrous spiritual consequences as misunderstanding the nature of discipleship, but nonetheless it prevents us from being effective in loving the world as God would have us do.

United Methodist churches run a wide array of programming that varies depending on the context. Across the world, United Methodists run schools, operate health clinics, host addiction recovery groups, welcome migrants, feed and clothe those without adequate sustenance, visit the imprisoned, and provide clean water. We also hold church dinners (in the US, Methodists are known for potlucks), Sunday school pageants, committee meetings, holiday celebrations, craft fairs, and the like. Not all of these activities are bad, and some of these activities are quite good.

We make a couple of mistakes, however, when we confuse church programming with the transformation of the world.

First, we easily overlook the distinction between inward-focused programming and outward-focused programming. It has been my experience that, at least in the US, church suppers and many similar programs are usually for those who are already members of the church, no matter how many flyers are posted around town. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. As noted last week, discipleship is a vitally important part of the life of the church, and discipleship is an inward-focused activity of the church.

Nevertheless, when we have an event for our members that is not discipleship-related and then call it outreach, we’re deluding ourselves and misunderstanding outreach. Ham and turkey dinners for the membership generally do not transform the world. Moreover, when we’re honest about when a program is inward-focused, then it’s easier to assess the disciple-making impact of the program.

Second, in equating church programs and the transformation of the world, we confuse cultural activities and mission. Churches, and not just those in the US, often serve as a space for organizing activities that reflect and perpetuate local cultures, often not just for their members but for the wider community. That is not necessarily a bad thing. The church needs to be able to dress itself in the clothes of the culture where it lives.

What is bad is when we mistake these cultural activities for the transformation of the world. It is great to hold a holiday sale if that is part of the culture of your town and lots of people from the outside of the church come to it. That does not mean, however, that you have transformed the world by selling tchotchkes to non-church members. To be world transforming, activities need to be not only outward focused but related more to the work of the gospel than to cultural activities.

Third, we make a mistake in equating church programming with world transforming if we continue to do the same programs we have always done. There are many church programs out there that had worthwhile, world-transforming impacts when they were started. Yet the context shifts, personnel running the program shift, the focus of the program drifts, and eventually, it is not having the same impact as it used to.

The question to ask about church programming is not, “Was this program originally set up to be outward-focused, gospel-related, and world transforming?” The question to ask is, “Is the program currently having a demonstrable impact on the world?” Asking such tough questions is especially important in an era when budgets are reduced and we must do “better with less,” not “more with less.”

Fourth and finally, when we equate church programming with the transformation of the world, we assume that the transformation of the world must happen in particular, structured ways. Methodism is a testament to the positive effects of a good organizational scheme, so I am not knocking organization in general. Moreover, within the modern world, many good, outward-focused, gospel-related, world-transforming endeavors are indeed formally organized, whether those are tutoring programs, evangelistic campaigns, or health clinics.

Still, if we assume that God only transforms the world through our organized activities, we restrict (or overlook) the work of the Holy Spirit. Much of the transformation of the world happens not through carefully organized and run programming, but through relationships. Such a misunderstanding is a particular danger for Americans, who are often so focused on getting things done that they neglect relationships, which can be the real conduits through which the Holy Spirit works to transform the world.

Thus, let us continue to do church programming. Yet let us be honest and reflective in the programming we do, recognizing the ways in which it does and does not contribute to the transformation of the world and always remembering that God is at work both through and beyond our programs.