Commentary by Patrick Scriven

Yesterday the United Methodist News Service (UMNS) reported on some good news in the area of connectional giving. For the fourth year in a row, more conferences paid 100% of their general-church apportionment. In fact, 29 of the 56 U.S.-based conferences met this mark, the most ever! United Methodists increased this category of apportioned giving by $1.8 million in 2017 to total $133.2 million, supporting the work of the general church in the U.S. and around the world.

To be honest, this was something of a surprise to me, just as it was around this time last year. Given all of the focus upon our points of disagreement, maybe it’s forgivable to be surprised by the faithfulness of so many within our United Methodist connection. It should not be forgotten that this faithfulness begins in the local church. Thank you!

The report from UMNS and the press release it referenced from the General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA) didn’t get into a lot of details. Some of those details will undoubtedly provide necessary context for leaders evaluating how positive this news truly is, and where there is some cause for concern. I’m looking forward to seeing more of that data as it becomes available, along with reading the reactions of folks with wisdom well beyond mine.

A curiosity did jump out at me in the limited data that was presented. Of course I was excited to see our home conference (Pacific Northwest) and the other conferences in our Greater Northwest Area (Alaska, Oregon-Idaho) on the list of those who paid 100% of their general-church apportionments. I saw several other conferences in the Western Jurisdiction (WJ) on the list as well, and being way too competitive, I started to do some basic math expecting (hoping) that the WJ would come out on top, just this once.

Well, as it is written, “pride goeth before the fall.” While seven of the eight WJ conferences paid 100% of their general-church apportionment, 90% of the Northeastern Jurisdiction’s conferences did the same. That is amazing and hard to beat!

Here’s the breakdown for the five U.S. jurisdictions:

NORTH CENTRAL 63.60%
NORTHEASTERN 90%
SOUTHEASTERN 26.70%
SOUTH CENTRAL 15.40%
WESTERN 87.5%

 

While I was fully expecting some differences between the jurisdictions, the range in the results was shocking. How does one explain the differences between one jurisdiction’s 90% and another’s 16%, rounded up. Does it speak to a different level of commitment to the general church, or denote some profound disatisfaction? Is it the result of different missional priorities found amongst conference and episcopal leadership, or is it just some weird anomaly?

I don’t have a desire to shame conferences that didn’t meet this one goal. After all, no jurisdiction can claim a perfect score – though I suspect the Northeastern Jurisdiction is feeling pretty good about scoring the equivalent of an “A-,” or a strong “A” if we were grading on a curve. Heck, I’m pretty happy to see the WJ earning a solid “B+.”

But we all know that no conference receives 100% of the giving that is apportioned to local churches. Again, I have no desire to shame those churches as there can be mitigating factors that undermine even the best of intentions. I only mean to emphasize that no conference pays 100% of its general-church apportionment because they received 100% of that burden as shared by its churches.

Conferences only meet this special goal because they have intentionally put their commitment to our shared ministry, at the national and international level, above potential ministry in their local context. In the PNW Conference, this means that leadership decided to close a 7% gap to meet its general-church apportionment as local church giving came in at 93% last year (which is a number reflective of serious local church commitment as well).

Some popular sage once said, “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” The next time I run across a blog belittling the Western Jurisdiction’s commitment to our United Methodist connection, or any of the conferences in the Northeastern Jurisdiction for that matter, I will likely be thinking of these numbers and the alternative narrative they reveal.


Patrick Scriven serves as Director of Communications and Young People’s Ministries for the Pacific Northwest Conference of The United Methodist Church.

10 COMMENTS

  1. Patrick, that’s good news, but it needs to be put into some additional perspective, it seems to me. The whole Western Jurisdiction was apportioned $9,895,441 for 2017, which was 6.55% of the total General Church apportioned budget. Three conferences in the Southeastern Jurisdiction, North Georgia, South Georgia, and Florida, were apportioned a total of $15,937,129, which was 10.55% of the total apportioned budget. If the WJC pays 100% of its General Church apportionments, and those three conferences pay 62% of their apportionments, they’ll pay the same dollar amounts. The percentage of the population in the United States served by the Church in Georgia and the part of Florida included in the Florida Annual Conference is miniscule compared to that in the Western Jurisdiction.

    • I fully acknowledge that there are a lot of ways to look at this.

      Regarding the significant differences in total contributions, It is my (perhaps imperfect) understanding that those shares are apportioned based upon capacities (budgets, numbers of churches, members) that should correct to equalize the burden. Assuming this is the case, I don’t see this as a relevant point when considering whether this one mark is met.

      Thanks for reading, Lonnie!

  2. According to GFCA’s press release, both Central Texas and Oklahoma Indian Missionary Conference made 100% in apportionments. They are both SCJ and therefore would make SCJ’s apportionments at 18% of ACs that made 100% apportionments.

    Though I acknowledge I might be misunderstanding your numbers.

  3. Patrick, I am stunned by this report, thank you for sharing. Having just returned from a visit to the South Central Jurisdiction I came away thinking they were capable of paying apportionments in full, your analysis is very interesting. Glad we are doing our part.

    • Thanks for reading and reflecting, Anita! I am also glad that this is a goal our area has decided to meet, and one the faithfulness of our local churches allows us to even consider.

  4. General conference agencies tend to represent beliefs that people in the south and southeast disagree with us. The conservatives in this area are fed up with the COB and paying for people who flout traditional Christian beliefs. With many church budgets tight and donations falling short (this area tends to be poorer than the rest of the nation), finance committees and church councils will in general short general conference apportionment before local ones. In effect this is a sign of the divisions in the church and an act of rebellion. It is only going to get worse unless our current crisis is resolved. Most Methodist lay people are not very committed to the Methodist church or even their conference. They are committed to their local church and direct their money that way.

  5. Those are some stunning numbers.
    I don’t know about by you, but in my district (Western, WVAC, NEJ) the DS talked about apportionments loudly and frequently, making it very clear that 100% was expected. Full court press.

    • The percentage being referenced is the number of conferences within a jurisdiction that reached the 100% threshold, not the individual giving tallies of each conference in aggregate. Thanks for sharing this link.

Leave a Reply to LONNIE D. BROOKS Cancel reply