 Commissioners overwhelmingly reject restoring missionary cuts By John H. Adams The Layman Online Friday, June 21, 2002
Seventy-nine percent of the commissioners (410 to 114) voted June 20 against an amendment that would have directed the General Assembly Council to restore the money for the missionary personnel and make the necessary corresponding reductions in other divisions to balance the budget. That amendment was an adjunct to the report by the assembly's Committee on Peacekeeping and Global Issues. "Have we lost sight of our priorities?" asked Jan-Yung Lin of Boston. "Have we lost sight of our great commission? Let's get our priorities straight. Let's get our missionaries back in the field. Some may have retired, but I trust that there are many more waiting to be called." But the plea for restoring the $1.6 million for missionaries was defeated after an orchestrated staff and General Assembly Council campaign against changing the 2003 budget. At one point during the debate, a commissioner asked the staff what percentage of the mission budget the 34 missionaries represented. Nagy Tawfik, the denomination's controller, answered that it was 30 percent. Tawfik may not have heard the question clearly, or he may have been using figures based on unrestricted funding available, but his response raised an audible gasp. The projected 2003 mission budget for congregational, national and worldwide ministries is $130 million, of which the salaries and support for the 34 missionaries would have been 1.2 percent. In another exchange, a commissioner asked what criteria would be used to determine what might be used to reduce support for other programs if the missionary cuts were restored. John Detterick, executive director of the General Assembly Council, said, "At the present time, we do not have a valid basis" for taking money out of the budgets of other programs. Emily Wigger, chair of the National Ministries Division, urged the commissioners to leave the budget alone. "While I appreciate the concern for our overseas and national missionaries, I have great concern for the impact to the budget of other divisions." She said the General Assembly Council already had cut a key position in church growth – a position that it had left unfilled for three years, even when money was available – and "we had to cut back our support for small churches and rural churches." Neither Wigger nor staff members raised the possibility of cutting agencies and programs that have not been at the heart of the denomination's Great Ends of the Church – No. 1 being the propagation of the Gospel. For instance, the World Council of Churches, the National Council of Churches, the Washington Office and the National Network of Presbyterian College Women spend roughly the same as the missionaries cost, but none of those programs faces major cuts. One argument used in the debate against the missionary cuts was that the 34 assignments represented people who were retiring or returning from the mission field – and, therefore, no one was getting the ax. Jennifer Lanigan, a youth advisory delegate from the Presbytery of New Castle, approached the issue that way. "The people who are coming home are not coming home because of a lack of funding," she said. "There are people who are retiring. They are people who have chosen to leave their posts." Staff members also have emphasized that the cuts are by attrition. But they also have emphasized the need to raise $40 million from major donors to restore the mission assignments. Also, the $40-million campaign, known as Mission Initiative, will focus on new church development – an area mentioned by Wigger as having to undergo the budget knife. Traditionally, foreign missions and evangelism at home have been popular and a high priority for Presbyterians. The Rev. Marcia Thomas of the Presbytery of Winnebago also expressed confidence that the fundraising campaign would make more support for missionaries. "I am interested in sending missionaries called by God, recruited by the PCUSA, who do not have to be called back home because of insufficient sustaining funds," she said. David Bennett, a theological student advisory delegate and a student at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, said budget-cutters had explained their work as "gracefully as they could. However, this well-intended budget cut by attrition still does not make sense in light of our denomination's high priority for mission. Sisters and brothers, we have an opportunity to speak prophetically to the whole church, not only to restore mission funding to the level of earlier this year, but also to support the Mission Initiative." He suggested a starting point for restoring the missionary funds would be the $750,000 earmarked for new curriculum. John Somerville of the Presbytery of Lake Michigan said, "Just think of the opportunity we have to serve God and spread the gospel throughout the world. I understand there is a financial implication … but if we could restore some of that cost to restore a few positions, what a wonderful thing that would be." But the last word before the vote was taken was from the Rev. Patty Epprecht of the Presbytery of West Jersey. "No place is being abandoned," she said. "No place is being left without mission support. I urge commissioners to not vote in favor of this amendment, but throw your full support behind the Mission Initiative." |
||
Respond to this article |
||
| 2002
General Assembly news index Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||