By Rev. Raymond Rooney
September 20, 2002

I had dragged my wife and kids out of our home state (Mississippi) to spend three years in rural Kentucky while I earned a Master's of Divinity degree at Asbury Theological Seminary. I had left a student pastorate in northeast Mississippi that paid about $18,000 a year, and my wife had given up her job that amounted to about $12,000 a year. While in Kentucky she was staying at home raising our little girls while I went to school and pastored two small churches. The pay? Six thousand six hundred dollars per year. That was a pay cut of $23,400.

Before we moved I figured our monthly expenses and saw to my dismay that before we bought a loaf of bread we would be nearly $100 in the hole. But I was sure that going to Asbury was God's will for me and my family. We had no savings account to fall back on and no help from family. We went on nothing but faith.

Things were going okay that first year. There were some adjustments to be made, as you can imagine, but God was seeing us through. Then came time for our Charge Conference.

The district superintendent had come early and was speaking to me about the fact that the smaller of the two churches was not paying an acceptable percentage of their apportionments. That is when he said something that floored me. Knowing that my salary was $6,600 and that my wife was not working and that we had two small children, he said that if I was any kind of minister I would use my salary to pay the unmet percentage of that church's apportionments.

Again, I could not believe what I was hearing.

Two Faces
That was the first time that I was made aware of a thing growing in the midst of my denomination (United Methodist) that could be two things at the same time: both beautiful and ugly. The apportionment system is my denomination's way of raising large sums of money in order to fund both mission and ministry in a way that no single church or even Annual Conference could possibly do.

The concept is certainly biblical and worthy. Every United Methodist church is given the opportunity to help fund everything from colleges, to children's issues and advocacies, to bishops' salaries, to building new churches, to national and local television commercials and programs which promote the United Methodist Church.

Conceptually it is a good thing. But it has another side. It is that other side that I first discovered as a student pastor in Kentucky and have been seeing more and more of over the years.

'Sacred Cow of Methodism'
I have no problem with the concept of apportionments. Nor do I mind the expectation from both bishops and district superintendents to encourage my churches to accept and pay their apportioned amounts for national, state, and local (or district) benevolences. But the kind of pressure that that district superintendent put upon me when I was in seminary is both out of line and ungodly.

There are problems with apportionments in the United Methodist Church from several different directions and concerning several different issues that are not being dealt with. The issue of apportionments has gone from an invitation to shared ministry to a means of controlling ministers, manipulating doctrine, and theology, and intimidating churches.

Very little is said negatively in public by those within the system for fear of the repercussions. Ministers are being told that failure of their churches to pay 100% of apportionments can have a negative impact on their next appointment and could conceivably affect his or her personal pension.

Apportionments have become the Sacred Cow of Methodism. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a sacred cow as "one that is immune from criticism, often unreasonably so." That seems to fit this issue. As a matter of fact, just writing about this could cause me a great deal of trouble. I have a family of six, with a son who has already had two open heart surgeries and will have a third in less than a month -- and I have no doubt that if the powers that be take offense to this commentary, they can and may very well try to hurt me without giving a second thought to my family.

The attitude that some take concerning apportionments reminds me of indulgences from Luther's day. What started as a sign of appreciation for those who made sacrifices or risked their lives for the Church soon turned into a lucrative way of raising money to construct churches, monasteries, and hospitals, and ultimately became the means for funding the construction of basilicas. But opportunity to participate in ministry soon became an expectation to donate; and it ended up that people were being told that failure to purchase an indulgence would result in continued suffering for their departed loved ones.

100% ... or Else
I have heard people approach microphones at Annual Conference and berate and seek to punish those churches that do not pay 100% of their apportionments without even investigating as to what the circumstances of that particular church may be.

Conference periodicals routinely publish lists of each church and what percentage of apportionments it paid for the year. It is done to extol those that pay 100% and embarrass those that do not. It gives the impression that money supercedes all else. Can you imagine the response if local churches began publishing in their newsletters what percentage of the church's annual budget each member had paid?

These are just a couple of examples of how something good can be manipulated to shame, embarrass, coerce, and even intimidate. Wesley did indeed say, "Do all the good you can, in all the places you can, to all the people you can." And he did say, "Earn all you can. Save all you can. Give all you can." But he did not add "or else."

Giving benevolently is something that must flow from a heart of Christian faith and love. It can and should be taught -- but it can never be mandated. Measuring a clergyperson's effectiveness in ministry by what percentage his or her church pays apportionments evidences a distorted theology. How does that account for a clergyperson's prayers, visits, sermon preparation and delivery, or love for God and/or neighbor? Has it come down to saying or implying that one's service and relationship to the Almighty is measured by money and loyalty to a system of fundraising?

Covenant Responsibilities
Apportionments are most often discussed using the language of covenant. When a church fails to pay 100% of its apportionments, it is often referred to as a "breach of covenant." Yet anyone who studies theology knows that a covenant represents a sworn agreement between two or more parties. Both sides have obligations in the keeping of a covenant.

In the covenant of apportionments, one side is to give sacrificially and faithfully while the other side is to distribute with honesty and integrity. The General Boards and Agencies of the United Methodist Church -- which exist because of the faithfulness and generosity of United Methodists nationwide -- are not keeping their covenant and seem to be completely unconcerned and unresponsive to calls for accountability concerning what they use others money for.

Paragraph 806.9 in The Book of Discipline states that the General Council on Finance and Administration "shall be responsible for ensuring that no board, agency, committee, commission, or council shall give United Methodist funds to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote acceptance of homosexuality" (p. 453).

Yet the General Secretary of the General Council on Church and Society (Jim Winkler) and its periodical (Christian Social Action) routinely and with apparent impunity promote acceptance of homosexuality. Isn't this a breach of covenant?

Or what about those active bishops who advocate and promote acceptance of homosexuality? We even have a bishop who denounces basic Christian beliefs and calls those who believe in Christ's physical resurrection "idolaters." Yet they draw a healthy salary from an apportioned item called the Episcopal Fund.

And it is well known that the Board of Global Ministries has more people on their headquarters staff than actual missionaries in foreign countries.

It is not my purpose to produce an exhaustive list of inconsistencies concerning our stated position in the Discipline and how some of our leaders and General Boards are undermining that position (for a look at such a list, please point your browser to themethodistchurch.com). It is, however, to suggest that a breach of covenant is taking place by many who have been empowered as the United Methodist Church's stewards. Scripture declares "it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy" (1 Corinthians 4:2).

Stewardship
Church members are beginning to ask themselves if they are not being poor stewards over the fruit of their labor by blindly funding people and groups that promote theologies and lifestyles which are clearly in conflict with a common sense understanding of Scripture. I believe it is wrong to portray conscientious Christians, whether they are lay or clergy, as troublemakers or covenant breakers when they question the integrity of those who are empowered to spend their money when the record clearly shows some of it is being spent on issues obviously contrary to Scripture and our own Discipline.

And I, for one, am weary of a system which ties my effectiveness as a United Methodist minister to my ability to get concerned parishioners to support people and programs which are not in line with our Wesleyan tradition and heritage, not to mention being out of step with Christianity.

I also find the response to voiced concerns about our commitment to those apportionments which violate the sacred trust of covenantal relationship ("if you withhold funding from that it will harm other good programs and ministries tied to the same apportionment") to be completely unsatisfactory and lacking intellectual substance. That is like saying that if one stops purchasing drugs, they will be responsible for the drug dealers children going hungry.

Accountability
As a United Methodist pastor, I am held responsible for the decision of my churches' Finance Committee concerning the payment of apportionments. I am held accountable to my district superintendent. Failure of my churches to pay 100% may mean a demotion in my next appointment and could even mean putting my pension at risk.

But I live within the context of a covenantal community. That means that someone else is responsible for seeing that the monies my churches give for the mission and ministry of the Methodist Church are spent with integrity and according to the will of the people. Moreover, it also means that there must be reciprocal accountability. I know what can happen to me if my churches fail to pay 100% of their apportionments -- but I am at a loss to know the consequences for unfaithful stewardship by those in authority or for those whose salary is paid via apportionments who repudiate basic Christian beliefs while promoting those things the Discipline expressly forbids. This is truly a matter of justice and equity. Something is wrong when it is so one-sided.

Next Steps
My church members are conscientious Christians. They are asking important questions and making relevant observations about apportionments. It is their money that is being spent. They deserve to be heard and they are owed a response.

How much longer will their questions and objections go unanswered?

How much longer will the powers that be continue to use threats and intimidation upon the conscientious clergy who have a hard time being a cheerleader and promoter of that which they would never proclaim as God's will from their own pulpits?

It is not time to do away with apportionments. It is time do away with the "Sacred Cow" mentality that many have concerning them. It is time for accountability and responsibility from both parties of the covenant and not just one. It is time to allow for open discussion and even criticism without the proverbial sword of Damocles hanging overhead.

Let's see if the "Open Minds" part of our motto ("Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open Doors.") is true for all rather than some.