I have typically not done live blogging of committee sessions but this issue is a pretty lively one at this GA and one that I have to admit was not on my radar. So, with 40 speakers signed up to speak I thought I will watch and blog and hope to have a better understanding of the issues involved. As with all my live blogging you will want to refresh your browser every now and again to get the latest updates. Please excuse the typos as my fingers fly. And it is a paradox that there is an open hearing on Special Offerings the same night Special Offerings is sponsoring a fundraiser at the Pirates baseball game… If you want to follow along with the business items this is Committee 10 – Mission Coordination and the business items on the floor for comment at 10-01 (Not special offerings), 10-02, 10-05, 10-06, 10-14, 10-19. Each speaker has two minutes. Most of the top people for GAMC are here. And the committee reconvenes with prayer.

Beginning with item 10-02 requesting a new special offering for Native American Ministries
Speaker 1: It is important to keep this ministry going. The Native American Consulting Committee is different than the Office of Native American Ministry. The consulting committee helps get youth involved in the PC(USA).
Next speaker on this topic not present

Moving on to item 10-14 the recommendation from the GAMC on Special Offerings
Speaker 1: Likes the recommendations regarding technology. Has some concerns about the OGHS no longer directed from the congregations but directed by GAMC. Also, no recommendation about increasing the number of churches that give to all four offerings.

Speaker 2: (Presbytery Stated Clerk) Supports the report because it addresses all four offerings. The proposed change provides the opportunity to focus resources more strategically. Has heard that GAMC can not be trusted with the money so if that is your concern request a full accounting to the whole church.

Speaker 3: (Ruling elder) Passionate about this report. The technology and social media recommendations are good. So why can’t we just use the new technology with the program as it is today? Also, without knowing how the funds are going to be distributed how do Mid Councils plan? Give this some real thought about approving something that is not completely spelled out.

Speaker 4: (Presbytery Stated Clerk) OGHS has done tremendous work. Respect the time and efforts of the Task Force, but the recommendations in the report are flawed. They call out for amendments that will retain percentage allocations. “If it ain’t broke that don’t fix it.” There are many things in the denomination that can stand for fixing but this is not one of them.

Speaker 5: (Presbytery Executive) He has done research on funding mission and Presbyterians are consistently behind the curve. 1) Need to update technology 2) World Communion Sunday offering should be a witness to the world community 3) Continuing to do what we are doing now will lead to continued decline in giving 4) Mission funding needs more funding and this is a way to increase it.

Speaker 6: (HR Teaching Elder) “I hate mendacity.” The king has no clothes. There are issues before you that maybe you don’t want to see. This proposal impacts African American ministries. We don’t need to have change for the sake of change. Can lead to a split. Vehemently opposed

Speaker 7: (Teaching Elder) Understand the need to have particular attention to racial ethnic minorities. There are times to do things differently and creatively and this is one of those time. Let GAMC coordinate the work and not be a pass-through.

Speaker 8: (Ruling elder and clerk of session) Need to start thinking abundantly. But mission interpretation is very difficult and if you remove the names it will become even murkier. This proposal could also distract us form some less-glamorous and smaller ministries.

Speaker 9: (Presbytery executive) Mixed feelings about the report. These offerings are the primary for many to connect with the national church. In particular the OGHS proposals could undermine the offering by diffusing the giving. One more effort by GAMC to go directly to congregational members to get the money for their budget. Weakens the role of Presbyteries by GA going directly to congregations. Goes around congregations by GAMC going directly to donors. No place on web site for donors to identify their church.

Speaker 10: (Presbytery executive) Disapprove recommendation 10-14b and keep current language of OGHS. New things and improving good things are not a problem. But the recommendation will in all likelihood will result in decreased dollars.

Speaker 11: (Presbytery executive) The world is unraveling around us. In this new space how do we function as leaders? Do we take the time to let the Spirit work in this new world.

Speaker 12: (Ruling elder) Won’t repeat what others have said. But keep in mind the spirit of OGHS that has passed over six decades. Its history and trust call on us to retain the recipients and distribution system. If asked by home church members how OGHS will be dispersed will have to answer “I don’t know.”

Speaker 13: (?) Need to closely look at the OGHS system and be careful in making changes that would impact distribution both for interpretation and preserving smaller ministries.

Speaker 14: (Teaching elder) Urge you to adopt overture 10-05 as written. SOATF says people give to causes and not programs. To leave it up to Louisville will harm the program. Keep the names and the percentages in so people know where it is going. Try out the new fundraising ideas but keep stability in OGHS.

Speaker 15: (Teaching elder) Urge you to approve recommendation 1 but not recommendations 2-6. Task Force chair says we need accountability but there is already accountability. Concerned there is no transparency as to why changes are being made. Hope we can find a way to give to the cause and build on the efforts of the Task Force.

[Calling names and a couple well known ones not here – Marj Carpenter and Ron Stone]

Speaker 16: (Teaching elder) Please hold on to the special offerings as they are existing now. If there are ways we can find to encourage more or better giving we would all like that. The special offerings did not result from staff decisions in HQ but arose from the cries of needs form the people and overtures from the presbyteries. Also, these offerings are guided by people like us in this room – who work on advisory committees who do site visits.

Item 10-06
Speaker 1: (HR Teaching elder) This item is the first time in 54 years of ministry that members of her church asked her to check this out at GA. There is concern among those in her church because their involvement may not be associated with their giving.

Speaker 2: (Ruling elder) No program is perfect but if you travel in ecumenical circles OGHS and the Peacemaking Offering are very well respected. Now, if we want to support both OGHS and Peacemaking are we going to give twice as much for the OGHS and then turn around for the Communion offering. It seems like smoke and mirrors that we will make these changes and suddenly have more money

Speaker 3: (Teaching elder) Support 10-6 – the Peacemaking Offering is very important and now is not the time to be making changes. This will gut the program. Peacemaking is a program that attracts many young adults to our church.

Speaker 4: (Presbyterian Peace Fellowship) I do not envy this committee. You have a hard decision. Yes we need to have changes – new ways to raise money. But we should not tamper with these offerings that are working and people want to give to programs that they know. There can be a both/and – people will give to other causes as well. Don’t change loved and respected programs.

That concludes the open hearings. Ten minute break.
Nobody signed up to speak to 10-01 and no one directly referenced 10-19. Most of the last group addressed both 10-05 and 10-06.

Moving to unfinished business from earlier in the day – item 10-16
Approved with comment.

No longer exciting live blogging so I will sign off now