Dear Brothers and Sisters Forgive my long absence from this board as I have been significantly challenged over these last six months. Some of you may remember questions I have raised over these last four years on the financial, spiritual and administrative health of our denomination and where is it going in this new millineum.

As I read both the American and International News I wonder where our Denomination is going and what, if anything, we are doing to help push forward the charge given by Christ to his Church.We have not effectively promoted and supported Global Missions or Missions in the Urban areas in America. We continue to find issues of administrative errors and issues costing the Church additional financial headaches. We have yet to increase our financial commitment to our Church so as reduce the strain on our budgets.

With 7 additional Bishops retiring in July and with the increasing costs of running our Church, will we see the kind of assessment increases meated out in 2000 (some Districts saw increases in access of 80%) With the perceived lack of attention to the question of African and overseas candidates for Episcopal honors where are we setting the philosophical lines for the future direction of our service to God. It appears more attention is being focused on which Johnny should be chosen to beat George or whether George should be given one more chance.

If we are the masses that represent our Church what do we define and accept as proper leadership? What kind of realistic value is the African in AME? Who is prepared to work and provide the kind of Episcopal leadership needed for the tremendous work we must do? What guideline is to be used to measure the candidates?

Any responses? Blessings to you all from Bermuda (it is warmer over here!! [smile] )

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2004

Answers

You make a very good point, Brother Brangman, as I not a delegate to the General Conference (alternate), so I am unaware of the real platform of any of the candidates that are running for episcopal office. What I mean is that I am unaware of what real changes (if any) those that are seeking episcopal office plan to bring. The one or two that I am familiar with that are making plans to run in 2008 feel, in a nutshell, that they have pastored in the AME church for 20- 25 years and they feel it is their "right" to run. It would be nice for the candidates, one of the nights of the General Conference, to have a debate or discussion about what type of leadership they would provide the church and what type of positive change they would provide the denomination, once they were in leadership. I am disillusioned at the fact that so many decisions in our church are made based on "popularity". I am really at a loss at how to deal with the complex issues facing our African districts; however, I am aware that the issues need to be addressed. If not, we may, unfortunately, be forced to consider changing our denominational name to "American Methodist Episcopal" Church. Thanks.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2004

Nalton -

I long for the day when the process for electing our Episcopal leaders ceases from being an ecclesiastical beuaty pagent and provide a forum for real scrutiny of the candidates. Most folks do not attend Convos or the plethora of national meetings when the candidates are publicly available. The answer rests with utilizing technology to bring the candidate to the people. Any Episcopal candidate who doesn't have an updated website equipped with interactive features is clearly not ready to lead this Zion. Any Episcopal candidate who has not put forth a clearly articulated position paper about achieving fiscal reform within our Zion is clearly not ready to assume Episcopal duties. Any Episcopal candidate who has not demonstrated some minimal proficiency in a foreign language or at least an indigenous African language is not ready to assume the global responsibilities of our Zion. Finally, any candidate who has not visited and fellowhipped with small and rural AME churches during his/her "campaign" is clearly not in touch with the average AME member. Mega churches are fine but the typical AME member attends a church with less than 300 members. This population represents the core of our AME church. These are what I would consider the basic expectations for Episcopal service. QED

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2004

Wow!

Bill, well said. I agree with all the points expressed above. It would be nice if there were a summary position I could add for each candidate to The Candidates' List. WOuldn't have to be too complicated, maybe a summary statement of :

• Qualifying service
• Connectional roles
• Education
• Perspective on African bishops
• Perspective on Women bishops
• Long-term vision for AME church
• Recommendation for short-term improvement

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2004

For a minute there, Brother Dickens, I thought you were preaching a sermon. Well articulated. Jerryl, I think those additions to your website would be excellent. However, I believe that the additions would need to be added by the candidate, only. Not by those who think they know what the candidates position is/positions are on certain issues. God bless.--AJ

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2004

The question raised is a vital one, and the responses have been wonderful. I would, however, cast my net on the other side, and deal with the issue of the "super-small" A.M.E. churches in North America.

There are problems peculiar to them, which are haphazardly dealt with, if at all.

The first problem is what I call "the A.M.E. tax." These churches may, at one time, have had a membership many times their current size, however, due to emigration of the members to the larger cities , or economic obsolescence of the community in which they are located, or urban development away from the site of that church, these congregations have fallen upon hard times. The AME tax is their part of the connectional budget or the District Budget, which has no rationale (or viable) relationship to their present dilemma.

Professor Dickens has off-handedly defined small churches as those with less than 300 members. That may be a reasonable definition for urban small churches in major metroplexes. But, I'm talking "super small" churches, those with less than 30 members, which are situated in hamlets, villages, and towns with 50,000 people or less.

These make up a surprisingly large number of the connection, if I am to extrapolate from my own experience. I pastored in Butler, Missouri, from 1995-2004, where we had 3 members, although about 12- 15 persons would attend twice a month, when I was there. Now, I'm at St. Joseph, Missouri, where there are 15 members on the rolls, where I preach every Sunday. My current church ranks 8th out of 18 churches, in terms of budget, in the South District of the Northwest Missouri Conference, Fifth Episcopal District, Bishop John R. Bryant, and Presiding Elder Theodore Evans.

We are assessed as though we still had the 100 members this church once had back in the 1940s-1950s, before the packing houses closed on the south side of St. Joseph, Missouri. Our connectional budget share is $900.00 at mid-year. The gas bill is almost as large, the pastor (me) is never paid (who can afford it?) Minimal salary supplement, what's that? Contribution to Retirement plan account (per Discipline) @ presumed $5,000.00 minimum salary? What's that? We have no church musician, and the physical plant is in grave need of renovation and insulation, especially! What is to be done about us? Who even cares about us, the "super small" A.M.E. churches?

Again, there are, theoretically, 10 other churches below us, if we rank 8 out of 18 in our south district. What do the candidates for the Episcopacy have to say to us? Die! Avaunt! Fie! Be Gone! We are easily swept under the rug. And better forgotten than succored.

But, seems to me I read somewhere that "Inasmuch as you did it not to one of the least of these," my brethren, "you did it not to me." Matt.25:45

Rev. Dr. Larry D. Coleman

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2004

Parson Coleman is quite correct in recognizing that the current design of AME assessments represents an unfair financial obligation for our super-small congregations. As an economist I would be remiss to not offer extended comment about the "AME Tax". Like any tax, the AME asseessment is plauged by both inefficiencies and inequities. The inefficiencies are seen in the tax creating market distortions by diverting activities away from the core ministries of the church in order to meet administrative obligations. Additional inefficienciies are seen in the area of non-compliance and tax avoidance by larger congregations. Just like individuals and corporations use creative strategies to manipulate the 1954 IRS Tax Code and expolit loopholes to duck paying taxes, larger AME congregations do the same thing. This latter inefficiency not only lowers the overall size of assessments collected but induces a pernicious internal redistribution of the tax burden from the "haves" to the "have nots". The result is an unambiguous inequity. Now if the AME Tax fails both the efficiency and the equity standard, as I think it does, what then shoudl we do? I believe the AME CFO, Richard ALlen, should propose a plan which promotes fiscal resposibility and fairness which includes the following:

1. Implementation of Bob Matthew's original legislation for fiscal reform.

2. Restructure the tax on median church income, not membership totals.

3. Raise the tax on mega AME Churches and enforce collections!!!

4. Exempt all AME churches with a membership of less than 25 members from the tax.

As as sign of my deep love and appreciation for what the AME Church has done for me and my family I would be willing to serve as a volunteer and assist Lewis and the Bishop's Council to develop an efficient AME Tax. This can be done if people are willing to sit down and be open minded about our present and future. QED

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2004

This may be a really, really, really unpopular thing to say, but I am going to say it. The AME Church may need to adopt similar policies to the United Methodist, AME Zion, UCC and Catholic Churchs in that some churches may need to "merge" with other churches. I would NEVER say close, because that is taboo in our branch of Zion. But then there arises a problem. None of the 5-10 member churches want to close, yet the pastors and the members have problems with the assesments. Too many of these pastors are not being paid a salary, are not receiving the salary supplement and then end up coming out of their pockets for the assessments because they are told by their administration that the assessment, ultimately, is the pastors responsibility. In our district, a pastor suggested that a church merge with another church (two churches with about 15 members a piece that are right around the corner from each other in a major, midwestern city). The pastors administrator told the pastor that if the two churches merge, then the assessments would merge. So, the new pastor of the merged church would not only have the current assessment, but would have to take on the new assessment. So, the pastor decided not to accept the merge. This comment is slightly off subject, but a second pastor friend stated, recently after hearing that after the 2004 General Conference the asssesments would rise at least 25%, that the assessments are based on old or original memberships (i.e. if the church once had 1,000 members then the church would continue to be assessed, based on the original 1,000 plus any additional new members that are accounted for. The theory is that if the members do not report their death, or ask to be removed from the roll, then they are still members and they have to be included in the numbers. Also, this same pastor stated that while pastors are hurt by the large assessment charges, at the same time, the districts benefit not just financially, but in terms of the number of delegates to the General Conference. It is my understanding that the number of Delegates to the General Conference are based on membership rolls. If I am totally off-base, that is fine. I don't have the discipline in front of me, nor am I consulting white papers. Feel free to educate me on the truth. However, these inconsistencies need to be addressed by the forthcoming leadership of the truth. Just like the last poster stated that he did not receive the Minister's Salary suppliment. Some ministers have stated that their presiding elders stated that if you work a job outside of pastoring, then you cannot receive the salary supplement. Then other ministers, who have held-down full- time jobs were able to secure the salary supplement. And, it was the salary supplement that assisted them in covering the assessment. Way too many inconsistencies across the board. There are way too many churches that cannot support their pastors and are receiving no connectional support. As the kids say, "somethings gotta give". God bless.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2004

Dear fellow posters:

My heart feels the deep anxiety and pain that comes from the situations that have been posted. I personally have a pastor friend who pastored a very, very small church that consisted of approximately 15 members. But, in actuality, there were only three members of the church. The other 12 were that pastor's family who were coming to support the church. This pastor friend had to pay a very large mortgage, a very large gas bill, and an increasing assessment (over $6,000). This pastor was not compensated and, in addition, the pastor covered all of the expenses of the church, including the assessments. The membership of the church was so small that it did not meet the minimal requiremenets of the discipline to have an official board. So, the pastor was, at one point, the "pastor" the "trustee" the "steward" the "secretary" the "caterer" and the "janitor" etc. From reading the posts, it sounds like this pastors experience that I am explaining, was not the exception but, unfortunately, the "norm" across the connection. This pastor friend decided, during annual conference , to step aside and focus on another branch of ministry; however, he was willing to serve at another church, which he does to this day as an assistant.

I am telling this story because I believe the AME Church is in danger of imploding upon its own inefficiencies and inadequacies. The AME Church, I believe, is a microcosm of the United States. Unless progressive and forward-thinking, profitesses and profits galvanize and seek a more excellent way, the AME Church is in grave danger of being a good historical experiment, fit only for the Smithsonian, but no longer viable in the 21st century. I can appreciate the romantic visions of the past. I can appreciate the camradery of conferences and annual conferences and quadrennials. But until the saints come together and actually pray for a mighty move from God to change the hearts and minds of our high ecclesiastical body, we will all be held accountable for our failings and short-comings. This is not a time to bury our heads in the sand, nor is it a time to point accusing fingers. But we need to critically and openly look at the current situation across the length and breadth of our Zion. I agree with the poster who said, that qualifications for Bishop would mean that they should have visited the smaller churches. I agree that mega churches are wonderful and fine, something to aspire to and not be jealous of. Hoever, we need to begin bearing each others burdens. Even in Apostle Paul's time, Paul took an offering to the Jerusalem church to help the Saints build. Rather than overly tax smaller churches and churches who are dying out, a fair and equitable redistribution of funds would benefit the growth of our Zion.

Another curative measure would be that Bishops have a salary cap or a salary freeze or voluntary salary reduction???? At our current rate of development, the AME Church is going to burn itself out trying to reinvent the wheel, rather than taking a real critical look at how resources need to be redistributed. Administrators need to be held accountable. Seminarians need to be adequately supported and assigned to churches that can support them after graduation. I know that this is a lot, but I believe that we all have a desire to see the church grow and thrive. We do have a biblical mandate to let our light shine that the whole world may see our good works and see Christ shining in us. I pray for the day for radical reforms. But, I am also aware that a system that is unwilling to change will eventually go the way of all things and die...Gods blessings to you all.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 2004

Dearest Brother Smith,

My heart aches over our beloved Church. Your description of its plight is truly prophetic and unless there is a mighty move of our Lord and repentance of our ecclesia, its demise will surely come to pass. I don't know what I can do as a lowly member not acquainted with or included in the movements of the high offices of this body, but pray and offer myself in whatever capacity I can be useful. Please contact me via email when the movement to reform begins.

Lord, have mercy on us.

Sincerely, In Love, In Christ, Yours Truly,

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2004

To Bro. Harris,

The very fact that your heart is moved by the condition of the Church indicates that change has begun. The ideas and sentiments generated on this board display the love for the A.M.E. Church. It is because of that love that critical analysis is being put forth. The next step is to acknowledge of our gifts, the best of who we are, and our growing edges. We live at an exciting time in our Zion. I believe a new reformation is being birthed that will heal many broken hearts and glorify God. The change begins by affirming that we are all God's children from the local church to the general board!! Keep the faith and keep praying while working with like minded individuals. Spirituality + Action = Reformation!!

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2004

Are there any bishops who publish mid-year and year-end financial statements to their annual conferences and pastors? I ask this because it seems to me that one way to lower the assessments and/or reroute the assessments to directly supporting smaller churches is to eliminate the wasteful spending of those assessments. Yet, how can we hold our leaders accountable for the spending, when we are held in ignorance?

I have worked for a fortune 500 company, a small communuty development corporation, a university, and a church--and in no case have I ever seen funds collected and spent with no accountability whatsoever to the people from whom the funds were procured. I have only been in the A.M.E. church for 8 years, and have been attending annual conferences as a minister for the 7 of those years. I have seen pastor upon pastor report and submit funds to the annual conference. NEVER, have I seen a report as to how the funds were spent. Perhaps it is my ignorance. Are there pastors out there who can speak to this issue? I pray that you all receive SOMETHING, ANYTHING remotely resembling this kind of information. The bishops that my pastor has served under have not given him such reports. Perhaps there are one or two bishops out there who have, in which case there is hope.

If not, then my disgust should not be directed to one or two bishops, but to the whole lot of them. This has to stop. It's ten times worse than ENRON because at least ENRON had some fake reports to present--and we're supposed to be the CHURCH!

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2004

Dear Brothers and Sisters

Thanks for some of the most thought provoking responses.To those who are prepared to assist our Church doing the work of the lord I am encouraged. Prof.Bill I agree with your sermon (smile) on qualifications) I was hoping to see if some of our African members would jump in and share their thoughts. Keep it coming!

Again Thanks P.S. The weather is 74 degrees and sunny. Maybe we should have a meeting here (a warm smile)

Blessings from Bermuda

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2004

Brother Brangman, thank you for your post and Brother Maynard thank you for your entry.

I agree with accountability; however, we are all held accountable. At our local church conferences when it is time to purge the rolls, how many in our local congregations ask Pastor Applesauce not to purge Sister Gravy's daughter from the church rolls, even though the congregation knows the daughter has left the AME church 5 years ago and joined with another denomination. Also, how many times have church officers allowed their pastor to give inflated numbers to the Annual Conference so that he can look good when he stands to give his report for annual conference?

How many times have we as individuals, laity and clergy, stood to ask our bishops for accountability? No one wants to be considered a rabble rouser and demand answers from our bishops. Instead, too many cower and cozy up to the powers that be instead of asking pointed questions and demanding their being accountable.

I remember many years ago, I attended an annual conference and there was an open afternoon session open to clergy and laity on the subject of tithing. I totally believe in tithing, but I also believe the storehouse is accountable for the tithes it receives...from the local church to the annual conference to the district and to the general conference, and I stated as such in this session. I explained that God gave me the money to give to the church; however, if the funds are not showing productivity, then I must find a storehouse where the funds will be used for God's agenda. I believe God gave us each a brain and holds us accountable to use it. Many agreed with me at this session, but then one preacher rose and said do not worry about the storehouse. You just bring your tithe, and if it is mishandled, then let God worry about it, and then another preacher rose and backed up the first. I said no more because I did not want to the debate the subject, but my mind was still unchanged. Following the session, many pastors came to me and said they fully agreed with what I had said, but they could never agree publicly at annual conference for fear of retribution.

We have too many AME pastors without backbone and do not stand for what is right, and much of our laity has become complacent. I pray that our church will listen to our brothers Matthews and Dickens and the others who are working for change before it is too late.

God will hold us accountable. While we play church and His children go unfed and clothed, He is not happy, and He will not be mocked. God bless us all!

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2004

Sister Brooks:

As long as people like you and Brothers Brangman and Maynard and Dickens and the others (charge it to my head, not my heart) who are NOT afraid to stand up and shout "BS!" are blessed with the gift of life, our Zion shall not perish.

I wholeheartedly agree that it is time to stop playing church and start being the Church. There are just too many children (of all ages) suffering all over this planet, dying from a lack of spiritual and physical food, clothing, warmth, and the common courtesy of human touch.

Perhaps we should call the prayer warriors in to intercede on the leadership's behalf.....

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2004

Allow me to emphasize that the AME Mission Statement (Eight Point Plan of Action) is a comprehensive but sound theologically based program of action. If we are to accomplish the stated goals and objectives in our mission we must carefully examine all options required to ensure its success. I share the concerns which have been articulated by Bro. Smith, Parson Maynard, AJ and Sister Brooks. We are indeed at a critical juncture in our hsitory and I for one don't think Bro. Smith is overreacting to our current plight. Now let's examine the recommendation provided by AJ about merging our smaller congregations. I am not opposed to mergers of this type however I would like to see the merger option come from the top down. I believe you will only gain lasting support for merger activity when the local congregation can see that the AME hierarchy is practicing what it preaches. If we need fewer churches and fewer PE Districts for our strategic long-term security, I would also add that we need fewer Episcopal Districts as well. Since the close of the 2000 Gen Con I have been consistent in stressing that we do not need to fill 8 Bishop seats. The size of the BIshops Bench should be reduced! Just because we have a large retirement class doesn't warrant filling all eight slots. Our Episcopal Districts need radical realignment and consolidation. As I have stated before, we need to redefine the 5th District (make it smaller), merge the 3rd District with the 13th, the 11th with the 9th, the 6th and the 7th and include the entire state of PA in the 1st District. All organizations must re-engineer in order to compete efficiently in today's dynamic society. The AMEC should not be immune from these fundamental changes. However, because the majority of our members are more concerned about preserving the status quo (rejecting Episcopal District realignment) we are now stuck with the inevitable outcome of paying retirement to four more Bishops than we really need. Until we get the committment from the top that mergers are good for the AMEC I don't believe the message will be warmly embraced at the local level. I can't quite say I blame them for thinking in an anti-merger manner. You MUST lead by example. QED

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2004

Prof. Bill I agree with you again on the issue of re-allignment of the Church in order to meet the 8 point plan. Sis. Brooks is right about dishonesty in the Church on the recording of our Annual Conference membership statistics. We must lead by example. This is why I have posed the question. I believe we must ask of all candidates are they prepared to make the hard leadership questions answered if elected and how. What steps will they take. What steps have they done in their Pastoring that could be seen as an example.

In chatting with one candidate the other day I asked if the net present financial position of the Church improved during his leadership. He was able to show that the Church he presently has held $100,000 when he arrived but now has invested that money into real estate and have seen a net increase in value of $500,000. during his appointment. Has he handled to the difficult decisions when all of the financial problems occurred and the nest egg was gone? Yes thus far.

We need Bishops who will lead with a vision of the 8 point plan and articulate the steps they will take to making the vision a reality. We in the meantime must put an end to Pastors reporting false information to their respective Annual conference. We should allow a day for the Bishops to have town meetings with the members alone to really feel out the various issues. I think this might help.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2004

ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (OD) FOR THE AME CHURCH -- IT IS TIME FOR ORGANIZATIONAL RENEWAL FOR OUR CHURCH. BISHOP ADAM PREACHED ABOUT THIS NEED AT THE CLOSE OF THE LAST TWO GENERAL CONFERENCES. THE RESPONSE TO HIS PREACHING WAS VERY, VERY SUPPORTIVE. YET, WE HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED DEVELOPMENT FOR OUR CHURCH AT THE CONNECTIONAL LEVEL.

OUR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ARE EXAMPLES OF THE CHURCH'S FAILURES. OUR FOREFATHERS AND MOTHERS STARTED THESE INSTITUTIONS ON NICKELS AND DIMES. TODAY, WE HAVE MANY FORMS OF DOLLARS. THE QUESTION IS WHY ARE THE SCHOOLS SUFFERING. MANY OF US THINK WE HAVE THE ANSWER AND THERE IS NOT A NEED FOR A STUDY OF THIS ISSUE. IF SO, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS KNOWN ANSWER?

NOTE THAT BISHOP ADAMS PRESENTED AN ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT STUDY IN THE EARLY 80s WHEN THE 2ND DISTRICT WAS UNDER HIS SUPERVISION. THAT WAS MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS AGO. STILL, A NOTICEABLE CHANGE IS ABSENCE AT THE CONNECTIONAL LEVEL.

THE POWER OF THE BISHOPS AND PASTORS NEEDS A THOROUGH REVIEW. THE LAY ORGANIZATION NEEDS TO TAKE THE LEAD FOR THIS REVIEW. PASTORS AND BISHOPS HAVE A GOOD THING. IT IS HUMAN NATURE TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO FOR A GOOD THING.

IF YOU ARE CONCERNED AS I, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE. LET IT BEGIN WITH US. WE MUST BE WILLING TO CITE ISSUES AND STAND BEHIND THEM AND IN FRONT OF THE POWER STRUCTURE OF THE CONNECTIONAL CHURCH.

EMMA JEAN GHEE LECHE

EJLISADOVE@AOL.COM

(202) 333-7923

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2004