3
From time to time, individual congregations took exception as to how the money was spent by
Presbytery, Synod or General Assembly. Individual congregations or individuals within congregations
protested the practice of the common purse.
To respond to those concerns, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) made it possible for individual
congregations to make restricted gifts, to designate their giving. On the surface, this sounded like a
good thing, a helpful practice.
If Central Presbyterian Church, for example, decided to focus its mission on hunger and
homelessness, we could ask that all our mission dollars go to programs that addressed those concerns.
Wonderful funds have been established for specific areas of mission because of this very practice of
designated giving – or restricted giving.
There are very fine programs that have evolved as a part of this model. The Cents-Ability
program that is being launched today is one way we may generate funds that will go directly to hunger.
We do not have to rely on a program agency to allocate a particular percentage of its budget for hunger;
we are able to give an infusion of money directly to that need. This is a wonderful opportunity.
The Session of Central Presbyterian Church gave the Mission Council of our church permission
to offer this program to our congregants as an “over and above” project. The pocket change we have
each day, when combined with that of hundreds of thousands of others, means hunger pains are kept at
bay for those nourished by our common cents.
If, however, the Cents-Ability program is all we do, in terms of supporting the mission of the
church, then we limit the ministries that are done in the name of Christ.
Such limits are placed on the Church as a whole when congregations refuse to contribute to the
common purse.
Years ago, when I was a minister in Lehigh Presbytery, there was a congregation (whom I shall
call Third Church) that rejected the common purse. As an individual church, Third was very generous,
contributing large amounts of mission dollars to programs in Pakistan, youth ministries and national
renewal movements. At the same time, Third Church consistently protested the direction of the
denomination and the actions of our presbytery and synod. Presbytery meetings often were
discouraging because the folks from Third would complain, bitterly, about the appropriateness of the
ministries of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
Toleration of the difficult personalities and harsh words was helped by the awareness that, in
spite of our differences, Third Church and all the other congregations of Lehigh Presbytery shared a
common purse. While beliefs may have differed, there was agreement that certain ministries would be
supported by all. At least Third Church joined the rest of the presbytery in funding through mission
support the local church camp, a program for transitional housing, a homeless shelter and a food
program. At least Third Church, through their per capita supported the administrative efforts of
Presbytery, Synod and General Assembly.
“At least we hold some ministries in common,” thought many of us in the Presbytery. Then we
learned differently. At some point, we became aware that Third Church withheld their per capita and
they did not contribute any unrestricted mission funds. There was no common support of the
administrative staff and offices of the denomination’s judicatories. There was no common support of the
mission programs of the presbytery.
 |
 |
 |