Report to the Governing Board

September 20, 2010 

In this centennial year of modern ecumenism, I want to begin this report by recalling the words, delivered at the Edinburgh World Mission Conference in 1910, of a great ecumenical leader, Bishop Charles Brent.  It seems to me that they name both the foundation of our work and, quite astonishingly, the central problem of our own era.

God works in us and through us, and were we not assured of this fact it would be impossible for us to undertake our common responsibilities.  [It is this knowledge of God’s abundance as our sufficiency that] releases us from the most growing and most serious disease … the disease of our age, namely, anxiety.  Nothing else can cure us of anxiety.  We may be distracted at times by various diversions from our anxious thoughts, but it is only the profound belief that God is our sufficiency that will cure us of the disease.

May God grant us, throughout this meeting of the Governing Board, the assurance of God’s abundant grace and the knowledge that this grace is sufficient for us, for our churches, and for our anxious society.   

We will return to this theme of centenary with the report of the Planning Committee for the November assembly – what we are calling a Centennial Gathering – and with our discussion of three of the “vision papers” being prepared for that event.  I will simply observe now that there is an obvious ambiguity about this remembrance.  On the one hand, we can surely give thanks for the work of the Holy Spirit over the past hundred years.  Churches that in 1910 would have had little to do with one another are now together at these tables.  When an earthquake strikes Haiti or the poor are neglected in proposals for economic recovery or religious intolerance becomes manifest in appalling ways, our churches are able to offer some degree of common witness through the National Council of Churches and Church World Service. 

On the other hand, who can deny that what the world often sees when it looks at the churches is still fragmentation and frequent competition?  And this, of course, is exacerbated by ecclesial anxiety in an era of diminishing resources.  There is a biblical teaching that all of us, it seems to me, have difficultly trusting:  “Those who would find their life must lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.”  Those who would multiply the church must dare to give it away – yes, in service to others, but also through offering their particular gifts that the whole body, not just the part we label “ours,” might be built up in love. 

Because the past century presents such a mixed picture of faithfulness and falling short, the Planning Committee speaks of the Centennial Gathering not simply as a “celebration” but as a time for assessing a) where the churches have been as participants in the ecumenical movement, b) where they are today (the new challenges we face), and c) where God might be leading them (us) in the years ahead.  This will not be assembly-as-usual!  It is absolutely critical that all of the member communions be fully present for these days of worship, dialogue, discernment, and decision, November 9-11 in New Orleans.

*** 

The agenda for this meeting of the Governing Board reflects a portion of the work undertaken by the NCC staff, commissions, and committees since we last met.  (I would like for my staff colleagues – a very talented and dedicated group with whom I am privileged to serve – to stand and be recognized.)  It seems to me that much of the agenda for these two days, much of our recent activity, can be organized around three questions: 

• What does it mean to be a citizen of the United States (to be the United States of America) in this era?
• What does it mean to be the church in the USA in this era?
• What does it mean to be a council of U.S. churches in this era?

What does it mean to be an American (to be America) in this era? 

The threatened burning of Qur’ans, as well as opposition to mosques and Islamic Centers, especially one in Manhattan, have forced the question:  Is this a country that welcomes religious and cultural diversity, one that sees Muslim neighbors as partners in the building of a more just and peaceful society, or a country, as Ross Douthat put it, that understands itself to be a distinctive culture, one shaped by a particular (white Protestant) religious heritage, that must be defended from those considered “outsiders”?  (I am certainly not ignoring the anxious and ignorant equation of Muslims and terrorists, which we must continue to counter; but I am suggesting that there is a more profound issue at stake.) 

In recent weeks, the NCC staff, drawing on decades of conciliar study and dialogue, has given vigorous witness to the former position.  Thanks to outstanding work of our staff in Communications as well as the Interfaith Relations Commission.  (We will hear from both Commissions during this meeting.)  In doing so, we understood ourselves to be expressing the shared mind of the churches that together constitute the Council. Never did we minimize Christian claims about God’s unique incarnation in Jesus Christ; but we did assert that the United States is a place where various faiths appropriately join in conversation and action aimed at achieving the common good. 

You can find no fewer than six statements, which we wrote or contributed to, on the NCC website (and it has been gratifying to see how many member communions distributed these materials though their own networks).  We reacted so aggressively to this issue in part because it bears directly on U.S. self-understanding, but also because of reports we were receiving from the World Council of Churches and our member churches that Christians in predominately Muslim countries were feeling threatened by extremists in their settings who were using extremist rhetoric here as a pretext for violence.  It is an example of how the web of conciliar relationships is indispensable in moments of crisis. 

The question of what it means to be an American in this era is obviously central as well to the debate over immigration reform, which we will revisit in our discussion of Justice and Advocacy tomorrow morning.  It also surfaces, however, in our ecumenical support of legislation aimed at reducing poverty and promoting education reform.  In an era when the top 1% of American households receives 24% of total income and the bottom 80% controls less than 15% of total wealth, in an era when only 47% of African-American males graduate from high school in four years, the U.S. is in grave danger of becoming a two-tiered society, a nation of haves and have nots with an ever-widening gap between them. 

Let there be no mistake:  the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA is not a social justice coalition; but it also isn’t a pious huddle.  This is a community of Christian communions that promotes justice for the oppressed, gives food to the hungry, lifts up those who are bowed down, watches over strangers, and upholds the orphan and widow because such is the mission of our righteous God (Psalm 146).  It is not politics but theology that compels us. 

Finally, the question of what it means to be an American – or, better, to be the United States of America – should surely be on our minds tomorrow morning when we deal with several international issues:  The Millennium Development Goals (under review at the UN even as we meet), the interminable war in Afghanistan, the response of our churches to the tragedy in Haiti, and the humanitarian crisis in Columbia (which Bishop Johncy Itty, Rev. Jose Luis Casal, and I saw firsthand during a recent visit to the region).  The obvious question is this:  Will this nation’s character be defined globally by a highly militarized and unilateral foreign policy or by an emphasis on multilateral collaboration that gives priority to humanitarian assistance and a concern for human rights?  To put it more polemically, will the churches in this country allow the government to define “security” in terms of unilateral defense or will we vigorously insist, in line with the gospel, that human interdependence means there is no security for us apart from security for our neighbor? I urge you, the Governing Board, to keep these larger questions in mind as we consider particular items on our agenda. 

What does it mean to be the church in the USA in this era? 

This question is already implicit in the first, but it will become explicit in our discussion this afternoon of the proposed policy statement, “The Authority of the Church in the World.”  Please do not dismiss this as less important or urgent than other parts of the agenda because its language and focus are so overtly theological.  The question this statement explores, and tries to answer, is at the heart of our life as the NCC:  “How can the churches bear effective – authoritative – witness to the gospel in a society filled with competing voices, in an era when authority itself is suspect, and at a time when the churches themselves are so obviously divided?” (p.1). 

In June, we had something of a case study in the exercise of authoritative witness when the Pastoral Letter on Education Reform, approved by this Governing Board in May, caught the attention of the White House and U.S. Department of Education.  Garland Pierce, along with leaders of the Council and the Education and Leadership Ministries Commission (from which we will hear this afternoon), met with Secretary Arne Duncan and members of his staff in order to discuss similarities and differences in approach to the reform of public education – provoking, as well, an important internal discussion about the Council’s relationship to political power.  Is it preferable to maintain what might be called a prophetic stance, even at the cost of direct political influence, or is the gospel better served by tempering our criticism in order to participate more fully in conversation with government? 

I will note in passing that our pastoral letter seemed to be taken more seriously by other partners (e.g., the Rainbow PUSH Coalition) than it was by most of our member communions.  I am convinced that the authority of our witness would truly have been enhanced if all of the NCC churches had distributed the letter and urged action on it. 

What does it mean to be a council of U.S. churches in this era? 

The discussion above leads directly to this question.  The issues found on our agenda and in this report – including Christian-Muslim relations, the war in Afghanistan, immigration reform, and the growing disparity in wealth – have the potential to polarize our communities.  If we are to deal with them forthrightly, how do we also advance our central concern for Christian unity? 

My own thinking about this is informed by the work of Jose Miguez Bonino on “a vital and coherent theology for the WCC.”  The World Council, he argues, is (must be) both a “space” where genuinely diverse ecclesial partners come together to celebrate, discuss, and cooperate and an avant garde body that challenges the churches through pioneering action and theological formulation.  As I see it, the one follows the other:  The Council is the relationship formed by the churches’ commitment to be with one another; but through their celebrating, discussing, and cooperating the Spirit enables them to offer ever more concerted witness to the gospel of God’s reconciling and liberating love, made known in Christ.  The role of the staff is to help foster these relationships among the churches and to hold them accountable to the growing body of shared convictions hammered out in the course of life together.  If being part of the NCC is easy, then we probably aren’t doing our job! 

All of this is made much more difficult in this era because of declining resources, especially in the churches that have long been the biggest financial supporters of the NCC and conciliar ecumenism in general.  We will hear more about the Council’s finances during the reports of the Administration and Finance Committee and the Development Office this afternoon.  In this report, I want to remind us briefly of the situation facing the NCC and offer some possible responses for your consideration. 

The following facts have been presented previously to the Governing Board but bear repeating:

• 2009-2010 marks the seventh consecutive year that the NCC has run an operating deficit.
• Our reserve “cushion” at the end of the past fiscal year is a dangerously thin $3.6 million.
• Contributions to the Ecumenical Commitment Fund have fallen by 25% in the past decade, with more cuts anticipated in the coming fiscal year.
• Cognate funding has fallen 65% during the same ten-year period.
• Ten member communions gave nothing, neither designated nor undesignated funding, in 2009-10.
• Income from foundations fell this past year, a direct consequence of the economic downturn.
• Income from Bible translation will drop from $500,000 to near zero in this fiscal year as a result of the arrangement made with Harper’s in 2005.

Once again, the problem is not with the expense side of the ledger.  In the fiscal year just past, expenses were $70,000 under budget - a trend that has pertained throughout this quadrennium.  There are undoubtedly modest ways to trim expenditures within the current configuration of the NCC, but not many.  The staff is already stretched too thin to meet all of the demands of current programming; and senior staff members in particular have already made significant financial sacrifices in order to reduce expenses. 

One obvious response to this situation is to find new ways to increase revenue.  And, in fact, we have put in place an excellent fund development team and a comprehensive fundraising plan (following Governing Board discussion in May), one that requires real cooperation from the leaders of our communions.  It seems clear, however, that this Board also needs to consider various options to present ways of doing business – while preserving the core commitments that define the essence of conciliar ecumenism. 

One obvious step is to insist that the NCC (i.e., the churches acting together as Council) engage in no programs or initiatives for which there is not a guaranteed source of funding (including some funding for staff involved), and that all programs be of limited duration.  Over the course of the next year, the staff will invite you, through representatives on an advisory committee, to identify a reduced number of shared commitments that will form the core of NCC programming in the next quadrennium (2012-2015), and to help identify specific sources of funding for them. 

I want to emphasize that some of the member communions are already giving financial support to our common conciliar life in ways that transcend the traditional patterns of ECF and cognate funding.  For example, the United Church of Christ and the Church of the Brethren are, in effect, seconding staff positions in racial justice and peacemaking.  NaKeisha Sylver Blount and Jordan Blevins work for both the NCC and their denominations, providing program support we otherwise would not have.  In the same way, the Episcopal Church is providing the services of Rosemari Sullivan to coordinate the churches’ response to the earthquake in Haiti. 

There are other examples.  The Disciples and the UCC, along with the Armenian Orthodox Church, have provided funding for NCC leadership visits to the Middle East and to China and South Korea.  And the Tres Rios Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church (USA) made possible my participation in the recent trip to Latin America.  Without such support, the Council’s international witness, needless to say, would be greatly diminished.  We will need more of this sort of “creative funding” in the years ahead. 

I remain confident that revenue will rebound in the coming years as a result of increased development activity – including a greater focus on fundraising on the part of all senior staff.  If it doesn’t, however, then we will need to take the more drastic step of insisting that staff positions also be guaranteed by funding sources – in other words, that there be fewer permanent staff, with most staff positions filled by persons on limited-duration, “soft money” contracts. 

Real change in the Council, however, will require change in the churches.  My hope is that our communions will increasingly decide to coordinate common work – e.g., women’s ministries, racial justice ministries, interfaith relations – through the structure of the NCC (just as they now do, at least to some extent, with curriculum development). At present, the work done by NCC commissions tends to be “on top of” work done in the denominations. If the Council were the place where the churches focused their efforts – doing all things together except those which deep differences of conviction compel them to do separately – then there would be far greater incentive to financially support common mission done through the NCC. 

These reflections on the way we do business are prompted, in part, by the financial crisis of recent years.  Some changes, however, are warranted, regardless of the financial picture.  I believe, for example, that the NCC needs to be working much more closely with state and local councils of churches – doing programming together, as we are on the immigration working group, and seeking funding together as parts of the one ecumenical movement.  This is not, of course, a “council of councils.”  But in this era of decentralization, the network of conciliar relationships (about which we will hear more tomorrow) seems more important than ever. 

At the same time, we surely need to explore ways of consolidating, not proliferating, national ecumenical bodies, thus reducing the financial and personnel demands on the communions.  With this in mind, the Rev. Dick Hamm, Executive Director, of Christian Churches Together in the USA, and I have been in regular, though very informally and unofficial, conversation regarding the future of the NCC and CCT – and would now like to invite others into the discussion.  Are there ways to integrate the depth of relationships and programming found in the NCC with the breadth of membership seen in CCT?  Dick and I are proposing a church leaders retreat for the fall of 2011 in order to consider this question.  In a moment, Dick will bring greetings from CCT, during which he may have more to say about this proposal.  It is part of our thinking together about what it means to be a council of U.S. churches in this era. 

*** 

The preceding reflections on possibilities for the NCC have been what you might call “orthopedic;” but I hope you agree that our deepest problems are “cardiac.”  The real question for us is the same one that the pioneer ecumenist, John R. Mott, posed to the Edinburgh conference in 1910:  Are we prepared to realize even here something of the oneness that is ours in Christ?  A century later, ecumenism remains, for most churches, an add-on to the “real work” of preserving denominational structures and prerogatives.  Perhaps this seems like too harsh a judgment, especially given the intense pressures on denominational leaders in this era (and the active ecumenical commitment of some); but clear thinking about the future demands clear assessment of the present.  If the NCC is simply a comfortable arrangement of mutual forbearance that keeps the scandal of disunity at arm’s length, then we need to ask far more radical questions than those posed in this report. 

Having said that, I dare to believe, as Mott did one hundred years ago, that “our best days are ahead of us because we have a larger Christ.”  The National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA can yet be a place where the churches grow in unity and bear concerted witness to our common Lord.  And when this happens, it is not our achievement that we celebrate but God’s grace for which we give thanks.

Michael Kinnamon
General Secretary
National Council of Churches