Online Archives

Meliissa Lauber
UMConnection Staff

How will the people of the Baltimore- Washington Conference finance their vision for the church’s future? 

On Jan. 26-29, about 200 lay and clergy members met at four regional sessions to consider the feasibility of embarking on a $15 million capital campaign that would benefit local churches and the conference. Also under discussion was how that money, once raised, might be best spent. 

“We are here to listen to what you think. You came here because you love the church. We want to hear what’s on your minds about a possible capital funds campaign,” Bishop Marcus Matthew told those at regional meetings. “Your input is essential in determining how we move forward.” 

The frank conversations at these listening sessions centered around a report given by the conference Council on Finance and Administration, the Discipleship Council, and CCS, a consulting firm hired to research the feasibility of a capital campaign. 

Their research, explained Robert “Bo” Rice and Linda Cameron of CCS, involved 157 one-on-one interviews and 212 e-mail surveys. The interviews and e-mail survey included clergy, staff and laity, both male and female, from a wide range of ethnicities and ages. 

The purpose of the campaign would be to finance elements in the conference’s 2020 Vision, which was adopted by the members of the Baltimore-Washington Conference at their 2012 session. It was estimated that implementing the entire 2020 Vision would require $24 million in funding. 

However, the CCS study broke the vision down into case areas and found that three of these areas received the highest ratings of support: developing new faith communities, making new disciples, and pastor vitality.

Study participants also noted support for congregational support, increasing worship attendance, increasing attendance in small groups, providing permanent supportive housing, eradicating deaths caused by malaria, and increasing the number of vital Acts 2 congregations.

Ninety percent of those in the one-on-one interviews indicated they would consider a gift to a campaign, 50 percent said they were positive or very positive about the proposed campaign and 77 percent said they would support a decision to move ahead. In total, the 302 respondents said they could be counted on to give almost $2.3 million to a campaign.

However, a lack of initial indications of people who would make significantly large financial gifts led CCS to suggest that a $15 million goal for a capital campaign would be more feasible.

They also suggested a unique approach to the campaign, with churches and the conference collaborating in the fundraising efforts, with a portion of the money raised remaining with the congregation in which it was raised.

The survey and interviews suggested adopting a 70-30 split, with 70 percent of the funds collected staying within the local church. If a $15 million campaign was successful, this would bring in $4.5 million to support elements of the conference’s 2020 Vision.

It is important to note, Rice said, that participation in the campaign will not be mandatory. Congregations can choose if they want to participate or not, and at what level. 

At the listening sessions, conversation and ideas about the campaign spread across a wide spectrum of opposition and support. However a number of broad themes presented themselves in many of the small group discussions.

Several of those present were hesitant to draw any conclusions, stating that significantly more specific information about a campaign and its goals and methods would need to be provided before they arrived at any opinion. “We need greater clarity and better communications,” several people in the Washington region said.

Others cited a concern that the campaign feels like another form of apportionment, which churches pay to the conference to support connectional ministries. “How is this different from apportionments? We give about 17 percent of our money to the conference already for programs that are supposed to create new congregations, make new disciples and increase pastoral vitality. This feels like more of the same. Why call it something different,” asked one participant in the Western region.

Many of those who supported the campaign spoke out enthusiastically about how funds raised in a capital campaign could be used for large, transformative ministries that one or two churches could never accomplish on their own. “We are a connectional people. It’s our identity as Methodists. Together we can do things we could never do alone,” said a participant at the Washington session. 

However, others at the same session expressed the understanding that discipleship is best lived out at the local church level and spoke out in favor of resources staying in congregations.

There were also a significant number of concerns expressed about today’s economic climate in which many members are living on fixed incomes and many churches are struggling to make ends meet in their own budgets. “We’re having problems raising money for daily expenses,” said one person in the Baltimore region. “We’re struggling to keep our doors open,” said another. “Where are we supposed to get the money?”

In the Cumberland-Hagerstown District, one participant reported that 39 of the district’s 85 churches have fewer than 40 members. “Asking these small congregations, many of which are made up of older people living on fixed incomes, to embark on significant capital campaign may not be our best course of action,” he said.

However, several of the participants liked the idea of stewardship and fundraising education, which would be provided as part of the local church’s campaign. “This is a unique idea whose time has come,” said a participant in the Annapolis-Southern region. “Jesus talked about money more than anything else,” said another. “Many of our clergy need help learning how to talk and teach about giving.”

In the past, in 1992 and 2001, the Baltimore-Washington Conference embarked on unsuccessful stewardship campaigns. How the conference’s fundraising history will affect its future was a concern for many of those present at the listening sessions. 

One person at the Hagerstown session reported that in a campaign to raise $12 million, the conference spent $2 million and raised only $4 million.

That history, Rice said, is regrettable. Industry standards usually spend 12 to 15 cents to raise $1 in capital campaigns. CCS believes it can conduct a successful campaign for only 5 or 6 cents for each dollar raised. 

These are very different times, said Rice. “We are looking to the future.”

The Capital Campaign steering committee will be reviewing the feedback and meeting with conference leaders. They will make a recommendation about whether and how to proceed to the Council on Finance and Administration in March. 

The recommendation will be discussed by members of the annual conference when they meet at the preconference session May 4 at Martin’s West in Woodlawn. A vote on the campaign is expected to be taken at the annual conference session May 29-31 in Baltimore.