Our district is implementing the "10%" plan

[David Pettigrew]

Some time back, we had a thread about changes we'd like to see in the COTN. One topic of much discussion was going to a "10% of current income base" for budget apportionments, rather than a "not to exceed 20% of last year's expenditures" base.

The Dallas district is doing a "trial run" of this plan for the 2007-2008 church year. Churches will still be assigned budgets based on last year's expenditures, but they can opt to pay them by cutting one check to the district each week (or month) equal to 10% of each Sunday's tithes and offerings. The district would then distribute the income between district, education, and P&B. WEF would still be raised through congregational pledges and special offerings.

If the plan works well this year, then next year each church will pay budgets on current income ONLY; not on last year's expenditures.

Under this plan, my church would likely save $6000 this year.

Any other districts doing something similar? I think there may be a groundswell out there to change this system.

[Pete Vecchi]

Churches will still be assigned budgets based on last year's expenditures, but they can opt to pay them by cutting one check to the district each week (or month) equal to 10% of each Sunday's tithes and offerings. The district would then distribute the income between district, education, and P&B. WEF would still be raised through congregational pledges and special offerings.

In other words, it woun't be a "true" 10%, because WEF will be added to the 10%.

Am I reading that correctly?

[David Pettigrew]

In other words, it woun't be a "true" 10%, because WEF will be added to the 10%.

Am I reading that correctly?

Well, yes and no, because I'm not sure if money raised for WEF would count towards the base tithes and offerings. Again, this is just a trial run, so I'm sure there's many details to work out. But, it is a small step in the right direction, IMHO.

[Marsha Lynn]

Any other districts doing something similar? I think there may be a groundswell out there to change this system.

SW Indiana is closing the second year under such a system on May 31. Except that we send in 14% of "adjusted income" rather than 10%. Either your adjustments will be different, you have more or higher-income churches, or your district can live on substantially less than SWID.

This year my church has hit the 20% cap calculated from the "budget base" derived from last year's income. We will only submit $30 to the district for the month of May. That's a very good thing. It means that this year's income is up substantially over last year's. Of course, it also means that we can expect a significant jump for our WEF assignment next year based on this year's income. But as a wise person told me years ago, "You gotta make it to pay taxes on it."

Marsha

[Hans Deventer]

Any other districts doing something similar? I think there may be a groundswell out there to change this system.

Since 1998, our District Assembly annually fixes an amount per member as of July 1 of the previous year for the district budget. So the number of full local church members on that date times this amount will be your district budget for the year to come.

Since that District Assembly, our district membership has grown from 1091 to 1854, despite some who thought this system would slow our growth.

[Ryan Scott]

So the number of full local church members on that date times this amount will be your district budget for the year to come.



This would certainly motivate pastors to make sure their rolls are up to date.

[Hans Deventer]

This would certainly motivate pastors to make sure their rolls are up to date.

Indeed I haven't heard about problems in that area. :basic05

[Alisa Stoll]

In other words, it woun't be a "true" 10%, because WEF will be added to the 10%.

Am I reading that correctly?


Ah but if we are trying as a church to do what is expected of an individual, then that is what I personally would expect. At least my tithe does not include WEF which I consider an extra offering. Now as to how the WEF should be caculated is an entirely different matter. But I have no problem with that being in addition to the 10%.

Alisa

[Pete Vecchi]

Ah but if we are trying as a church to do what is expected of an individual, then that is what I personally would expect. At least my tithe does not include WEF which I consider an extra offering. Now as to how the WEF should be caculated is an entirely different matter. But I have no problem with that being in addition to the 10%.

Alisa

I guess that when it comes to tithing, there will always be differences of opinion. As a pastor, I face questions of tithing that the average non-pastor probably doesn't think about. Most non-self-employed people have about 7.5% of their earned income paid out as Social Security Tax by their employers. Employees never see that money; it's not counted as income. But as a self-employed pastor whose church doesn't pay that 7.5%, I have to pay that out of my own income. Should I deduct that 7.5% of my income from the base amount on which I tithe? (BTW--that's a rhetorical question, because I'm not asking for advice;I'm quite at peace with how the Lord has led me to personally answer that question).

As to WEF, what are churches supposed to do if their Easter Offering, Thanksgiving Offering, and Faith Promise Offerings and other special offerings don't reach the level of the WEF assignment? Basically every church I've heard of that has decided to pay its assigned budgets in full will make up the difference from sources outside of those special offerings. In essence, it's part of the general operating fund.

My take on it is this -- if all Nazarene church members would tithe, we wouldn't have to ask these questions in the first place, because there'd be more than enough money to pay WEF, P & B, District Budgets, and Regional College/University budgets PLUS pay pastors a decent salary AND STILL have enough money to run the local church.

So, I believe that WEF should simply be included as part of the local church's general operating budget.

[Gary Swartzlander]

The Michigan District will likely vote on a plan at our July assembly that will be similar to that described.

Our plan (as it was last presented) would be based on total monies received, less WEF, Compassionate Ministries and contributions to designated non-profit community agencies. On the remaining income we will pay a flat 10%, so we will be able to do that weekly. The district will apply the payments to the various funds on a percentage basis.

The plan will be based only on current year income and have nothing to do with past or current expenditures. I believe the final plan (which we haven't seen yet) will have something regarding the exemption of proceeds from capitol campaigns or contributions/gifts to the church for specific uses.

For our church it will mean a small savings on the over $200,000. we will pay this year. We have basically been following a smiliar plan on our own for the past couple years. It's just easier and less painful to collect the tithes, figure the 10%, write the check and get it out the door.

If the proposal is approved it will likely take effect at the beginning of our next fiscal year in June, 2008.

[Pete Vecchi]

Our plan (as it was last presented) would be based on total monies received, less WEF, Compassionate Ministries and contributions to designated non-profit community agencies. On the remaining income we will pay a flat 10%, so we will be able to do that weekly. The district will apply the payments to the various funds on a percentage basis.

OK, this sounds a bit different than I understood the original post. Now, let me make sure I am understanding this correctly:

The income brought in that is designated for WEF, approved specials, etc., is not counted as income as far as the 10% to be "tithed" by the local church?

[Glenn Harris]

Some time back, we had a thread about changes we'd like to see in the COTN. One topic of much discussion was going to a "10% of current income base" for budget apportionments, rather than a "not to exceed 20% of last year's expenditures" base.

The Dallas district is doing a "trial run" of this plan for the 2007-2008 church year. Churches will still be assigned budgets based on last year's expenditures, but they can opt to pay them by cutting one check to the district each week (or month) equal to 10% of each Sunday's tithes and offerings. The district would then distribute the income between district, education, and P&B. WEF would still be raised through congregational pledges and special offerings.

If the plan works well this year, then next year each church will pay budgets on current income ONLY; not on last year's expenditures.

Under this plan, my church would likely save $6000 this year.

Any other districts doing something similar? I think there may be a groundswell out there to change this system.

South Carolina district budgets are based on current income. Easy to calculate and probably much more likely to be paid by struggling churches.

[Gary Swartzlander]

OK, this sounds a bit different than I understood the original post. Now, let me make sure I am understanding this correctly:

The income brought in that is designated for WEF, approved specials, etc., is not counted as income as far as the 10% to be "tithed" by the local church?

That is correct. If your total income (monies raised for ALL purposes) for a year is $100,000.00 and for example your Thanksgiving Offering, Easter Offering, and Faith Promise equals $25,000.00 then the church would pay 10% on $75,000.

[Gary Swartzlander]

The real upside for a local church is that you pay based on current economic conditions.

If you had an exceptional year last year, and for whatever reason your income dips dramatically for the current year, your budget payments fluctuate accordingly, you aren't left paying high budget payments based on what you did last year.

There is a great amount of comfort in that, plus it makes budgeting for the current church year much easier.

[Gary Swartzlander]

That is correct. If your total income (monies raised for ALL purposes) for a year is $100,000.00 and for example your Thanksgiving Offering, Easter Offering, and Faith Promise equals $25,000.00 then the church would pay 10% on $75,000.

I didn't want this to get lost in my last post, so that is why I am quoting my self here and making the addition because it is important.

In reading Marsha's post it mentioned an increase in their WEF budget. The example I gave above assumes that your WEF goal was $25,000 and you were able to raise all of that through those special efforts. If you came up short, that amount isn't simply forgiven. (no such luck). You are still on the hook for it, but have to make it up from regular giving.

It doesn't change the facts of my example, but I didn't want to imply that only what was taken in through the special offerings or what ever would be accepted as our WEF contribution. Hopefully that can be accomplished, but not always.

I've read this several times, hopefully you understand what I'm trying to say, the more I read it the more unsure I am. :eek:

[Billie Goodson]

Central Florida went to the "Fair Share 10%" plan several years ago under then-new DS Larry Dennis (still our DS). I think I have posted links before to the Fair Share documents on other threads here. The WEF and building funds I know are excluded from the calculation -- but, from the perspective of a then-board member at the local church level, I loved the simplicity of how it worked. It really did alleviate the entire budget paying tension that I have seen existing in different churches on different districts. I will also say that supporting this Fair Share plan really made me look harder at my own tithing habits -- which I will not say are perfect now, but, still a work. But, I have to say, it is hard to not pay personal tithes when the District plan seems so biblically based -- guess I opened myself up there...oh well...

[Marsha Lynn]

The consensus seems to be that these new plans are much easier. I don't see it that way. In fact, I have purchased the NTS software in preparation for giving up my position as church treasurer in the next year or two. The UMF (unified ministry fund) isn't the deciding factor in that interest, but it's definitely a strong entry on the "give it up" side of the balance sheet rather than the "keep on going" side.

What hasn't changed: We still pay around 20% of our "budget base" to denominational interests. The total cost of being part of the denomination (and contributing to ministry around the world) hasn't changed substantially.

What has changed: The new system has highlighted the possibility of excluding certain income from our reports. That has always been a possibility, but was primarily built into the reporting form -- e.g. capital projects and giving for missions were not included in the "budget base" calculation. And I have always excluded "in and out" funds. My understanding was that anything that was not a true contribution to the church was not reportable income or expense - e.g. payment for Holiness Today subscriptions or books, insurance refunds, contributions to individuals. At the end of the year, those excluded items would make reconciling the books more difficult, but there were only a few of them.

Now I'm expected to account for many more "special gifts" as excluded income. Even though it is totally blessed by the district, I feel like I'm keeping two sets of books. It makes my work more complicated and I feel like we're cheating, even though we aren't. I don't like it. If "special gifts" are to be excluded, why are there lines for NMI, SS, NYI, building fund, and "other" on the reporting form? Aren't all of those "special gifts"? How do we decide when designated giving is "special" as opposed to when it is routine generosity above and beyond someone's tithe.

I'm doing what I'm told to do, but I'm also preparing to move out of the position and let someone else figure it out. And, as one who routinely gives away 15% of our income, I am now fighting the system by making our own "special" contributions in the form of increased "tithe" rather than designated gifts. If the church needs money for a new copier and is raising funds for it, I will simply contribute more in my "tithe" rather than designate it for the copier and have it excluded from our income report.

Now you know. I'm becoming one of those difficult, negative, grumbling treasurers who goes around bucking the system. After 19 1/2 years, I am sensing that it is time to move on. Like I said, the new plan isn't the deciding factor. (The biggest problem is overcommitment as I have become more involved in the music program.) But it certainly hasn't come in as a mitigating factor.

Marsha

[David Showalter]

Marsha shares,

I'm doing what I'm told to do, but I'm also preparing to move out of the position and let someone else figure it out.

Now you know. I'm becoming one of those difficult, negative, grumbling treasurers who goes around bucking the system. After 19 1/2 years, I am sensing that it is time to move on.

David replies,

Nearly twenty years ago I stood on our District Assembly Floor and made this statement in regard to budgets and finances, "we can dismiss, and view as nonspiritual, the questions and concerns of our dedicated laypeople, but friends the reality is they have a vote, and many of them are voting with their feet." Marsha, my point is this, I believe if we would all work together, and all levels of leadership were open to real debate, we could come up with a system that would not frustrate dedicated treasurers like you, nor cause pastors and people alike to harbor ill feelings about said subject. Thank you so much for your faithfulness these past 19 1/2 years, you are admired and appreciated.

[Dennis M. Scott]

The consensus seems to be that these new plans are much easier. I don't see it that way. In fact, I have purchased the NTS software in preparation for giving up my position as church treasurer in the next year or two. The UMF (unified ministry fund) isn't the deciding factor in that interest, but it's definitely a strong entry on the "give it up" side of the balance sheet rather than the "keep on going" side.

What hasn't changed: We still pay around 20% of our "budget base" to denominational interests. The total cost of being part of the denomination (and contributing to ministry around the world) hasn't changed substantially.

What has changed: The new system has highlighted the possibility of excluding certain income from our reports. That has always been a possibility, but was primarily built into the reporting form -- e.g. capital projects and giving for missions were not included in the "budget base" calculation. And I have always excluded "in and out" funds. My understanding was that anything that was not a true contribution to the church was not reportable income or expense - e.g. payment for Holiness Today subscriptions or books, insurance refunds, contributions to individuals. At the end of the year, those excluded items would make reconciling the books more difficult, but there were only a few of them.

Now I'm expected to account for many more "special gifts" as excluded income. Even though it is totally blessed by the district, I feel like I'm keeping two sets of books. It makes my work more complicated and I feel like we're cheating, even though we aren't. I don't like it. If "special gifts" are to be excluded, why are there lines for NMI, SS, NYI, building fund, and "other" on the reporting form? Aren't all of those "special gifts"? How do we decide when designated giving is "special" as opposed to when it is routine generosity above and beyond someone's tithe.

I'm doing what I'm told to do, but I'm also preparing to move out of the position and let someone else figure it out. And, as one who routinely gives away 15% of our income, I am now fighting the system by making our own "special" contributions in the form of increased "tithe" rather than designated gifts. If the church needs money for a new copier and is raising funds for it, I will simply contribute more in my "tithe" rather than designate it for the copier and have it excluded from our income report.

Now you know. I'm becoming one of those difficult, negative, grumbling treasurers who goes around bucking the system. After 19 1/2 years, I am sensing that it is time to move on. Like I said, the new plan isn't the deciding factor. (The biggest problem is overcommitment as I have become more involved in the music program.) But it certainly hasn't come in as a mitigating factor.

Marsha


While I suspect you're not becoming one of those difficult, negative people, I applaud both your service of 19 1/2 years, and your sweet spirit in letting someone else take it for awhile, as you move into other areas of ministry. :fav18