Will COTN Missionaries Come Home?

[Kelly R Davis]

It has been brought to my attention that a letter has/is going out to all pastors about a special Thanksgiving Offering for NMI needing to raise a little over $13,000,000. The comment by the general church is that if these funds are not raised that the World Missions will need to begin bringing home contracted missionaries.
This is troubling news but not surprising. Is it true?

[Ian Gentles]

This is happening everywhere my old mission had to make people redundant, painfull as it was for them.

[Doug Kitchen]

It has been brought to my attention that a letter has/is going out to all pastors about a special Thanksgiving Offering for NMI needing to raise a little over $13,000,000. The comment by the general church is that if these funds are not raised that the World Missions will need to begin bringing home contracted missionaries.
This is troubling news but not surprising. Is it true?


At our district assembly the GS said something similar - maybe not 13M but something close. It may have something to do with the new formula which reduces the typical allocation to WEF by about one third (at least for our local church - i.e. 7-8% to 5.5%). Churches can still give more to get to 10% but they had to in past years, too. However, 10% giving doesn't all go to missionaries - some will go to radio broadcasts, comp. ministries etc.

The positive way of looking at this situation is that more churches will be able to afford to send in their full 5.5% and will maybe (big maybe) give all or some whereas in past years they may have just given nothing. Secondly, if more money stays in the local church and it is used wisely then local churches will grow and raise more money (bigger pie, but smaller piece).

Doug

[Rich Schmidt]

The positive way of looking at this situation is that more churches will be able to afford to send in their full 5.5% and will maybe (big maybe) give all or some whereas in past years they may have just given nothing.

This is already happening on our district. Our fiscal year runs April 1 - March 31, so we're a third of the way through our year, and we have more participating churches than we did last year at this point. Some churches seem to be responding well to the "pay it as you go" aspect of it being based on current income, where before they may have been tempted to wait and try to raise the money later.

Still.... I'm not sure what the projections were based on at HQ. So this admittedly-small bump in WEF giving may not be much help, or may have already been anticipated.

[Doug Kitchen]

This is already happening on our district. Our fiscal year runs April 1 - March 31, so we're a third of the way through our year, and we have more participating churches than we did last year at this point. Some churches seem to be responding well to the "pay it as you go" aspect of it being based on current income, where before they may have been tempted to wait and try to raise the money later.

Still.... I'm not sure what the projections were based on at HQ. So this admittedly-small bump in WEF giving may not be much help, or may have already been anticipated.

I agree - the loss in percentage was ~20% (according to my rough estimate). On our district we figure that 15% of the district budget won't come in (I assume it is similar for WEF) so if all the churches decided to give 100% of allocation you still wouldn't make up for the 20% planned drop. I wouldn't be surprised if overall it was up to 5% extra participation.

So I assume 13M is on the high side - assuming no extra participation. I think the way this has been communicated is unfortunate. Our church is confused as to the role of faith promise now. We haven't had a convention to seek more pledges and possibly won't. Yet people still give some missions/faith promise. We will use that for the 5.5% first and now I am thinking we should probably use the excess (we always raise about 10% through faith promise + additional NCM giving) as thanksgiving and Easter so it will go towards missions.

If we just gave 10% as we would have in the past (overpaying our allocation) would the extra 4.5% go to missions? I'd rather keep it simple for our treasurer and clearer during the money-raising side.

Doug

[Mark Lail]

I agree - the loss in percentage was ~20% (according to my rough estimate). On our district we figure that 15% of the district budget won't come in (I assume it is similar for WEF) so if all the churches decided to give 100% of allocation you still wouldn't make up for the 20% planned drop. I wouldn't be surprised if overall it was up to 5% extra participation.

So I assume 13M is on the high side - assuming no extra participation. I think the way this has been communicated is unfortunate. Our church is confused as to the role of faith promise now. We haven't had a convention to seek more pledges and possibly won't. Yet people still give some missions/faith promise. We will use that for the 5.5% first and now I am thinking we should probably use the excess (we always raise about 10% through faith promise + additional NCM giving) as thanksgiving and Easter so it will go towards missions.

If we just gave 10% as we would have in the past (overpaying our allocation) would the extra 4.5% go to missions? I'd rather keep it simple for our treasurer and clearer during the money-raising side.

Doug

I'll share a couple of the facts and then address the Faith Promise question.
- The new Funding the Mission plan yields about $13.5 million less budget allocation to the USA churches than the old formula. That's about 25% less World Evangelism Fund (WEF) allocation. Because of a variety of factors the actual anticipated reduction in WEF receipts is about $9 million.
- The focus of the global mission is to make Christlike disciples in the nations. That continues even with a decline in resources. The global church, like many of its local churches, faces an increasing vision with declining resources. That requires efficiency, good management and a whole lot of prayer.
- I don't know whose letter is referenced in the beginning of this thread, but it was probably one in support of the Challenge 2010 offering that is being requested by the General Superintendents. The goal for this offering is $6 million in addition to the regular Thanksgiving offering, a WEF Plus offering. This was introduced at every district assembly in 2010. The Thanksgiving offering promotional materials will be available in early September and include resources for the Challenge 2010 offering; both the traditional Thanksgiving offering and the WEF Plus.
- Doug is exactly correct in that growth solves the WEF problem. USA churches have been raising about $800 million per year. When that grows to about $1 billion, then WEF will be back to 2008 levels.
- Since 1947 Nazarene churches have been challenged to give 10% to the global mission. That will require more in Mission Specials than in the past. It only makes sense that if WEF allocation declines, as it is for most churches, then the stretch to 10% will require more mission specials. That can be accomplished by additional WEF giving also. WEF overpayment is still directed to developing new world areas (80%) and church planting in the USA (20%).

Faith Promise should be as effective in the Funding the Mission plan as it was under the old formula. See my article which addresses this here: http://www.nazarene.org/ministries/NFS/stewardship/dot/display.aspx

BTW, 97 degrees and climbing in Lenexa today!
Mark

[Ryan Scott]

So, Mark, why don't they let you write the letters and explain it as you've done so well here? I guess I'm much more upset about what appears to be a scare tactic rather than responsibly stating the situation and asking people to give.

[Ryan Scott]

Just so I'm following through with praise. Here's a link to the spending cuts done at HQ along with quite rosy YTD receipts for general funds. Overall we're doing quite well.

http://www.ncnnews.com/nphweb/html/ncn/article.jsp?id=10009500

[Marsha Lynn]

Just so I'm following through with praise. Here's a link to the spending cuts done at HQ along with quite rosy YTD receipts for general funds. Overall we're doing quite well.

http://www.ncnnews.com/nphweb/html/ncn/article.jsp?id=10009500

Our WEF apportionment has dropped substantially under the new system. Thus far, most people in the church don't realize that and are still contributing to Faith Promise at the same level as under the old system -- and we're sending it all to WEF like we have always done. We're way ahead at this point (three months into the church year). I don't know how long it will take for the giving to reflect the new expectation.

Of course, we're in an area that has been affected by the lagging economy to a lesser extent than other places.

[Billy Cox]

Just so I'm following through with praise. Here's a link to the spending cuts done at HQ along with quite rosy YTD receipts for general funds. Overall we're doing quite well.

http://www.ncnnews.com/nphweb/html/ncn/article.jsp?id=10009500

So we won't have to start laying off missionaries after all, eh? :rolleyes:

[David Pettigrew]

Just so I'm following through with praise. Here's a link to the spending cuts done at HQ along with quite rosy YTD receipts for general funds. Overall we're doing quite well.

http://www.ncnnews.com/nphweb/html/ncn/article.jsp?id=10009500

I looked over the reports. I'm no financial whiz, but I'm not seeing the projected 13 million shortfall. What am I missing?

[Ryan Scott]

I looked over the reports. I'm no financial whiz, but I'm not seeing the projected 13 million shortfall. What am I missing?

I think that was the point. We seem to be giving above projections so far this year. It looks like giving will be down overall from last year, but not on the level they'd expected.

[David Pettigrew]

Still, looks like it stinks being a GMC employee right now. I can't imagine what these cuts have done to morale.

[Ryan Scott]

Still, looks like it stinks being a GMC employee right now. I can't imagine what these cuts have done to morale.

They've had a good amount of turnover - I know its been tough for people who were used to the perks, but this correction is in a positive direction and the new employees will eventually not know how it was before. Working at HQ was a blessing as a Seminary student, but it was also a struggle of conscience for me with the way I saw money being spent. I'm quite thankful for the sacrifice these employees have made.

[Billy Cox]

They've had a good amount of turnover - I know its been tough for people who were used to the perks, but this correction is in a positive direction and the new employees will eventually not know how it was before. Working at HQ was a blessing as a Seminary student, but it was also a struggle of conscience for me with the way I saw money being spent. I'm quite thankful for the sacrifice these employees have made.

I worked at HQ in the good old days of birthday lunches at Cheesecake Factory with a group large enough that the lunch bill required a purchase order (amounts of $500+). On some occasions, we rented a van so that we could ride together, and we typically paid a temp to answer phones while the entire office staff was out. There was a cutback on that sort of spending, so we pared it back to one birthday lunch per month instead of a birthday lunch for every birthday.

When I was at HQ, I knew people who scraped by on an abysmal salary for the sake of stellar health benefits with 100% employer-paid premiums. Those were the good old days.

I didn't have any attacks of conscience because HQ was my first real job and I didn't know any different. It was a bit of a shock when I started my first corporate job where they didn't spend money like it was water.

[Billy Cox]

Still, looks like it stinks being a GMC employee right now. I can't imagine what these cuts have done to morale.

Every job has its pros and cons. A lousy salary can be offset by other perks like good health insurance, fringe benefits, prestige, the opportunity to build one's own fiefdom, and job security. It looks like all of these compensating factors are on the decline.

This isn't insurmountable though. It just means hiring younger people and those for whom a GMC paycheck is a second household income.

[Ryan Scott]

This isn't insurmountable though. It just means hiring younger people and those for whom a GMC paycheck is a second household income.

The bigger problem they'll have to bridge is the the ratio of job expectations to pay scale. They got a lot of overqualified NTS students working for peanuts because of the benefits and the convenience of the location to NTS. I had an entry level, essentially secretarial job (answering phones, making copies), but ended up doing a lot more stuff that was way off the job description. I really appreciated the challenge and the experience, but they're going to have a more difficult time getting as much bang for the buck now that the benefits and the proximity to NTS are out of the picture.

Much of the grunt work for NYC is being done by interns from MNU as NYI has cut back on HQ staff. This isn't a bad thing, but it's an adjustment that's bound to show in the end results.

[David Troxler]

I worked at HQ in the good old days of birthday lunches at Cheesecake Factory with a group large enough that the lunch bill required a purchase order (amounts of $500+). On some occasions, we rented a van so that we could ride together, and we typically paid a temp to answer phones while the entire office staff was out. There was a cutback on that sort of spending, so we pared it back to one birthday lunch per month instead of a birthday lunch for every birthday.

When I was at HQ, I knew people who scraped by on an abysmal salary for the sake of stellar health benefits with 100% employer-paid premiums. Those were the good old days.

I didn't have any attacks of conscience because HQ was my first real job and I didn't know any different. It was a bit of a shock when I started my first corporate job where they didn't spend money like it was water.

Not sure when you worked there Billy or what era was considered the "good old days" there..

However, while I realize there are times your posts have a certain edge to them, I was particularly sickened reading this post and have waited to reply. It is not a complaint about writing style nor content, just the notion that general budget funds were used like that. My first thought was the letter that was circulated at a time early in my ministry that asserted ordination would not be forthcoming without "payment of the budget." I wondered how many pastors struggled to see budgets paid, often at the risk of lowered salary or loss of benefits or the compromise of other church funds, in order to be ordained.

My second thought was- has anyone representing the church repented of this when local churches and their pastors sacrificed to make sure missionaries would not come home only to learn the funds were used liberally for other purposes.

I am not begrudging HQ staff salary or benefits. I am simply pro-pastor because I have seen what many of them do in order to be a good team-player, who have bought into what we say we are trying to do.

Billy, I guess what I am saying in the end is I hope that we never hear of that sort of largesse again.

[Ryan Scott]

I am not begrudging HQ staff salary or benefits. I am simply pro-pastor because I have seen what many of them do in order to be a good team-player, who have bought into what we say we are trying to do.

Billy, I guess what I am saying in the end is I hope that we never hear of that sort of largesse again.

I agree. As for my experience, I probably came in about halfway down Billy's description. When I began at HQ there was, from the top down a consistent message of "we're not a church, we're a business and we're going to run like a business." That had begun to change before I left, much for the better. I think it will take a long time for the culture to change entirely, but I do know throughout my time many people considered what they were doing ministry. Really there's nothing wrong with being more professional in running our HQ, we just need to avoid some of the excesses associated with "business" as usual.

We have some great leaders there now, working hard to change the focus. I'm glad they're continuing to be open and communicative with the denomination in this process.

[Billy Cox]

Not sure when you worked there Billy or what era was considered the "good old days" there..

I was at HQ in the mid to late 90's.


However, while I realize there are times your posts have a certain edge to them, I was particularly sickened reading this post and have waited to reply. It is not a complaint about writing style nor content, just the notion that general budget funds were used like that. My first thought was the letter that was circulated at a time early in my ministry that asserted ordination would not be forthcoming without "payment of the budget." I wondered how many pastors struggled to see budgets paid, often at the risk of lowered salary or loss of benefits or the compromise of other church funds, in order to be ordained.

I am typically candid on most topics, but I have held this one back until I could say it in the context of putting major financial changes into some perspective.

To be fair, I was in a department that had a corporate sales/marketing mission, so we were one of the better-funded offices at HQ (not IT, obviously). My friends in other offices let me know in no uncertain terms that they had a much more austere existence. Some other offices that no longer exist at HQ prided themselves on their ancient computer equipment and their torn-up office furniture.

We still had the constraints of the HQ salary policies, but since money for perks and team building came from a different line item on the budget, it made the substandard paychecks just a little easier to swallow.


My second thought was- has anyone representing the church repented of this when local churches and their pastors sacrificed to make sure missionaries would not come home only to learn the funds were used liberally for other purposes.

I'm sure that the perks I had are long gone. All GMC employees have to pay for part of their health insurance premium, and I can't imagine that salaries are any more generous now than they were 10+ years ago.

Waste is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. One time a missionary kid was visiting my office at HQ and was flabbergasted that a very old computer was sitting unused under my desk. He was glad to have some of our old junk and I was glad to give it to him.


I am not begrudging HQ staff salary or benefits. I am simply pro-pastor because I have seen what many of them do in order to be a good team-player, who have bought into what we say we are trying to do.

Billy, I guess what I am saying in the end is I hope that we never hear of that sort of largesse again.

Obviously nobody consulted me about spending policy, but I am aware that 'pro-pastor' constraints on highly visible salaries led to financial excesses on less visible things. The standard thinking was that the most vocal pastors couldn't stand the thought of some low-skilled secretary at HQ making more money and having better benefits than the average pastor.

For the record, I left HQ six months after my daughter was born. It turns out that lunches at nice restaurants doesn't cover the cost of taking care of a family.

[Billy Cox]

The bigger problem they'll have to bridge is the the ratio of job expectations to pay scale. They got a lot of overqualified NTS students working for peanuts because of the benefits and the convenience of the location to NTS. I had an entry level, essentially secretarial job (answering phones, making copies), but ended up doing a lot more stuff that was way off the job description. I really appreciated the challenge and the experience, but they're going to have a more difficult time getting as much bang for the buck now that the benefits and the proximity to NTS are out of the picture.

Much of the grunt work for NYC is being done by interns from MNU as NYI has cut back on HQ staff. This isn't a bad thing, but it's an adjustment that's bound to show in the end results.

I think they just have to lean more on the KC network to recruit married women with older or grown children, who have office skills and need a 20-30% boost to their household income.

[David Pettigrew]

I'd be fine with all this if we could do away with calling it "World Evangelism Fund". I have no problem with morale boosting meals and perks for those who are overworked and underpaid in making our church function, as long as such items are understood as part of a General Budget, and that budget is made available line item by line item.

This may be the one time we changed the name of something and made it less descriptive of what it actually is, rather than more.

[Rich Schmidt]

I'd be fine with all this if we could do away with calling it "World Evangelism Fund". I have no problem with morale boosting meals and perks for those who are overworked and underpaid in making our church function, as long as such items are understood as part of a General Budget, and that budget is made available line item by line item.

This may be the one time we changed the name of something and made it less descriptive of what it actually is, rather than more.

But it's so much easier to raise giving for "the World Evangelism Fund" than it is for "the General Budget"!

[Billy Cox]

But it's so much easier to raise giving for "the World Evangelism Fund" than it is for "the General Budget"!

I think some people may have hoped that renaming the 'fund' would lead to more conscientious spending. It seems more accurate that it was just a change in marketing strategy.

[Hans Deventer]

I think some people may have hoped that renaming the 'fund' would lead to more conscientious spending. It seems more accurate that it was just a change in marketing strategy.

Do you know any people besides yourself with any integrity whatsoever?

[Billy Cox]

Billy, I guess what I am saying in the end is I hope that we never hear of that sort of largesse again.

So if the GMC wastes money on things like no-bid contracts, would you rather not know? If not, then I'll keep it to myself. ;)

[Billy Cox]

Do you know any people besides yourself with any integrity whatsoever?

I'm not sure what the spirit of your question is, but my answer at face value is that I know plenty of people who have more integrity than I do.

[Ryan Scott]

So if the GMC wastes money on things like no-bid contracts, would you rather not know? If not, then I'll keep it to myself.

They're slowly weaning themselves off of that habit.

[Hans Deventer]

I'm not sure what the spirit of your question is, but my answer at face value is that I know plenty of people who have more integrity than I do.

Well, the spirit of the question was that I wondered if you could imagine anyone in the leadership of the church having integrity. It seems like everything, without exception, that is done there is out perceived as lacking integrity.

[Billy Cox]

Well, the spirit of the question was that I wondered if you could imagine anyone in the leadership of the church having integrity. It seems like everything, without exception, that is done there is out perceived as lacking integrity.

I didn't question anyone's integrity. I simply pointed out that renaming 'general budget' to something more missional-sounding was a marketing strategy, and a smart one at that.

I am convinced that good people can be convinced to do bad things in the name of perpetuating an organization that aims to do good things. Do people in church leadership individually have integrity? Sure they do, but the direction of the organization is very rarely within the realm of any individual.

[David Pettigrew]

Hans, I hope it didn't come across to you or anyone that I was implying something sinister or sneaky behind the name change.

[Craig Laughlin]

I am convinced that good people can be convinced to do bad things in the name of perpetuating an organization that aims to do good things. Do people in church leadership individually have integrity? Sure they do, but the direction of the organization is very rarely within the realm of any individual.

Systemic evil. In my experience evangelicals in general deny the existence of such and therefore fall prey to it all the while denying that it exists in the name of personal responsibility. "If I didn't mean to do something evil then nothing evil happened..." Very frustrating sometimes.