Why should we expect God to trust us with more?

[Dave McClung]

Perhaps some of you can help me sort through this. Because of some study I have been doing concerning church finance, I have been thinking about the issue of why so many churches are struggling with cash flow problems. It seems that most Nazarene churches don't have enough cash.

Today, I read the 25th Chapter of Matthew -- the story of the 3 servants who were trusted with money. Jesus started the story with "The Kingdom is like ..." He then told the story of the three servants. The verse that has my attention is:

Matthew 25:28 - 29 (CEV) 28Then the master said, “Now your money will be taken away and given to the servant with ten thousand coins! 29£ (qvb://QVB/36700501/syncglossary/39419) Everyone who has something will be given more, and they will have more than enough. But everything will be taken from those who don’t have anything.

Could it be that God is not trusting the Church of the Nazarene with additional resources because we have not employed the resources he has already given to us?

In particular, I am thinking about the millions dollars worth of real estate that is owned by Nazarene churches that isn't really being used. I recently attended a local church that meets in a building that will seat 250. It has 8 full size Sunday School rooms and a fully equipted nursery. The "sanctuary" is used 90 minutes a week. Most of the Sunday School rooms are not used other than to store junk. The "Fellowship Hall" is used 2 hours a week. I am told that there are hundreds of such churches across the U.S.

My question is, if the Church of the Nazarene isn't using the resources that God has trusted to us, can we rightfully expect that he will trust us with more?

[Mike Schutz]

Wow, Dave. I am sure that is the case with some churches. Here we use every single space at least 5-6 days each week. In fact, some spaces are so used that we have a problem with finding time for normal maintenance.

Sanctuary - 5 days each week
2 Adult Sunday school rooms used 5 days a week
Conference room used 7 days each week
4 Children Sunday school/Pre-school rooms used 6 days each week
Fellowship Hall/Pre-school room used 6 days each week
2 rooms and 2 outdoor trailers used by our compassionate ministry

And we have a serious cash flow problem that, to the best of my knowledge, has existed here for many years.

I m interested in knowing how we can evaluate the difference between correlation (that churches who do not use their facilities very often have a lack of money), to establishing a causal relationship. It is not only an interesting topic for conversation, but if it could move to a series of recommendations, it could be of great use.

[Greg Gates]

Some NFL stadiums are only used 10 times a year and they don't have a cash flow problem.

[Jim Franklin]

Our building is used seven days/week and some of that time is on a rental basis but we still have cash flow and financial problems even after we have cut back on our staffing.

[Billy Cox]

Some NFL stadiums are only used 10 times a year and they don't have a cash flow problem.

I am curious as to which pro football stadiums are used only for NFL games. The NFL stadium in KC is used for far more than Chiefs games.

[Jim Poteet]

Perhaps some of you can help me sort through this. Because of some study I have been doing concerning church finance, I have been thinking about the issue of why so many churches are struggling with cash flow problems. It seems that most Nazarene churches don't have enough cash.

Today, I read the 25th Chapter of Matthew -- the story of the 3 servants who were trusted with money. Jesus started the story with "The Kingdom is like ..." He then told the story of the three servants. The verse that has my attention is:

Matthew 25:28 - 29 (CEV) 28Then the master said, “Now your money will be taken away and given to the servant with ten thousand coins! 29£ (qvb://QVB/36700501/syncglossary/39419) Everyone who has something will be given more, and they will have more than enough. But everything will be taken from those who don’t have anything.

Could it be that God is not trusting the Church of the Nazarene with additional resources because we have not employed the resources he has already given to us?

In particular, I am thinking about the millions dollars worth of real estate that is owned by Nazarene churches that isn't really being used. I recently attended a local church that meets in a building that will seat 250. It has 8 full size Sunday School rooms and a fully equipted nursery. The "sanctuary" is used 90 minutes a week. Most of the Sunday School rooms are not used other than to store junk. The "Fellowship Hall" is used 2 hours a week. I am told that there are hundreds of such churches across the U.S.

My question is, if the Church of the Nazarene isn't using the resources that God has trusted to us, can we rightfully expect that he will trust us with more?


Dave,

I have maintained for years that almost every Nazarene Church could run an after-school program at least two days per week. This is a great opportunity to impact the immediate neighborhood around the church.

We started the Bethany Neighborhood Center eight years ago at Bethany First Nazarene. I have been in charge of the program since the beginning. We did a survey of the square mile area around the church and asked the respondents what they wanted. Over 1/3 stated that some kind of after-school program was needed. We began and within six weeks were averaging 75 students per day. We do no advertising now and average 150 students per day. The Bethany School District looks at BFC as a "knight in shining armor" and the parents in the neighborhood, which is 81% poverty level, are grateful for a church that cares without asking for anything in return. Amazingly, over the eight years, we have between 15 and 20 families who have become a regular part of BFC.

We do not evangelize with the spoken word - we evangelize by example and mentoring on a daily basis.

I challenge any church to start an after-school program. When you make an impact in a student's life without asking for anything in return, it impacts the parent(s) greatly.

[Billy Cox]

Perhaps some of you can help me sort through this. Because of some study I have been doing concerning church finance, I have been thinking about the issue of why so many churches are struggling with cash flow problems. It seems that most Nazarene churches don't have enough cash.
...
My question is, if the Church of the Nazarene isn't using the resources that God has trusted to us, can we rightfully expect that he will trust us with more?
[/SIZE][/FONT]

I think that the principle applies more broadly to other major expenditures including staff salaries and benefits. I perceive that in this and other areas, the average local church is not in the habit of getting maximum benefit from its assets; staff, buildings, and other resources.

Dave, if you were to visit the church I attend, you probably could not ascertain that we raise the better part of $500K per year and pay about 65% of that toward staff salaries and benefits. But maybe you would notice that the parking lot is at least two years overdue to be resealed/restriped, or you might notice signs of disrepair that indicate a cash flow problem. You might also notice that a 12 year old building has a 1970's era drinking fountain because the handicapped accessible fountain is broken and there was no money to fix it.

So, what is the solution if a church gets poor value from tithes and offerings?

[Gina Stevenson]

Dave,

I have maintained for years that almost every Nazarene Church could run an after-school program at least two days per week. This is a great opportunity to impact the immediate neighborhood around the church.

This is something, aside from the English classes held there, that our church has done for a long time, too. A good thing ....

*********************

Dave, until I opened the thread, finding it re churches, I tho't it was going to be about individuals, so I was going to answer something like, "Because I've been careful & generous when I did have sufficient with which to live." Yes, I give now, but not nearly like before ... I'm saddened to not at least have a home of my own (tho' I detest living alone, I can then have quiet, guests whenever, et cetera), after having lived carefully before this physical thing took me down $$ a lot.

Not sure why, when reading that parable to which you refer, things are like they are now re $$ .........

[Dave McClung]

Wow, Dave. I am sure that is the case with some churches. Here we use every single space at least 5-6 days each week. In fact, some spaces are so used that we have a problem with finding time for normal maintenance.

Sanctuary - 5 days each week
2 Adult Sunday school rooms used 5 days a week
Conference room used 7 days each week
4 Children Sunday school/Pre-school rooms used 6 days each week
Fellowship Hall/Pre-school room used 6 days each week
2 rooms and 2 outdoor trailers used by our compassionate ministry

And we have a serious cash flow problem that, to the best of my knowledge, has existed here for many years.

I m interested in knowing how we can evaluate the difference between correlation (that churches who do not use their facilities very often have a lack of money), to establishing a causal relationship. It is not only an interesting topic for conversation, but if it could move to a series of recommendations, it could be of great use.

Mike
You assumed that I was thinking on the local church level. I was really thinking on a denominational level. It is like a person who says "I am broke, because I don't have any money in my right pocket", while he has money in his left pocket.

The church of the Nazarene, as a denomination, has hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate assets in the U.S. A lot of it is very under utilized in any type of ministry, yet we have other churches who are really trying to minister that don't have the resources to do so. Should we really expect God to give us resources in our right pocket when we have unused resources in our left pocket?

[David Showalter]

Mike
You assumed that I was thinking on the local church level. I was really thinking on a denominational level. It is like a person who says "I am broke, because I don't have any money in my right pocket", while he has money in his left pocket.

The church of the Nazarene, as a denomination, has hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate assets in the U.S. A lot of it is very under utilized in any type of ministry, yet we have other churches who are really trying to minister that don't have the resources to do so. Should we really expect God to give us resources in our right pocket when we have unused resources in our left pocket?





Whoa there Bro. Dave, don't you realize that you are thinking way outside the box!:basic05 I wonder at what level, time, or place does this type of brainstorming discussion take place within our structure?

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

As a family, we learned that the more we gave to God, and helped others, the more the Lord blessed us in other ways, including monetary.

Also, we learned this at the church. Our pastor was announcing the Alabaster offering Sunday, and just had to speak of how the people there gave to missions. They also give to others, and they are no where near wealthy. Many of us were trained to tithe, but we have to learn, that offerings, and helping others, etc. also go along with that. We finally learned it, and God proved that He would meet our needs.

And, we do not do this, for the blessings. we do it out of love for God and others. Our pastor is so amazed at the small Millington church. We dearly love it, too. That is where , we as a family, and as a church learned these things.
We always made a big effort to pay budgets. When we got to Millington, following a church split, and the attendance basically being young transit military people, plus two large church debts, it was really hard. Bro. Talmadge Johnson, helped us learn a lot about giving--even when things were very tight, in the early years there. And, God proved to us, that His promises worked, no matter what the circumstances were.

[Dennis M. Scott]

In other discussions some have called for spreading financial strength across the board, and we've learned that local churches kinda control their own destiny. In this thread it sounds like that may need to be revisited. The most obvious method of doing that might be with financing, the prohibition for which is stronger than the ten commandments, or outright sale of underused property. . . . OR some other method of which you're thinking. I admit I need a little nudge when it comes to outside the box thinking.

Dave, what do you have in mind?

[Dennis M. Scott]

Allright, here's an example of some outside the box stuff that could work. I am aware of a local church that owns about five million dollars worth of antiques and artifacts. They are bound by trust to protect and maintain those resources, rather than liquidate them. Thousands of museums around the world do this kind of thing all the time. Those items could be sold to investors who would leave them in place - continuing to be used just as they presently are. There are huge tax incentives for owning said resources - without harming them in any way. Said items appreciate at phenomenal rates, to be resold or donated back to the local church at significant benefit to the investors, and continuing benefit to the local church - in addition to the monetary advantages.

Similar procedures could be done with real estate, with safeguards in place to protect the interest of local church and their real estate. However, real estate is pretty sacrosanct. There are ways to free up hundreds of millions of dollars presently locked up in property. It would take leadership of a kind we've not encouraged, however.

However, I digress. What DO you have in mind?

[Charles W Christian]

Perhaps some of you can help me sort through this. Because of some study I have been doing concerning church finance, I have been thinking about the issue of why so many churches are struggling with cash flow problems. It seems that most Nazarene churches don't have enough cash.

Today, I read the 25th Chapter of Matthew -- the story of the 3 servants who were trusted with money. Jesus started the story with "The Kingdom is like ..." He then told the story of the three servants. The verse that has my attention is:

Matthew 25:28 - 29 (CEV) 28Then the master said, “Now your money will be taken away and given to the servant with ten thousand coins! 29£ (qvb://QVB/36700501/syncglossary/39419) Everyone who has something will be given more, and they will have more than enough. But everything will be taken from those who don’t have anything.

Could it be that God is not trusting the Church of the Nazarene with additional resources because we have not employed the resources he has already given to us?

In particular, I am thinking about the millions dollars worth of real estate that is owned by Nazarene churches that isn't really being used. I recently attended a local church that meets in a building that will seat 250. It has 8 full size Sunday School rooms and a fully equipted nursery. The "sanctuary" is used 90 minutes a week. Most of the Sunday School rooms are not used other than to store junk. The "Fellowship Hall" is used 2 hours a week. I am told that there are hundreds of such churches across the U.S.

My question is, if the Church of the Nazarene isn't using the resources that God has trusted to us, can we rightfully expect that he will trust us with more?


Dave -
I think this is a good point! We have been on a bit of a "campaign" to make better use of our space here at NSCN. We now have several non-profits that utilize our (otherwise empty) facility during the week. This way, we're making use of space better, and we're reaching out to our community.

Also, (and I know this wasn't in the initial meeting) we try to begin our budget process (which is about a two month process or more) with a "zero-base" idea, and then provide opportunities for financial growth as they come. This way, we're not spending what we don't have. We are now debt free and have been for a few years, which frees us up to do two things: 1) Give more to our world, district, and community (about 30% of what we receive goes out compared to 8.25% average of U.S. Nazarene churches); 2) Save up for future projects that will help us minister better!

Anyway, good stewardship honors God, AND it takes a lot of pressue off of congregations. And, as you imply, it allows for better ministry!

God bless,
Charles

[Ian Gentles]

Perhaps some of you can help me sort through this. Because of some study I have been doing concerning church finance, I have been thinking about the issue of why so many churches are struggling with cash flow problems. It seems that most Nazarene churches don't have enough cash.

Today, I read the 25th Chapter of Matthew -- the story of the 3 servants who were trusted with money. Jesus started the story with "The Kingdom is like ..." He then told the story of the three servants. The verse that has my attention is:

Matthew 25:28 - 29 (CEV) 28Then the master said, “Now your money will be taken away and given to the servant with ten thousand coins! 29£ (qvb://QVB/36700501/syncglossary/39419) Everyone who has something will be given more, and they will have more than enough. But everything will be taken from those who don’t have anything.

Could it be that God is not trusting the Church of the Nazarene with additional resources because we have not employed the resources he has already given to us?

In particular, I am thinking about the millions dollars worth of real estate that is owned by Nazarene churches that isn't really being used. I recently attended a local church that meets in a building that will seat 250. It has 8 full size Sunday School rooms and a fully equipted nursery. The "sanctuary" is used 90 minutes a week. Most of the Sunday School rooms are not used other than to store junk. The "Fellowship Hall" is used 2 hours a week. I am told that there are hundreds of such churches across the U.S.

My question is, if the Church of the Nazarene isn't using the resources that God has trusted to us, can we rightfully expect that he will trust us with more?


Dave i think you ask a good question. In fairness to me mission, yes we have millions in property, none of it stands idle, we often let out to other groups, or if a property isnt needed by us, put it on market. Result seems to be, our cash flow problems are healthy, and we can afford to employ more new recruits.

[Wesley Smith]

Dave -
I think this is a good point! We have been on a bit of a "campaign" to make better use of our space here at NSCN. We now have several non-profits that utilize our (otherwise empty) facility during the week. This way, we're making use of space better, and we're reaching out to our community.

Also, (and I know this wasn't in the initial meeting) we try to begin our budget process (which is about a two month process or more) with a "zero-base" idea, and then provide opportunities for financial growth as they come. This way, we're not spending what we don't have. We are now debt free and have been for a few years, which frees us up to do two things: 1) Give more to our world, district, and community (about 30% of what we receive goes out compared to 8.25% average of U.S. Nazarene churches); 2) Save up for future projects that will help us minister better!

Anyway, good stewardship honors God, AND it takes a lot of pressue off of congregations. And, as you imply, it allows for better ministry!

God bless,
Charles

Charles...am I reading your quotation right? U.S. Nazarene churches average giving 8.25% of their income to world, district & community? Would be interested in knowing the source of that statistic. I've been under the impression that all of our Nazarene churches give around 20% of their adjusted income to Nazarene others. Our church will raise right at 400k this year and we will share 85k just with the denomination. Hmm.

Friend,

Wes

[Wesley Smith]

Dave,

You raise an important question. Thanks.

I sat in a district meeting recently where a pastor actually stated (not an exact quote), "It is my goal to keep as many dollars for local ministry as possible because I do not trust the district to invest the tithes and offerings given by our people as wisely and as passionately as we will invest them on the local scene."

Another pastor from one of the strongest churches on our district said something like, "Nearly every minister and ministry in our local church is being conducted on a razor thin margin. We have had to give up even cost-of-living increases in salary for our staff members. We are even having to reduce salaries in order to pay increases in health insurance. Reductions in dollars for ministry support is the norm rather than the exception. But when it comes down to the end of the year, little or no sympathy or appreciation is given to local churches who have made the reductions in order to make sure that the various other entities of the denomination are supported." This pastor is dead center in supporting and loving our Church of the Nazarene.

It's possible that we've (our denominational leadership) been so exposed to the need for change, transition and transformation and have managed to fake it, like change is what we are all about, while quite literally nothing of substance is being reviewed, evaluated or truly changed. It's true that we have millions of dollars in real estate and other resources that are on the shelf, treated as sacred. These assets could very well be the nest eggs for a radical new ministry paradigm.

Here's my prediction: the next five years (maybe 10) in the Church of the Nazarene will be "make it or break it" years. We will either transition in favor of energizing the local church or we will (as so well stated by a speaker at our most recent PALCON whose name I cannot remember) put the Church of the Nazarene into a wheelchair, place the shawl around her shoulders and wheel her off into the senior care center while bragging about how good she looks for as old as she is!"

Friend,

Wes

[Charles W Christian]

Charles...am I reading your quotation right? U.S. Nazarene churches average giving 8.25% of their income to world, district & community? Would be interested in knowing the source of that statistic. I've been under the impression that all of our Nazarene churches give around 20% of their adjusted income to Nazarene others. Our church will raise right at 400k this year and we will share 85k just with the denomination. Hmm.

Friend,

Wes

The source of my quote was for WEF giving, I believe, and it came from a recent NMI stewardship video that discusses the percentage of every dollar given in a local congregation and where it goes.

I think the total that goes "out" is more than 8.25% looking back at it; again, I think this was speaking of NMI giving only! However, I believe that at most it is not more than 10 to 12% if I am understanding the way the video broke it down....

Thanks,
Charles

[Dave McClung]

...

However, I digress. What DO you have in mind?

I didn't post the question because I have an agenda; however, you know me well enought to know that I am always thinking. This is my current thinking:

1. We should establish a "minimum standard" of compensation required for a full-time pastor. One idea is that an amount equal to what a teacher with an equal number of years of experience would make in the school system where the church is located.

2. Local churches that don't meet the minimum standard for compensation for a full-time pastor should be required to submit a five year plan for approval by a committee. The plan should include a plan explaining how the assets of the church will be employed in ministry. Many of the churches would need help to develop their plan.

3. Many churches have difficult with planning. Districts should identify pastors and laity who are willing to help sturggling churches with a planning process.

4. I anticipate that a planning process would force quite a few churches to realize that it his highly unlikely that the church will survive. We need to provide alternatives to death of a church. In many cases the best course would be to merge with another congregation.

5. As a denomination, we should be open to local church mergers outside our denominaiton. A lot of towns have a weak Nazarene Church, a weak Church of God (Anderson), and a weak Wesleyan Church. We should encourage those congregations to merge.

In any case, we need to firmly establish a policy that local church assets belong to God and not to the members of the church. As long as the local church employs the assets in ministry, the assets should be under control of the local congregation. When the local congregation is unwilling or unable to employ the assets in ministry, the denomination has a right and an obligation to act as a steward.

6. As a denomination, we need to provide some creative alternatives for churches who realize they are not going to survive over the long run. The current model is to encourage people to hold on until there is no alternative but close the church. There are better alternatives.

[John Kennedy]

Dave -
As a former Nazarene PK (Dad & Mom both elders) who grew up in small churches that struggled for survival your points 4 & 5 make a LOT of sense. In too many instances there are simply more Nazarene churches in an area than resources to support them.

I can think of towns and cities I was personally acquainted on the old San Antonio District where you would find two Nazarene churches, neither of which was healthy financially or numerically. Why on earth this came about, I have no idea. (Well, I do have some ideas, but in a spirit of Christian forbearance, I will not share them.)

[William Hunter]

Dave, how I appreciate your insight and bravery to deal with this subject on such an open forum. I'm not sure our leaders are willing to make the hard decisions some of these suggestions would require. I love my church but I am also frustrated at it at times because it is so given to status quo instead of being solution focused.
Here we have cut our monthly expenses by about $3,000.00 in the last 2 1/2 yrs. or so, while increasing the quality of what we do---and yet, every month is a financial sturggle. The stress of finances and having to deal too many times with people and their personal agendas that focus around their attitude that no one can tell them what to do (serious power and control issues), has me to the place of looking seriously at another type of ministry than that of pastoring a local church. I'm looking at training to be an Transisional Interim Pastor with New Church Specialties. I have such a passion for the existing church, but the stress of what we face on a week-to-week basis has me pretty weary at this point.
I think we need to take a serious look at our international program, as well as the amount of money drained from the local church to dist. and general levels. Our leaders always get salary and benefit increases when so many pastors out on the front line of church lose actual income from the lack of just basic cost of living increases. Many pastors I know of pay for materials as well as pay the basic bills of the church out their pocket, yet the pressure is always there to go more, do more, raise more money to send elsewhere, etc. We are told that the vast majority of people training for ministry in our country's seminaries do not have any interest in pastoring a an existing church. They would rather start one, be on staff of a larger church, teach, or go into some other type of ministry. It makes me wonder if we need to look at regional church having satelite congregations in which money is pooled and a leadership team that includes the pastors of those satelites, could sit down and plan, problem solve, etc. in order that the mission of the church goes forward. This in only an idea but one I have wondered about and have tried to think through some of the dynamics involved.
It is obvious I would think that we as a denomination have got to do something different than we are now. If we do not, then the idea of being wheelchair bound and in a spiritual nursing home might be our future.
Can we get away from the idea that only large church pastors have insights of significance to bring to the table? Can we ever develop a think tank where we ask hard questions and put everything of the denomination on the table without having a driving agenda already controlling the discussion before it ever starts.
One DS I had, Marselle Knight(sp) told us who pastored on his dist. that HQ put together a commission to consider whether we needed DS's or not, or if there was another form possible here. Then he laughed and told us that the commission was made up of all DS's. I'm not sure many DS's want to return to front line ministry in spite of what they say. Anyway, he said nothing will come of that commission. I'm not training to be hard on DS's, but a commission made up of DS's to study such a subject loudly points our our lack of seriousness about thinking and study and rethinking that needs to take place with everything on the table and nothing brought to the table and protected by someone's agenda and desire to carve out their own little kingdom.
Anyway, just thoughts. Thanks so much for bringing the subject up. It is obvious we MUST do something and doing nothing is not an option if we want to stay vital and vigorous in the passion and mission of Christ.







I didn't post the question because I have an agenda; however, you know me well enought to know that I am always thinking. This is my current thinking:

1. We should establish a "minimum standard" of compensation required for a full-time pastor. One idea is that an amount equal to what a teacher with an equal number of years of experience would make in the school system where the church is located.

2. Local churches that don't meet the minimum standard for compensation for a full-time pastor should be required to submit a five year plan for approval by a committee. The plan should include a plan explaining how the assets of the church will be employed in ministry. Many of the churches would need help to develop their plan.

3. Many churches have difficult with planning. Districts should identify pastors and laity who are willing to help sturggling churches with a planning process.

4. I anticipate that a planning process would force quite a few churches to realize that it his highly unlikely that the church will survive. We need to provide alternatives to death of a church. In many cases the best course would be to merge with another congregation.

5. As a denomination, we should be open to local church mergers outside our denominaiton. A lot of towns have a weak Nazarene Church, a weak Church of God (Anderson), and a weak Wesleyan Church. We should encourage those congregations to merge.

In any case, we need to firmly establish a policy that local church assets belong to God and not to the members of the church. As long as the local church employs the assets in ministry, the assets should be under control of the local congregation. When the local congregation is unwilling or unable to employ the assets in ministry, the denomination has a right and an obligation to act as a steward.

6. As a denomination, we need to provide some creative alternatives for churches who realize they are not going to survive over the long run. The current model is to encourage people to hold on until there is no alternative but close the church. There are better alternatives.

[Scott Sherwood]

Some NFL stadiums are only used 10 times a year and they don't have a cash flow problem.

That's brilliant! We need more luxury boxes in the church. Excuse me while I go check the availability of www.churchluxuryboxes.com

[Marsha Lynn]

Many of us live and minister strictly on the level of the local church. Even if the denomination were to think about liquidating unused assets and redistributing the proceeds to places of great need, we would not be involved on either end of that process. We're someplace in the middle, using what we have to the best of our ability.

That said, I have now completed 20 years as treasurer for my local church. In terms of financial stability, we have seen good times and we have seen bad times. I don't know that the bad times were ever indicative of God turning his face away from us, not trusting us with more because we didn't do enough with the little we had. When several families stomped away in anger a few years ago, what wasn't obvious to most was that we lost almost the precise amount in tithes and offerings as we bring in by renting out our facilities for daily use. One could interpret that as punishment for "selling out" to those who clutter up OUR wonderful fellowship hall with THEIR "stuff" and who foul up OUR kitchen, that God was moving us right back to where we'd be without that extra income, but I don't know that anyone here would endorse that view. Should I have pointed out that "coincidental" correlation to anyone?

My view of God doesn't ever put finances at the top of his concerns, not for individuals nor for the ministry of a local church, either in measuring or responding to the spirituality of that church or its effectiveness or its faithfulness. Thus, I don't see red ink on a financial report as a sign of God's disapproval nor black ink as a sign of his approval.

Rather than focusing on "filthy lucre", why would you not wonder instead if we are properly using the vast human resources available to us as an investment to gain greater human resources? I may be overly-optimistic in this area, but it seems to me that the finances straighten themselves out when our primary focus is on loving God and others to the best of our ability while living within our means.

In other words, in answer to your subject line, I would focus on people rather than money. What use is money to a church if it isn't indicative of healthy relationships and fellowship? And if those relationships are plentiful, money is much less important. If we're faithful to value the people we have, will God trust us with more people?

I consider it to be a primary component of my job as treasurer to focus on the nitty-gritty details of finances so that others can focus on the people questions without having such trivial matters as finances get in the way.

Jesus may have used money as the symbol of resources in his parables, but I think we've missed the point if we don't move past that symbolism to the true resources of the church. That's not to say that we need to hang on to empty buildings, but those empty buildings need to never be more important than the people connected to them.

Marsha


Mike
You assumed that I was thinking on the local church level. I was really thinking on a denominational level. It is like a person who says "I am broke, because I don't have any money in my right pocket", while he has money in his left pocket.

The church of the Nazarene, as a denomination, has hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate assets in the U.S. A lot of it is very under utilized in any type of ministry, yet we have other churches who are really trying to minister that don't have the resources to do so. Should we really expect God to give us resources in our right pocket when we have unused resources in our left pocket?

[Scott Sherwood]

In particular, I am thinking about the millions dollars worth of real estate that is owned by Nazarene churches that isn't really being used. I recently attended a local church that meets in a building that will seat 250. It has 8 full size Sunday School rooms and a fully equipted nursery. The "sanctuary" is used 90 minutes a week. Most of the Sunday School rooms are not used other than to store junk. The "Fellowship Hall" is used 2 hours a week. I am told that there are hundreds of such churches across the U.S.

And that's just the "church" property. The congregation owns millions more in property that very well may not be used to its maximum kingdom potential. Our members' homes are ideal places for small groups, hospitality ministries, and fellowship. A congregation with 50 families probably owns several million dollars in real estate that is just waiting to be used to its fullest extent.

Regarding the church property, your point is well made and well taken. We currently run about 250 in two services and have no plans to build until we run around around 1000 a weekend making use of the building at least 4 times. We will never build adult educational space again.

It won't be too many years until church property is no longer tax exempt, which will force some changes on us. And it may just be one of the best things to ever happen to the American church.

[Dave McClung]

And that's just the "church" property. The congregation owns millions more in property that very well may not be used to its maximum kingdom potential. Our members' homes are ideal places for small groups, hospitality ministries, and fellowship. A congregation with 50 families probably owns several million dollars in real estate that is just waiting to be used to its fullest extent.

Regarding the church property, your point is well made and well taken. We currently run about 250 in two services and have no plans to build until we run around around 1000 a weekend making use of the building at least 4 times. We will never build adult educational space again.

It won't be too many years until church property is no longer tax exempt, which will force some changes on us. And it may just be one of the best things to ever happen to the American church.

Scott

I like the way you think. It reminded me that when I was at Denver First Church, I helped start a Sunday School Class at a Country Club Resturant near the church. A member of the board objected, because it cost $100 per week (underwritten by class members). I asked the member if he had ever considered what it cost on a per hour basis to provide a Sunday School room in the church building. We did the calculation and found that it was several times the $100 that we were spending at the Country Club.

God can't be pleased that we spend thousands of dollars on rooms that are used for 45 mintues per week.

[Dennis M. Scott]

I'm not near as concerned about buildings not being used as I am about hundreds of thousands of very capable people not being used at all - not even forty-five minutes a week. Our greatest resources (assets) isn't money or property. It's people. Jesus didn't encourage us to use buildings more: he said to pray the Lord of the harvest to send laborers into the ripened fields. Often it's much easier to build a building or to give money than to make a discipling disciple.

[Marsha Lynn]

The source of my quote was for WEF giving, I believe, and it came from a recent NMI stewardship video that discusses the percentage of every dollar given in a local congregation and where it goes.

I think the total that goes "out" is more than 8.25% looking back at it; again, I think this was speaking of NMI giving only! However, I believe that at most it is not more than 10 to 12% if I am understanding the way the video broke it down....

Thanks,
Charles

The 8.25% would be for the World Evangelism Fund. The goal for all churches is for at least 10% to go to world mission efforts. The cap on total budgets is 20%. I think that's denomination-wide, but may be wrong. If not, it's at least widespread.

If special mission projects (the difference between WEF and 10% giving) is added to the 20% (WEF, educational, and district budgets), it would bring the total to 21.75%.

Of course, that's assuming that a church actually meets the denominational goals.

Marsha

[Marsha Lynn]

I sat in a district meeting recently where a pastor actually stated (not an exact quote), "It is my goal to keep as many dollars for local ministry as possible because I do not trust the district to invest the tithes and offerings given by our people as wisely and as passionately as we will invest them on the local scene."

Wow. You don't indicate how you feel about that sort of statement, Wes. Are you in sympathy with the person making it?

Another pastor from one of the strongest churches on our district said something like, "Nearly every minister and ministry in our local church is being conducted on a razor thin margin. We have had to give up even cost-of-living increases in salary for our staff members. We are even having to reduce salaries in order to pay increases in health insurance. Reductions in dollars for ministry support is the norm rather than the exception. But when it comes down to the end of the year, little or no sympathy or appreciation is given to local churches who have made the reductions in order to make sure that the various other entities of the denomination are supported." This pastor is dead center in supporting and loving our Church of the Nazarene.

Wow, again. Are there echoes of a certain older brother here? You know, the one who stayed home and slaved away on the farm with the father and followed all of the rules and didn't get so much as a young goat so he could celebrate with his friends? I don't have a problem with people feeling this way. I suppose we all deal occasionally with feelings of being always sacrificing and never having that sacrifice properly noticed and applauded. But I'm not sure I would put it forth as a legitimate response to failures happening at another level. How is it that these churches can't live within their means? (And I consider a church's means to be what's left after meeting denominational obligations. Asking for good stewardship by the denomination isn't a bad thing, but neither does it hurt a local church to view the money they contribute with the same attitude that individuals ideally have when they tithe, that it wasn't their money in the first place.)

We've been through some tight times locally, but I don't think we have failed to give our pastor a raise in any of his 14 years with us, even when we practically had to bind and gag him and drag him out of the room to get it passed. (OK, one year we couldn't get him to take it and did the equivalent of a raise in the form of a love offering.) And we have always paid our budgets. And the bank hasn't foreclosed on the mortgage yet! I'm not sure how it works, but it seems that when we are faithful in our top priorities (supporting our pastor and being part of ministry beyond ourselves), the rest eventually falls into place. Not without some nail-biting along the way, but we're not quite dead yet. And I don't think being less supportive of our pastor would have ever made the difference between barely getting by and room to breathe during the toughest times.

On the other hand, I am reminded now and then that my best sales jobs about the ministry that happens with our budget money fall short. There's a local paranoia that bringing in more money will raise our budgets to a point that we won't be able to pay if we can't sustain that extra income. (Even though all of the budgets except WEF are based strictly on current income on our district.) It reminds me of how people used to complain that a raise would put them into a higher tax bracket and result in less net income, even though that was a mathematical impossibility. Except we're talking about world-wide ministry, not taxes.


Sorry, I can't accept that job promotion because it will make my tithe go up and I can't afford to give any more to the church. :rolleyes:

Here's my prediction: the next five years (maybe 10) in the Church of the Nazarene will be "make it or break it" years. We will either transition in favor of energizing the local church or we will (as so well stated by a speaker at our most recent PALCON whose name I cannot remember) put the Church of the Nazarene into a wheelchair, place the shawl around her shoulders and wheel her off into the senior care center while bragging about how good she looks for as old as she is!"


Wes, didn't you used to be more positive than this? I don't think I'll hold my breath waiting for the denomination to energize my local church (although I do appreciate efforts like Gen. Ass'y and the TEACH conferences and such). It looks to me like the Holy Spirit is pretty much responsible for breathing life into the local chruch, and when He sets an open door before us no man (or organization) can shut it. I don't see idle assets in the hands of the denomination as a drain on our local resources, financially or in any other way.

It seems that there oughtta be a way to encourage good stewardship on the part of the denomination that doesn't include references to the wrath of God in response to idle resources. After all, He owns the cattle on a thousand hills and I'm not sure every one of those cattle are "productive" all of the time. Nor does it need to include a charge of robbing the resources of the local churches. There might be just a little room to relax now and then in the service of the King. The fact that there are people who are confident that they could be happy and wealthy if only the denomination were more efficient doesn't make it so. It's my experience that unhappy and miserly people seldom come up short in looking for someone else to hold responsible for their sorry state.

(I know that Dave's concerns involve much more than I'm addressing here and that he's coming from a top-down view. My primary point as one at the bottom is that I don't accept the idea that the health and wealth of local churches is being compromised by denominational-level waste, even if there are dedicated people in local churches who believe it to be true.)

Marsha

[Wesley Smith]

Marsha,

Rather than copy your statements, let me just respond with a couple points.

First, I do have huge concerns about the future of our denomination. There is no doubt that God can do anything He wants, but, honestly, it has become apparent to me that He tends to work most powerfully and efficienty in the context of cultural relevance. It is my opinion that our denomination currently hangs in the balance of trying to decide if we are going to be culturally relevant or are we going to keep a grip on methodologies that reflect what used to work. Having opinions and insights re. what is happening and what needs to happen is not altogether an issue of positivism or negativism. Awareness of corporate weakness, direction and confusion is a leadership function and "putting the cards on the table" may seem negative, but is actually simply part of the reformation process.

Second, both of the statements informally quoted in my previous post were from a recent gathering on our district of nearly 30 pastors and lay people, including the DS and DAB. The entire purpose and discussion at that meeting revolved around the issue of addressing the financial dynamics of the local church. It is fair to summarize the spirit of that meeting as a spirit of significant concern both about the future of the local Nazarene churches and the future funding of the various levels of ministry in the denomination (district, universities, general). Whether I agree with either of the quoted pastors is somewhat irrelevant. Response to the future of our denomination is actually beyond me though I have tried to make and nurture relationships where I can register my concern and insights. My primary responsibility is to give leadership in my local church to a new paradigm of ministry that effectively reaches people for Jesus these days. Doing so is one of the most difficult jobs in the world, in my opinion, due to the basic human nature need to...not rock the boat! Ha! Perhaps the greatest juggling act in the world is to keep the saints happy and reach new people for the Kingdom all at the same time!

Okay, let me add a third point. A few years (3 or 4) ago, I conducted a study re. the growth/shrinkage of North American Districts in our church. I would have to dig around a bit to find the document, but what I discovered at that time was that only two or three of our districts in NA reported growth. Conversely, we have many of our districts that have shrunk considerably. The majority of our districts are simply maintaining from year-to-year. Two major districts had decreased by approximately 1/3, in the previous 10-15 years. A few districts were decreasing to the size where it was questionable whether they could afford to employ a DS. It may be possible to be overly concerned re. the cultural relevance of our denomination. On the other hand, I think the greater danger is to fiddle while trying to find significance in the dust of yesteryears.

Friend,

Wes

[Pete Vecchi]

If it's accurate to say in government, "All politics is local," is it accurate to say in the denomination, "All ministry is local?"

It seems that our paradigms highly influence our understandings. Personally, I had no idea before reading the original post on this thread that the denomination had so much property that, at least by what I've read here, is likely underutilized.

I appreciate Dave's acumen in many areas of life--spirituality, business sense, ability to think "outside the box,", and other areas. He has helped me to see things in different light on numerous occasions. One specific occasion was something he told me about the parable of the talents that he mentioned in the original post demonstrating "one-talent-thinking" by people.

Part of this goes to the types of people that the local congregation reaches. In a more affluent area, a congregation may be reaching primarily upper-middle to upper class people who have good business sense when it comes to investments, and who can translate that business sense into ministry sense. For instance, they can see that it might take an initial significant financial investment to work towards a longer-term goal that can eventually lead to a true, large, spiritual harvest.

On the other hand, if a congregation ministers primarily to lower to lower-middle class people, the congregation will likely have a different paradigm--perhaps one of "survival." Investing may be a foreign concept to the people there. And no matter how hard a pastor tries to shine light on the issue, the people are "afraid" to take risks with God's money, and end up hiding it away, using it only when necessary, until it finally runs out (or, as in the parable, it is taken away from them).

In either case, a big issue sometimes seems to be one of control. Even in some smaller congregations, they seem to only want help to continue to exist pretty much as they are. It seems to me that if someone from a large congregation would offer to smaller congregations enough financial help to improve outdated facilities and attitudes towards ministry and finances--with part of the agreement being that the financing church would take over part or all of the management of the small church's resources, at least some smaller congregations would balk at the offer, because they wouldn't want to give up control.

So, maybe "All ministry is local" is somewhat accurate. Believe me, I like some of the "out-of-the-box" ideas I've read in this thread. I just wish sometimes that enough other people would like them enough in order to risk implementing them.

[Gina Stevenson]

... and a hearty "Amen!" to your post, too, Pete ... not just that "Thanks" click. ;)

[Mike Schutz]

In either case, a big issue sometimes seems to be one of control. Even in some smaller congregations, they seem to only want help to continue to exist pretty much as they are. It seems to me that if someone from a large congregation would offer to smaller congregations enough financial help to improve outdated facilities and attitudes towards ministry and finances--with part of the agreement being that the financing church would take over part or all of the management of the small church's resources, at least some smaller congregations would balk at the offer, because they wouldn't want to give up control.


I have witnessed a situation similar to what you have described (a few folks on Naznet were involved), with the result you described. It was a perfect illustration of "no good deed goes unpunished."

[Dave McClung]

If it's accurate to say in government, "All politics is local," is it accurate to say in the denomination, "All ministry is local?"

It seems that our paradigms highly influence our understandings. Personally, I had no idea before reading the original post on this thread that the denomination had so much property that, at least by what I've read here, is likely underutilized.

I appreciate Dave's acumen in many areas of life--spirituality, business sense, ability to think "outside the box,", and other areas. He has helped me to see things in different light on numerous occasions. One specific occasion was something he told me about the parable of the talents that he mentioned in the original post demonstrating "one-talent-thinking" by people.

Part of this goes to the types of people that the local congregation reaches. In a more affluent area, a congregation may be reaching primarily upper-middle to upper class people who have good business sense when it comes to investments, and who can translate that business sense into ministry sense. For instance, they can see that it might take an initial significant financial investment to work towards a longer-term goal that can eventually lead to a true, large, spiritual harvest.

On the other hand, if a congregation ministers primarily to lower to lower-middle class people, the congregation will likely have a different paradigm--perhaps one of "survival." Investing may be a foreign concept to the people there. And no matter how hard a pastor tries to shine light on the issue, the people are "afraid" to take risks with God's money, and end up hiding it away, using it only when necessary, until it finally runs out (or, as in the parable, it is taken away from them).

In either case, a big issue sometimes seems to be one of control. Even in some smaller congregations, they seem to only want help to continue to exist pretty much as they are. It seems to me that if someone from a large congregation would offer to smaller congregations enough financial help to improve outdated facilities and attitudes towards ministry and finances--with part of the agreement being that the financing church would take over part or all of the management of the small church's resources, at least some smaller congregations would balk at the offer, because they wouldn't want to give up control.

So, maybe "All ministry is local" is somewhat accurate. Believe me, I like some of the "out-of-the-box" ideas I've read in this thread. I just wish sometimes that enough other people would like them enough in order to risk implementing them.

Pete, your post is right on. It reminded me of an incident from many years ago. The Dallas District Advisory Board decided that the larger, growing congregations should "help" some of the "struggling" churches. I was asked to "help" a church that had the same pastor for 20 years and had been in gradual decline through the entire 20 years.

I met with the board and told them that I would assist them in coming up with a plan to grow. One of the board members responded with a question, "Why should we grow?" He went on to inform me that they we ok with their church and didn't see how a lawyer from a "big church" could teach them anything. He was right. I couldn't teach them anything.

[William Hunter]

At our ch. bd. mtg. last evening my board has decided to give a bit more attention to local basic needs than to budgets. We have one pd. in full, our $7363.00 dist. budget 70% pd., the WEF near 60% pd, and nothing pd on our college. I do not like this much, but it is a response to making sure the basics have been pd., like the mortgage, utilities, etc. We are not dealing with any extras, just the basics of ministry here.

In the course of discussion we were made aware of a church on our dist. that brings in near $2,000,000.00 per year. If they miss a Sunday due to weather or whatever other reason, they could face very serious financial problems. It is not the size of the church or the amount of money each raises. It is fact that we are all struggling.

I think that before budgets are just automatically raised year after year, the the dist. and gen. church should take a look at the hard fact of actual income each church has during the year, the amount of money spent to function on the front line, and then adjust budgets accordingly. If this requires a modifying of the dist. and gen. church programs, that will just have to be done. The local church is NOT some bottomless moeny pit that can just keep giving more and more, no matter what. I do think some of our leaders are very out of touch with the actual operation and needs of the front line local church. I'll probably take a hit for saying that but I think the do more, go more, and raise more money to send eleswhere pressure on local church pastors justifies such a statement.

It seems our leadership does not want to do the work of gaining factual knowledge of the local church, and then do the hard work of adjusting programs accordingly. And it is not the local church's fault for not having enough. I have some people who give way more than the tithe. And yes, we have some who live in disobedience and do not tithe. And we live in a culture when people's investments are taking a hit, home values are down, people are losing their homes, etc. We do not live in a smoke-stack economy anymore and incomes are adjusted down for that reason. People's cost of living is up, health insurance in rediculous, etc. But the local church is to just keep sending in that money, no matter what difficulty it causes for the local church to be able to do what God has called it to do.

I love my church, I respect it programs, but I also believe it is time to deal with reality in the local church and make some changes at the dist. and gen. levels of the church and their never ending push for more money, no matter how difficult it is for the local church. I'm not some boat rocker, etc., but I live on the front line as a pastor and see that some things need to change if we are to have strong local church able to support a reasonable dist. and gen. program.

[William Hunter]

We are not getting in enough money to do a 10-12 month plan. That is just a hard fact. Last year we got our budgets paid by sending in 10% of everything that came in, minus Faith Promise giving and other designated giving. We got our budgets paid a little ahead of the end of the year. But, as usual, our budgets were significantly increased. The 10% plus FP is not going to work this year. Plus, our people are being hard pressed by the economy and extra giving is down considerably. They are not having spiritual problems, the church is spiritually healthy and showing some growth, etc. It is not a matter of spiritual need. It is a matter of hard financial reality. My retired people often give above their tithe, but their cost of living is going up considerably like the rest of us.
When there just is not the income you cannot pay it out to everyone who wants a peice of the pie. I believe all levels of the church beyond the local church need to modify their demands to match the hard facts the local church deals with. But it seems that every year someone wants more money out of the local church, never stopping to think through the dynamcis a local church faces. Instead of looking at hard reality, congregations are told they are not spiritual, that their pastors, if they were good little pastors, would pay those budgets no matter what.
I cannot begin to count the number of times I've heard that budgets are the responsibility of the pastor. "He must get them paid!" Well, they are not my personal responsibility. They have been assigned to the cong., even if the budgets are based on someone's agenda who lost touch with the dynamics of the local church. I will do everything I can to see that they are paid. I have taken pay cuts to see that they have been over the years. I wonder if any DS or General has turned down a pay raise until pastors start getting honest cost of living increases at the least, and that the local church is able to pay budgets based on actual financial issues of the local churches.
My board is going to stop giving FP money and give the extra in tithe money for local basic needs. Virginia and I have decided to join them. The needs of the local church require this move at this time. My board is very supportive of our mission work, etc., but they have to live at the local church level and I can tell you that they are not happy with the demands made on the local church and their pastor to go more, do more and raise more money to send elsewhere, when the local needs are not being taken care of as they should.
Some would say to get rid of our youth pastor and family. That might work in the thinking of those who want money from our local church, but if we did that we would see a significant number leave the church. This couple is a huge draw for us and our attn. Plus I have no one to fill the various positions they do. Given the fact that 64% of the people in our zip code of over 26,000 people, are birth to 17 yrs. of age, getting rid of our one staff person would be very poor leadership and decision making. If we were forced to do that, it would shout volumes to my cong. that the dist. and gen. level of the church do not have our best interest at heart and are not concerned with the mission of the local church. That mission is not to be focused on raising money to send elsewhere. We do because we are part of our denomination and believe in it, even if it shows high level resistance to actual change that helps the local church in fact, and not just in window dressing. Our income would take a significant hit if we had to get rid of our staff and there still would not be enough money to meet all the needs others think we should be mtg.
I know you mean no harm. I did not take your comments that way at all. I see you as someone who has given years to Christ through our church. You are to be commended and seen as a model of high level commitment.






You may have had far more experience than we have had, William, but one plan helped us a lot. It might not be available to you. we went to a church tht had a mortgage payment and a payment on a loan from the district. When the winter utilities were so high,we just could not make it and pay everything. Dr. Talmadge Johnson knew Dwayne quite well by then, and knew if it were possible it would be done--but realized the circumstances. He ask us to use the ten month plan, and send in the budgets that way, on each one, and the district would send the money back to the church. they had already tried helping with the utilities, or what ever. that settled it, and the church has and still is paying their budgets each year, and that was many years ago. I am not putting any church donw--just relating our experiences.
Also, we began a local compassionate ministries program, and took an offering once each month for it. Now, the church treasurer and the board commits a certain amount each year tothe funds, plus what comes in from others, and it was after that, that the funds really began coming in.

Bro. Bonds just about stands in awe and wonder of that church where he is now the pastor.

The attendance seldom went past 50 with a transit military congregation, that were very young and did not contribute a lot mone wise. Now, it is integrated, and the people, don't have a lot, but THEY are GIVERS, until it is a thrill and JOY. And, as yet the attend ance is not large.

I feel that a new day is in store for them with a black, prince in the pulpit pastor. but, the attendance is going down, but the offerings seem to be coming in. Bro. Bonds wanted us to come back there, but we do not let them elect us to anything. He calls Dwayne his minister of visitation, but Dwayne is the one doing it, when he has time. But, we fully believe that things will eventually be different.

Now, this was not a sermon, but I wanted to tell you things tht I feel God use to help one church meet budgets, etc.
Dave, if this in not appropriate, please delete. William, I think, knows that I think highly of him, and feel that he is a godly sucessful person in God's vineyard.

I KNOW exactly how he feels. Sometimes it is hard to not feel bitter, when we are struggling to do what seems to be our best.

Please someone decrease this print a little for me. I can't find where to reduce it, again, once I mistakenly made it this large.

[William Hunter]

I wish some of our dist. and gen. leaders who lurk around NN would get involved in this discussion as we try ideas out on how to improve the church for the good of all. I'm not thinking of those leaders who like the status quo, but those who are not afraid to think outside the box, even to the place of thinking through whether we need high cost positions at certain levels.

I'll bet I'm in trouble now. I have tried to be honest on how I feel on NN before and have taken hits for being honest. Oh well, welcome to the process of telling us never to be honest and just blindly support whatever is going on. You know, if people listened with a heart toward helping bring healthy and needed change to the church, maybe we would not take hits for being honest, but could have some good discussion where healthy change is really sought for.

[Gina Stevenson]

Isn't the idea of considering disbanding the DS system something that's being done to lessen budgets ... no DS salaries to pay? But, as was mentioned, with the commission/committee studying this being made up mainly of DS's, it might be really something if they could come up with a plan to counter the DS system that's been in place forever. So, it seems they're aware ... but would each of them [the DS's] be happy to take a church, and the DAB then be that group which, in effect, replaces most of the basic DS necessary duties? Hopefully ... they might even like being "in the trenches" once again ... maybe.

Bill, seeing your demographics, re those birth-17, it does make sense that you do keep the youth pastor in place, for sure.

[Pete Vecchi]

I've started this companion thread regarding potential cost-saving measures:

http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?p=170900#post170900