Would you support this resoluiton?

[Dave McClung]

If you were a delegate to the General Assembly next year and this resolution came up for a vote, would you vote "yes" or "no."

"Resolved that each local congregation in the U.S. and Canada shall pay 10% of all of its receipts to support World Evangelism Fund, Pensions and Benefits, and Education. In addition, it shall pay a District Allocation as determined by its District Assembly."

[Charles W Christian]

I probably would, but I'd do a little more research first. It would mean much less allotment for my local church, but we have overpayed by A LOT the last 9 years, and we would still continue to do that, too....

Thanks,
Charles

[Ken Pell]

10% to each? No way.

A total of 10% to be divided amongst them as the denomination chooses? yep.

[Dave McClung]

10% to each? No way.

A total of 10% to be divided amongst them as the denomination chooses? yep.

Ken
As I see it, there are thee issues being discussed:

1. What percentage?

2. What is the base upon which the percentage will be calculated?

3. What will be included in the 10%?

It seems to me that the 10% number is catching on. There is still a lot of discussion of whether the 10% will be on all amounts raised or on some "budget base." There also seems to be a difference concerning whether the District Budget is within or without the 10%.

My question is to test whether a combination of 10% based on all amounts raised and excluding the District Budget would have support. I consider that to the be "middle of the road" proposal.

A "radical" proposal would be that there would be a cap of 10% of a budget base and include the Districts.

[Mike Norris]

.....As District Finance Chairman , I have held study meetings here on alternate budget allocation proposals. I would favor 10% of money raised going to cover all budget allocations EXCEPT World Evangelish Fund.

[Dave McClung]

.....As District Finance Chairman , I have held study meetings here on alternate budget allocation proposals. I would favor 10% of money raised going to cover all budget allocations EXCEPT World Evangelish Fund.

Mike
I know the Colorado District has tried that approach. Any local church that would pay into the combined fund 10% of their total amount raised and receive an Easter Offering and Thanksgiving Offering would be considered to be "Paid in Full." I don't really know how well it worked.

Dave

[Ryan Scott]

Dave, you're involved at DFC right now. How would you word the above proposal in light of the large donation they received last year? That drastically altered their "Raised for All Purposes" number, but not necessarily in a way they could access.

[Mark Woodward]

I think we are on the right track - but I think the 10% of all raised doesn't work well. I would be for 10% of all tithes and offerings. We collect rent etc. that is basically break even for light, heat etc. and would not be able to give 10% away - it would limit how we see our building and want it being used all days all the time as much as possible by our community. But we can always form a DAB for our building and collect all rents and pay all utilities etc from this DAB and have the "church" be the tithes and offerrings as that is truly what the people of the church comprise in giving. Then I am all for it and it would need to include all budgets, district and WEF and we can always pay more for WEF if we are able.

[Dave McClung]

Dave, you're involved at DFC right now. How would you word the above proposal in light of the large donation they received last year? That drastically altered their "Raised for All Purposes" number, but not necessarily in a way they could access.

The large donation that you mentioned was simply tithe, so yes, I would that if the proposed method had been in place DFC's fair share would have been 10% of the large donation.

Yes, I would support the change.

I do think "Raised for All Purposes" would have to be defined in a way that "In and Out" income was not included. For instance when a missionary speaks and a love offering is taken up. If 100% of the offering goes to the missionary, the amount of the offering should be excluded from "Raised for All Purposes."

[Dennis M. Scott]

I would rather say 10 percent for district, pensions and education, and then raise world evangelism. That's consistent with what we ask our people to do: tithe to the local church, and give for missions.

What I'm looking for is something that has some pattern in scripture, and is readily communicated cross culturally. Bringing (sending) the tithe, and giving a love offering for missions fits a little better for me that the breakdown you mention. Also, I'm not talking about tithing what you raised the previous year, but what comes in the plate. That's how local churches have to carry on, and the district, education and pensions could do that and be consistent with local churches. I'd even be in favor of the local church being able to send the tithe to one place for distribution as necessary. We don't let people in the pew decide that they want their tithe to be used to pay utilities but not staff, and it makes no sense for churches to be able to say they want their money to go to pensions buy not education.

It would seem consistent for pastors to say, "We not only operate on the concept of the tithe locally, but we participate in a tithe approach to meet the administrative needs of the extended church, too. And all of us are going to give to the cause of world evangelism." We've historically been able to do relatively well in meeting that challenge.

[Hans Deventer]

I'd abstain.

[David Warren]

I'd like farther discussion. :rolleyes: If this is the best/fairest we can do, I could live with it. I do prefer the 10% for everything excluding WEF and then raising WEF apart from the budget system. But I understand that it would make budgeting difficult for K.C. I believe that would be the easiest to sell to our congregations.

[Dennis M. Scott]

The large donation that you mentioned was simply tithe, so yes, I would that if the proposed method had been in place DFC's fair share would have been 10% of the large donation.

Yes, I would support the change.

I do think "Raised for All Purposes" would have to be defined in a way that "In and Out" income was not included. For instance when a missionary speaks and a love offering is taken up. If 100% of the offering goes to the missionary, the amount of the offering should be excluded from "Raised for All Purposes."


While I think I appreciate the intent, I'm not sure I agree. Tithe is tithe. The exception you site is like saying one shouldn't tithe on the portion of one's income one tithes. John Maxwell says, "Tithe on the portion of one's income you want the Lord to honor." Whatever we do will become a training and exampling instrument. We should do what do we want our people to do. With a lot of exceptions, it's no wonder people think of it as some sort of IRS code.

[Crystal Lutton]

Well a tithe is tithe but a love offering is a gift, not a tithe. So I wouldn't understand giving to the district or the denom out of a love offering collected to pay for a guest speaker *scratches head*. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Though my whole understanding of tithing and handling finances Biblically doesn't seem to line up with that quote from Mazwell so maybe it's just an issue of different page thinking :)


This is difficult as I took over the administrative role with our congregation left heavily in debt and heavily overextended each month. It's taken us about 6 months to pay off all of the debt and get to the black and the leadership is working for way less than what most probably earn, and we are running the office on a bare bones budget, mostly remote. . . I'd want to know more boundaries on the issue. It's too vague. When things are voted on and vague IME it leads to challenges down the road. Vague wording in financial matters is part of what led to the problems we've just dug out of.

We also have specific ministries that are supported within our congregation with earmarked funds or directly collected monies. The monies stay within that ministry. One that I'm thinking of specifically is our Oneg ministry--the large meal we have after each service. It was a potluck until we were advised that the current laws and regulations require that all meals served at a facility like a church service have to be prepared and served on the premises for liability issues. So rather than bring food dishes people give financially to help purchase the food, etc. Would this include total giving including earmarked monies? It's not our discretion how to use those funds.

One other specific question--if a local congregation supports a Nazarene sponsored ministry directly would that count towards the World Missions obligation?

[David Pettigrew]

I voted "no" simply because I think, as others have said, that the 10% should include district, with WEF raised on a love offering basis.

[Emmanuel Reinbold]

I would struggle with the district being outside of the 10%, as that would keep us at a 20% cap. Our budgets were reconfigured this year and our WEF, Education, and P&B were lowered and our district were raised... we are actually paying 10% for the district (I am not sure if this is appropriate or not, the questions that I have asked have largely gone unanswered).

This type of proposal doesn't address one of the largest areas that funds are being misused in accordance with our mission statement, as very few disciples are made at the district level. I would agree with breaking the actual missions funds out of the WEF, keeping general, district, P&B, and Education within the 10% cap, with the actual missions costs coming in above and beyond tithe. I would also suggest that the monthly missions offerings be included in the missions giving so we don't have as much to keep track of. Missions giving is missions giving, and we are each asked to be missions minded... the term 10% church is very misrepresentative of the fact that 10% acutally means 20-25% :basic04

[Dave McClung]

I would struggle with the district being outside of the 10%, as that would keep us at a 20% cap. Our budgets were reconfigured this year and our WEF, Education, and P&B were lowered and our district were raised... we are actually paying 10% for the district (I am not sure if this is appropriate or not, the questions that I have asked have largely gone unanswered).

This type of proposal doesn't address one of the largest areas that funds are being misused in accordance with our mission statement, as very few disciples are made at the district level. I would agree with breaking the actual missions funds out of the WEF, keeping general, district, P&B, and Education within the 10% cap, with the actual missions costs coming in above and beyond tithe. I would also suggest that the monthly missions offerings be included in the missions giving so we don't have as much to keep track of. Missions giving is missions giving, and we are each asked to be missions minded... the term 10% church is very misrepresentative of the fact that 10% acutally means 20-25% :basic04

Emmanuel

The rationale behind keeping the district budget outside the 10% cap is that districts vary so greatly. Some districts have camps, some don't. Some districts have a lot more churches than others.

[Emmanuel Reinbold]

:basic01Emmanuel

The rationale behind keeping the district budget outside the 10% cap is that districts vary so greatly. Some districts have camps, some don't. Some districts have a lot more churches than others.



Dave,

I appreciate the rationale, but feel that it could very easily allow things to stay the same on small districts like the one on which I serve... this system does nothing to encourage districts that are so small that they are placing an overwhelming burden on the churches to do something different. It also does nothing to encourage districts to share the overhead of a campground instead of trying to maintain overhead that they could rent for much less cost.

[Jon Twitchell]

I don't support the idea that the district fund would be excluded from the 10%. Currently, the primary check against district budgets being out of control is the idea that whenever we raise district budgets (unless the district RAP has increased) we are taking away from World Missions.

If we can't move to 10% all at once, then perhaps we should start by moving it to 12 or 13.

I would support a "tithe" concept, based upon what comes in the plate each week/month (a current income model). I do believe in an "in/out" exclusion, as long as churches are honest about that. People aren't giving to the church when they give to a missionary speaker--they are giving to the missionary.

[Jon Twitchell]

I see there has been some discussion about moving missions outside of the "tithe."

I could support splitting WEF into Missions and headquarters operating, and then having the 10% include: Headquarters Operating, District, Educational, P&B. And then asking churches to take love offerings and Faith Promise to give toward missions.

(However, as I just realized, by doing that, I've removed the check against district budgets getting out of control).

[Marsha Lynn]

...very few disciples are made at the district level.

Perhaps not, but I would submit that Nazarenes are made at the district level. For many members of the church, the district provides the main direct evidence that they are part of something bigger than Podunk Church of the Nazarene. It's at district gatherings that they may be exposed for the first time to Work and Witness, Caravan, Bible Quizzing, Crisis Care Kits, and the rich resources available from NPH, including VBS curriculum that doesn't duplicate what is being done by six other churches in town and alternative Sunday School resources. It's also the district that introduces new members to our General Superintendents and allows them to hear the message they bring.

Theoretically, information about all of these things should be readily available through the local church, but in practicality, I would say that new members most frequently catch the bigger vision through district-level events.

In my opinion.

Marsha

[David Pettigrew]

Kind of interesting to me that we want to keep more money close to home, but the district, which is much closer to us than Kansas City, is our lowest budget priority.

I support districts for discipleship, fellowship, and training purposes, but not as an administrative level.

[Emmanuel Reinbold]

Perhaps not, but I would submit that Nazarenes are made at the district level. For many members of the church, the district provides the main direct evidence that they are part of something bigger than Podunk Church of the Nazarene. It's at district gatherings that they may be exposed for the first time to Work and Witness, Caravan, Bible Quizzing, Crisis Care Kits, and the rich resources available from NPH, including VBS curriculum that doesn't duplicate what is being done by six other churches in town and alternative Sunday School resources. It's also the district that introduces new members to our General Superintendents and allows them to hear the message they bring.

Theoretically, information about all of these things should be readily available through the local church, but in practicality, I would say that new members most frequently catch the bigger vision through district-level events.

In my opinion.

Marsha

Marsha,

Thanks for your input. I agree that districts can be a great thing for exposing people to the greater work of the Nazarene church. I was raised on the SWID district (go Hoosiers) and benefited greatly from the district opportunities. However, pastoring in Nebraska is not at all the same. All district functions for teens are held on the Eastern side of the state and those of us in the western half aren't always kept in the loop and the events are also over Sunday's which make it very difficult for a pastor to participate.

As Dave mentioned, I would support maintaining a district for networking and discipleship opportunities (it isn't the $1000 a year that supports the different district departments that I have a problem with... it is the fact that 10% of our budget goes to support the district superintendent position. This 10% is the money that could be going into outreach events and discipleship curriculim that pays little dividends in the process of making disciples. I think that we could still have a cluster system that does what you appreciate, but not have the overhead that keeps churches in the red financially!

[Jon Bemis]

Ken
A "radical" proposal would be that there would be a cap of 10% of a budget base and include the Districts.

Count me as radical. I think a 10% tithe for all purposes should be our goal.

[Craig Laughlin]

I could support splitting WEF into Missions and headquarters operating, and then having the 10% include: Headquarters Operating, District, Educational, P&B. And then asking churches to take love offerings and Faith Promise to give toward missions.



I think there is real merit in separating the monies going to HQ from the monies going to missions. I think it would make for a much “cleaner” offering for WEF and gives us clearer lines of accountability.

[Tim Stidham]

I think there is real merit in separating the monies going to HQ from the monies going to missions. I think it would make for a much “cleaner” offering for WEF and gives us clearer lines of accountability.

I totally agree that separating missions is crucial. As to eliminating the D.S. Position, there's just no way our polity allows for that. We have a representative form of government and accountability. It would require a radical restructuring and I just can't see it.
Also, someone has to hold individual churches accountable, for sure. As to how much D.S.'s are paid, that might be a different question. But then, how much pastors are paid would come into question as well...
Okay, now for a little fun...what would all the Buick and Cadillac dealers do if all those lease accounts suddenly ended? Then, the check printers of the world would revolt if we didn't all demand our little mileage checks to be written out by hand by district secretaries, which come to think of it might affect the pen and ink industry. Finally, how would we handle the counseling load for all these mid-level managers of our faith suddenly thrust out under the stars?
I think it should be clear by now, for the sake of the economy, our nation, and the greater good, we must maintain the status quo... :)
All right, back to my real thoughts...
Actually, I think we have really great D.S.'s and most of them would gladly sacrifice if things needed to change for the sake of the Kingdom. Many of them give a lot of their income away for others already. But it would need to be gradual if we did bring structural change. I like the 10% model as it seems biblical and balanced. If we can work out the kinks I could support the idea totally.
Right now it seems separating missions (and I think this has good discipleship implications as well) and going 10% for all else makes sense from the local church perspective. Tithe and do Faith Promise. We ask it of the people. I believe it helps them grow spiritually. Let's ask the same of the churches. Maybe we'll see them grow, too.