Church Finances

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Consider the cases of two churches:

Church #1 - An average of 480 people worshiping last church year. Total giving: $1,234,858
Church #2 - An average of 341 people worshiping last church year. Total giving: $270,139

That's almost a difference of a million dollars.

Facts:
- Both churches are churches of the Nazarene
- Both are growing churches
- These are real numbers from this past church year
- I believe it is true that Church #1 is in the midst of a building program
- The churches are 4.3 miles apart.

I don't know what I'm trying to imply here, if anything. It's just that when the numbers occurred to me, it blew my mind.

[Sara Sheppard]

I would like to know the "average" for those size churches.

I would also wonder if a significant one-time gift was given to church #1 especially knowing they are going through a building program.

The building program alone could explain it. If church #1 was asked to give sacrificially for the program that year, then that may be the key difference.

Sara

[Billy Cox]

Consider the cases of two churches:

Church #1 - An average of 480 people worshiping last church year. Total giving: $1,234,858
Church #2 - An average of 341 people worshiping last church year. Total giving: $270,139

That's almost a difference of a million dollars.

Facts:
- Both churches are churches of the Nazarene
- Both are growing churches
- These are real numbers from this past church year
- I believe it is true that Church #1 is in the midst of a building program
- The churches are 4.3 miles apart.

I don't know what I'm trying to imply here, if anything. It's just that when the numbers occurred to me, it blew my mind.


Sometimes geographic dividing lines between socioeconomic classes are very distinct. As a result two churches within a few miles of each other could be totally different in financial and educational resources.

This is especially true for churches located near school district boundaries.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I would like to know the "average" for those size churches.

What do you mean exactly? Average worship attendance is what I listed. Perhaps you mean weekly giving?

I would also wonder if a significant one-time gift was given to church #1 especially knowing they are going through a building program.
It appears not so. Look at the attached picture file of the numbers for the last four years and you'll see that this giving is somewhat normal.

The building program alone could explain it. If church #1 was asked to give sacrificially for the program that year, then that may be the key difference.This seems more true to me. I mean, in my mind, I've written it off as this.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Sometimes geographic dividing lines between socioeconomic classes are very distinct. As a result two churches within a few miles of each other could be totally different in financial and educational resources.

This is especially true for churches located near school district boundaries.

Obviously I have the benefit of knowing where these two churches are (for the record, it's not my district). And you're right - socioeconomics play a significant role in this situation and the churches are indeed in two different school districts. This leads me to wonder about how we do finances as a general church. I struggle with so much of it. Doesn't seem like good stewardship of finances, resources, or people. It's easier for people to pass off when one church is in rural-somewhere or urban-somewhere and another is in suburban-somewhere, but you'd think that with examples like these two churches, the discrepancy would jump out more.

[Dave McClung]

Consider the cases of two churches:

Church #1 - An average of 480 people worshiping last church year. Total giving: $1,234,858
Church #2 - An average of 341 people worshiping last church year. Total giving: $270,139

That's almost a difference of a million dollars.

Facts:
- Both churches are churches of the Nazarene
- Both are growing churches
- These are real numbers from this past church year
- I believe it is true that Church #1 is in the midst of a building program
- The churches are 4.3 miles apart.

I don't know what I'm trying to imply here, if anything. It's just that when the numbers occurred to me, it blew my mind.

I don't know the specific churches in your example but a few years ago, I did some research to see if I could determine what caused some churches to raise more than others. The data I had was limited, but the primary correlation I found was between clergy compensation and total church income. The more a church pays its pastor, the greater the church income.

My conclusion was simple. If a church wants to raise more money, give the pastor a raise.

By the way, the same correlation exists in the corporate world. That is why CEO compensation is so high. The church just hasn't learned the lesson.

Do you have the data that shows the pastor's compensation for the two churches you mentioned?

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Do you have the data that shows the pastor's compensation for the two churches you mentioned?


No I don't. I got all of the information through http://www.nazareneresearch.org. (More specifically: http://www.nazarene.org/ministries/administration/researchcenter/world/usareport/display.aspx)

[Dave McClung]

...This leads me to wonder about how we do finances as a general church. ..

Only a few people really understand the finances of our denomination. Because of the various boards and committees I serve on I get to hear the various view points. I won't guess about your perspective, but will try to give you a few clues about understanding the financial situation of our denomination.

Here are a few facts to consider:

1. All of the income to the church comes from laity or bivocational pastors.
2. The basic financial unit is the Nazarene layman.
3. Although we teach tithing, in truth all giving to the church is voluntary.
4. Unlike some other denominations, Nazarenes are encouraged to do their giving to their local church.
5. Each local church is responsible to pay its own expenses with a few exceptions:
a. We have determined that missions can be more effectively funded if we pool our resources. Most people who know about missions say that our system of supporting missionaries is as good as any denomination and much better than most.
b. Back in the 1970's we adopted a retirement plan for clergy. It is a plan that transfers significant funds from the larger churches to the smaller churches. This is a US plan only. As the church truly becomes international we will face the issue of why clergy in the U.S. get a retirement while clergy from outside don't. If it makes sense to require the laymen from large churches to pay for the retirement of pastors from small churches, why doesn't the same principle apply to require US churches to pay for the retirement of Nazarene pastors in Mexico or Africa?
c. Since the Denomination was founded we have believed that higher ecucation can best be done on a Regional basis; therefore, each local church is expected to support its Regional school.
d. Every local church pays to support district programs. The largest expense on most districts is the district superintendent. Most churche can get along fine without a ds most of the time, but often in times of crisis having a ds around is really important. Most districts also have programs for church planting and some have church camps.

Those who view the resources of the church from the top down (the way Catholics do) think the Nazarene system is very inefficient. What they overlook is that the way we do it raises more money per capita. The Church of the Nazarene is near the top in per capata giving. That is largely because we leave control of most of the finances at the local church level. It is a fact that people give more if they feel like they have control of where it is spent.

If I were a Nazarene Pastor who wanted to understand the financies of the Church of the Nazarene I would compare two models. First, I would make a pie chart showing where the dollar that a laymen in my own church goes. Then, I would make a pie chart showing where the dollar that a laymen in the largest church on the district goes.

You will find that in small church, more of the dollar is spent on "over head." In the large church, more of the dollar is spent on programs.

Anyway, if you have questions about why finances are like they are at the general level, I will be pleased to try to answer.

[Barb Bouldrey]

Some things that I considered about this situation:

1. What is the percentage of actual tithers in each church?
2. What is the highest percentage of an age group? On the average,it has been proven that those who are in their 50's and older are more regular at tithing than those younger than that.
3. Are there just a couple of "big money" givers in the one church?
4. If a church is in a building program the giving would reflect that for more than just one year...people would be committed to giving for several years.

Moody Gunter once told us at a District President's Gathering that it takes the giving of 14 young adults to equal the giving of one senior adult in most churches. And I know that is broad, general statement. But at that time...in 1994...he had pie charts showing the giving of different age groups.

Just looking at the giving in our District Journal and comparing the same size churches it is noticable that some churches have wealthier people in their congregations or a higher percentage of actual tithers...or both.

Barb

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Only a few people really understand the finances of our denomination. Because of the various boards and committees I serve on I get to hear the various view points. I won't guess about your perspective, but will try to give you a few clues about understanding the financial situation of our denomination.

I appreciate you not guessing about my perspective. As it is, I am a well-taken care of pastor with full health insurance, housing, and pay check. My questions here are not coming out of my own personal situation - they are not out of frustration at my own current situation. I do have some empathetic feelings, but they are from the past.

Here are a few facts to consider:

1. All of the income to the church comes from laity or bivocational pastors.
2. The basic financial unit is the Nazarene layman.
3. Although we teach tithing, in truth all giving to the church is voluntary.
4. Unlike some other denominations, Nazarenes are encouraged to do their giving to their local church.
5. Each local church is responsible to pay its own expenses with a few exceptions:
a. We have determined that missions can be more effectively funded if we pool our resources. Most people who know about missions say that our system of supporting missionaries is as good as any denomination and much better than most.
b. Back in the 1970's we adopted a retirement plan for clergy. It is a plan that transfers significant funds from the larger churches to the smaller churches. This is a US plan only. As the church truly becomes international we will face the issue of why clergy in the U.S. get a retirement while clergy from outside don't. If it makes sense to require the laymen from large churches to pay for the retirement of pastors from small churches, why doesn't the same principle apply to require US churches to pay for the retirement of Nazarene pastors in Mexico or Africa?
c. Since the Denomination was founded we have believed that higher ecucation can best be done on a Regional basis; therefore, each local church is expected to support its Regional school.
d. Every local church pays to support district programs. The largest expense on most districts is the district superintendent. Most churche can get along fine without a ds most of the time, but often in times of crisis having a ds around is really important. Most districts also have programs for church planting and some have church camps.
I know all of the above (though am slightly confused about what #1 means in relation to "bi-vocational pastors"...I don't think that you mean that non-bi-vocational pastors don't support the church, so I'm not sure what you mean).

I am a huge supporter of much of how the Nazarene finance system works. In my church, which tends to be more non-traditional than most, we do support Faith Promise because we have faith in the system that pays our missionaries.

Those who view the resources of the church from the top down (the way Catholics do) think the Nazarene system is very inefficient. What they overlook is that the way we do it raises more money per capita. The Church of the Nazarene is near the top in per capata giving. That is largely because we leave control of most of the finances at the local church level. It is a fact that people give more if they feel like they have control of where it is spent.

If I were a Nazarene Pastor who wanted to understand the financies of the Church of the Nazarene I would compare two models. First, I would make a pie chart showing where the dollar that a laymen in my own church goes. Then, I would make a pie chart showing where the dollar that a laymen in the largest church on the district goes.

You will find that in small church, more of the dollar is spent on "over head." In the large church, more of the dollar is spent on programs.

Yes, and it's here that I question things. The pastor struggling in rural (or urban) areas coupled with the knowledge of huge spending by bigger churches on things like inflatables and parties makes me feel guilty and question our stewardship. Perhaps using the term "general church" wasn't accurate. Rather, it is the differences between how our churches spend money, something that ultimately, I don't think could (or would really want) to be externally controlled.

I think that my main issue is health care for pastors and their families. I wonder how it could be that the church could get together for the local church pastor on health insurance. It would be a daunting task with various state and regional issues - I know. It just doesn't seem like good New Testament stewardship to have one church over here throwing seasonal parties costing into the $10,000s while a church elsewhere can't pay the $1000 a month for their pastor's family's health care.

I think I'd much rather see health care as an issue over P&B. But maybe that's pretty easy for a 26-year-old pastor to say than it would be for others. As it is, my family finds it very hard (impossible at the moment) to save for retirement because we're still paying for debt incurred mostly from health care costs in a previous assignment. Well more than half of my full-time after-housing paycheck went to pay for health insurance for my wife and I who were both young and in great health in an area of the country that has very low cost of living (and hence, low cost of health care).

[Dave McClung]

Jeremy said, "I know all of the above (though am slightly confused about what #1 means in relation to "bi-vocational pastors"...I don't think that you mean that non-bi-vocational pastors don't support the church, so I'm not sure what you mean).

I wasn't speaking at all about the amount of sacrifice made. I was discussing pure economics -- where do the dollars that run the church come from. Try to visualize it this way. A dollar that comes from outside the church is a "fresh dollar." A dollar that belongs to the church is a "church dollar." When a pastor gives, he or she is returning a church dollar. It doesn't bring any fresh dollars to the church.

Suppose that five pastors who make $35,000 each decided to start a new church. All of them agreed to keep their same salary but give it all back to the church. How much income would the church have? The answer is zero, because there would be no money to pay the salaries in the first place.

Consider another church that has two lay people and a pastor. Each of them make $35,000 a year and promise that for one year each of them will give their entire salary to the church. The church income would be $105,000, but the net income after paying the pastor would be $70,000. The amount the pastor gives is an equal sacrifice, but it doesn't increase the amount available for church ministry. In economic terms, it is a reduction of expense, not fresh dollars.

When a Bivocational pastor gives to the church, the dollars that come from the outside employment are "fresh dollars", not "chruch dollars."

When you look at the global ministry of the church, the "fresh dollars" are the only ones that increase the resources of the church.

[Dave McClung]

Jeremy said, "I think that my main issue is health care for pastors and their families. I wonder how it could be that the church could get together for the local church pastor on health insurance. It would be a daunting task with various state and regional issues - I know. It just doesn't seem like good New Testament stewardship to have one church over here throwing seasonal parties costing into the $10,000s while a church elsewhere can't pay the $1000 a month for their pastor's family's health care."

Rather than give you the answer, let me ask a question?

Would you propose that your system of having wealthy churches pay for the health insurance for the poor churches pastors stop at the U.S. border? If so, why?

If we are going to base our arguments on "New Testament stewardship", how can we have an entirely different standard for the U.S. than for other parts of the world?

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Would you propose that your system of having wealthy churches pay for the health insurance for the poor churches pastors stop at the U.S. border? If so, why?

If we are going to base our arguments on "New Testament stewardship", how can we have an entirely different standard for the U.S. than for other parts of the world?

Right.

And actually, one of the biggest problems, I think, would be providing health insurance in the United States. For many other countries, it wouldn't be nearly as big of a task - financially and pragmatically. In my very brief research, I've found that health insurance is far more expensive in the US than any other nation.

Our leaders in other countries are capable of figuring things out...it's just funds that they lack. There's this feeling within the US-Nazarenes that we can't give control to international leadership because "they wouldn't be able to do it without us."

I will unfortunately never forget the one delegate who stood up from one of the Oklahoma districts at General Assembly 2005 and said, "It's not that we don't want internationals to be in leadership positions. It's just that we want people who are qualified." They're qualified...they just need the funds. And I think if given them, they could provide health care better than we here in the US could even do.

The concern I thought of had nothing to do with US/non-US thinking. For me, a concern would be paying health insurance for people who just might not care any more at any given church situation. It might make it a lot "harder" to leave a church knowing that health care would cease. However, this concern does not outweigh my guilt that we aren't providing insurance for pastors who are working very hard in the church and outside of the church (and outside usually to supply needed income and often, health insurance). Without much effort, I can think of three great young pastors who have to work outside of the church to provide health care. It excites me to think of how much better their lives and perhaps ministries would be if they didn't have to do that.

When it comes down to it, I'm really not qualified or experienced enough to say much of the above (health insurance).

But theologically and biblically, the variance in care of our leaders is evident to me.

It was Martin Luther King, Jr. who said, "Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane."

[William Hunter]

I could be something so simple as one church having a cong. in which there is a significiant percentage of professional people and the other being made up of middle income and the working poor.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I would like to know the "average" for those size churches.

I would also wonder if a significant one-time gift was given to church #1 especially knowing they are going through a building program.

The building program alone could explain it. If church #1 was asked to give sacrificially for the program that year, then that may be the key difference.

Sara

Sometimes geographic dividing lines between socioeconomic classes are very distinct. As a result two churches within a few miles of each other could be totally different in financial and educational resources.

This is especially true for churches located near school district boundaries.

Some things that I considered about this situation:

1. What is the percentage of actual tithers in each church?
2. What is the highest percentage of an age group? On the average,it has been proven that those who are in their 50's and older are more regular at tithing than those younger than that.
3. Are there just a couple of "big money" givers in the one church?
4. If a church is in a building program the giving would reflect that for more than just one year...people would be committed to giving for several years.

Moody Gunter once told us at a District President's Gathering that it takes the giving of 14 young adults to equal the giving of one senior adult in most churches. And I know that is broad, general statement. But at that time...in 1994...he had pie charts showing the giving of different age groups.

Just looking at the giving in our District Journal and comparing the same size churches it is noticable that some churches have wealthier people in their congregations or a higher percentage of actual tithers...or both.

Barb

I could be something so simple as one church having a cong. in which there is a significiant percentage of professional people and the other being made up of middle income and the working poor.

I was looking less for "why" than I was "should it be?" in response to this situation. I know why, for the most part - I know the two churches and their situations.

Dave picked up on it - my "mind-blowing" wasn't the why's of the situation, but the discrepancy of the situation.

Is this the way it should be? If I knew that the two churches would get equal shares of the money, it wouldn't be as big of a deal. But as our finances work, the church with over $1 million gets the opportunity to use all of that money (minus budgets and overhead) and the church close to its size gets 1/5 of that amount.

Is that the way the Body works?

[Dave McClung]

When you sort through all of the issues (I encourage you to keep working on it), you will find that the only principle that will work for a world-wide church is for each local congregation to be fully responsible for its own expenses, including salary, benefits and retirement for its own pastor and staff.

One reason large churches seem to have so much money is because they spend a larger protion of their income on programs that beneft their own members. It is a fact that churches with healthy children and teen programs tend to bring in more money. If we were to require those churches to cut back on their programs to support the basic overhead of other churches, their income would drop.

[Hans Deventer]

b. Back in the 1970's we adopted a retirement plan for clergy. It is a plan that transfers significant funds from the larger churches to the smaller churches. This is a US plan only. As the church truly becomes international we will face the issue of why clergy in the U.S. get a retirement while clergy from outside don't. If it makes sense to require the laymen from large churches to pay for the retirement of pastors from small churches, why doesn't the same principle apply to require US churches to pay for the retirement of Nazarene pastors in Mexico or Africa?

Retirement plans are usually dealt with at a national level. Don't worry, our clergy does get retirement. A lot of money has been spent on it.

It seems to me to be an issue dealt with at the national level best anyway. Obviously, a Nazarene pastor from the US would not be so happy with the retirement an African pastor would need.

[Hans Deventer]

If we are going to base our arguments on "New Testament stewardship", how can we have an entirely different standard for the U.S. than for other parts of the world?

Because the cost of living is incomparable.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Jeremy,

To your original observation, this doesn't speak, especially. Several years ago, on a district different than the one you have cited, I observed that one of the fastest growing and large churches was raising way less than other similar sized churches on that district. While it was clear that there was significant socioeconomic differences, the gap seemed disproportionately out of whack. The pastor was a man I respected and with whom I had a pretty good relationship, so I asked him about the lower per capita giving. He said, "Well, I don't report all the money that comes in. For instance, if a person gives us money to pay for a new piano, I would consider that a gift, and not income to the church. If I reported everything that we get, our budgets would go way too high." That pastor was at that time on the district advisory board, a college trustee, and a member of the General Board. He is dead now.

My opinion is that he was wrong. I have no reason to suspect that the scenario you cited is similar. This example is just an outlandish example of so-called "creative reporting" gone bad. In this case, however, it helped explain some of the descrepancy.

[Sara Sheppard]

You were wanting to know should it be? Well, I don't in the grand scheme believe in the "robin hood" principle of taking from one to give to another. Although, I do think there are instances for health insurance or to make sure children are fed and educated that this principle is more vaible than other.

Its possible that this discrepancy is simply economics. One church has wealthier people and therefore has more income. Or, its possible that one church is more purposeful than others in their outreach. I have been in churches with leadership that has no real vision or passion to reach outside the church. In those cases, I've usually tithed and given to missions but not much else. I've been in other churches where pastors have laid out clear visions about ministry and plans/dreams/opportunities for our church. In those cases, I've felt compelled and happy to give well over and above my tithe because I knew that the church was actively reaching out.

Which comes first, the vision that enlivens the congregation to give more. Or the money which helps define the vision?

Let's say that it is this second scenario...where one church has a broader vision and the people are sacrificially giving to meet the ministry needs of that vision while the other church taking in less money has no clear vision. (I am making this up that this is the case please understand I have NO clue the real reason for the two churches you presented). But, if this is the case, would it be appropriate to take money from the "more giving" church that has vision and active ministry to move it to a "less giving" church with no vision?
I don't think in this case, the robin hood principal would be a good use of the money.

I don't know if this made sense at all. LOL

Sara

[Jeremy D. Scott]

You were wanting to know should it be? Well, I don't in the grand scheme believe in the "robin hood" principle of taking from one to give to another. Although, I do think there are instances for health insurance or to make sure children are fed and educated that this principle is more vaible than other.

Its possible that this discrepancy is simply economics. One church has wealthier people and therefore has more income. Or, its possible that one church is more purposeful than others in their outreach. I have been in churches with leadership that has no real vision or passion to reach outside the church. In those cases, I've usually tithed and given to missions but not much else. I've been in other churches where pastors have laid out clear visions about ministry and plans/dreams/opportunities for our church. In those cases, I've felt compelled and happy to give well over and above my tithe because I knew that the church was actively reaching out.

Which comes first, the vision that enlivens the congregation to give more. Or the money which helps define the vision?

Let's say that it is this second scenario...where one church has a broader vision and the people are sacrificially giving to meet the ministry needs of that vision while the other church taking in less money has no clear vision. (I am making this up that this is the case please understand I have NO clue the real reason for the two churches you presented). But, if this is the case, would it be appropriate to take money from the "more giving" church that has vision and active ministry to move it to a "less giving" church with no vision?
I don't think in this case, the robin hood principal would be a good use of the money.

I don't know if this made sense at all. LOL

Sara

Yes, it made sense.

But "Robin Hood" would be an inaccurate way to say what I'm thinking. Robin Hood took from those who didn't want it to happen. I want churches to want to help other churches.

I know you were speaking hypothetically, but I guarantee you that both churches are churches with strong vision and solid leadership. I'd even say that the second church listed has a greater ministry/impact on the surrounding community (but really shouldn't because the first church is a great church with great ministries). Remember, both churches are growing churches.

I'm sure that there is "need" for more funds at the second church, meaning, that if they had the money to use, it would be well-spent. The New Testament characteristic that I keep going back to is "giving to those according to their need." So I understand and resonate with your concern that money not be wasted where it's not needed or well-used (I somewhat addressed this in one of my responses to Dave - click here (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?p=62917#poststop)).

Thanks for responding. :fav18

I really wish I could just list the churches because both of them would probably be known around here. But I don't want to imply that the first church is not doing what they're "supposed to." It's just an example of a larger issue that I often think about.

[Dave McClung]

Yes, it made sense.

But "Robin Hood" would be an inaccurate way to say what I'm thinking. Robin Hood took from those who didn't want it to happen. I want churches to want to help other churches.

I know you were speaking hypothetically, but I guarantee you that both churches are churches with strong vision and solid leadership. I'd even say that the second church listed has a greater ministry/impact on the surrounding community (but really shouldn't because the first church is a great church with great ministries). Remember, both churches are growing churches.

I'm sure that there is "need" for more funds at the second church, meaning, that if they had the money to use, it would be well-spent. The New Testament characteristic that I keep going back to is "giving to those according to their need." So I understand and resonate with your concern that money not be wasted where it's not needed or well-used (I somewhat addressed this in one of my responses to Dave - click here (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?p=62917#poststop)).

Thanks for responding. :fav18

I really wish I could just list the churches because both of them would probably be known around here. But I don't want to imply that the first church is not doing what they're "supposed to." It's just an example of a larger issue that I often think about.

Jeremy
The questions you have raised are not easy to answer, even on a personal level. When Linda and I visited Africa, I spoke in a Nazarene Church that has approximately the same number of people attending as my home church in Gig Harbor. Our church raises about 1000 times the money that the church in Africa raises. I have really struggled with how much I should give to help that church in Africa.

At some level of giving, the church that receives the gifts ceases to be "their" church. It would not require a big sacrifice on our part to make a big difference there. But, if we aren't wise in our giving we can cause a self-sufficient church to become a dependent church. Experience has shown that a local church that becomes dependent on outside sources of revenue ceases to be effective. We have tried to help them in ways that don't relieve the congregation from doing what they can do.

To truly understand church finance, one has to start with God's financial plan. God owns all of the resources, but he has chosen to use a system of stewardship. Church finances depend on individuals who acknowledge that the resources they control are theirs only in their role as stewards. God is entitled to call on those resources at any time. When individuals within the church are obedient, church finances fall in place.

In my opinion, every Christian faces at least one time in their life when God tests them on the issue of Stewardship. In most cases the test isn't as dramatic as the "Rich Young Ruler", but it often requires a change in life style.

Often the differences in per capita giving indicate a difference in the willingness of the pastor to challenge the congregation on the issue of stewardship. When Jim Diehl was pastor of Denver First the board asked him to preach on tithing and stewardship. When he did a series on stewardship, the church finances improved dramatically. I have frequently been quoted as saying, "Per capata giving isn't a financial issue, it is a spiritual issue."

[Barb Bouldrey]

"Is this the way it should be? If I knew that the two churches would get equal shares of the money, it wouldn't be as big of a deal. But as our finances work, the church with over $1 million gets the opportunity to use all of that money (minus budgets and overhead) and the church close to its size gets 1/5 of that amount. "

Jeremy,

You lost me on that one. There is no way to regulate the income of the churches and say that if a church of 500 has a greater income than another church of 500, the first church has to share. That does not make sense.

One of the things I have learned working on the district level for 15 years is that small churches think large churches have lots of money and no financial worries so they should share their wealth with the smaller churches.

Then, I see the attitude from some of the larger churches that small churches have smaller bills so what are they griping about?

I do not see these attitudes a lot, but they do pop up from time to time.

People in one church do not understand the needs of other churches. Each church has their own financial stress and needs.

Another thing that I see on my district is that every year I have some churches call me who have paid their World Evangelism Fund in full and would like to help a smaller church pay their WEF. It is always a blessing to me to see that happen.

We have a church on our district that grew so fast as a new start because the community grew up with it. The blossomed from 30 to 400 in just a few years with very little effort as far as outreach. Their property is awesome, but so is their debt.

This pastor has called me several years in a row to talk to me about their financial situation. He always assures me that he is doing his best to meet his WEF assignment. When I see his WEF budget I am astounded! It is more than our churches raises all year! Yet, this pastor works hard to meet this.

I say that to let you know that looking from the outside it appears that this church "has it made" financially. But when you get to know the real financial picture of that church, you see a church that struggles constantly to meet needs.

I think most pastors, including the pastor of church NO. 1 would laugh at your phrase, "gets the opportunity to use all that money." There are very few churches that have excess money in the bank to play with.

Barb

[Gary Swartzlander]

When you sort through all of the issues (I encourage you to keep working on it), you will find that the only principle that will work for a world-wide church is for each local congregation to be fully responsible for its own expenses, including salary, benefits and retirement for its own pastor and staff.

One reason large churches seem to have so much money is because they spend a larger protion of their income on programs that beneft their own members. It is a fact that churches with healthy children and teen programs tend to bring in more money. If we were to require those churches to cut back on their programs to support the basic overhead of other churches, their income would drop.




Not only would income drop but attendance would begin to drop as well.

[Gary Swartzlander]

Regarding larger churches helping to pay for insurance for other churches, in some respects (though not exactly) as a larger church we do. The whole issue is really a double edged sword.

We participate in the district health plan. As a church with a large staff, we pay huge amount in health care premiums. Participating in the district plan costs us much more than to insure independently because the district plan covers retired pastors, widows of pastors, which under normal circumstances are not part of an average group plan. This raises the premiums for all trememdously. These increased premiums then are part of what makes it so expensive for churches with smaller budgets to be able to carry coverage.

We have to ability to insure as our own group due to the size of our staff, due to the average age of our staff being young (in relative terms) we could save a large amount of money by doing so. Our district office has told us that they understand if we would choose to do that, but being the largest contibutor to the district plan we would negatively impact the premiums for the rest of the churches. If we choose to self insure to be able to put another $15,000 or so into other areas, like our Olivet budgets or WEF is it a bad thing? We don't know and we spend time discussing it.

[Sara Sheppard]

I think there is a way for larger churches to help without "giving away money" so to speak.

I grew up on a rather rural zone with mostly small churches (less than 150). However, there were a couple of larger churches. Now, I live in a large city with many large Nazarene churches but some smaller ones.

Next month, our choir is joining with one of the smaller church choirs to present the Christmas musical to both churches. Our church is also hosting a home missions Christmas dinner next week where we are "sponsoring" a small new start church to join us for dinner. We have taken offerings to purchase gifts for that pastor and some needs at the church.

When I was growing up, having 2 revivals for the small churches was often a heavy financial burden. One of the larger churches had a "mid winter heartwarming" and invited many of the smaller churches to attend. It was a great opportunity to hear "big name evangelist" that we would not have been able to afford and to worship with other Nazarenes.

I think it starts will little things of finding small ways to help. And from there, as relationships develop we can find even more ways to cheerfully give to others.

Sara

[Sara Sheppard]

I have a question, which I'm sure people FAR smarter than myself have already thought of and come up with a large number of reasons why it can't work. ha ha

Is there anyway for churches to "piggy back" off of the regional college insurance. I assume all of our colleges have insurance due to the number of people employeed. Is there anyway for churches in those regions to be able to join that group plan? It may not be legal or maybe just not "doable"...I don't have much information on insurance laws. But, its a thought. LOL

Sara

[Gary Swartzlander]

I have a question, which I'm sure people FAR smarter than myself have already thought of and come up with a large number of reasons why it can't work. ha ha

Is there anyway for churches to "piggy back" off of the regional college insurance. I assume all of our colleges have insurance due to the number of people employeed. Is there anyway for churches in those regions to be able to join that group plan? It may not be legal or maybe just not "doable"...I don't have much information on insurance laws. But, its a thought. LOL

Sara

The initial problem I see with that would be state regulations. In order for someone to be part of a group policy they have to be an employee of the institution. I'm not aware of anyway around that. Since we are in Michigan we are bound by Michigan regulations and not Illinois were Olivet is located.

[William Hunter]

Our dist. is on a plan that apparently has 11 or more districts involved, yet the premiums for for me and Virginia, and then our youth pastor and his family totaled about $4000.00 per month. We were forced to seek other avenures of insurance for the financial health of our church. We now each have a health savings account which is working really well and has saved our church over $2,600.00 per month. We still have dental, vision and life insurance, also. Our experience with health savings accounts is that they are wonderful. We do not pay taxes on the premium or savings that is added to our salaries and then is banked in a bank that handles health savings accounts. All that is deductable from your income tax.

It is interesting from the political side that the dems fussed and stewed at Bush's push for this plan, but it is working so well that now a few dems who are not just into obstructism by complaining about everything but not voicing any kind of option, are now actually looking at this type of plan assisting in medicare health issues. My youth pastor and wife say it is the best plan they have ever had, even the one offered to them by the military before he was discharged.

Health care costs, even with so many districts supposedly involved, drove us our of the system. It came to making some really hard choices about the financial health of our cong. and we finally sought another way than a district plan.




Regarding larger churches helping to pay for insurance for other churches, in some respects (though not exactly) as a larger church we do. The whole issue is really a double edged sword.

We participate in the district health plan. As a church with a large staff, we pay huge amount in health care premiums. Participating in the district plan costs us much more than to insure independently because the district plan covers retired pastors, widows of pastors, which under normal circumstances are not part of an average group plan. This raises the premiums for all trememdously. These increased premiums then are part of what makes it so expensive for churches with smaller budgets to be able to carry coverage.

We have to ability to insure as our own group due to the size of our staff, due to the average age of our staff being young (in relative terms) we could save a large amount of money by doing so. Our district office has told us that they understand if we would choose to do that, but being the largest contibutor to the district plan we would negatively impact the premiums for the rest of the churches. If we choose to self insure to be able to put another $15,000 or so into other areas, like our Olivet budgets or WEF is it a bad thing? We don't know and we spend time discussing it.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Regarding larger churches helping to pay for insurance for other churches, in some respects (though not exactly) as a larger church we do. The whole issue is really a double edged sword.

We participate in the district health plan. As a church with a large staff, we pay huge amount in health care premiums. Participating in the district plan costs us much more than to insure independently because the district plan covers retired pastors, widows of pastors, which under normal circumstances are not part of an average group plan. This raises the premiums for all trememdously. These increased premiums then are part of what makes it so expensive for churches with smaller budgets to be able to carry coverage.

We have to ability to insure as our own group due to the size of our staff, due to the average age of our staff being young (in relative terms) we could save a large amount of money by doing so. Our district office has told us that they understand if we would choose to do that, but being the largest contibutor to the district plan we would negatively impact the premiums for the rest of the churches. If we choose to self insure to be able to put another $15,000 or so into other areas, like our Olivet budgets or WEF is it a bad thing? We don't know and we spend time discussing it.

Gary,

That's just one example among many of benefits of association with a denomination. Most often this kind of thing isn't even thought about, let alone mentioned. It's been my privilege to pastor supporting churches and some that haven't always been able to carry their "fair share." Some churches are able to host district assembly, and others are in another stage of development. Sometimes the relationship between them is great. I celebrate churches with attitudes like your church has.

In another setting, when we were planting a new church, our new start was nearly equidistant from two other Nazarene churches, both fairly significant in size and finances. One church contributed members to the new start, and every week made sure they had people there in every service, often providing special music. The other church, in eight years through three different pastoral teams, didn't send a single visitor or penny of support, even though about a fifth of their members drove by the new start location every week on their way to church. The only exception was that the district superintendent was a member of the second church, and he came to visit once near the beginning, and at organization. During that time, I made sure that our people attended their special services, and Linda and I attended there at least twice a year. When I once brought it up in conversation with the pastor, his response was, "I guess our people are just pretty satisfied with what they get here."

I had a little difficulty in being merely disappointed. While I may not be the most entertaining preacher in the movement, surely someone could have come and endured once or twice. Don't misunderstand - the new church was for new people, not transplants from other churches. It just would have been encouraging to know that they at least cared. Actually, I guess they did communicate their feelings. You would figure out that the first church I mentioned went way out in building bridges of friendship. Parenthetically, the first church has in their nearly 100 years of existence mothered over a dozen daughter congregations, including the second church - almost sixty years ago. The second church has never given birth. But by most appearances, she is the successful church.

And Gary, this is the same church I mentioned to you in another thread last week. They just can't seem to break out.

Fortunately, the Lord is doing amazing things here and there, and we have reason to rejoice. Your church is one of those reasons. May your tribe increase. (I meant to say that before. :basic03 )

[Dave McClung]

I have a question, which I'm sure people FAR smarter than myself have already thought of and come up with a large number of reasons why it can't work. ha ha

Is there anyway for churches to "piggy back" off of the regional college insurance. I assume all of our colleges have insurance due to the number of people employeed. Is there anyway for churches in those regions to be able to join that group plan? It may not be legal or maybe just not "doable"...I don't have much information on insurance laws. But, its a thought. LOL

Sara

Sara

It is a good idea, but it won't work. There are a number of different factors, but the key factor is "adverse selection." For a school, all employees are covered, so the pool includes both healthy and unhealthy individuals.

For all of the district plans, the coverage is optional. The district doesn't have the power to require every church to participate. Those who can get cheaper coverage do so. This results in the insured pool including only those who can't get other coverage or those who choose to stay in the pool for the purpose of helping the pool. But, one thing for sure, the pool will include all of the unhealthy folks. A few years ago, when the general church did a survey, we found that a significant number of pastor's wives work for health coverage. This means that many of the younger, healthier pastors have coverage through a spouse's employer; therefore, they don't participate in the district plan.

The reason that company health plans are working and church health plans aren't is the issue of mandatory participation. When everyone in the group has to participate in the plan, premiums are lower than when participation is optional. That is why districts can't join the college group plan.

I hope this explaination helps.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

"Is this the way it should be? If I knew that the two churches would get equal shares of the money, it wouldn't be as big of a deal. But as our finances work, the church with over $1 million gets the opportunity to use all of that money (minus budgets and overhead) and the church close to its size gets 1/5 of that amount. "

Jeremy,

You lost me on that one. There is no way to regulate the income of the churches and say that if a church of 500 has a greater income than another church of 500, the first church has to share. That does not make sense.

One of the things I have learned working on the district level for 15 years is that small churches think large churches have lots of money and no financial worries so they should share their wealth with the smaller churches.

Then, I see the attitude from some of the larger churches that small churches have smaller bills so what are they griping about?

I do not see these attitudes a lot, but they do pop up from time to time.

People in one church do not understand the needs of other churches. Each church has their own financial stress and needs.

Another thing that I see on my district is that every year I have some churches call me who have paid their World Evangelism Fund in full and would like to help a smaller church pay their WEF. It is always a blessing to me to see that happen.

We have a church on our district that grew so fast as a new start because the community grew up with it. The blossomed from 30 to 400 in just a few years with very little effort as far as outreach. Their property is awesome, but so is their debt.

This pastor has called me several years in a row to talk to me about their financial situation. He always assures me that he is doing his best to meet his WEF assignment. When I see his WEF budget I am astounded! It is more than our churches raises all year! Yet, this pastor works hard to meet this.

I say that to let you know that looking from the outside it appears that this church "has it made" financially. But when you get to know the real financial picture of that church, you see a church that struggles constantly to meet needs.

I think most pastors, including the pastor of church NO. 1 would laugh at your phrase, "gets the opportunity to use all that money." There are very few churches that have excess money in the bank to play with.

Barb

Regarding larger churches helping to pay for insurance for other churches, in some respects (though not exactly) as a larger church we do. The whole issue is really a double edged sword.

We participate in the district health plan. As a church with a large staff, we pay huge amount in health care premiums. Participating in the district plan costs us much more than to insure independently because the district plan covers retired pastors, widows of pastors, which under normal circumstances are not part of an average group plan. This raises the premiums for all trememdously. These increased premiums then are part of what makes it so expensive for churches with smaller budgets to be able to carry coverage.

We have to ability to insure as our own group due to the size of our staff, due to the average age of our staff being young (in relative terms) we could save a large amount of money by doing so. Our district office has told us that they understand if we would choose to do that, but being the largest contibutor to the district plan we would negatively impact the premiums for the rest of the churches. If we choose to self insure to be able to put another $15,000 or so into other areas, like our Olivet budgets or WEF is it a bad thing? We don't know and we spend time discussing it.

Gary,

That's just one example among many of benefits of association with a denomination. Most often this kind of thing isn't even thought about, let alone mentioned. It's been my privilege to pastor supporting churches and some that haven't always been able to carry their "fair share." Some churches are able to host district assembly, and others are in another stage of development. Sometimes the relationship between them is great. I celebrate churches with attitudes like your church has.

In another setting, when we were planting a new church, our new start was nearly equidistant from two other Nazarene churches, both fairly significant in size and finances. One church contributed members to the new start, and every week made sure they had people there in every service, often providing special music. The other church, in eight years through three different pastoral teams, didn't send a single visitor or penny of support, even though about a fifth of their members drove by the new start location every week on their way to church. The only exception was that the district superintendent was a member of the second church, and he came to visit once near the beginning, and at organization. During that time, I made sure that our people attended their special services, and Linda and I attended there at least twice a year. When I once brought it up in conversation with the pastor, his response was, "I guess our people are just pretty satisfied with what they get here."

I had a little difficulty in being merely disappointed. While I may not be the most entertaining preacher in the movement, surely someone could have come and endured once or twice. Don't misunderstand - the new church was for new people, not transplants from other churches. It just would have been encouraging to know that they at least cared. Actually, I guess they did communicate their feelings. You would figure out that the first church I mentioned went way out in building bridges of friendship. Parenthetically, the first church has in their nearly 100 years of existence mothered over a dozen daughter congregations, including the second church - almost sixty years ago. The second church has never given birth. But by most appearances, she is the successful church.

And Gary, this is the same church I mentioned to you in another thread last week. They just can't seem to break out.

Fortunately, the Lord is doing amazing things here and there, and we have reason to rejoice. Your church is one of those reasons. May your tribe increase. (I meant to say that before. :basic03 )

I think there is a way for larger churches to help without "giving away money" so to speak.

I grew up on a rather rural zone with mostly small churches (less than 150). However, there were a couple of larger churches. Now, I live in a large city with many large Nazarene churches but some smaller ones.

Next month, our choir is joining with one of the smaller church choirs to present the Christmas musical to both churches. Our church is also hosting a home missions Christmas dinner next week where we are "sponsoring" a small new start church to join us for dinner. We have taken offerings to purchase gifts for that pastor and some needs at the church.

When I was growing up, having 2 revivals for the small churches was often a heavy financial burden. One of the larger churches had a "mid winter heartwarming" and invited many of the smaller churches to attend. It was a great opportunity to hear "big name evangelist" that we would not have been able to afford and to worship with other Nazarenes.

I think it starts will little things of finding small ways to help. And from there, as relationships develop we can find even more ways to cheerfully give to others.

Sara

I was hoping that this wouldn't turn into "big guy helping little guy." I was very intentional in the two examples I selected - two growing churches with a couple of hundred people that are less than five miles from one another. The variance is not in worship attendance - it is a huge difference in finances. Billy pointed out correctly (and then William too) that the difference is socioeconomics. And we, as the Church of the Nazarene, are okay with this? "It's the way it has to be?"-kind of thinking?

(Barb, there are points of yours I want to respond to, but just can't right now...perhaps later. Thanks for responding.)

[Sara Sheppard]

Sara

It is a good idea, but it won't work. There are a number of different factors, but the key factor is "adverse selection." For a school, all employees are covered, so the pool includes both healthy and unhealthy individuals.

For all of the district plans, the coverage is optional. The district doesn't have the power to require every church to participate. Those who can get cheaper coverage do so. This results in the insured pool including only those who can't get other coverage or those who choose to stay in the pool for the purpose of helping the pool. But, one thing for sure, the pool will include all of the unhealthy folks. A few years ago, when the general church did a survey, we found that a significant number of pastor's wives work for health coverage. This means that many of the younger, healthier pastors have coverage through a spouse's employer; therefore, they don't participate in the district plan.

The reason that company health plans are working and church health plans aren't is the issue of mandatory participation. When everyone in the group has to participate in the plan, premiums are lower than when participation is optional. That is why districts can't join the college group plan.

I hope this explaination helps.


Hi Dave,

Thank you for the explanation, but I don't really see the difference. For instance, I am offered health insurance through my organization, but I am not required to accept it. If I have a spouse who has something else, I just turn down the insurance here or if I can find something else better then I turn this down. So, I don't see how a company has required participation anymore than any other organization. I think the key difference is that on a church district it is vastly fewer numbers that remain who elect to take the insurance than in a large organization like mine. So, I "get" it but I still differ with the idea of mandatory participation.

What I do see is, that if a young pastor and his wife have made a decision that his wife is going to remain home with their children, they might have a harder time getting a church to pastor than one where the wife is working outside the home and therefore supporting the family by way of insurance. That really should not have a baring on rather or not a pastor is selected but I could see how it could.

Sara

[Sara Sheppard]

I was hoping that this wouldn't turn into "big guy helping little guy." I was very intentional in the two examples I selected - two growing churches with a couple of hundred people that are less than five miles from one another. The variance is not in worship attendance - it is a huge difference in finances. Billy pointed out correctly (and then William too) that the difference is socioeconomics. And we, as the Church of the Nazarene, are okay with this? "It's the way it has to be?"-kind of thinking?

(Barb, there are points of yours I want to respond to, but just can't right now...perhaps later. Thanks for responding.)

I get your point Jeremy about the "big versus little". It could just as easily be said of "higher income vs. lower income" or "suburban vs. inner city". My immediate examples tend to be large vs. small but that isn't necessarily always the case as your example pointed out.

Sara

[Scott Daniels]

The current issue of The Christian Century is not updated online yet or I would post the link - but the cover article of the Nov. 28 edition is on "supersized" churches. It is interesting. It makes the argument that a major factor in the increase of large churches since 1970 (for example, the article points out that 12% of Nazarenes in the US today worship in 1% of the churches) is due to the cost of ministry.

Giving has steadily increased in all churches since 1970 but at a much slower rate than the rising cost of salaries, buildings, and other costs of "doing ministry." Thus, it is increasingly difficult for small churches to maintain depth and breadth of ministry because of rising costs.

Interesting argument - just FYI.

[Sara Sheppard]

Scott,

I think your comment about this article speaks to the fact that we need to consider consolidating many small churches that sit in close proximity to each other. The use of resources is often wasted by paying basic overhead costs over and over again in tiny churches that sit 10-15 miles apart or less. When the better stewardship of that money MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT be to combine churches.

I realize this is HIGHLY political and many toes will get stepped on and heaven forbid a DS might have "fewer" churches but I believe in general (not a blanket always statement) we would have more effective ministry when the money and people resources are combined.

In years past when transportation was more difficult, traveling 10-15 miles to church would not have happened...now we travel that far in the blink of an eye. I think our denomination needs to take a good hard look at this.

Sara

[Barb Bouldrey]

Hi Jeremy

I did not see anywhere where you were comparing small and large. I just used the examples I did to show you "attitudes" churches have toward each other.

I wanted to point out that almost all churches have their own financial struggles and very few are financially secure enough to take on another church's financial burdens.

I can see no plan that would be reasonable that would force churches with greater incomes and/or fewer expenses to have to help another church.

Sikeston First has no debt at all. We have a high percent of faithful tithers so we have a bank balance that is very nice. 4 years ago we hired our first youth associate to use our abundance for ministry even though we were only averaging 100. We had the privilege of using our abundance any way we desired and felt it was best to use it for ministry....to help build the kingdom through our own church.

What you are suggesting would be that instead of hiring staff we could have paid for the health insurance of the pastor's family in the other Sikeston church? I guess we could have done that. But I believe every church wants to be independent. I do not think it is wise to have any church of any size become dependent on other churches to meet their financial needs.

My husband has pastored 6 small churches. Believe me, I know about financial struggles. I also know about wishing someone could help us out at times.

Even though we are part of a denomination and part of a district, we are also independent churches that run independent budgets to meet the local needs.

Barb

[Dave McClung]

Scott,

I think your comment about this article speaks to the fact that we need to consider consolidating many small churches that sit in close proximity to each other. The use of resources is often wasted by paying basic overhead costs over and over again in tiny churches that sit 10-15 miles apart or less. When the better stewardship of that money MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT be to combine churches.

I realize this is HIGHLY political and many toes will get stepped on and heaven forbid a DS might have "fewer" churches but I believe in general (not a blanket always statement) we would have more effective ministry when the money and people resources are combined.

In years past when transportation was more difficult, traveling 10-15 miles to church would not have happened...now we travel that far in the blink of an eye. I think our denomination needs to take a good hard look at this.

Sara

The only problem I have with your statement is the "we." Every local church is an entity. No one has authority to combine churches except the churches themselves.

People who think about the church as if it were a corporation miss an important distinction. Local Churches aren't under the control or authority of the General Church. The General Church exists only to assist local congregations in doing what they can't do effectively by themselves.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Jeremy,

I can't tell whether or not you understood my point about two similar sized churches with very different attitudes about helping others in the Kingdom.

[Sara Sheppard]

The only problem I have with your statement is the "we." Every local church is an entity. No one has authority to combine churches except the churches themselves.

People who think about the church as if it were a corporation miss an important distinction. Local Churches aren't under the control or authority of the General Church. The General Church exists only to assist local congregations in doing what they can't do effectively by themselves.

Dave,

Your point is well taken and very true....well then maybe I should say "we" local churches as opposed to "we" the general church. In this way, it would be a difficult and sacrificial group of people who would humbly join another congregation for the greater betterment of the kingdom. :)

I do often think in terms of an "organizational/top down" structure and that doesn't fit the church. Thanks for making that point Dave.

Sara

[Sara Sheppard]

I would ask this in reference to the General Church exists to assist local congregations.

If we have a church sitting in a relatively small area in close proximity to another church. This first church is struggling financially and can't see to get or keep a pastor. Does the "general churches" assistance ever come in the form of suggesting that this church should consider the consolidation process? Are D.S.'s willing to advice and assist the local church with this process.

Trust me, I realize this is VERY HARD to do. People are so tied to building and shall I say it "power" within their local congregation that giving it up is hard.

sara

[Dave McClung]

Dave,

I do often think in terms of an "organizational/top down" structure and that doesn't fit the church. Thanks for making that point Dave.

Sara

Let me share a true story. Almost 20 years ago, we moved to Houston, TX. We moved to an area where there was already a Nazarene Church; however, it was a church that had a limited view of its role in the community. After Linda and I visited the church, the pastor came to our home. He told us, "You won't fit in our church." Unfortunately, he was right.

The Lord gave us a vision of planting a church in our own neighborhood, but we were only seven miles from the other church. The Houston District Advisory Board had a rule that no one could plant a Nazarene Church within 8 miles of another! There rationale was just what you described in your post. It isn't "efficient" to have to Nazarene congregations close to each other.

I persuaded the DAB to make an exception. The church we planted is now one of the strongest on the West Texas District. Last year, the other congregation voted to merge with the one we planted.

My point is that decisions to combine congregations or to have more than one congregation in an area are best made by the members themselves.

[Sara Sheppard]

Your example is a great one Dave. And I am not at all suggesting that congregations should be combined just because they are close to another. It would certainly have to be a well prayed over and well assessed situation as well as well planned for it to work.

I am speaking more to combining churches which appear to both be struggling in some fashion. Forcing churches to combine would most likely never work and would not be wise. I'm thinking more in terms of churches struggling to make it and having a difficult time keeping pastors, etc. From a purely business/marketing standpoint. I am thinking if there are lots of McDonald's in my small town and none of them appear to ever be very busy and they can't keep employees to cook and clean in an efficient manner and they don't have resources to update their building...then as an "outsider", I am not likely to go there. But, if this small town decides to close a couple and "pool" resources so that they have a building that functions well, enough people to serve customers, and more people eating there on a regular basis making...then I am likely to be more "drawn" to this location.

Again, I realize I am applying a business model to a church and this can't always be done.

I think you and I both realize what the other is saying. I think there are great points on both sides. Its just a matter for some churches to potentially look at.

I'm also thinking more in terms of small towns that have multiple churches more than I am of large cities where a greater number of people to reach live in smaller areas.

Sara

[Dave McClung]

I want to make one more point, then I will let this topic rest for a while.

My point is that one can't rely on financial statements to determine the financial strength of a church. Financial statements are based on the church's resources as if it had to survive on its own resources (like a corporation) and does not take into account the personal resources of the members. In practice, a church is more like a partnership than a corporation.

For most Nazarene churches the members will stand behind the obligations of the church even if it requires significant personal sacrifice. As long as the supporting members have resources the church will survive.

My point is simply that one can't know the true financial strength of a church without knowing the members.

[Joyce Miller]

1. All of the income to the church comes from laity or bivocational pastors.
I realize this post is a few days old. I wanted to say that it sounds like Dave has explored church giving and is knowledgable. I do have a point about semantics in regards to point #1. When considering giving, in which category does the pastor's spouse belong? As a pastor's wife, I feel that I am neither laity or pastor. But does the church consider me as lay person?

[Billy Cox]

1. All of the income to the church comes from laity or bivocational pastors.
I realize this post is a few days old. I wanted to say that it sounds like Dave has explored church giving and is knowledgable. I do have a point about semantics in regards to point #1. When considering giving, in which category does the pastor's spouse belong? As a pastor's wife, I feel that I am neither laity or pastor. But does the church consider me as lay person?

I think Dave was making the point that money given by a pastor from his/her church salary is (for giving purposes) in-out money; it does not represent a net gain in the church finances.

It was not about a distinction between lay and clergy giving. If a pastor's spouse has income not coming from the church, then it would be considered in the same way as layperson income or a bivocational pastor's non-church income.

[Billy Cox]

1. All of the income to the church comes from laity or bivocational pastors.
I realize this post is a few days old. I wanted to say that it sounds like Dave has explored church giving and is knowledgable. I do have a point about semantics in regards to point #1. When considering giving, in which category does the pastor's spouse belong? As a pastor's wife, I feel that I am neither laity or pastor. But does the church consider me as lay person?


In terms of obligations under church polity, the pastor's spouse might as well be clergy.

I am a layperson. If my pastor were to leave for whatever reason, it would have no bearing on whether I stay or go.

In contrast, if the pastor resigned and I was the pastor's spouse, I would be leaving for sure...whether I wanted to or not. If I were paid pastoral staff or married to paid staff, there is a high likelihood that I would be leaving sooner or later if the senior pastor were to leave.

From my distanced point of view, I think that smart pastoral spouses accept that they are effectively clergy and they embrace it even if it is with some fear and trembling.

[Dave McClung]

1. All of the income to the church comes from laity or bivocational pastors.
I realize this post is a few days old. I wanted to say that it sounds like Dave has explored church giving and is knowledgable. I do have a point about semantics in regards to point #1. When considering giving, in which category does the pastor's spouse belong? As a pastor's wife, I feel that I am neither laity or pastor. But does the church consider me as lay person?

Billy is correct. Giving dollars that come from outside the church are "fresh dollars" no matter who gives them. Such giving adds to the resources of the church.

It is a reality that many, many Nazarene pastors could not continue to serve if their spouses didn't work. I wish it weren't necessary, but it seems to be.

And to answer your question directly, the spouse of a member of the clergy is a lay person. We appreciate what you do.

[Dennis M. Scott]

1. All of the income to the church comes from laity or bivocational pastors.
I realize this post is a few days old. I wanted to say that it sounds like Dave has explored church giving and is knowledgable. I do have a point about semantics in regards to point #1. When considering giving, in which category does the pastor's spouse belong? As a pastor's wife, I feel that I am neither laity or pastor. But does the church consider me as lay person?

Pastors' spouses are the most praiseworthy of all church people - male or female. Many people have for them unrealisitic expectations, and most of them have self-imposed ideals for themselves. There lot is to watch their spouses often be criticized when they fail to perform at equally inhuman levels. They know their spouses' hearts, and their disappointments. It is often more painful and long-lasting for one to see their spouse hurt than it is for the one hurt. As others have mentioned, they often have to serve as primary bread winner in the parsonage. John Maxwell has a thing he does where the pastor is seen as "Superman-pastor." I think "Pastor's Superspouse" could be even better.

You understandably feel like neither laity or pastor, and you're right. You're much better than either of those!

May God's richest blessings be on you and all those who share your role.

[Dave McClung]

Pastors' spouses are the most praiseworthy of all church people - male or female. Many people have for them unrealisitic expectations, and most of them have self-imposed ideals for themselves. There lot is to watch their spouses often be criticized when they fail to perform at equally inhuman levels. They know their spouses' hearts, and their disappointments. It is often more painful and long-lasting for one to see their spouse hurt than it is for the one hurt. As others have mentioned, they often have to serve as primary bread winner in the parsonage. John Maxwell has a thing he does where the pastor is seen as "Superman-pastor." I think "Pastor's Superspouse" could be even better.

You understandably feel like neither laity or pastor, and you're right. You're much better than either of those!

May God's richest blessings be on you and all those who share your role.

Thanks, Dennis. When I served on the Commission on the Call of the Pastor, a medical doctor testified before the Commission. He cryed as he described the pressure that is placed on pastor's wives. (Yes, he was speaking strictly about wives, not spouses.) His conclusion was that any organization that treats women like the Church of the Nazarene treated pastor's wives couldn't be "Christian." He was speaking about the impact of the "recall vote." Many of the changes that were recommended by that Commission were designed to reduce the pressure on Pastor's families. Even with the changes, spouses of pastors are under extreme pressure. They are "special" people.

[Barb Bouldrey]

At least no one calls me "The Queen of the Parsonage."

Back in the 70's when we started in the pastoral ministry I heard that term and wanted to throw up. General Superintendents and their wifes used that term when talking to us at pastoral gatherings. I hated it.

And 37 years later I still think it is a ridiculous term.

I have always been a part of John's "pastoral team." Many times here people have commented on the fact that we are a team. When we started out I accepted John's call as my own and have always put his ministry in a priority position in my life.

Of course, as far as the ministry is concerned, my first priority is to keep the preacher happy. And I am the only one who gets to kiss him. LOL

Barb