What would you do?

[Dave McClung]

There is an interesting story about a couple in Canada that won more than 11 millon in the lottery. They gave it all away in four months:

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article...est=latestnews

Forget the lottery aspect. If you came into a large sum of money, would you give a large donation to your favorite charity, break it into several donations to a variety of charities, or invest it and give the income to charity?

Over the years, I have observed what happens when someone gives a large gift to a charity. Most charities simply are not equipted to handle a one time, large gift. It has been my observation that the charity invests the large gift in a very safe, low return kind of investment.

Several years ago, when we were members of a different church than we now attend, Linda and I decided to pay an entire year's tithe in advance. On Dec. 31, we gave an amount that was approximately equal to a month of income for the church. The board didn't know what to do with it, so they just put it in a low interest saving account. The church's budget was set up to monitor income and expense on a month to month basis, so they continued to manage their expenses to match their monthly income. The large gift didn't positively impact the ministry of the church in any way that I could see. That was several years ago and as far as I know our gift is still sitting in the bank.

My point is that most churches and charities are not equipted to handle a one time large gift. I think is a lot more helpful to invest the gift amount and give the earnings to the charity. A donor will usually invest the money at a higher rate than the charity will, so more income will be produced. The church or other chairity is much better equipted to manage a stream of income than a one time gift.

If I had been the Canadian Couple, I would have given the money to a Donor Advised Fund in the Nazarene Foundation. That way I would have gotten the money out of my estate into a charity where it would grow tax free. Then, I would direct the earnings to the various charities. It would have been a better way to accomplish what they wanted.

Still, they have my admiration for their generosity.

[Craig Laughlin]

I would hire you to advise me! - Really.

[Hans Deventer]

I would probably give myself first, in that I'd quit my job and would start working for the church for free. But that doesn't take care of all that much.

As to the rest, I'd really would have to think deep and hard on the best possible way to deal with such a huge amount of money. We have some churches that are growing but need buildings. I would probably start looking at what can be done in that area.

(BTW, believe it or not, but the first real church building for the CotN in the Netherlands was financed by an American Nazarene pastor from Dutch descend. It has been done before.)

[Billy Cox]

Several years ago, when we were members of a different church than we now attend, Linda and I decided to pay an entire year's tithe in advance. On Dec. 31, we gave an amount that was approximately equal to a month of income for the church. The board didn't know what to do with it, so they just put it in a low interest saving account. The church's budget was set up to monitor income and expense on a month to month basis, so they continued to manage their expenses to match their monthly income. The large gift didn't positively impact the ministry of the church in any way that I could see. That was several years ago and as far as I know our gift is still sitting in the bank.


My point is that most churches and charities are not equipted to handle a one time large gift. I think is a lot more helpful to invest the gift amount and give the earnings to the charity. A donor will usually invest the money at a higher rate than the charity will, so more income will be produced. The church or other chairity is much better equipted to manage a stream of income than a one time gift.

It's inconceivable to me that a church wouldn't have any idea what to do with a large one-time gift. I know that the church I am connected with would take a gift the size of one month of offerings and resurface the parking lot - which is at least 5 years overdue.

Surely there are always capital improvement projects that could be accelerated by a one-time gift. Don't churches always need carpet, or roof repairs, or media upgrades for the sanctuary?

I think I would be angry if my church couldn't find something useful to do with a large gift, but that's me.

[Jim Franklin]

As we used to say in our college days that if we suddenly came into a large sum of money we would immediately go to the business office to make a partial payment on our tuition. Back then anything over $100 was considered a huge sum of money.

[Glenn Messer]

Our church has a rather large sum of money in a low interest account. It was on hand when I came as pastor. It was designated for a singular purpose by the donors. Problem is it's not enough to cover the purpose for which it was designated and any talk of moving it into another area or finding another way to invest it is met with resistance. So until we can raise matching funds or an unforeseen opportunity arises, it just sits....and sits....and..

[Dana Grant]

I honestly don't know what I would do. It would be interesting to find out, though.

[Jim Chabot]

I would probably give myself first, in that I'd quit my job and would start working for the church for free. But that doesn't take care of all that much.

As to the rest, I'd really would have to think deep and hard on the best possible way to deal with such a huge amount of money. We have some churches that are growing but need buildings. I would probably start looking at what can be done in that area.

(BTW, believe it or not, but the first real church building for the CotN in the Netherlands was financed by an American Nazarene pastor from Dutch descend. It has been done before.)

Thanks so much for wording this far better than I would have. My first thought is that I would not give the money to charity, nor to a church. I would as you have said, first give myself, I would make myself available for whatever opportunities that God would direct me to. I'm guessing that once on a path, there would be ample opportunity to disburse funds in various ways. Maybe a need for infrastructure or improvements at a church or a camp? That comes to mind first off since my experience and aptitude is in these areas. Perhaps funding an education that would make a positive difference in someones life? I don't know, but I am confident that God would direct.

I guess that I wouldn't change the manner of giving, just the scope. I like to give where I'm involved. I like to give with as much secrecy as possibly, I find that non monetary giving in the form of materials and or services helps to keep the amount secret. And finally, I almost never give in response to a sales pitch or if someone has decided that the Spirit would cause me to give if only they would direct me to the need.

There is one charity that I do give to which is the Salvation Army, I think that I would increase my giving there by great measure and possibly spend time getting involved there. I really believe in their mission!

[Mark Metcalfe]

I *THINK* I would dole it out to the needs I came across (assuming that I could do so anonymously and people wouldn't "touch me" for charity). It isn't that needs shouldn't be made known but there are too many scam artists out there. Some people might call it relying on the Holy Spirit to direct the giving, and I know it sounds mystical or impractical, but that is how I think I would go about it.

I've had the fantasy of being well-enough off to apply and do various low-paying jobs for up to 3 weeks per job, and then move onto the next one leaving a "donation" if so led. Now, they have the Undercover Boss show, so I guess I'll live vicariously.

Mark

[David Graham]

I'd probably work for the church for free also, with the proviso that the church employed a young person as an associate youth minister with the stipend I would otherwise receive. As for what was left over I would have a field day giving it away to a wide range of worthy Christian charities.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Some Naznetters are familiar with the scenario at Second Church in Dorchester, MA. Second Church was begun in 1806, as a daughter church of First Parish, which was literally the first European church in North America, started a decade after the Plymouth experiment. After 175 years as a major church in the Boston area, Second Church had almost died. Their final act was to vote themselves out of existence, and to donate their building and financial assets to Wollaston COTN, where Naznetter Russ Metcalfe was pastor. Their intent was that Wollaston begin a new church at their longstanding location. The building has 63,000 sf under roof, three auditoriums - one of which seats twelve hundred, a gym, multiple classrooms and offices, and a cemetary. The building was valued at $5.2 million at that time. Included in the transfer were invested funds that they estimated at about $150,000, which had accumlated over the decades.

Forever to their tribute, their gifting was likely unprecedented. This had not been a Nazarene church, but they gave it for the continued work of the Kingdom. They had had a couple Nazarene pastors, and had watched the ENC community for a long time. They said, "If anyone can start and chuch in this neighborhood, the Nazarenes can." Theirs was one of the largest gifts in Nazarene history.

Point of this thread, however, has to do with the invested funds they held. They were not able to identify where it all was. Most of it was drawing one percent interest, or less. Their estimate of $150,000 turned out to be inaccurate. When the transfer was finally made, it was over $900,000. The point of this thread is that churches are not always good with invested funds. This case wouldn't especially disprove that.

[Wes Smith]

I think it would be fun to give every church on the district a brand new van. Let's see, 95 times $20K equals 1.9M. Fun!

Friend,

Wes

[Dave McClung]

I think it would be fun to give every church on the district a brand new van. Let's see, 95 times $20K equals 1.9M. Fun!

Friend,

Wes

Wes, your gift would create a crisis in 50 of the churches because it would upset their budgets to buy insurance and gas for the new vans.

[Dave McClung]

The point of this thread is that churches are not always good with invested funds. This case wouldn't especially disprove that.

I didn't start this thread with the intention of making a pitch for the Nazarene Foundation, but since the discussion provides the opportunity, I will.

Many Nazarene Churches have a funds available for investment. It may be a "contingency fund", a "rainy day fund" or some other kind of fund that carries a balance for six months or more. From my observation, it is usually sitting in a savings account that earns almost no interest.

Those churches should be aware that the Church of the Nazarene Foundation provides an excellent investment opportunity. It is available to churches, districts and church related 501(c)3 entities and not to individuals. The church investing the funds can select how much risk it is willing to take based on its own needs. The investments are professionally managed, have low fees and no commissions.

Using my own church as an example, we have a policy to maintian an amount equal to 3 months of cash flow in a contingency fund. It took us many years to build up the fund, but it was sitting in a bank saving account. The bank fees related to the account were actually more than the interest we were being paid. We moved the account to the Nazarene Foundation and invested in the "Growth" fund. In one year, the balance has grown more than 12%.

[Melissa DeBono]

I would give it all away almost immediately, mostly to Sallie Mae.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I think I'd share a lot of it with my good friend, G R "Scott" Cundiff.

[Dennis M. Scott]

So can an individual donate money to the Nazarene Foundation, designate that the proceeds go to a specific church, and indicate the level of risk for the foundation to invest the funds?

[John Reilly]

I would host an all expense paid week long NAZNET retreat at the Red Jacket Mountain View Resort in North Conway, NH with candle light suppers and an excursion to the summit of Mount Washington via the cog railroad.

[Wanda VanWinkle]

I have given this topic serious thought in the past and my best guess would be to provide an educational scholarship. I have bounced back and forth among different recipients: (a) all descendants of my mother, including step-whatevers, and by-marriage whatevers (for instance, wives of grandsons or husbands of granddaughters), (b) single parents (to include rent payments and childcare), (c) older people returning back to school, (d) paying off college bills/student loans for certain groups--pastors who have pastored for five or more years, (e) students who would be the first in their family line to earn a college degree.

My dream is to be out of debt, and I've accomplished it down to student loan and mortgage, so having my mortgage paid off is a wonderful idea. With that thought, I've considered paying off people's mortgages. Usually, I decide against it because people can get a new mortgage to pay off unnecessary debt from bad financial management. So I thought about requiring a beneficiary and spouse if there is one, actually paying them to attend a financial peace type university as if it were a job, so they can use the knowledge if they want.

The education support is something that many people dream of and simply cannot do, or choose not to get into student loan debt, or do not have the savvy to manage the complicated school financing. Others simply do not think of going to school because they were not reared in a home where it was a priority. Michael (my husband) said he didn't even think of going to college. Yet after we married, I talked him into one class and then he was hooked. He graduated with honors, the first person in his family to do so, just as his oldest granddaughter was getting ready for college.

One thing that stood out to us was a visit to his son's house last year. We didn't know if the college degree were impressive in any way to the children or grandchildren. But after something happened, Michael gave some advice (on a non-educational matter). The children of the house overheard. Later one of the children was saying something about the topic, and I overheard her older sister (maybe ten) say, "Grandpa said...and he is wise. He went to college for a long time."

Okay, maybe she doesn't know that college doesn't make you wise, but her bringing up the topic of college when we never had shows that his effort to get a college degree, even at his age, could make a lasting impact on his descendants. Overhearing that remark made me think how far an education goes beyond the person who earns the degree.

A one-time paying off of someone's mortgage would soon be forgotten, and perhaps would have little effect. But an education "can" make a huge difference.

[Marsha Lynn]

So can an individual donate money to the Nazarene Foundation, designate that the proceeds go to a specific church, and indicate the level of risk for the foundation to invest the funds?

Interesting question. There's some information here, but I don't know if it addresses risk level issues. It looks like the options for individuals are:

1. Put money in an annuity and collect the income off it until death at which time it becomes the property of the chosen ministry.

2. Put money in an endowment fund with all or part of the income going to your chosen ministry.

3. Give the money for the use of the ministry.

[Bob Hunter]

Dave and others,

I think this discussion is interesting and perhaps reveals the reason why we have the Nazarene Foundation in the first place Many large financial gifts have been squandered needlessly on ministries that really didn't have a ministry plan, structure or staff to handle them.

I had a very wealthy person in my congregation who dropped some large sums of money on us from time to time. While it can be a great blessing, it can also be a headache. Some of those gifts were designated for one purpose or the other which brought with it a certain amount of obligation. Hence the reason why it is important to remember that the local board has the power to designate those funds for a given purpose.

If a person comes up to you and says, "Here's $50,000 dollars, go hire a youth pastor for a year." That is a wrong exercise of power and may create more problems than it solves. The correct response to that gesture is to say, "Thank you Donor X, however, I will need share your kind offer with the board and finance committee before accepting it, it is important to respect the priorities the board has established and operate within the polity of the Church of the Nazarene." Perhaps the donor will feel rebuffed by this response, but that is not your problem. Suppose you hire a Youth Pastor with the funds? What happens a year from now when those funds dry up? If your budget is not healthy enough to absorb the salary, you will then be forced to release that staff member or perhaps the original donor will feel obligated to give another gift. Moreover, you will have created a dependency and given power to ONE person. This can also leave your Church open to back door power grabs by the wealthy.

I think this discussion makes a strong case for boards and pastors to sit down together annually and establish priorities and determine vision. So when there is an unexpected financial blessing you know in advance how to direct those funds without giving into the pressure of donors who may have unrealistic expectations or ulterior motives.

[Billy Cox]

If a person comes up to you and says, "Here's $50,000 dollars, go hire a youth pastor for a year." That is a wrong exercise of power and may create more problems than it solves. The correct response to that gesture is to say, "Thank you Donor X, however, I will need share your kind offer with the board and finance committee before accepting it, it is important to respect the priorities the board has established and operate within the polity of the Church of the Nazarene." Perhaps the donor will feel rebuffed by this response, but that is not your problem. Suppose you hire a Youth Pastor with the funds? What happens a year from now when those funds dry up? If your budget is not healthy enough to absorb the salary, you will then be forced to release that staff member or perhaps the original donor will feel obligated to give another gift. Moreover, you will have created a dependency and given power to ONE person. This can also leave your Church open to back door power grabs by the wealthy.

That's a tough situation. I suspect that very few pastors would have the nerve to turn down a large contribution due to the excessive strings attached. Wouldn't you just kick yourself if you took the $50K, paid a youth pastor for a year and they turn out to be a dud?

I like the idea mentioned elsewhere in this thread regarding an endowment and funding a ministry with the proceeds or a portion of the proceeds. So a $50,000 gift could keep giving well beyond the one year.

To what degree should a church care about where the money comes from? When I was in college, a fellow student recruited me to be in a band. Since he expected to come into a 'large' sum of money in the near future, he offered to purchase instruments and a PA system. It turns out the anticipated money was going to come from a plot to extort money from someone.

Is it better to just not ask?

[Bob Hunter]

That's a tough situation. I suspect that very few pastors would have the nerve to turn down a large contribution due to the excessive strings attached. Wouldn't you just kick yourself if you took the $50K, paid a youth pastor for a year and they turn out to be a dud?

I like the idea mentioned elsewhere in this thread regarding an endowment and funding a ministry with the proceeds or a portion of the proceeds. So a $50,000 gift could keep giving well beyond the one year.

My response to the person offering a large sum of money to hire a youth pastor would be different now than perhaps it was ten years ago. I learned the hard way to be very careful about raising funds for staff members. We tend to romanticize these paid positions and eventually find them to produce little in the way of growth. It is better to expend your energies raising up and a volunteer army than it is to pay a professional to do it for us. If the volunteer army can establish a strong base of support that mandates the attention and facilitation of a paid professional, then we will consider it. If not, then maybe it needs to remain in volunteer hands. I say that because our Church has been burned by over staffing issues. We have reduced staff in some key areas and found that our volunteers responded wonderfully and the ministries actually grew. Go figure. Paid staff is NOT always the answer. Neither is a big check from a generous donor.

[Dave McClung]

So can an individual donate money to the Nazarene Foundation, designate that the proceeds go to a specific church, and indicate the level of risk for the foundation to invest the funds?

Yes. That is what Linda and I do. We have set up a Donor Advised Fund at the Nazarene Foundation. From time to time we donate additional funds. Then when we are presented with a need, we "advise" that funds from the account be directed to that specific need. It is a plan that works for us.

If you had put money in a donor advised fund, this would have been the amount of increase in the past 12 months depending on which investment option you selected:

Principal Preservation .11%
Income 7.66%
Income & Growth 8.65%
Growth & Incom 10.36%
Growth 11.66%
Aggessive Growth 11.90%

[Billy Cox]

My response to the person offering a large sum of money to hire a youth pastor would be different now than perhaps it was ten years ago. I learned the hard way to be very careful about raising funds for staff members. We tend to romanticize these paid positions and eventually find them to produce little in the way of growth. It is better to expend your energies raising up and a volunteer army than it is to pay a professional to do it for us. If the volunteer army can establish a strong base of support that mandates the attention and facilitation of a paid professional, then we will consider it. If not, then maybe it needs to remain in volunteer hands. I say that because our Church has been burned by over staffing issues. We have reduced staff in some key areas and found that our volunteers responded wonderfully and the ministries actually grew. Go figure. Paid staff is NOT always the answer. Neither is a big check from a generous donor.

It also seems that designated giving can saddle the church with unfunded liabilities. Let's say that I make a huge score in Vegas and donate $900,000 to a church with the stipulation that they can spend it on anything they want as long as it's for the construction of an indoor pool. The church would be wise to turn me down flat, but they would probably take the money and hope that the pool attracts enough new giving units to underwrite the new costs for utilities and upkeep.

It's like giving someone a puppy or a smartphone for Christmas, except on a far larger scale.

[Billy Cox]

It also seems that designated giving can saddle the church with unfunded liabilities. Let's say that I make a huge score in Vegas and donate $900,000 to a church with the stipulation that they can spend it on anything they want as long as it's for the construction of an indoor pool. The church would be wise to turn me down flat, but they would probably take the money and hope that the pool attracts enough new giving units to underwrite the new costs for utilities and upkeep.

It's like giving someone a puppy or a smartphone for Christmas, except on a far larger scale.

Oh yeah...and underwriting one year of salary/benefits is the same sort of deal except it's easier to get rid of an unfunded staff person.

[John Kennedy]

Was once part of a church where the mantra of 'staffing for growth' and an member's willingness to underwrite the salary of another staff had some unintended consequences: the amount of money promised wasn't enough to fund the new person and the related non-salary/program costs incurred, the gift didn't prime the pump like the donor had hoped, and the epected/hoped for growth didn't materialize.
One of the things we learned was that gifts of this type could have a real, and not always positive, impact on priorities.

[Billy Cox]

Was once part of a church where the mantra of 'staffing for growth' and an member's willingness to underwrite the salary of another staff had some unintended consequences: the amount of money promised wasn't enough to fund the new person and the related non-salary/program costs incurred, the gift didn't prime the pump like the donor had hoped, and the epected/hoped for growth didn't materialize.
One of the things we learned was that gifts of this type could have a real, and not always positive, impact on priorities.

I still have a bad taste in my mouth from the church where my family attends and the 'staffing for growth' strategy. Really...it was a way of silencing those who questioned the wisdom of spending 60-70% of the budget on pastoral salaries. If you expressed reservations, you must be against growth.

[John Kennedy]

I still have a bad taste in my mouth from the church where my family attends and the 'staffing for growth' strategy. Really...it was a way of silencing those who questioned the wisdom of spending 60-70% of the budget on pastoral salaries. If you expressed reservations, you must be against growth.

I've got the feeling that if a bunch of us gathered around the fire and started telling war stories about stuff like this, it'd be enough to fill quite a few books. I'm not opposed to 'vision casting', I just get a little turned off by the manipulation that sometimes accompanies it.

[John Reilly]

Yes. That is what Linda and I do. We have set up a Donor Advised Fund at the Nazarene Foundation. From time to time we donate additional funds. Then when we are presented with a need, we "advise" that funds from the account be directed to that specific need. It is a plan that works for us.

If you had put money in a donor advised fund, this would have been the amount of increase in the past 12 months depending on which investment option you selected:

Principal Preservation .11%
Income 7.66%
Income & Growth 8.65%
Growth & Incom 10.36%
Growth 11.66%
Aggessive Growth 11.90%

Are there any "Passive Aggressive" funds?

[Herb Newell]

That's a tough situation. I suspect that very few pastors would have the nerve to turn down a large contribution...

To what degree should a church care about where the money comes from? When I was in college, a fellow student recruited me to be in a band. Since he expected to come into a 'large' sum of money in the near future, he offered to purchase instruments and a PA system. It turns out the anticipated money was going to come from a plot to extort money from someone.

Is it better to just not ask?

I'd take money from the Devil himself, and not worry a whit where it came from. In fact some say that by taking money from the government all these years we've done just that. I decided long ago that the use we put it to sanctifies the resource if not the source.

I have a list of projects, programs and ministries we'd do in a minute if God would only impress the Great Satan to give us more mammon.

By the way, if any of you do come by... and are concerned about how to get rid of it. Please remember Friends of the Homeless. We are always willing to launder, er, sanctify... Not sayin your... ;o)

[Bob Hunter]

I'd take money from the Devil himself, and not worry a whit where it came from. In fact some say that by taking money from the government all these years we've done just that. I decided long ago that the use we put it to sanctifies the resource if not the source.

I have a list of projects, programs and ministries we'd do in a minute if God would only impress the Great Satan to give us more mammon.

By the way, if any of you do come by... and are concerned about how to get rid of it. Please remember Friends of the Homeless. We are always willing to launder, er, sanctify... Not sayin your... ;o)

Herb,

I appreciate your heart for ministry but you wouldn't sell your soul for a few bucks would you? I really don't think you mean what you are saying. There are times we need to reject the money and the strings come attached. I can't be bought with any price and not everyone gifts freely. Some of those large financial gifts come with certain expectations attached to them whether they be political, social or spiritual. Just can't go there my friend.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Money that the government has taken from believers in the form of taxes, then using it to offer a cup of cold water in the name of the Lord isn't selling one's soul. I suspect that those that have devoted a lifetime to such causes are fairly aware of the strings attached. If a program is suddenly unfunded after several years' effective work, the program's demise is unfortunate, but doesn't negate the good that was done. When distribution of emergency food and water is most effectively accomplished through a widespread organization of Nazarene churches in Haiti, it doesn't mean the Church has sold it's soul to the government - or the devil. When a major furniture outlet donates three tractor trailer loads of discontinued mattresses to a homeless shelter, it's not especially important that the motive of the donor is to save warehouse space or a tax write off. That's a lot of money saved that would have been paid out for mattresses to the same manufacturer. Receiving a donation is not the same as selling one's soul.
In recent years, millions of dollars are being made available to faith based addiction rehab programs by the alcohol industry. Weird? Is to me. Weirder still to not use that money for it's intended purpose.

[Marsha Lynn]

I'd take money from the Devil himself, and not worry a whit where it came from. In fact some say that by taking money from the government all these years we've done just that. I decided long ago that the use we put it to sanctifies the resource if not the source.

Herb,

I appreciate your heart for ministry but you wouldn't sell your soul for a few bucks would you? I really don't think you mean what you are saying. There are times we need to reject the money and the strings come attached. I can't be bought with any price and not everyone gifts freely. Some of those large financial gifts come with certain expectations attached to them whether they be political, social or spiritual. Just can't go there my friend.

Money that the government has taken from believers in the form of taxes, then using it to offer a cup of cold water in the name of the Lord isn't selling one's soul.

Dennis, I can't tell for sure if you are responding to Bob's comment, but I think you both make valid points. Using money for good regardless of its source is still doing good. However, allowing those offering the money to shift the focus of your ministry toward objectives you would normally reject is indeed "selling out."

The only significant amount of strings-attached money I've been close to involved putting a steeple on the roof of the church, an idea that had been rejected from the construction of the building because "steeples always leak." By the time of the gift, the "steeples always leak" mindset had weakened. Installing a steeple was not a priority of church leaders in place at the time but was not objectionable to them. If the gift didn't cover the entire cost of purchase and installation, it came close enough to make it feasible. The project did not introduce ongoing expenses into the budget, nor did it require more than a temporary shift of priorities. It allowed some not-too-involved people to get involved in a local "work project" to make the installation happen, which was a type of ministry in itself. So we now have a steeple. The source of the money was good, but that wasn't a factor. All the questions revolved around whether or not we really wanted a steeple and would be able to install it at a reasonable cost and expect it to be a maintenance-free addition to the building.

Offering money of either upright or dubious origin to fund what someone is already doing or a project of their choice is one thing. Using money to shift an organizations priorities to more closely match those of the donor is much more troublesome.

[Dave McClung]

...Offering money of either upright or dubious origin to fund what someone is already doing or a project of their choice is one thing. Using money to shift an organizations priorities to more closely match those of the donor is much more troublesome.

Marsha, I guess I don't see the problem with giving money to change priorities. Linda and I often give money to attempt to change the priorities of churches.


For example, we have a standing offer with several evangelists that we will give $500 to a small church if the church will match it to finance a revival. We don't normally finance the entire revival because we don't think a church can really have a revival if it costs them nothing. In a few instances a small church has been unable to match and we have gone ahead with our gift. Are you suggesting that it is wrong for us to use our money to attempt to change the priorities of churches who have not had a revival in a long time?

[John F Martin]

I agree with Dave that changing priorities IS a legitimate (and I think even God-intended) outcome of giving in some cases. Foundations certainly give in order to change priorities. As to the lottery question, I think I would give at least 90% of it -- through a combination of outright and planned or deferred gifts. Of course, besides beating the odds to be a lottery winner, I still would face the stark reality that one would have to play in order to win. Fun to think about, though.

[Bob Hunter]

Marsha, I guess I don't see the problem with giving money to change priorities. Linda and I often give money to attempt to change the priorities of churches.


For example, we have a standing offer with several evangelists that we will give $500 to a small church if the church will match it to finance a revival. We don't normally finance the entire revival because we don't think a church can really have a revival if it costs them nothing. In a few instances a small church has been unable to match and we have gone ahead with our gift. Are you suggesting that it is wrong for us to use our money to attempt to change the priorities of churches who have not had a revival in a long time?

Dave,

If I might chime in and add to my original thought. In your case, Dave, offering funds to hold revival services are within the manual guidelines and supported by priorities already established by Nazarenes. If you read the examples Billy and I discussed earlier in the thread, you would know what we mean by selling out and taking on unfunded liabilities. There is need for a Pastor to be very discerning when a giver designates the use of his or her finances for pet projects. Obviously, when the Church has a designated fund or a cause established, let the money flow, no questions asked! But we need to be careful we don't allow those with deep pockets to upend our budget process and ministry priorities with designated cash gifts that are not consistent with our vision and values.

[Marsha Lynn]

I agree with Dave that changing priorities IS a legitimate (and I think even God-intended) outcome of giving in some cases. Foundations certainly give in order to change priorities. As to the lottery question, I think I would give at least 90% of it -- through a combination of outright and planned or deferred gifts. Of course, besides beating the odds to be a lottery winner, I still would face the stark reality that one would have to play in order to win. Fun to think about, though.

I figure I have almost as much chance of winning that much money in the lottery as someone who actually buys a ticket.

[Marsha Lynn]

Marsha, I guess I don't see the problem with giving money to change priorities. Linda and I often give money to attempt to change the priorities of churches.

So if you do it it must be all right??

I think I was simply saying that a ministry would do well to look closely at designated money to see if the designated purpose fits with the vision of the organization. I would think revival would easily fit into the vision of most Nazarene churches, but if not then they can simply not accept your offer.

The only time I remember giving designated money not in keeping with a stated need of the church was back years ago when the church paid budgets other than the General Budget by order of priority -- P & B, District, Home Mission, Education. Unfortunately, there was never enough money to get even a good start on the Education budget. My husband and I would give to the college of our choice by giving to the church and designating it for the educational budget. I don't know if anyone had a problem with seeing money go to the college. If they did, there wasn't strong enough opposition to return our check.

[Herb Newell]

[QUOTE=Bob Hunter;37849]Herb,

I appreciate your heart for ministry but you wouldn't sell your soul for a few bucks would you? I really don't think you mean what you are saying. There are times we need to reject the money and the strings come attached. I can't be bought with any price and not everyone gifts freely. Some of those large financial gifts come with certain expectations attached to them whether they be political, social or spiritual. Just can't go there my friend Herb

We aren't so far apart as that. No I wouldn't sell my soul for a few bucks or a bunch. In fact there are many things we won't do, even good things, because they aren't right for our ministry.

I was only speaking in response to Billys question about how closely we vet our donors. and in that regard I said I would take money from the Devil himself. I stand by that statement.

I think drug dealers are about the vilest people going. They make their living exploiting and hurting others. But if a dealer wants to assuage his guilt by giving us a couple gees. I think we ought to take it to the bank rejoicing. First, I'd be awed to think that we have made a pretty good impression in some practical way to elicit such a response from such a person. By taking the money I have the opportunity to engage the giver. We don't just minister to our guests, we minister to our staff, volunteers our donors, our neighbors and the stranger at our door... And I know that we can do more good with that money than he can. It feels great to reclaim these resources from the Devil and use them for God and for good.

A large construction company called and asked if they could make a thanksgiving donation. I knew from reading the newspaper that they needed some good PR to help deflect recent bad press, and we were it. Knowing that "the Handshake" would be photographed and shopped, I prepared a statement that would use that press coverage to highlight the needs of the homeless in this season. They pulled their string and I pulled mine. Plus I got lots of great food for the Pantry.

Bars? Yes! Godless Multinational Corporations? Yes! Insipid Civil Servants? Yes! Misguided and Manipulative Members? Yes!...

Almost every donation has strings attached. You have to be persuasive, persistent, and creative. You don't sell your soul, you sell ministry. And yes, Bob, sometimes you Just Say No.

Do we agree?