Amending the new Funding the Mission formula

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

This thread is a fork off of the "District Apportionments" thread - you'll find it here: http://www.naznet.com/community/show...Apportionments

---------------


This is interesting....a friend of mine from Louisiana said that at their district assembly when the Funding the Mission was presented an amendment was offered from the floor to allow churches that raise money for some special purpose to exempt it from the funding the mission formula. It was adopted.

I can't give more details, but this is the first I've heard of a district deciding to make changes in how the formula is worked.

By the way, in spite of the fact that they share their DS with MS, their district percentage is at 9%.

[Hans Deventer]

This is interesting....a friend of mine from Louisiana said that at their district assembly when the Funding the Mission was presented an amendment was offered from the floor to allow churches that raise money for some special purpose to exempt it from the funding the mission formula. It was adopted.

I can't give more details, but this is the first I've heard of a district deciding to make changes in how the formula is worked.

We've been discussing the new formula in the DAB right now as well. I've said that as far as I can see, the GMC cares little about HOW we raise the money, as long as the money comes in. Using it would actually mean we'd be paying less, and I can hardly imagine that is the intention.

BTW, I heard our RAC has objected. It seems that the formula was only discussed in the USA caucus, but then the generals wrote it applies for the entire church. That sounds unfair to me.

[Jon Twitchell]

We've been discussing the new formula in the DAB right now as well. I've said that as far as I can see, the GMC cares little about HOW we raise the money, as long as the money comes in. Using it would actually mean we'd be paying less, and I can hardly imagine that is the intention.

BTW, I heard our RAC has objected. It seems that the formula was only discussed in the USA caucus, but then the generals wrote it applies for the entire church. That sounds unfair to me.

Hans,

The portion of the formula that was discussed in the USA Regional Caucus was the Pensions & Benefits, and the USA/Canada Caucus was the Educational Formula.

The remainder of the formula (WEF) is subject to paragraph 38.5, which was amended at GA2009 to include these words:

"The Board of General Superintendents, with the General Board, is authorized and empowered to apportion the World Evangelism Fund to the several assembly districts."

When the GA adopted that resolution, they gave the responsibility of apportionment to the BGS and General Board.

[Jon Twitchell]

This is interesting....a friend of mine from Louisiana said that at their district assembly when the Funding the Mission was presented an amendment was offered from the floor to allow churches that raise money for some special purpose to exempt it from the funding the mission formula. It was adopted.

I can't give more details, but this is the first I've heard of a district deciding to make changes in how the formula is worked.

By the way, in spite of the fact that they share their DS with MS, their district percentage is at 9%.

That's interesting... but unless they were just creating an exemption for the DMF portion of the formula, then it's pretty clear that they are not only in violation of the intent of the new formula, but also the letter of the Manual (p. 38.5)

Also, one could refer to the FAQ document, which addresses this specifically:

May districts modify the definition of income or the percentages, establish deductions, or otherwise alter the new mission funding strategy in order to suit their situation?

Although there is presently an acknowledged “standard formula” for the USA Church of the Nazarene, there have been major deviations from this standard for many years. The original instruction, formed by the BGS, was that district modifications to the standard formula must yield equal dollars for general interests. By AY08-09, over 70 districts had modified the standard formula and 42 districts had significantly changed to the standard formula. These changes resulted in about $2.5 million USD reduction in World Evangelism Fund allocation last year. The success of the new mission funding plan depends on all USA districts utilizing these percentages equitably, without modification. Districts should implement this plan without modification and share equitably in funding our global mission.

[Dwayne Petry]

I am speaking as a convention delegate and not as a representative of the Louisiana District.

I felt that there is no recognition of and appreiciation for giving above and beyond "Biblical tithes and offerings" in the new budget formula.

Let me explain with several examples.

#1 A pastor stands before his congregation with an emergency parsonage repair. The immediate need is $10,000.00. The church does not have the money for this emergancy repair in the church bank account. The pastor askes the congregation to take the matter to prayer and seek the guidence of the Holy Spirit as to what they might give above and beyond their "Biblical tithes and offerings". The Holy Spirit moves and the congregation gives/pledges the $10,000.00 for the emergency repair. But wait! In our case (La. Dist.) 19% of this giving above and beyond "Biblical tithes and offering" will go to budget payments . In fact the pastor must raise $12,345.00 in order to meet the $10,000.00 emergency need.

#2 A friend of the church (a member of another denomination) wants to give to your church to help with needed upgrades to the audio/visual system. The new system will cost $10,000.00 This friend who gives his "Biblical tithes and offerings" to the church of which he is a member, makes a gift donation of $10,000.00 for the audio/visual system for your church. Are we obligated to inform this friend of the church that 19% of his gift will be going to pay budgets for your church? Maybe your church has not upgraded the system because the money is not in the bank account. Should you take the $10,000.00 gift and hope this friend does not visit your church until you can raise the $2345.00 to pay the 19% budget requirement and make up the difference to the $10,000.00 amount?

#3 Your church has need of a new fellowship hall. As pastor you take pledges (giving above and beyound "Biblical tithes and offering") to meet the $1,000.00 monthly note. Under the new funding formula, these pledges would have to $1,234.50 per month in order to pay a note of $1,000.00.

I believe the new funding formula is not one which will enhance the operation of the local church (where I believe the battle for the souls of our families, friends and communities will be won or lost) but will hinder operation and outreach.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I am speaking as a convention delegate and not as a representative of the Louisiana District.

Dwayne, thanks for the perspective and illustrations. It's good to have you on NazNet.

Be sure to check out the photography forum, your involvement would, I think, be appreciated!

[Scott Sherwood]

I am speaking as a convention delegate and not as a representative of the Louisiana District.

I felt that there is no recognition of and appreiciation for giving above and beyond "Biblical tithes and offerings" in the new budget formula.


I believe the new funding formula is not one which will enhance the operation of the local church (where I believe the battle for the souls of our families, friends and communities will be won or lost) but will hinder operation and outreach.

The scenarios you list in your post do a great job of explaining the pain many churches will experience in this transition. We have long been rewarded for spending more and more on buildings. Even though this will be painful for some, for most the shift is producing such a windfall of savings that they can happily put up with no longer having an exclusion for building spending. I believe the new funding formula also reflects a better ordering of priorities than the old one.

A few thoughts considering the situation(s) you present:

1) If one of these scenarios is truly rare, it would be possible to ask for a rare circumstances review, which may provide some relief.

2) The new funding formula will encourage churches to fit their building needs as much as possible into the ongoing budgets of their church. In many cases, because of the past budgeting system, many of our churhces have more building than they can really afford and are continually hitting their people up for extra in order to keep things going. Hopefully we can get good enough at budgeting for our building needs that big campaigns will be the exception rather than the rule. If it is an exception, see #1 above. Overspending on building needs does not advance the cause of the local church; it will do most of us well to get away from our edifice complex.

3) The new funding formula gives us an opportunity to tell people that we don't generally raise money just for ourselves. When we build, we also help others build by giving away a portion of what we raise. We can wear this as a badge of honor or as an albatross around our neck. our choice. The FTM plan recommends that local churches adopt a designated gifts policy that stipulates this. If someone does not want a portion of their gift to go to others, the church can either decline the gift or take the money from general giving (we have done a lot of this in the recent past and have been happy to do it.)

4) As noted above, most churches on most districts are saving a significant amount under thsi new system. it looks like Louisiana churches will be paying about 5% less in budgets this year, assuming most churches were at the 20% cap of rap before. If your total denom apportionments last year were 20k, this year they will be 19k (a reduction of 5%). I would suggest that a district of 35 churches would serve its churches well to merge with another district in order to share the load with more churches. This may bring your district percentage down from 19 to 16 or perhaps even less. This would really free up more dollars for local ministry (not just buildings).

We have been trained one way and are now having the rug pulled out from under us, so yeah, that is not easy. I'm glad its being done though, and I hope there will be consideration given to those churches for whom an abrupt transition will be impossible to endure. I know it has been promised that churches may be able to ease into the new formula if they can demonstrate a compelling need to do so.

[Rich Schmidt]

I am speaking as a convention delegate and not as a representative of the Louisiana District.

I felt that there is no recognition of and appreiciation for giving above and beyond "Biblical tithes and offerings" in the new budget formula.

Let me explain with several examples.

...

I believe the new funding formula is not one which will enhance the operation of the local church (where I believe the battle for the souls of our families, friends and communities will be won or lost) but will hinder operation and outreach.

Two of your three examples are items that would have fallen under the old "building expenses are excluded" category. Personally, I'm glad to see that exclusion go away. But maybe that's the church planter in me.

For anything else, including your a/v system upgrade, the old formula still would have increased your WEF, P&B, Education, and District apportionment numbers. It just would have postponed it a year, since it was always based on the previous years' finances. The current system merely brings that increase into the present, where it belongs (in my opinion).

Those are just my quick thoughts in response.

[Jon Twitchell]

Dwayne,

Thanks for your participation and insight on these issues. While I agree that the changes will cause complexity for a number of churches, I still believe that this is a more equitable system, and will encourage churches to be more deliberate in the budgeting process.

I don't know the latest numbers, but Barna said in 2002 that only 3% of Christians were tithing to their local church. It's possible that this has caused us to rely more and more upon those special gifts and offerings, instead of teaching people about tithing. While your situations could truly be rare and emergency situations, by excluding special offerings, a church could really abuse the new formula. Need a new computer? Special offering. Need supplies for VBS? Special offering. Need paper for the copier? Special offering. The oil is about to run out? Emergency special offering.

I believe that the appropriate thing in your examples cases would be to apply for a Rare Circumstances Adjustment. And if it is not granted, the church can simply make the difficult decision not to pay their allocations in full that year.... after all, it is a voluntary system. (Unlike the UMC, which considers its apportionments to be mandatory, and has actual consequences for churches and pastors that fail to pay).

Regardless of whatever legislation/amendment was adopted at the LA DA, the Denomination, your regional college, and P&B may still consider those churches to not have paid in full, as the district simply doesn't have the authority to modify the funding allocation formula for anything but the District Ministries Funds. If I understand correctly the Paid in Full status will be determined based solely on the Annual Pastors' Report.

I'm really curious to see how that will play out when it comes time for Annual Pastors' Reports. Will pastors be encouraged to carefully massage the data on the report form in order to reflect the decision of the DA?

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I'm really curious to see how that will play out when it comes time for Annual Pastors' Reports. Will pastors be encouraged to carefully massage the data on the report form in order to reflect the decision of the DA?

I doubt that it will take much careful massaging. Offerings designated by the local church to be for special circumstances won't be used in thir formula and won't be reported. It won't be deceitful, after all that's what the delegates voted to do at Assembly.

[Scott Sherwood]

I doubt that it will take much careful massaging. Offerings designated by the local church to be for special circumstances won't be used in thir formula and won't be reported. It won't be deceitful, after all that's what the delegates voted to do at Assembly.

While district assemblies are endowed with many powers, I don't think changing the definition of the word "deceitful" is one of them.

Nor do they have the authority to exempt themselves from their least favorite dictates of the general assembly.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

While district assemblies are endowed with many powers, I don't think changing the definition of the word "deceitful" is one of them.

Nor do they have the authority to exempt themselves from their least favorite dictates of the general assembly.

Scott, think about it just a second. If a district votes to do things in a certain way and the churches do it that way how can that be deceitful? You may not like what they did and you my think it flies in the face of what the denomination wants but name calling isn't a productive response.

[Dwayne Petry]

La. District pastors will not have to massage the numbers because we voted to recognize and honor giving above and beyond tithes and offering.

Deceitful would have been not to have the courage of our convictions to vote what we felt the honorable thing to do, and then massage the numbers.

Concerning the vote. We had a choice; Vote to accept, reject or ammend. We did not hide our concerns, we expressed them by voting to ammend. If we do not have the right to ammend, why bother to have a vote. If we rejected the recommendation, I assume we would have reverted to the previous plan. We voted to accept the recommendation, but to recognize and honor giving above and beyond tithes and offering.

[Scott Sherwood]

Scott, think about it just a second. If a district votes to do things in a certain way and the churches do it that way how can that be deceitful? You may not like what they did and you my think it flies in the face of what the denomination wants but name calling isn't a productive response.

Are you calling me a name-caller?

I did intend it to be tongue-in-cheek. Those lines always work better in live conversation. Keep in mind, I did not introduce the "d" word into the conversation.

Here is my understanding:
1) The GA gave the BGS/GB authority to assess apportionments for wef/p&b/ed to the districts.
2) The BGS/GB did so based on a specific definition of church income, allowing for approved missions giving to be excluded from the calculation.
3) A District Assembly votes that its churches should also exclude other types of income.
4) When a pastor fills submits her annual report to the GMC, she will be asked to report income based on the global church's policy.
5) Does she include all income considered income by the global church to whom she is submitting the report?

Giving an intentionally inaccurate answer to a clearly understood question is . . . what? If these churches fill out their GMC report accurately according to GMC intentions, it will reflect that by GMC definitions they are not paid in full. This would certainly not be deceptive.

This entire matter, I'm guessing is moot anyway. If I understand correctly, the only denominational apportionment the districts have authority to define is the district budget. Therefore, the district assembly's action on matters of WEF/p&b/ed are void.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I did intend it to be tongue-in-cheek. Those lines always work better in live conversation. Keep in mind, I did not introduce the "d" word into the conversation.

Sorry I missed the approach - very good - it is hard to catch stuff like that. I've even put smilies in sentences and still had to defend them.

If these churches fill out their GMC report accurately according to GMC intentions, it will reflect that by GMC definitions they are not paid in full. This would certainly not be deceptive.

Still, as Dwayne points out, the districts vote on their financial report. On many districts, for good or bad, it's potentially the most likely moment for there to be debate in the assembly. If you vote on something, using Robert's Rules one of the options is to amend. That's what Louisiana did. You don't have to agree with the amendment, but, I think it's reasonable to say that the district is operating within it's rights to amend any report that is brought to the floor of the assembly.

This entire matter, I'm guessing is moot anyway. If I understand correctly, the only denominational apportionment the districts have authority to define is the district budget. Therefore, the district assembly's action on matters of WEF/p&b/ed are void.

I recall a similar situation on the old San Antonio district around 1980. The conclusion at that time was that if the district voted to do otherwise, it was their call. Someone asked if the General Church would consider budgets not paid in full if their formula wasn't followed and the answer (at that time mind you) was that if the district said it was paid, then it was paid.

I just watched a TV special about the civil war and this whole situation reminds me of the tension that exists between states rights and federal law. However, in our Zion, I don't think the "federal" side is as powerful as it is in our nation.

[Scott Sherwood]

Still, as Dwayne points out, the districts vote on their financial report. On many districts, for good or bad, it's potentially the most likely moment for there to be debate in the assembly. If you vote on something, using Robert's Rules one of the options is to amend. That's what Louisiana did. You don't have to agree with the amendment, but, I think it's reasonable to say that the district is operating within it's rights to amend any report that is brought to the floor of the assembly.

I don't believe actions of the General Assembly are up for district assembly ammendment. ever. If it involves matters of the Constitution, they must be ratified, but I don't think even these can be ammended by any given district.

I recall a similar situation on the old San Antonio district around 1980. The conclusion at that time was that if the district voted to do otherwise, it was their call. Someone asked if the General Church would consider budgets not paid in full if their formula wasn't followed and the answer (at that time mind you) was that if the district said it was paid, then it was paid.

I believe it is just this sort of issue the new approach is designed to rectify.

I just watched a TV special about the civil war and this whole situation reminds me of the tension that exists between states rights and federal law. However, in our Zion, I don't think the "federal" side is as powerful as it is in our nation.

For me and I think nearly all of us, denominational apportionments are never a matter of rights or power. It is my team telling me what my fair share of the mission is. I speak my mind and vote my conscience along the way, but always endeavor even in times of disagrement to do my part as understood by those God has put in authority over me. I don't believe GMC has an enforcement agency, so when it comes right down to it, any of our churches and districts can pay whatever we want without much being done about it. I have always objected, though, to a system that sets up churches and districts to make their own rules and declare themselves paid in full even when they are giving far less than expected by our leadership.

What if my local congregation decided to exempt pastoral salaries, local ministry expenses, and building costs from its income base before figuring its district budget? Does my local congregation have the right to amend district policy like that?

Good sermon.

And now please stand for the benediction: "May God bless each of us in leadership with the exact same kind of followers we are."

Amen.

[Craig Laughlin]

If you vote on something, using Robert's Rules one of the options is to amend.

Is this right as it relates to GA resolutions for approval by the districts? My understanding is that the districts are voting on a General Assembly Action not a district motion. The original motion itself is not on the floor of the district only approval or disapproval. My (limited) understanding was that this was like a constitutional amendment. The states can vote it up or down but can not change it. If this is not the case then what is the point and wouldn't chaos result as each district picked it apart per their own agendas? Was the result of the GA change in formula that each district can set up their own system now so long as they amend the GA resolution and they will then be considered to have paid their budgets? - Sorry I'm not much of a parliamentarian but it was presented to our district as yes or no without amendment and that fit with my understanding. This new thing comes as a complete surprise.

EDIT - Sorry Scott I was working on this post when you posted and did not see it until after I posted.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Is this right as it relates to GA resolutions for approval by the districts? My understanding is that the districts are voting on a General Assembly Action not a district motion. The original motion itself is not on the floor of the district only approval or disapproval. My (limited) understanding was that this was like a constitutional amendment. The states can vote it up or down but can not change it. If this is not the case then what is the point and wouldn't chaos result as each district picked it apart per their own agendas? Was the result of the GA change in formula that each district can set up their own system now so long as they amend the GA resolution and they will then be considered to have paid their budgets? - Sorry I'm not much of a parliamentarian but it was presented to our district as yes or no without amendment and that fit with my understanding. This new thing comes as a complete surprise.

EDIT - Sorry Scott I was working on this post when you posted and did not see it until after I posted.

Craig, maybe you are right. Perhaps it was like the changes to the Articles of Faith and districts only have the authority to ratify or reject. I really don't know. If so, then Louisiana can't amend the new Funding the Mission formula. Does that mean they could have voted to reject it? Wow - that would be interesting and would have been a much bigger deal than their voting to amend it!

[Craig Laughlin]

Craig, maybe you are right. Perhaps it was like the changes to the Articles of Faith and districts only have the authority to ratify or reject. I really don't know. If so, then Louisiana can't amend the new Funding the Mission formula. Does that mean they could have voted to reject it? Wow - that would be interesting and would have been a much bigger deal than their voting to amend it!

Yeah that would be interesting. I don't know. My guess would be that it is simply an invalid vote much like voting for 5 people when you are only suppose to vote for three invalidates a ballet. What surprises me, and makes me wonder if they can do this is that the GS did not step in. I would have thought they would know the procedure.

[Dwayne Petry]

Question

Was this new FtM formula voted on at GA and what was the discussion if any?

Thanks

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Yeah that would be interesting. I don't know. My guess would be that it is simply an invalid vote much like voting for 5 people when you are only suppose to vote for three invalidates a ballet. What surprises me, and makes me wonder if they can do this is that the GS did not step in. I would have thought they would know the procedure.

Dr. Duarte was the GS. He's new to the job and his outlook is, I think, unique. However, if it was out of order, perhaps it just caught him flat footed? Through the years I've been in some DA's in which things were allowed that, looking back, I wondered about.

On the other hand, he may have known exactly what was happening and hoped (in the name of the denomination) that other districts don't realize they can do the same thing!

[Hans Deventer]

Question

Was this new FtM formula voted on at GA and what was the discussion if any?

Thanks

Dwayne, as I understand it was discussed only at the USA caucus (sure don't remember it on the floor of the GA), but the generals decided it would work for the entire church.

[Craig Laughlin]

Dwayne, as I understand it was discussed only at the USA caucus (sure don't remember it on the floor of the GA), but the generals decided it would work for the entire church.

This is interesting. Are there two different protocols for implementing this in USA/Canada verses the world? Can the USA/Canada caucus pass legislation that requires district approval? - Wow, I am in way over my head and this may explain the district's ability to amend. We need a parliamentarian.

I would maintain that if individual districts can amend and then be considered to be in compliance based on their specific district's actions that we are in for a very rough ride. A big part of the problem with the previous system was the inequities. If each district can functionally do what they want then discipline has completely broken down. I think this raises a very big and important issue.

[Bud Pugh]

I would have to go back and check my delegate's book but I tend to remember that what passed on the floor of the GA was that the GSs and General Board had authority to set apportionments worldwide. The USA/Canada caucus discussed and passed (if I remember correctly) the percentages for ED, WEF and P&B. If USA/Canada did anything different, it was to allow the GSs and General Board to set apportionments for them as well.

I too do not see that any district has the authority to change the WEF, ED or P&B percentages or the definition/categorization of income- parliamentary or "states' rights".

[Jon Twitchell]

I doubt that it will take much careful massaging. Offerings designated by the local church to be for special circumstances won't be used in thir formula and won't be reported. It won't be deceitful, after all that's what the delegates voted to do at Assembly.

Except that the Annual Pastor's Report won't ask, "What was your total church income minus special offerings?" It will ask "What was your total church income?"

My primary point is this: the District Assembly acted completely outside the bounds granted it by the Manual.

And just because the LA District says that Timbuctoo Church of the Nazarene paid its allocations in full doesn't make it so.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Except that the Annual Pastor's Report won't ask, "What was your total church income minus special offerings?" It will ask "What was your total church income?"

My primary point is this: the District Assembly acted completely outside the bounds granted it by the Manual.

And just because the LA District says that Timbuctoo Church of the Nazarene paid its allocations in full doesn't make it so.

I'm not arguing for it, but I think the LA church will tell you that they voted to not include certain special offerings in their total church income. I also think they will tell you that they aren't fudging or massaging the numbers but are doing exactly what they voted to do when they amended their district finance committee report.

Apparently the GS in jurisdiction allowed them to debate and amend.

In other words, I don't think it's as cut and dried as you make it out to be. Still, I know you are quite sharp on stuff like this, so we may hear that the General Board has struck down the vote of the delegates as illegal. On the other hand, it may stand and churches doing what the district voted for them to do will be just fine.

[Craig Laughlin]

I'm not arguing for it, but I think the LA church will tell you that they voted to not include certain special offerings in their total church income. I also think they will tell you that they aren't fudging or massaging the numbers but are doing exactly what they voted to do when they amended their district finance committee report.

Apparently the GS in jurisdiction allowed them to debate and amend.

In other words, I don't think it's as cut and dried as you make it out to be. Still, I know you are quite sharp on stuff like this, so we may hear that the General Board has struck down the vote of the delegates as illegal. On the other hand, it may stand and churches doing what the district voted for them to do will be just fine.

Yeah, this should be fascinating. If the appropriate authority allows the district's action to stand it is open season on our funding formula and the GA resolution means nothing accept that it opened the door for each district to define it's own formula. If amendments are allowed we can completely change everything. I would love to hear what Dave McClung has to say, although as I think about that he may be holding back because he is involved officially.

[Jon Twitchell]

I doubt that it will take much careful massaging. Offerings designated by the local church to be for special circumstances won't be used in thir formula and won't be reported. It won't be deceitful, after all that's what the delegates voted to do at Assembly.

Let me try again.

The denomination (not the district) asks me to fill out a form. That form asks me to enter the amount of Church Income (defined as that income for which a tax-deductible receipt could be generated).

If I'm on the LA district, I have a choice:

1) Answer the question asked by the denomination, by entering all of the income for which I could have generated a receipt.

OR

2) Answer a slightly different question, by subtracting out those tax-deductible contributions that were part of special offerings.

Maybe it's not lying. Maybe it's not massaging the data.

But if I choose option 2, I'm not honestly answering the question that was asked of me.

I'm not sure how any vote of the LA DA changes that simple fact.

[Jon Twitchell]

Still, as Dwayne points out, the districts vote on their financial report. On many districts, for good or bad, it's potentially the most likely moment for there to be debate in the assembly. If you vote on something, using Robert's Rules one of the options is to amend. That's what Louisiana did. You don't have to agree with the amendment, but, I think it's reasonable to say that the district is operating within it's rights to amend any report that is brought to the floor of the assembly.

The problem here is that the District Assembly Finance Committee appears to have put more information in their report then was within their scope to report on. The Funding Formula for WEF/P&B/EDU is no longer within the scope of the District Finance Committee report... it is now a formula that is generated by the BGS/GB. The scope of the District Assembly Finance Committee was greatly reduced by GA2009, when they gave that authority to the BGS/GB (see the new paragraph 38.5). While you're right that the DA has the ability to amend the report of the Finance Committee, I still don't believe that they had the authority to modify the Global Funding Formula for their district. I believe such a move is in violation of the Manual, and therefore is probably void altogether. (Although a lawyer should probably comment on that! )

I recall a similar situation on the old San Antonio district around 1980. The conclusion at that time was that if the district voted to do otherwise, it was their call. Someone asked if the General Church would consider budgets not paid in full if their formula wasn't followed and the answer (at that time mind you) was that if the district said it was paid, then it was paid.

At that time, there was no clear Manual definition of who had the authority to assign budgets. Consequently it was up to the districts to comply or modify with the suggested formula. With the change to 38.5, that authority has now been clearly defined.

I just watched a TV special about the civil war and this whole situation reminds me of the tension that exists between states rights and federal law. However, in our Zion, I don't think the "federal" side is as powerful as it is in our nation.

Ultimately, the denomination will not garnish offering plates or mandate the payment of allocations. But just because a District Assembly says that allocations are paid in full doesn't make it so. I suspect that on the GMC books, those churches and pastors will be listed as having budgets not paid. Now the the reporting application is centralized and computerized, they simply can no longer allow every district to create its own variation of the formula in regards to the payment of WEF.

[Jon Twitchell]

Is this right as it relates to GA resolutions for approval by the districts? My understanding is that the districts are voting on a General Assembly Action not a district motion. The original motion itself is not on the floor of the district only approval or disapproval. My (limited) understanding was that this was like a constitutional amendment. The states can vote it up or down but can not change it. If this is not the case then what is the point and wouldn't chaos result as each district picked it apart per their own agendas? Was the result of the GA change in formula that each district can set up their own system now so long as they amend the GA resolution and they will then be considered to have paid their budgets? - Sorry I'm not much of a parliamentarian but it was presented to our district as yes or no without amendment and that fit with my understanding. This new thing comes as a complete surprise.

EDIT - Sorry Scott I was working on this post when you posted and did not see it until after I posted.

Craig,

I'm confident that your understanding of how Constitutional Amendments are presented is correct. The districts do not have the ability to amend those constitutional amendments, they either vote to accept or reject.

But this doesn't even fall under the realm of Constitutional Amendments. (There were 3 or 4 Articles of Faith, and one paragraph about GA representation that required ratification this time around).

The districts don't have the ability to ratify, accept, or reject the change to paragraph 38.5. Neither do they have the ability to ratify, accept, or reject the Funding the Mission formula in regards to WEF, P&B, or EDU. The only apportionment business before the DA is the adoption of a district budget/budgets, and how that will be apportioned to the various churches.

[Jon Twitchell]

Question

Was this new FtM formula voted on at GA and what was the discussion if any?

Thanks

Dwayne,

That's a great question. While I was not a delegate, my wife was... and I followed the action very carefully from the floor, providing some independent internet coverage along the way.

First, take a moment and compare paragraph 38.5 from the new manual with the old manual. That change was presented to GA2009, and adopted. I believe it was SF-601, a late resolution presented by the BGS. It was unanimously recommended by the Stewardship/Finance committee (91-0). On the floor of the assembly, there was an attempt to amend the resolution (I'm sorry, I don't know the proposed amendment). The amendment was defeated 387-489, and the resolution ultimately passed 646-235.

SF-601 gave the Board of General Superintendents, in conjunction with the General Board, the authority to assign apportionments for WEF. It is basically that legislation that gives them the authority to define the FTM formula. The FTM formula itself was not specifically up for discussion at the General Assembly.

There were a couple of additional resolutions in the USA Caucus and the USA/Canada Caucus. These were attempts to modify the FTM formula, but they failed. Had they passed, there would have been significant harmonization issues... with the GA giving the BGS that authority with one hand, and the USA Caucus attempting to take it away with the other hand.

I hope that helps. It is a bit of a convoluted explanation, but I have pretty decent recall of the events, and will happily try to answer any other questions you might have.

[Jon Twitchell]

Dwayne, as I understand it was discussed only at the USA caucus (sure don't remember it on the floor of the GA), but the generals decided it would work for the entire church.

Hans,

That's really not entirely accurate. The discussions in the USA Caucus were primarily in regards to an attempt to create a different formula... and those attempts ultimately failed... By my recollection, neither the GA nor the USA/Canada Caucus ultimately discussed the formula, but gave that authority to the BGS/GB by means of Paragraph 38.5, which was voted on by the entire assembly.

[Scott Sherwood]

Let me try again.

The denomination (not the district) asks me to fill out a form. That form asks me to enter the amount of Church Income (defined as that income for which a tax-deductible receipt could be generated).

If I'm on the LA district, I have a choice:

1) Answer the question asked by the denomination, by entering all of the income for which I could have generated a receipt.

OR

2) Answer a slightly different question, by subtracting out those tax-deductible contributions that were part of special offerings.

Maybe it's not lying. Maybe it's not massaging the data.

But if I choose option 2, I'm not honestly answering the question that was asked of me.

I'm not sure how any vote of the LA DA changes that simple fact.

Hitting the button just wasn't enough. Thank you.

[Rich Schmidt]

Guys, this is all spelled out pretty clearly in the FAQ document available at FundingTheMission.org. A couple of excerpts:

Does the new giving plan apply to the entire world, or only to the USA?
Yes, it is a global plan. In February 2009, the General Board voted unanimously to establish a global percent of 5.5 for World Evangelism Fund. Under the new plan, Nazarene churches around the world will give the same percentage toward the same goal. Percentages for P&B and EDU were set by action of the USA National Board. These percentages apply only to churches in the USA and create an example for global giving toward these institutions.

Who sets the percentage amounts for our missional funding plan?
The Manual indicates that the Board of General Superintendents, along with the General Board, is authorized and empowered to apportion the World Evangelism Fund to the district assemblies (Par. 317.12 and Par. 334.8). Percentages for P&B and EDU are established by the USA Board. Each district will establish, by vote of the district assembly, a missional funding plan for district financial needs.

[Rich Schmidt]

Interestingly, near the end of that FAQ document, the following two questions & answers appear:

May districts modify the definition of income or the percentages, establish deductions, or otherwise alter the new mission funding strategy in order to suit their situation?
Although there is presently an acknowledged “standard formula” for the USA Church of the Nazarene, there have been major deviations from this standard for many years. The original instruction, formed by the BGS, was that district modifications to the standard formula must yield equal dollars for general interests. By AY08-09, over 70 districts had modified the standard formula and 42 districts had significantly changed to the standard formula. These changes resulted in about $2.5 million USD reduction in World Evangelism Fund allocation last year. The success of the new mission funding plan depends on all USA districts utilizing these percentages equitably, without modification. Districts should implement this plan without modification and share equitably in funding our global mission.

What if our church decides to use a different system to calculate their giving goals?
Churches, like districts, are being asked to willingly participate in this mission funding plan without modification. There have never been any punitive measures built into the mission funding polity of the Church of the Nazarene. However, only churches that follow the giving plan adopted by the general and national boards will be credited with full participation in giving goals. The Manual clarifies the duties of the church board: “The church board, together with the pastor, shall follow plans adopted by the General Assembly and agreed to by the district assembly for raising WEF and District Ministries Fund apportionments made to the local church, and shall raise and regularly pay these apportionments,” (Par. 38.2 and Par. 130).

In the first one, they don't come right out and say, "No, districts cannot do that." But they also make clear that districts are expected to participate fully, without modification. And in the second one, they make clear that a church will not be considered "paid in full" if they follow a different plan.

[Dwayne Petry]

I fill that the main point of the action of the LA. District has been missunderstood. The focus seems to be on our right to amend or not amend the FtM portion of the Finance Committee Report.

This is my concern!

What right does a layman in the Church of the Nazarene or a General on the BGS have to take a portion of SPIRIT led giving? Please understand that I am talking about giving above and beyond "Biblical tithes and offerings. I believe JESUS meets the needs of HIS CHURCH thru "Biblical tithes and offering" but there are situations which arise and people are led by the HOLY SPIRIT to give above and beyound "Biblical tithes and offering".

Each one of us could, without too much effort, think of situations we have witnessed where a need was met by giving above and beyond "Biblical tithes and offering". Every example I gave are real life examples involving our local church. I have heard of many other instances where Nazarenes answered a special need and gave above and beyond "Biblical tithes and offerings" (I know you are getting tired of this phrase, but that is what was used in the district FCR).

Not all giving has to do with the FtM formula. Example: At the LA District NMI Convention, our DS made the convention aware that the District was $10,000.00 short of paying 100% of the NMI budget. A prayer seeking the HOLY SPIRIT's guidance was prayed and the $10,000.00 was raised in about 10 minutes. I witnessed the joy with which he sent a text informing Dr. Duarte, as he was arriving at the airport, that the need had been met. Again this has nothing to do with the FtM formula or giving to a local church but it is an example of Nazarenes giving above and beyond "Biblical tithes and offerings".

We pray for GOD's blessing on our demonination and when HE blesses with special needs giving above and beyond "Biblical tithes and offerings", the general church wants a portion of that also. The general church must recognize and honor special needs giving above and beyond "Biblical tithes and offering"

We are not talking about our church, this is JESUS' CHURCH. It's HIS money! I believe HE just might want SPIRIT led giving above and beyond "Biblical tithes and offering" to go to the special need for which it was given.

Could I ask you a favor as you read this post. Please take a few minutes and take my post to the LORD in prayer as I have done before I wrote it. Before I took the floor at the LA. District Assembly, I had to commit this situation to the LORD because I knew it would create a conflict of thought(trying to be nice).

I do not believe that this is about parliamentary procedure, but doing the right thing as the BODY of CHRIST.

Prayerfully submitted
Dwayne Petry

[Rich Schmidt]

What right does a layman in the Church of the Nazarene or a General on the BGS have to take a portion of SPIRIT led giving? Please understand that I am talking about giving above and beyond "Biblical tithes and offerings. I believe JESUS meets the needs of HIS CHURCH thru "Biblical tithes and offering" but there are situations which arise and people are led by the HOLY SPIRIT to give above and beyound "Biblical tithes and offering".

Each one of us could, without too much effort, think of situations we have witnessed where a need was met by giving above and beyond "Biblical tithes and offering". Every example I gave are real life examples involving our local church. I have heard of many other instances where Nazarenes answered a special need and gave above and beyond "Biblical tithes and offerings" (I know you are getting tired of this phrase, but that is what was used in the district FCR).

One problem that comes immediately to mind is: How do we know when a need is truly above and beyond "Biblical tithes and offerings"?

Let's say it's a church of 50 adults. Odds are that not all 50 are tithing, let alone giving regular offerings above the tithe. If the church finds itself with a "special" financial need... is it because the need is truly "special," or is it because 35 of those 50 people aren't giving their full tithes and offerings? Would this "special need" have been easily handled by the church if 10 more people had been tithing as they should? If so, then why should this church get rewarded (with lower apportionment numbers for WEF, etc) because a portion of its members haven't been giving consistently and faithfully?

I think we need to be careful not to equate "what normally comes in" with "Biblical tithes and offerings."

As for the giving that my wife and I do, I believe it is all "Spirit led giving," even though we plan it out at the beginning of the year and drop our checks in the offering box weekly. We do our planning prayerfully, and we build into our family budget extra money to give as the Spirit leads moment-by-moment. We've always understood that a portion of our giving was going to meet denominational commitments (WEF, etc). Previously those commitment levels were set based on last year's giving (including what was given in "special offerings"). Now those commitments are based on current giving. Did this bother you under the previous system? Or does it bother you only now that it's happening "in real time"?

[Hans Deventer]

In the first one, they don't come right out and say, "No, districts cannot do that." But they also make clear that districts are expected to participate fully, without modification. And in the second one, they make clear that a church will not be considered "paid in full" if they follow a different plan.

This is strange. At first is was, the system doesn't matter as long as the money comes in. Then districts started to change with the result that less was being paid, and now they cannot change anything anymore.
However, if our district would follow the new system, LESS money would be paid than is being done today.

In my view, the most logical thing to do would be to say: according to system X, the district would pay amount Y. If you want to use system Z, that's cool as long as it does not raise less than amount Y. Everybody happy.

[Jon Twitchell]

Dwayne,

I fully appreciate that you feel passionately about this, and that you have a conviction on the topic. The designated gifts portion of the formula can be problematic, especially for churches who find themselves relying heavily on special offerings. There are at least a couple of problems with the practical implications of the exemption.

As Rich points out, unless you're carefully auditing all of your parishioners' books, there's no way to know if a gift is truly above "Biblical tithes and offerings" or not. I'm well aware that many times when I have a special offering, the tithes that week simply go down. It's not supposed to happen that way, but it does. I'm also aware of people who don't tithe... but will give generously to a special offering. The church growth gurus actually encourage you to be aware of this, by asking for giving "from every available pocket."

And, as I've pointed out, your exemption allows for great abuses by the local church that wants to avoid paying budgets. Anything can be covered by a special offering if we want.... Sunday School curriculum could be considered a purchase by a special offering (we just happen to take it in SS class). We could put out an appeal every year for someone to take care of the oil bill, or the craft supplies, or the copy paper.

You indicate that we've turned this discussion into one of parliamentary law and rights to amend. I'm curious to see how this all plays out, but I'm afraid that the amendment to the report won't accomplish very much. When we believe God is leading us to change something in His church, it's incumbent upon us to understand the process and the level at which that change needs to be made. At this point, to see that change be made, either the BGS & General Board need to be petitioned to change the formula, or a resolution should be submitted to GA2013, either revoking SF-601, amending it to give districts the right to modify the formula, or somehow exempting designated gifts from the funding formula.

Let me give you a scenario:

1) My local church finance committee meets, after our District Assembly, but prior to our Annual Church meeting.
2) As part of their report to the local church, they include the new FTM formula, including the district and regional and global percentages.
3) At the Annual Church meeting, someone stands and proposes an amendment to the report, based on the firm conviction that we shouldn't be sending more money to the district then to WEF. And so, they amend the Finance Committee report to say that we will only pay 5.5% to the District Ministries Fund. That amendment is passed by the congregation.
4) The church board acts according to the action taken at the annual meeting, and only sends 5.5% to the District.
5) At the end of the year, they celebrate because they paid their budgets in full.... after all, they accomplished the goal set for them by their Annual Church Meeting.

Obviously, just because this local church believes they paid their budgets in full, doesn't mean they did. They'll get to District Assembly and see the charts that indicate they fell short in DMF. Now... they can celebrate that they met the goal they had set... and that they held firm to their convictions... but saying that they paid their budgets in full doesn't make it so.

What's the problem with the scenario I listed above? They made the change at the wrong level. In order to shape the Church by that conviction, they needed to work with the DS, the District Finance Committee, or present an amendment at the District Assembly. The District Assembly ultimately sets the DMF percentage for the churches on its district, and so that is the level at which that change should be made.

I've probably exhausted all I have to say on the topic. I do want to thank you for defending the amendment... and for your convictions on the topic. I'm curious to see how this all plays out... and I do hope that you won't be discouraged if the action of the LA DA is ultimately declared illegal. Please continue to work for the change you believe God wants to see... in the manner best suited to that change.

[Dwayne Petry]

Did this bother you under the previous system? Or does it bother you only now that it's happening "in real time"?

"Bother", no Rich, our budgets are paid in full (overpaid Missions). What bothers me is that when the givers setting in the church pews become aware how the new plan works, it will impact giving in a negative way. I pray that I am wrong. When a change is for the betterment of an organization, it is easy to support, but when it (as I believe) will have a negative impact, it is difficult to stand by and say nothing.

With the prior plan, you could pay your budgets in full and know that monies raised for special purposes would go 100% to that purpose.