Amending the new Funding the Mission formula

[Jon Twitchell]

"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.

In our church, monies raised for special purposes will go 100% to that purpose. We established a local church policy that we won't pay apportionments out of designated giving. We will pay apportionments out of tithes and offerings.

[Dwayne Petry]

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.

Jon, If local pastors and church boards cannot be trusted to pay normal operations cost out of tithes and offering, we have a bigger problem than the new FtM formula.

[Jon Twitchell]

Jon, If local pastors and church boards cannot be trusted to pay normal operations cost out of tithes and offering, we have a bigger problem than the new FtM formula.

I agree... but who defines what's "Normal operating expenses" and what's not? How do you define an emergency expense?

The vacuum cleaner breaks down. We're actually having a special offering for it... but at $3-500, I think we should have planned ahead and budgeted for it.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Perhaps it is reasonable at this point to conclude that everyone has done an admirable job of expressing themselves. I don't think Dwayne expects to come away from this discussion having convinced everyone else to go to their District Assembly and vote to amend their finance committee report.

Nor do I think Jon expects Louisiana to have a second Assembly to rescind the previous action because he's convinced everyone that the action shouldn't have been taken.

To me, this is a good time to congratulate one another for their participation and see if there's any more developments on the new FtM approach.

[Rich Schmidt]

"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.

We actually faced a situation quite similar to this when we were starting our church back in 2000. Back then, new churches that weren't yet organized (and thus weren't yet participating in the normal denominational budget plan) were expected to give 10% of their offerings to the various denominational areas (WEF, P&B, Education, District). This was to help them learn from the start to be a giving church that participates in the larger mission of the denomination. It was based on current offerings, no exemptions -- just like the new FtM plan.

We had some big early supporters (non-Nazarene) who were concerned that 10% the money they were giving us to help start the church was actually going to other people. We let them know that this was just the way it was going to be, that we believed God wanted us to be an others-focused and mission-focused church, so we were going to give away 10% of everything that came in.

It didn't stop them from supporting us. They still gave generously. Who knows -- they may have given more generously because they liked that we were committed to being that sort of church.

Under the FtM plan, we still plan to, as you said, pay our budgets in full and know that monies raised for special purposes will go 100% to that purpose. We just know that if we have an extra $10,000 come in for a special need, that we're going to be more generous than we'd originally planned toward WEF and the others. Like I said, the new plan doesn't change this at all. The old plan just pushed the increase in denominational expectations into the next fiscal year. The new plan keeps it in the current one.

I'll pray along with you that the new plan doesn't negatively impact giving! Hopefully God will give us wisdom to know how to explain it to our people in a way that makes sense to them and encourages them to be even more generous with the resources God has entrusted to them!

[Scott Sherwood]

this is a good time to congratulate one another for their participation and see if there's any more developments on the new FtM approach

Congratulations Dwayne,

Thanks for jumping in. You picked a tough first topic. Anything dealing with denominational issues tends to be touchy and working with money of course, well, that goes without saying. I understand the issue better because of your statements, and it will help me as a district finance committee member to be better prepared for our district assembly than I otherwise would have been.

I hope that every local, district, and global entity processes these changes in such a way that the mission each is advanced rather than hindered. It is clear to me that you have this same heart. I hope to hear your input on other matters as well.

Scott C, what do you think about inviting Dwayne to have the last word in the thread and then tie a bow on it?

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Scott C, what do you think about inviting Dwayne to have the last word in the thread and then tie a bow on it?

I split off to a new thread and can close it if everyone feels they've had their say.

How's dat? (in deference to Louisiana)

[Jon Twitchell]

Dwayne,

Again, thanks for your participation... and for sharing your perspective on the topic... it's nice to hear directly from the individuals involved, rather then trying to ascertain what took place....

I certainly hope that our vigorous debate on this topic won't hinder your participation on other NazNet topics. I'm really a nice guy, once you get to know me.

Blessings,

Jon

[Dwayne Petry]

Thanks guys!

I, as you can tell, love a good discussion and debate. That being said, I do not want to be the one to prevent anyone else from having the opportunity to express themselves.

I will end my discussion with something I know we can agree on.

Let's pray that the decisions made by laymen and pastors at the local level to the decisions made by the BGS will be guided by the HOLY SPIRIT, and these decisions will have a positive impact on the operation of the local church as well as the demonination in its world wide ministry.


I know we all love the CHURCH(Body of CHRIST) as well as our demonination, and only strive for the best for both.

We may disagree on this matter, but we can agree that it is GOD's will which we seek. May HE enlighten us all so that we can work for the betterment of HIS Kingdom!

Dwayne

Hey Scott C. -- It's WHO DAT!!!!!!

[Billy Cox]

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%.

Due to my affinity with the Church of the Nazarene, and my interminable curiosity I have read (most of) this thread.

If this thread was an album and I was drawing the cover art, it would be a picture of a bunch of CPA's poring over the new formula for figuring Adjusted Gross Income on form 1040.

[Jon Twitchell]

Just one more thing... I was reminded last night of another salient detail in the transition to the new formula.

While the new paragraph (38.5) wasn't introduced until GA2009, GA2005 took action that authorized the BGS/GB to create a new tithe-based funding formula for implementation in 2007. While it was a couple years late, the new FTM plan, as first introduced (but not implemented) in the fall of 2008, was a result of that action in GA2005. Because it came late, it was easy for everyone (including me) to confuse it with GA2009 business. But in reality, FTM was a result of GA2005.

This didn't come about because the BGS/GB decided we needed a new formula. It came about through several assemblies worth of resolutions that sought a new formula.

[Dale Cozby]

There is no mercy from above.
There is no grace offered to those who fall short.
There is punishment awaiting those who don't measure up.
The poor widow will give her mite and be scorned for it.
The wealthy will tip and be praised for it.
The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer.
All will be the same in the church as it is in the world....and life will go on.

[Jon Twitchell]

There is no mercy from above.
There is no grace offered to those who fall short.
There is punishment awaiting those who don't measure up.
The poor widow will give her mite and be scorned for it.
The wealthy will tip and be praised for it.
The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer.
All will be the same in the church as it is in the world....and life will go on.

Well I think that's a pretty unfortunate perspective. The new formula, in my opinion, is chalk full of evidence that there is grace and mercy from above. It's a far more equitable system that (at least in my area) makes it easier for the smaller church to succeed.

And let's remember that unlike the UMC Mission-share system, there really are very few consequences to churches for failure to pay budgets.

[Scott Sherwood]

There is no mercy from above.
There is no grace offered to those who fall short.
There is punishment awaiting those who don't measure up.
The poor widow will give her mite and be scorned for it.
The wealthy will tip and be praised for it.
The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer.
All will be the same in the church as it is in the world....and life will go on.

I know your being funny, but since some will take this seriously and I can't find the appropriate numerical response (see Good Clean Fun), I can't help but defend the big meanies who have imposed such injustice on us.

Whatever church is the equivalent of the poor widow and gives its all, will be celebrated far and wide as a 100% church, perhaps the first in history. In fact, your post makes me think. This is not so far fetched. If I remember correctly, this is what charlie shedd's church did. http://www.amazon.com/Exciting-Churc...667374&sr=1-29 They committed to giving away a dollar for every dollar they spent, which I think by our new funding formula would figure out to a church being a 100% church.

Organic churches would be especially well set up for this approach. If we ever manage to move away from professional salaries and big buildings, we would have a real shot at this. It would require a very mobilized laity and tentmaking clergy.

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

It's my day off. the ADD is in full blossom. Here's another little irony at work here.

it is my observation that many of our smaller churches are actually populated by more affluent people on average than our larger churches. Average per capita giving statistics may support this. So the churches we look at as poor widow churches may in fact be those in the cushiest situation in terms of money and property per member. And the larger growing churches who raise more money collectively are often full of folks who are on average less capable of giving. These churches are serving way more people on way less money and property per member.

Just make me wonder who the poor widow is and who the wealthy one is, when it comes to churches.

[Jon Twitchell]

I know your being funny, but since some will take this seriously...

Well... see... I already did.

That's what I get for not reading the humor between the lines...

:shrug:

[Dale Cozby]

Well... see... I already did.

That's what I get for not reading the humor between the lines...

:shrug:

I am "laughing out loud'. for those who know that is "lol"

While I'm sharing: I think of this little ditty: "Doom and despair, agony on me. If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all." I have kinda quit sharing this one, because my wife thinks I am talking about her...

Funny, my wife liked me for my sense of humor 24 yrs ago. Now it just annoys her...112

[Jon Twitchell]

Was I supposed to sing those words to a tune? Maybe that's why I missed the funny.

[Gina Stevenson]

I am "laughing out loud'. for those who know that is "lol"

While I'm sharing: I think of this little ditty: "Doom and despair, agony on me. If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all." I have kinda quit sharing this one, because my wife thinks I am talking about her...

Funny, my wife liked me for my sense of humor 24 yrs ago. Now it just annoys her...112

Of course! Y'all know that what makes "opposites attract" only tends to annoy them later, b/c the "opposite characteristics" that are to "complement" (this is another grammatical "annoyance" ... folks using compl"I"ment where compl"E"ment is meant to be used) each other can grate on each other rather than meshing together ... sometimes ... if we let them. So, let's not ..........

Was I supposed to sing those words to a tune? Maybe that's why I missed the funny.

Oh, Jon ... afraid to admit you ever watched HeeHaw, er what!?

[Jon Twitchell]

Oh, Jon ... afraid to admit you ever watched HeeHaw, er what!?

Umm... yeah.... that was it.

Seriously? Never saw HeeHaw... is that why I didn't get it?

[Rich Schmidt]

Umm... yeah.... that was it.

Seriously? Never saw HeeHaw... is that why I didn't get it?

No, it's not. The "Doom and despair, agony on me." bit was a song from Hee Haw. The earlier stuff Dale posted has no connection to Hee Haw, that I can see anyway.

[Marsha Lynn]

it is my observation that many of our smaller churches are actually populated by more affluent people on average than our larger churches. Average per capita giving statistics may support this. So the churches we look at as poor widow churches may in fact be those in the cushiest situation in terms of money and property per member. And the larger growing churches who raise more money collectively are often full of folks who are on average less capable of giving. These churches are serving way more people on way less money and property per member.

Hmmm... your observation doesn't match mine. I see talented, well-to-do people migrate to the large churches where they can get the most bang for their buck, whereas the smallest churches are made up of people who would be pushed to the edges in large churches because they bring fewer resources with them.

On the other hand, you may be right about the per capita giving. I see that more as related to "social loafing." People in smaller churches tend to see themselves as more responsible for the survival of the church and are, thus, willing to dig deeper. If something needs to be done, they realize the only way to get it done is to find funds for it, probably from their personal resources. In contrast, those in larger churches can more easily look around and say, "There are other people who can contribute here. It doesn't all depend on me. I'm surely not the only one who can see how badly this needs to be done."

Just make me wonder who the poor widow is and who the wealthy one is, when it comes to churches.

That is indeed an interesting question. Thanks for giving us some food for thought.

Marsha

[Glenn Harris]

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm still trying to figure out the logistics of where I'm going to find the extra time to do all the breakouts that are now required) but the new apportionment actually removes the ability of the District from messing with the global apportionments. In my state, the local church paid the P&B and education portions to the District based on that income reported that the District required (which excluded special offerings, building fund money and pass through funds) WEF funds were always paid directly to Kansas City, and it was determined by last years total income. Now the P&B and Education portions are paid directly to Kansas City (and appropriate University) and the District is only paid their portion. If the district choses to expand or limit the what they require reported it only effects the district and not global apportionments.

If the District moves to limit the amount reported to Kansas City that's an issue whose validity needs to be taken up with the District representatives, not the local churches. They are doing what they've been told they can do. (they meaning me) BTW: Our district makes no distinction in the apportionment. Anything reported to Kansas City or Trevecca is based on total income, no exclusions.

BTW: Just for an fyi. This is the first year in many that we actually had to dip into the operating funds to meet our WEF goal. Prior to this year (it's been a tough year all the way around) we always received more than our share through special offerings and designated funds. The verdict is still out on whether this is going to be a positive or a negative until we see how it actually impacts us in the pew but I will say this: Theories are great but saying that it should be for the greater good of the church is one thing, but if the guy in the pew percieves it as losing control of his "above and beyond the tithe" contributions, who wins if it stops. To me it's like my brother in law. He had been unemployed for about 4 months and received a job offer making $40,000. He turned it down because he used to make $60,000. I asked him how much he was making now.

I'm glad we spent the $40,000.00 to have our parking lot repaved two years ago and the $26,000 for a new bus last year because I'm afraid that under the current situation our elderly people would still be walking through a mine field to get into the church and the kids in our bus ministry would now be walking. It's been mentioned that we eventually paid those expenses because they were part of the formula for figuring our next years WEF goal, but the KEY is that we didn't have to pay them TODAY!!!!!

Just my two cents worth.

[Rich Schmidt]

I'm glad we spent the $40,000.00 to have our parking lot repaved two years ago and the $26,000 for a new bus last year because I'm afraid that under the current situation our elderly people would still be walking through a mine field to get into the church and the kids in our bus ministry would now be walking. It's been mentioned that we eventually paid those expenses because they were part of the formula for figuring our next years WEF goal, but the KEY is that we didn't have to pay them TODAY!!!!!

Under the old formula, your parking lot repaving would have been excluded, I believe.

I like the fact that our apportionments are now based on current income instead of last year's income. Previously, if you had a great year followed by a tough year, income-wise, you'd be saddled with higher apportionments (based on the good year's numbers) during that tough year. Now, if you're having a tough year, your apportionments scale down to match. If you're having a great year, they scale up. And, of course, we still have until the end of the church year to get them paid, if we need to fall behind for a month or two due to lower-than-expected offerings.

Just two more of my cents.