I was at a District clergy meeting yesterday where we talked about the new Kansas East Conference system of tithe-based apportionments. Basically, we're moving to a system where apportionments to the Conference will be 10% of weekly giving to the general budget of the church. I had reservations about this idea at first - too radical of a change in system in uncertain finacial times. Just the conservative in me coming out. But I've warmed up to it and now totally support it.
You can see where this idea is coming from Biblically. Since I see the tithe as an Old Testament concept that Jesus supplanted with a "give me your whole life" approach I'm not sold on that reason. To me it's just practical. Year after year we budget based on what we want to spend, not based on what we have the income to spend. This is like what our federal government has been doing, except the Church can't print more money or borrow from another country to make up the shortfall. So instead we have to cut budgets and/or staff to make up the difference each year. The new system reverses that. The churches tell the Conference how much to spend based on church income. While there may come a time when the Conference has to make painful choices in what to do and what not to do, the budget will never get totally out of whack with giving to the local church.
Compare that to the General UMC. According to our Conference Treasurer yesterday, 39% of our Conference budget will go to General/Jursidicional apportionments. 39%! I know that the General Church does many things very well. I served for 8 years on a General Board and I've been to 2 General Conferences and have had a chance to see much good done at the General Church level. But I also know that if we had that money to spend at the Conference level instead there would be a lot of good done too! I believe we need a new General Church budgeting/apportionment formula. Something like this:
1) GCFA sets a 4-year budget based on a 10% tithe from every Conference. This is set based on giving the year before General Conference and may be adjusted upwards by GCFA based on projected cost of living/inflation projections for the next four years.
2) General Conference has the authority to add projects to this budget of as much as 10% (in other words, the total could rise to 11% of total giving)
3) Any motion to add beyond this total would have to either include a provision to reduce the budget by the same amount in another area OR be passed by a 2/3 vote.
As our Conference is doing, I'd move towards this gradually. Maybe over as long as 12 years (the projection for our Conference is that it will take 6 years). It would probably be too painful to do at once. But if other Conferences are giving similar percentages as Kansas East is, then we are simply much too top heavy. How can we move towards this change in 2012?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
David,
I think this shift is more than fiscally responsible it is also faithful as you mentioned early in your writing. The church could set an example for the secular world. That does not mean we do not work for change and transformation and inovation. Trinity has been operation out of such a system for four years now. We have a Consecration Sunday...and after we know what we will likely have as income then we plan accordingly. We do explain our hopes and dreams and I preach and pray about priorities and faithfulness. Right now it is at times tough because I cannot justify some of the spending on the conference or the general conference level. Keep up the good work.
Excellent post. Our church currently spends about 20% of our income on apportionments, and it simply isn't sustainable. does this apply to pledge-and-plate income, or to building use and endowment-based income as well?
Thanks Barb and Bob.
It's still a new system, but my understanding is that it applies to all income that is used for the general budget. So the source of the income doesn't matter, the purpose of it does. There's some concern that churches might move things off-budget to avoid apportionments (take more special offerings, etc.) but I can't believe there would be very many who would do that.
As is often the case, there is more than one issue that needs to be addressed. We could go to a formula of 3% of income received by churches through the plate for General Church apportionments.
But, there are other questions that should be considered. First, should annual conferences be responsible for paying for their bishop directly rather than sending money to Nashville and then having it sent back. This question becomes even more important when you realize that the Western Jurisdiction isn't even paying for the bishops they have much less contributing toward the Central Conference bishops or for retired bishops.
Along with that question are the questions about scholarships, college aid, etc. Should this be done at the Annual Conference level instead of the General Church? How many different scholarship programs should we have?
Should GBGM be spending around $7 million a year in grants to organizations outside of the UMC? If we are going to say "First Mile First" and then some of that money is going outside the connection, then there is some dissonance.
Some more food for thought.
Good thoughts. One advantage to this system would be that all boards and other groups would need to think hard about where to spend money. The question of who pays for what is a very good one with lots of potential ramifications. For example, it would be interesting to know if the Western Jurisdiction would be able to pay for their Bishops if they didn't have to give so much to the General Church.
David, et.al.,
I too am really working on this issue as we look towards the 2012 GC budget. I'm on the Economic Advisory Board for the GCFA, so will pass these thoughts along. My concern is with regards to all of our resources - how are we using them, ...so that we might make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, or otherwise? This ought to be a guiding question at all levels. We ought to be focusing on this mission as well as the four foci.
I'm worried about the idea of reducing the GC's apportionment from the AC percentage of 39% (probably most ACs are close to that number) to 10%. That would mean that our local churches are only then employing 1% of their receipts towards the world mission and services that are at the heart of our UMC. If the 39% is on average, then our GC annual budget would go from about $157 Million to about $40 Million per year. There have already been huge layoffs for many General Boards this year, but this would be a completely different (very adaptive) change.
What if we go about this from the opposite direction? I just received and have begun reading the book, Passing the Plate: Why American Christians Don't Give Away More Money. It argues that even our most faithful membership does not give much in comparison to ability. The book estimates (and I believe this is really a good estimation) that if the most faithful of our churches in the USA (those who are regularly involved and who give on a regular basis already) were to give 10% of their after tax income ...the total sum in one year would be an additional $46 Billion for mission, service, evangelism, and transformation for the world over. Maybe we wouldn't be asking how to reduce our percentage, but trying to call people to give their lives for mission and ministry!
I believe that maybe the issue is not how we might reduce our budgets, especially in those places that are most effective towards our larger mission, but how might we ourselves and those in our congregation give sacrificially....so that we might make disciples of Jesus Christ and transform the world!
What do you think? Thanks for your thoughts! Shalom, Dustin
Post a Comment