GUEST BLOGGER: Nick Park, National Overseer of the COG in Ireland and pastor of Solid Rock Church
In 1995 I was a struggling Church Planter in Drogheda, Ireland. Our Church had no money, no building, and a grand total of 21 members – most of whom were unemployed and living off Welfare. Brother Doug LeRoy came to visit us on the recommendation of a mutual acquaintance, and he must have been wondering whether he was wasting his time. What could this pony-tailed biker attempting to pastor his tiny flock of converted alcoholics possibly offer the great Church of God?
But Brother LeRoy, like so many of our personnel in the World Missions Department, had learned to look beyond the outward appearance. Church of God World Missions has been so successful in developing and reaping a global harvest precisely because men like Doug Leroy have such a passion for missions that they have learned to recognise God’s hand at work in the unlikeliest places.
Brother LeRoy, and later Grant McClung, as Field Directors for Western Europe, backed that young Church Planter – and today that unpromising congregation of 21 people has become a multicultural Church of over 700 members. Not only that, a further 13 congregations have been planted out with a total membership of over 3500. The founding of the Church of God in Ireland is a missions success story – and it was nurtured and funded through the 2.5% of tithes that local churches send to Church of God World Missions.
I have had the privilege, as God has extended our ministry, of visiting many of the outreaches and projects that are funded through that 2.5%. I have taught in Bible Colleges, worshipped in mud huts, and led seminars where some of the participants travelled 48 hours each way by train in order to improve their ministry skills. I have fellowshipped with church leaders in Islamic countries where we had to whisper the name of Jesus, and I have dodged secret police on the way to 5 am graduation services in underground Bible Schools. All these ministries had something in common with that pony-tailed Irish Church Planter of 13 years ago. None of them had the know-how or opportunities to raise funds directly from Stateside congregations, all of them needed help from the 2.5% to survive, and they were all operating because Church of God World Missions has personnel with the incredible gift of seeing a divine opportunity where others see nothing.
As a Pastor I am still personally involved in front line Church Planting. Like any other Pastor, I see the incredible need for more resources on the local level. We have taken some big steps of faith and, like many other Pastors, I know what it is like to not get paid for two or three months in order to make sure the other financial commitments are met. That 15% we send up the line each month can sure be painful! (By the way, in our Church, as in some other overseas expressions of the Church of God, we don’t make any distinction between tithes and offerings. We pay 15% on everything – tithes and offerings!)
So, the Missionary in me sees the incredible blessing that has been created through the mandated giving of the 2.5% to World Missions. The Pastor in me aches at the burden on the local Church that is causing such frustration.
At our last General Assembly in 2006 it seemed as if the only way the burden on the local Church was to be relieved was by hitting World Missions. I was heart-broken to see the division this caused.
During the final vote, when the whole General Assembly could participate, I was sitting beside a Pastor and his wife from Kentucky. At one point, since the vote was so close, we had to stand to signify whether we were voting Yes or No. As I stood to oppose cutting the 2.5%, the Pastor’s wife peered closely at my badge to see where I was from. Seeing that I was an International Delegate from outside the US she curled her lip and stared at me with a look of utter contempt.
I wanted to explain to her that we paid the 15% just like they did. I wanted to tell her about the Bible Schools in Russia and the ministries in closed countries. But I realized that I would be wasting my breath. As far as she was concerned I was standing to oppose any decrease of what had become an intolerable burden for her and her husband. The Church of God was divided.
After the vote, I went with my Executive Pastor for a burger at Steak & Shake. It was his first time at a General Assembly, and he had been so excited beforehand to have the opportunity to see the International Church of God coming together in fellowship and worship. He is originally from Africa and has been wonderfully used by God in building a congregation of 34 different nationalities and inspiring them to be a Missions Church with a vision for taking the Gospel to the ends of the earth.
I could see the hurt and disillusionment in his eyes as he asked, “Why did hundreds of Church of God Pastors just vote to cut the funding of missions?” I tried to tell him about the struggles of Stateside Churches, about rising insurance premiums etc. But I could tell my words were not easing his pain. The Church of God was divided.
I am a Pastor and a Church Planter – not a politician. I would sooner run a mile than get involved in arguments over money. But I don’t want to spend another General Assembly watching the Church of God tearing itself apart in mistrust and suspicion with Pastors and Missionaries pitted against one another. Therefore I am putting pen to paper (well, fingers to keyboard actually) to plead with us as a Pastors and Missionaries to together find a better solution.
Churches need some help with the burdens they are carrying, but if we weaken our commitment to World Missions then we sacrifice one of our movement’s most precious distinctives. Therefore I would support a proposal that would reduce the amount sent by local Churches to headquarters, but would preserve the proportion of that income that is designated for missions. So, let’s reduce the 15% – and, yes, by all means do it by bringing it down to 10%. Do it all at once, or do it gradually, but let’s cut it.
However, let’s also stipulate that one third of the monies sent from local Churches, both at State and International level, is reserved solely for the purpose of Home Missions (at the State level) and World Missions (at the International level). This would reduce the burden on local Churches, would retain the intention of the 2.5%, would enable the continuance of effective missionary projects, and would recognise that the United States is itself a huge mission field that requires urgent evangelization. It would also spread the pain of any cuts by ensuring that a reduction is shared across the board.
LET ME ANTICIPATE AND ADDRESS SOME OBJECTIONS:
1. “Missions giving should be voluntary, not compulsory. The 2.5% hinders missions giving and, if abolished, missions giving would actually increase.”
Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Furthermore it sounds spiritual, which can be good if a theory is right, but dangerous if the theory is wrong. My problem with this argument is that its proponents don’t apply it to other areas of church finances. How many Pastors will apply this same argument to their own salary? “Don’t pay me a set wage. Just pay me whatever you feel like on any given week. After all, supporting your pastor should be a matter of freewill not of compulsion.”
Any takers? No, I thought not.
2. “Why should World Mission leaders control their own budget. We’ve elected an Executive Committee – so let’s trust them to do their job.”
This was actually said during the debate at the last General Assembly. “Don’t worry, you can trust us to look after World Missions!” And in fact I have no doubt that the current Executive Committee does care passionately for the cause of the global harvest. However, there are two problems.
Firstly, a unified budget is not just for this Executive Committee – but for every future Executive Committee until the Return of Christ. The Bible says that there arose another king in Egypt who knew not Joseph. I do trust, respect and honor the current Executive Committee – but I do not consider it wise to put a unified budget under the control of future leadership that may or may not share an international vision.
Secondly, the best people to operate a World Missions budget are those who have given their life to World Missions. They know better than anyone else how much money is needed and where it is needed. They know how to recognize if that pony-tailed Irish Church Planter has the potential to found a National Church or not.
3. “Our church would rather just give money directly to the Missionaries that we know.”
I’m sure they would! I would also like to designate our Church’s tithe of tithes to go specifically to those Departments in Cleveland with which I am most familiar – but no sensible system of church government will allow me to do that. Why? Because people who are more knowledgeable than me can see the big picture.
If your Church only gives to Missionaries with whom you are familiar then who loses out? It will be those projects who lack the connections or opportunities to fundraise in the States. The losers will be the National Workers, the Bible Schools, the ministries in closed nations etc. that have been propelling the Church of God forward in recent years into unprecedented spiritual and numerical growth.
Furthermore, all missiological research over the last 70 years has consistently indicated that many of the most effective missionary strategies are not primarily operated through American Missionaries. Don’t get me wrong – I am privileged to count many American Missionaries among my closest friends. I honor, and am humbled by, their commitment and sacrifice. But they will be the first to tell you that the purpose of their ministry is to raise up local expressions of the Kingdom of God that will be self-governing, self-propagating, and ultimately self-financing.
Also, if local Churches only give to their chosen Missionaries then much of that support will go to projects that are outside the Church of God due to family connections etc. Some may not think that this is important, but I do. Our congregations in Ireland are part of the Church of God because Churches in the States contributed to Church of God World Missions. I love the Church of God, and I believe it has a unique role to play in the global harvest.
4. “The tithe of tithes is sacred. We can’t touch it. It’s a Biblical principal that must not be violated.”
Actually I think the tithe of tithes is a great idea. But it is just that – a great idea. Tithing, I believe, is biblical, but the tithe of tithes is not. Malachi did not say, “Bring the tithe of tithes into Cleveland and I will open up the windows of heaven and pour out a blessing so great that the Church of God cannot contain it.”
Anyway, I am not suggesting that the tithe of tithes be violated. I am proposing that each local Church pays a tithe of tithes, of which one third be designated for Home Missions and World Missions.
I am under no illusions as to my place in the greater scheme of things. I am but a small cog in a great COG. The Church of God was here long before me and will continue long after I am gone. As I’ve already said, I am no politician. This Pastor and Church Planter who owes so much to the Church of God and to the World Missions Department humbly offers the above thoughts and proposal as his contribution to a movement is changing the world and must not be a Church Divided.
———————————–
Nick Park is a former homeless drunk who received Christ through the ministry of the Salvation Army. He is the founding pastor of Solid Rock Church and the National Overseer for the COG in Ireland.
He holds a BA degree in Theology from ICI University in Texas and an MTh in Applied Theology from the University of Liverpool. He is Visiting Professor in Church Growth & Evangelism at the Eurasian Theological Seminary in Moscow. He is the author of ‘Faith: The Real Thing: a practical commentary on Hebrews 11.’
Filed under: church of god
I too was at the 2006 GA, and, like your friend was saddened by the division over this issue.
I do have one comment on what you said, your #1:
I have served just as you suggest State Side Pastors would not. I have sacrificed my salary first before offering any other program cuts, I have lived based on the tithe instead of a set salary, as a matter of fact, my current church is the first that I have ever pastored that gave me a set salary, and I have, at my own suggestion, cut that salary for the good of the chruch several times. I would also expect our leaders to be just as dedicated.
I would be much better off financially if I could get away with mandated giving, however in 22 years of ministry I have never seen a church that would allow it. I deal with the subject through teaching the Biblical principle of giving. Some get it and give over and above what they are asked in scripture to give, others reject it and miss out on God’s blessings by disobediance.
The blesssings far outweigh the rejections, and that is how the local church, at least in the US local churches I have been in, work. I think that the larger CoG should work the same way. I belive in the ToT, I also believe in the missions offering. I also believe that I could raise a larger offering for World Missions and Home Missions in my church if I didn’t have to overcome the “we’re doing what the CoG told us to do” mentality that the mandated 5% births in the average small cog member.
I believe that God mandates giving, I also believe that God allows us to choose to obey or disobey.
I also believe in the membership of the CoG. Every group has people who won’t do unless they have to , and then they don’t do either, but I do think that as a body we, the CoG, will do the right thing, wheather we are mandated to or not.
With love and thanks for all you do in the Kingdom of God. Your brother and fellow laborer, John
Hey Nick! Thanks so much for your powerful thoughts and words! It certainly offers some much needed perspective for all of us!
As far as your idea, it’s very interesting. If my math is correct, everyone would share the cut in your proposal. COGWM and Home Missions would reduce from 2.5% to 1.65%. And the international offices and the state offices would each take a cut from 5% to 3.3%.
I witnessed the division of the COG during the 2006 General Assembly. The division was not created by state-side pastors desiring a reduction of the 15% to a tithe (10%) of tithe. It was created by the Council of 18 and the Executive Committee when they change the proposal, sent to them by numerous pastors over several years, into a mandate on missions. Very few pastors wanted missions to be reduced. I voted against the reduction last year because it was tied to missions. I will vote against it again if it is tied to missions.
I have been asking myself, over and over again, why can’t our leadership sees their pastors are not interested in following high paid celebrities, attending expensive conferences, going on cruses or attending free Christmas parties. We are interested in the Gospel of Christ. We are interested in souls, not new buildings in Cleveland.
The COG is too precious to let die in the hands of a broken institution. We must encourage every last pastor to stay with the COG, pay their tithe of tithe and continue to demand our leaders submit to the wishes of the General Assembly.
And finally, please check the quality of your allegiance to the COG. Mine is unshakable. I will not leave her for another and I will not leave her to those who will destroy her. We have the best doctrine, the best form of government and the best ministers and members in the world. This is precisely why many are challenging the status-quo and pursuing changes which will bring us back to our roots as a movement instead of an institution.
Brian,
Last Assembly, I voted for the cut. I sat next to a pastor who voted against it. We both felt like we had done something wrong.
We need to pick another path. The path that Nick is advocating is righteous, focused on the mission of Jesus, and honors the Church. I bet you, it resonates with the vast, vast majority of COG ministers and members. If given 3 options: 1) leave it like it is, 2) cut Missions, or 3) an across the board cut that preserves our missions giving, I have no doubt, we would overwhelmingly select #3.
Count me in! Under no circumstances will I vote for any proposal that undermines our collective commitment to WM/EHM. I find it hard to believe that with the collective wisdom of 10,000 attendees and millions more world wide we can’t come up with a reasonable compromise that relieves those churches in financial crisis without killing the missional heart of the CoG. As regarding any pastor thinking of leaving the CoG let me ask you this; if your candidate doesn’t win the White House this November are you going to move to another country? Will you renounce your citizenship? Of course not! As long as the DoF remains intact you have no cause to bail out. Having done all that can be done let us stand in the full assurance of faith that God’s purposes will prevail.
The “you” of Malachi 3 is the priests, therefore the discussion is about the tithe of the tithe (see 1:6 an2:1). Look at Neh 10:37b: the poeple were commanded to bring their portion of the tithe to the Levites in the Levitical cities. The Levites and priests brought the tithe fo the tithe to the temple as needed per Neh 10:38, 39.
The whole idea of tithing is not taught to the church after Calvary. Do your tithe-recipients forfeit all property ownership?
The church had no storehouse buildings for over 200 years after Calvary.
http://www.shouldthechurchteachtithing.com
Did I miss something? Who is going to leave the CoG over this issue? I have read Br. Park’s peice twice now and I didn’t get that impression. What did I miss?
The issue at hand is protectionism. Headquarters wants to protect what they have and what they enjoy at the expense of those who are having to sacrifice to see it done. To use a ploy they choose missions as means to frustrate the body so the focus is takened off of them and placed again in the hands of those who will have to sacrifice to see it done. We must leave missions ALONE and focus on General Hdqrtrs. Do you not know (whether this present committee, I know not but suspect some) are already receiving revenues from social security, retirement benefits, investments, and royalties. We must ease the burden of the churches by decreasing the financial amounts going to hdqrtrs. Paul called for the Corinthian church who had avoided or delayed seriously their offerings for the need of Jerusalem. He called for a “willing mind” as well as equality! 2Co 8.
Russel Earl Kelly has been a frequent visitor to my site. I respect him even when I don’t entirely agree with him. You can see some of that at
http://www.vulcanhammer.org/?p=542
and leave your comments on the matter at hand.
Pastor Park,
First let me say that if this came to the floor I would vote for it. The truth is that when the cut was first proposed there was no mention of the cut being in the Mission department. The cut was to be the tithe on tithe from 15% to 10%. The first time that the 2.5% was mentioned was during General Assembly. I believe I speak for many state side pastors when I say we have no desire to cut money going into the mission field. Rather we would like to see finance returned to the local church so that we can also be more effective in building churches. Many pastors are upset because we are not seeing any real cuts made.
During this GA we are going to hear how that job have been cut in Cleveland, but getting rid of security guards, secretaries, and receptionist is not going to get the job done. We have to make larger cuts. A few years ago the Assemblies of God were in this same boat and they went from having three assistances to having just one. We are going to be told that the Church can not survive with cuts to the tithe on tithes and with the current structure they are correct, and so we have to make a change across the board. We have to restructure the way we do business.
Nick,
Thank you for articulating so eloquently the case to maintain the 2.5% for World Missions.
During the past three months, i have wanted to be more vocal about the need to defend the 2.5%. But I felt awkward because of the fact that I am a beneficiary of the 2.5% — or more precisely, I lead a bible school that is sponsored by the 2.5% from World Missions. I must admit, I have a personal interest in keeping the 2.5% (And BTW, thanks for the plug for the school in Moscow!). We are working on becoming more self-sufficient. But we are very much still in a pioneer situation in Russia and the former Soviet Union.
Eliminating the 2.5% to WM would force schools and many other ministries and national workers to find ways of fundraising in the USA. And in essence, they would be competing for the missions dollar against some of the missionaries servicing those ministries.
Let me say it another way. I am a missionary who has to raise his own budget among churches in the States. And if the measure passes at the Assembly, I would also have to raise a budget for the school, too. At the end of the day, the proposed reduction would not help missionaries.
Travis and Stoney,
I agree that a cut across the board (but maintaining separate budgets) would have broad support. I remember mentioning this to Tom Sterbens at the last Assembly (although I don’t know if he remembered meeting me. It was a short encounter.) Furthermore, I have every reason to believe that the leaders of World Missions would embrace a reduction if such a proposal was a cut across the board, but maintaining the current budgeting/administrative structures. It wouldn’t surprise me if there had already been some counter-proposals to this from World Missions prior to the publishing the the General Council Agenda.
But there is a larger issue that hasn’t really been address directly – the internationalization of the church. But this is an issue for a different post.
Tom, the internationalisation of the church–and the proper representation of the various ethnic groups in our church’s leadership, is IMHO THE issue for our church today. That would affect every issue discussed on this blog. But you’re right, that’s for another post.
Brother Nick I appreciate so much your post. A misnomer that many church side pastors have is that missions churches do not pay the 2.5% or the tithe. Thank you for clearing that up.
One thing I have seen over and over is that any church that is missions minded and gives to missions it is blessed in their over all ministry but more so in their finances. I have seen it the other way when they did not have a heart for missions and their churches suffered spiritually and financially as well. I am opposed from taking anything from Wordl Missions. They are one department of the church that is the most open with their financial statements. Brother Vaughn has proved just recently that he will open the books and explain to any person in the Church of God who really has a right to know.
Thank you for your faithfulness and work in ministry. I shall continually remember you in my prayers. Thank God for men who, even maybe being labeled, will continue to trust God’s calling on their life and just see what God will do through them. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! God bless you!
Everyone acts as if these changes are something new. This purposed reduction was given to the GA about 20 years ago. So it is not a new thing nor is cutting budgets and realigning funds. I have to do it every year. If I have a 5% reduction I do not have a pot to run to and get what I need. I don’t even run to the home Missions money that is suppose to be available for those kind of circumstances. I have never been apposed to tithing and giving. I just want to know how the 5% became a tithe and not an offering. How did what was supposed to be a freewill offering become mandatory. To my brother in Ireland, I have lived by faith for many years. I grew up in a pastor’s home where all I had to snack on was stale cookies that my brother and I ran under water to soften them enough to make them edible. I have turned my salary in to help make the church payments and I could go on and on. The point is we all make sacrifices. I have made them to meet pledges I have made for WM. I am a firm believer in missions giving and working in the field. The reality is this, HQ needs to come under one budget and live within its means. That is what we do here and you do there! Local congregations will do more when it does not feel done out of compulsion which is not even biblical to begin with. WE need to look at the bigger picture here. We tend to look under the microscope and nit pick this area but it is necessary to step back and see through the telescope the real issues at hand. Biblical Authority and positions within the body of Christ. Please read the other items in the agenda they are as important as this one, maybe weighter! It would behoove the Bishops of this denomination to take a close look at what this agenda is purposing in the structural changes, such as; local church licensing of the exhorter minister making the local church and Pastor totally responsible for the licensee in legal matter, This means that pastor’s and local churches will not have the assistance of the denomination when it comes to erring individuals. Only the Lord knows what that can lead to in the legal world. How about women serving as an Elder -vs- serving as Deaconess of the eventual move to allow women to be Bishops within the Church to finally allowing them to hold the highest office within the Church etc. We have a real problem remembering that this is still the CHURCH the BRIDE OF CHRIST not a Business with managers and CEO’s. While there are some within the movement who are pushing these as part and parcel of the so called innovation of the future, perhaps we should look closer at the scriptural mandates and order that God places on things. I have served as Bishop of my congregation for well over 20 years (the same Church). My concern is my local congregation and the vision God has given us to reach our city and surrounding communities. In the eyes of some, I may not be as successful nor innovative as some would like; but hey, I am not here to impress you, I am here to do the Father’s business. I agree that business as usual needs to end, and we need to be relevant to our culture, however I am not willing to do it at the cost of reducing the Word of God to just a book that is outdated. If innovation means going the way of the Methodist church, Episcopal church and other mainstream denominations or losing our Doctrinal structure as many of the Charismatic or non-denominational churches have gone then count me out! I will stand by the word of God.
Well, here goes nothing about the present topic. I can honestly say that since I have been a pastor in the Church of God since 1977 I have been on both sides of the fence when it comes to the 2.5% and while I see the benefit of it as it relates to State and World Missions I would have to say that Biblically we have been wrong when we went beyond the 10%, which would be divided between State and General and from that a designated portion to all works.
The tithe came to the priest/Levites and they in turn brought a tithe of tithe to the house of God. Numbers 18:26, Nehemiah 10:38. God’s plan as I understand it was that the people would be blessed by bringing a tenth of their increase and the house or work of God would be blessed with the tenth from the Levites’. Not deep but there it is.
Now while I understand and even agree with the 2.5 % or 5% in addition to the 10%, because some would do nothing for missions if there was no demand, for lack of a better term, if in fact we followed Biblical teaching should not we as pastors’ as well as State and General offices be able to operate on what God has given us and if not could it be that we have not sat down to see if we have sufficient to finish the house before we start to build. I am not advocating a cut in ministry, but as a pastor I am not to spend what I do not have nor make plans to do what I cannot do because finances are not available no matter how good the idea may be.
As a pastor if the church cannot afford a youth minister, minister of music, associate minister, my salary, one half my social security, insurance, retirement, and the list goes on guess what, we don’t do it. I do not have a budget or church credit card to take fellow ministers out to eat or play a round of golf; if I do I foot the bill out of my pocket not the church. I think it’s well and good if a church affords their pastor such a benefit, but again if finances were tight around the church I would hope someone would say, “pastor, you will have to cut back on your discretionary spending.”
So since we are not going to do the 10% (tithe of tithes) let’s keep our missions going because as a struggling pastor in my first church I received support from that 2.5% that was sent to the state office and I have shared with the churches that I have pastored the benefit of supporting it. Cuts may need to be made, but not in ministry howbeit there is places where monies could be freed up, and that by cutting some discretionary spending.
Bishop Daniel Kellum
Senior Pastor, York Street Church of God
Florida
Great post Nick! It’s so great to see you posting on here today. Were your ears burning? I was just talking about you yesterday remembering old times in Ireland. I think I’m due for a quick trip to Drogheda.
I agree with your post and think you make an excellent case.
I think there are many churches in the U.S. that are indeed struggling and the TOT has become a burdensome tax. I know many (and have been one) who barely scraped by and at times actually paid the church to work for them
But I also think there are several churches that could pay the 15% and more. Some churches waste more money in a month than others will have all year. There is plenty of fat to be trimmed in Cleveland and at some the of the larger churches whose budgets are staggering in comparison to the majority.
I remember when a friend of mine at a large church went on a shopping spree at the end of the fiscal year. He spent money on nonsense stuff because if he didn’t, his departmental budget would be cut the next year. He basically wasted the money on junk.
I often felt guilty working on staff at a wealthy church when I had friends that were struggling at small churches. There was no mechanism to help these smaller churches or missionaries because of a lack of trust with the current system. We simply didn’t trust the state office or Cleveland to spend the extra money we could send on ministries that needed it. So we only gave what we had to. I could give examples of that mistrust but won’t. If we had been left to give what we “felt led to give” it wouldn’t have been much based on that mistrust.
While the number of wealthy churches is much smaller, they probably give more money, or have the potential to, than the majority of the churches which are struggling. I don’t know the numbers well enough, so this is purely specualtion. There needs to be some way to spread our resources across the denomination and find a way to get the “extra” to those who need it.
John Edwards is correct. I have no intention of leaving the Church of God whatever happens at the GA. God has called me to be a part of this movement and I see no reason at all why that should change.
I am praying that something great can happen in San Antonio, but whatever the outcome we will continue doing what we are doing in the Church of God in Ireland.
Dale,
It’s good to see you on the blog. I’m afraid that I see this differently than you do. Of course, we talked at length about this two years ago at Paragon’s. (I think it was the restaurant in Portage. BTW, we’ll be in Indiana for most of August after the Assembly. Let’s get together.)
For the sake of the dialog on the blog, let me pick out a couple statements that you made.
And in another thread you wrote,
Although I’m not convinced that it would be true, let’s assume that uniting the budgets and the giving from the local churches were to increase above the current 2.5% plus projects/missionaries they already support.
How does this increase the effectiveness of missions?
- By the possibility of more money for missions? But money alone doesn’t make missions more effective. It is also a matter of administration and strategic planning.
- By believing that the EC and the C18 is a better, wiser administrator of WM funds than those closer to the field? This also presumes that EC, without the missions structure in place (including field directors and regional superintendents who are funded by the 2.5%), are in a better position to administer over the COG in foreign countries?
In fact, several European overseers have been asked if they would prefer to be under WM administration or directly under the EC. And perhaps somebody should ask the internationals if they prefer working with Americans with or without cross cultural experience.
- By increasing the number of foreign ministries that will be knocking on your church’s door for Jubilee’s mission dollars? Ultimately, our missions outreach will be reduced to Pentecostal Darwinism — survival of the fittest in fundraising and appealing to the emotions of pastors and church members.
In contrast to the current agenda item, I would prefer a reduction of the ToT and WM offerings that would cut fairly across the board but maintain the distinction of two budgets.
I once counceled a married couple that was on the verge of divorce. You see, he was a loving, hard working, christian man, and she was the daughter of a very rich man. The wife was very defensive any time the subject of money came up because she wasn’t going to give her husband any of “her” money, he works, he can spend his own money. Then one day he sold a screenplay and was suddenly just as rich as his father-in-law. Roles reversed, she began to talk about “our” money, and he wanted to have “yours and mine”. I failed and they divorced and got to keep “yours and Mine” sepparate.
It is not “general” money and “missions” money, it is God’s money. One budget office handeling all of the money under God’s direction through the GA and leadership will be cheaper, more efficient, and more “in one mind and one accord”. Seperate budgets feeds the mistrust, and this is what I think is threatening to “divide the house”. Yes it will be a challenge to combine budgets and get on one page, but the CoG has a beautiful history of facing the chalenges that God’s work has placed in front of us, and we can overcome this one. In order to meet this chalenge, we must listen to God. God is talking souls not line items.
I am preaching to my church, which is facing change after 85 years of tradition, “. . .for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” Mt 6:32,33 In other words, forget your desires wants and fears, listen to God and follow His direction. He won’t lead us in different directions, He will bring unity.
Am I mis-leading my congregation? I don’t think so. If the CoG can’t agree on necessary change, how can I expect my church to? Perhaps we need to start practicing what we preach. Instead of listening to our own thoughts, we need to listen to the leading of the Holy Spirit, even if He asks us to change our thoughts. We might find that Unity is closer than we think.
Mt. 18:19 tells us to agree in prayer. May I suggest a prayer that we can all pray?
“Lord Jesus, unite this great church that you have used all over this world to win the lost. Guide us all through this General Assembly, and help us to see your will in the issues before us. Express your will in us, so that every item will be a glory to your name that Your Kingdom will be advanced. And make us an example to every Christian the world over, just like the 120 in the uper room that special day. Help us to be in one mind and accord, and let the wind and fire of pentecost continue to work in us.
in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the head of this church. Amen”
Again, offered in love
John:
I like the principles you site for a unified budget. And I certainly join with you in the prayer of unity.
However, I’m still not certain of the practical ramifications of taking such a large organization, one in which the large majority of our members are directly tied, and making such a radical shift. I share Tom Rosson’s concerns that there is no reason to think that the EC and C18 will be able to as effectively oversee the missions operations as the administrators who have such close ties and histories with the various fields. And more than that, I dread to see which of our international works are unable to survive the fiscal cuts. Of course, if the measure passes I will be committed in doing my part to support in the transition. But I still prefer the 1/3′s paradigm that Nick Park proposed.
One final thought. We do not mandate that Cleveland controls the budgets of state and regional offices. Would we be more “in one mind and one accord” if 10% went to Cleveland and then Cleveland doled out monies to each state and region? No. It would foster even more mistrust overall. Does COGWM not represent a similar dynamic? Perhaps some USA pastors will have more trust in COGWM if this measure passes. But many more International pastors will have less trust. Because of that, I don’t see this measure bringing more trust, but more mistrust.
Jonathan,
You have a good point, and no I don’t think that state budgets should be handled in Cleveland any more than I think my local budget should be handled in Chattanooga.
Let me put it this way. My local budget is observed and acted upon by my local congregation. The stated budget is observed and acted upon by the pastors of the state. The International budget is observed and acted upon by the GA. The GA is where the mistrust lies. I have a staff and council, the State has an office staff and state council, and the GA has the EC and C18. As the groups get larger, the problems get larger, but the unity can get larger too.
Many times I have read in several threads that this is a heart problem not a $ problem. Still discuss the $ issues, but lets cover the heart problem before GA, so that @ GA God can lead us all, present and absent, in unity.
And yes, I am more than willing to change my views, and as of now that is all they are. I have voiced my opinion, not inspiration, I am seeking that.
John, well said. I share your sentiment about the ultimate priority here. And I think that some of us have experienced a bit of trust building here while we have discussed the lesser $ issues. Hopefully that is slowly changing our hearts as well. I think it is in some cases, as evidence by Tom Sterben’s “Love Burst” last night!
I’m willing to change my views. In fact, since I am unable to attend the G.A. this year I am 100% at the mercy of the other voters. But I’m at peace with that, and I will be at peace with the decisions made, and will still be committed to making the most of our structure and seeking a spirit of love and unity. Thanks for leading in us in that way!
I think that there is a real danger that this becomes bogged down into a Stateside -v- International issue. On that note I would like to offer a few more thoughts.
Historically the Church of God began as an American Church which remarkably quickly began expanding overseas. However, today we try to be an International Church, yet all of our overseas expressions come under World Missions, irrespective of how long established or viable those expressions might be. So we have a nation like Germany, with considerable resources and gifted leadership, a national Church that provides an incredible level of support for missionary work in Eastern Europe – yet Germany is still under the auspices of World Missions because it is geographically located outside of North America.
The goal for any National Church should be to become self-governing, self-propagating, and self- financing. Once such Churches reach this stage then they should come out from under World Missions, report directly to International Headquarters, and contribute financially in exactly the same way as Stateside Churches. . This would serve two purposes:
1. It would remove the perception that World Missions is a tax on US Churches that benefits the rest of the world.
2. National Churches would have a powerful incentive to graduate beyond mission status to being fully fledged expressions of an International Church.
Of course many nations, for economic reasons, will require financial aid for many years to come – but other ‘mission fields’ are in prosperous countries and should strive to be donors to, not recipients of, missions giving.
Ireland is a case in point. We started the Church of God here 14 years ago, and needed help to start up as the new kids on the block. I will be eternally grateful for support from World Missions and other sources – including the wonderful blessing of being the beneficiaries of a YWEA Project. But today we are a growing Church movement in a prosperous society. The average industrial wage in our country is $1000 (USD) per week. How long are we going to see ourselves as a mission field? 15 years? 20 years? My goal is to see the Irish Church of God being a part of our movement that helps support, and fund, global evangelization. This means becoming an integral part of the Church of God, not seeing ourselves as a missions field that accepts handouts for the next 50 years and dresses our people up in quaint clothing to carry flags and play the ‘happy natives’ in the World Missions service at General Assembly time.
I understand that a number of former missions fields(eg Guatemala, the UK) are now net financial donors to the Church of God and are ready and willing to fulfill their responsibilities as part of an International Church.
Furthermore, I believe that certain works in the US, possibly including some State Offices, should come under the covering of World Missions. I’m thinking of somewhere like Utah, where hostile conditions dictate that concerted effort and finance will be required to build a thriving network of COG congregations. Ministry to native Americans would fall under the same kind of arrangement.
In short, financially viable Nations and States should be treated equally, and taxed equally, wherever in the world they happen to be located.
Similarly, Nations and States that are not yet able to be self-supporting should fall under World Missions and enjoy our support, irrespective of geographic location.
Tom,
Great to speak with you. I am thankful for all that you and others on the foreign field are doing. It would be a disaster and I would be personally crushed if I thought for one moment that you and your family would be destroyed by the reduction of the 2.5% On the other hand this measure has been in the makes for many years now. The WM dept. and HQ new it was coming. This is not new. Why we are acting as if it is is really strange to me. According to the 2006 minutes there were 6,595 churches in America. 149 in Canada, and 27,231 in WM. Membership in the US was 1.025 million, 14,029 in Canada and 5.8 million in WM. The total income from the tithe fund was 21.020 million and there was a dispersement of 21.750 million and Net change assets and liabilities 2.83. leaving a balance of 85,863.66 in the tithe fund.
WM balance carry over was 4.120 million with receipts of 30.721 million. They disbursed 30.865 million and had a Net change of assets and liabilities of -784,950,000 leaving a balance of 3.191 million.
If my calculations are correct that means that WM had a net gain of 3.1 million over the tithe fund.
Does not seem to me that the WM is in a financial straight at this moment. Frankly we all wish we had an extra 3 million laying in the bank. I am not so ignorant to think that WM is just rolling in the dough, it does bring to the surface something that is very important; There are 20,000 more churches under WM then in the US. However, I wonder where the largest amount of monies comes from and what the actual percentage is. I am not sure, I suspect that it comes from the 6500 churches in the US. many of whom have attendances less then 100 each week.
I am not advocating that WM should be hurt financially. I have no problem with knocks at my church door, we do what we do not based on need but based on what the Lord asks of us. I want to do more then I am right now however for my congregation we spend 15,000.00 per month just in the mortgage another 4-5 thousand in utilities before it is all done at the end of the month it takes more then 35,000.00 to just operate our facility (without any extra ministry added). I know what I have to do when I have a drop in income. I cannot go to the bank, I cannot go to HQ or even HM I have to go to the Lord, just like you and every missionary out there and we wait on the Lord to supply.
One budget one pie cut into the various pieces, and if a dept i sno longer needed send them out and do what they were originally called to do.
i still wonder how the AG or the COGIC or the NAZ do it? They have Administrators who are pastor’s of local churches. We have Pastors who no longer pastor being Administrators. Perhaps that is the change we need.
Well, I am sure you will have much to say to me so I will stop for now. Please contact me when you get to IN. I want you and yours to get with us. I appreciate you!
Dale, I suspect that you are right that most of the WM Dept’s income comes from the US. There is a very good reason for that – American churches are on average many times wealthier than those in most other countries.
I don’t know the figures for COG, but for evangelicals in general – the less than 10% of the world’s evangelicals who live in the US also possess 80% of evangelical wealth. I recently preached at a church in Northern Nigeria where the total tithes and offerings for an entire month were $5. The people were dirt poor, were tithing, and were sending a tithe of tithe to missions each month (all 50 cents of it)! Proportionately their giving exceeded many US Churches – but in terms of dollar and cents it is US churches that primarily fund World Missions, and that will continue to be the case unless America suffers an unprecedented economic meltdown that far exceeds 1929.
Every Blessing
Nick Park
Nick, you are right but the church you visited and preached in northern Nigeria does not represent the whole churches of God in Nigeria. I believe you visited a village church or better put a church located in a hamlet. I was part of the COG in northern Nigeria in 1998. Some of us have worked hard to encourage the churches in Nigeria to be self-supporting. Those folks you think are “dirt poor” are very rich but they have never been taught on how to give generously. I think your argument is in order. …Churches in Nigeria should be left to provide for themselves. The church of God in Nigeria is about 55 years old. At 55 are we still children?
Not to split hairs. . .but I don’t give my 5% or my 15% or what ever. It doesn’t come from me, my church, or my tithe payers. It comes from God, through us. The WM money comes through every faithful servant of God who is a chearful giver.
We are all CoG members, but we are also all Children of God. It doesn’t matter who God brings the money through, we must be obedient stewards of His money. Thank God that, in the US, He has blessed us with enough to share with the world. Now let’s share it.
I adamantly disagree if you say that WM money can’t be touched. If we will obey the guidance of the Holy Spirit we will touch it, and it will increase, as will the General funds, and the State funds, and the local funds. If we are so untrusting that we can’t share the blessings and the burdens, we can’t continue to grow.
As so many have said before me, the question is not “will we fund WM and EHM” the question is”do we trust each other, and God, enough to try”.
Nick,
First of all, our friendship goes back years and you have lead multiple teams from Ireland both to Bulgaria during the time Daniela and I were planting the college and to Prague as we were planting the work there. I look forward to seeing you and Janice at the Assembly in a few days.
I did want to also point out that your well-written article presented World Missions well, but was somewhat lacking in objectivity. While World Missions has facilitated vision for each of us, we both know that Missions not only needs to share in the cut along with the rest of the church, but also needs to be held accountable that this cut reduces administration rather than further reducing support to the field. The reason I bother to mention that is this:
After the last General Assembly where the 2.5 % to World Missions was NOT cut, the World Missions department cut the support to National Workers worldwide by 30%.
To utilize the personal example you raise- that’s alot of pony-tailed bikers who suddenly didn’t feel believed in.
As a Superintendent, I had NO advance notice of this change and had the painful task of informing the pioneer areas under my leadership that their support from one month to the next would be reduced by 1/3 or more (in the case of Hungary, it was a 50% reduction of the total support).
30% with no advance notice…
Now add to that the radical fall of the value of the dollar-300% in 6 years in the Czech Republic while I’ve been there…the Church of God outside the United States has already had the cut.
You may also know why the reduction of support to the field after the last General Assembly “cuts both ways.” When I asked why this reduction was made, the reason given was to hire 5 new Missions Representatives to do fundraising in the US.
Nick, when you get to Cleveland, I encourage you to tour the two floors Missions now fills to see what I see: new positions added and personal hired in the same time frame that the field has taken a cut. We do not need to continue this trend.
So…the World Missions as a department also needs to hear the call from the GA to streamline administration.
I will undoubtedly take some heat for pointing this out- but I’ve been preaching on this blog that this is not the time for self-preservation, but for honesty and courage so this is me trying to practice it. I do NOT want to see the field get cut again while administration continues to grow. As a missionary, I raise 100% of my budget so this does not directly affect me, but it does affect the trust of pastors to WM and the work that I care about on the field- it would be selfish of me to remain silent.
Like every other issue, this is not about personalities and the problems did not develop overnight- our issues are systemic. The debt load from bad loans to the field that the WM dept carries each year is also not something we like to talk about but it is a systemic problem handed down to each new Director.
We need to face our challenges as a family- be transparent about where we are and then face it together. It’s time to face our challenges with faith, not fear and start rebuilding the trust which has eroded.
I’m headed to this General Assembly praying that it will not be typical. I’m not concerned that we pass new resolutions or even so concerned about who we elect. The greater issue is whether we start facing our challenges together. I’m praying that a seed of trust is planted, however small and that bridges which have been burned between us will be rebuilt. The “us” and “them” goes both ways and we all have to drop the pretenses and self-interests if “our” church is to remain strong and united.
I’m praying, and hoping…see you next week
Blessings…
Wow Jonathan! Well said! I’m glad you spoke up on this, since you have this valuable perspective as a superintendent. Thanks for courageously opening up on it. I also want to join with you in prayer for that “seed of trust”!
P.S. “The goal for any National Church should be to become self-governing, self-propagating, and self- financing”
AMEN! And as you have said, and more importantly, what you have DONE Nick- participate in reaching other areas with the Gospel.
The pioneer Churches of God in Central Europe, (four registered 6 years ago, 42 today) have raised Missions offerings and sent teams for missionary training in the Caucases, children’s camps in Serbia, church planting in the Ukraine, and missionary sending to Kabul, Afghanistan.
Thanks for your example Nick, and for leading the Church of God in Ireland to become a Missions force.
Jonathan Augustine,
I want to comment you on your recent addition to this blog. You have a much better insight to the situation that I do sitting in our local church. The truth is, there does need to be administrative cuts and accountability across the whole of HQ. When did we become so focused on preservation? I think that it is sad that WM administration would cut 30% while making the GA think that it would all but come to a halt if it lost the 2.5%, then turn around and make room for more Rep positions. The time has come to face this issue with prayer and Godly fear and act. I do believe that when we together follow the Biblical mandates of accountability and transparency we cannot lose. God honors those who walk in such ways.
God Bless
The word from World Missions last GA was “Whatever happens with the proposal to cut the 2.5% – cuts are coming in one shape or another.” They were correct about that, for the next year the income from Tithe of Tithes (and therefore the 2.5% also) was cut as the receipts were down.
Obviously if moves are afoot to cut the 2.5% then WM will have to appoint more Representatives (not less) in order to raise money directly from local churches.
I’m not saying that WM is perfect in everything it does, and I can appreciate how Jonathan felt when such cuts came into effect, and many more Superintendents will face similar heartache whatever way a cut is enforced.
Nick,
“cuts are coming in one shape or another”…Shape Matters.
Your proposal calls for an across the board cut, shared by all. What you are saying is, “Shape Matters.”
It will be hard for us in Missions to preach that message at the Assembly, however, unless we can show that we ourselves walk in it.
The creation of new administrative-level positions within the department, the creation of a fully-staffed Media department with corresponding purchase of high dollar teleprompter cameras and editing bays, and nearly doubling the number of Missions Reps receiving salaries from the 2.5%- all since the last Assembly…this is not reducing spending.
AND when this is paid for by reducing support to the field…how are we serving as an example to the General Church? How can we claim the high ground?
TRUST- building is essential when overcoming systemic problems. Short-term fixit’s which harm trust are long-term disasters.
The action of cutting the field while increasing spending in Cleveland has eroded trust with all those on the field who were not privileged to get “the word” about cuts in advance.
It has eroded trust with Church of God pastors in the States who hear from nationals that they have been cut overnight…and then they get twice as many calls from Missions Reps to raise money for WM.
It has eroded trust with Missionaries, who do not receive a guaranteed salary to do fundraising- theirs is cut if their budget becomes depleted and they then have to leave their calling to fund raise.
It has eroded trust with the World Missions Board who was not consulted prior and the Executive Committee…who now do we partner with?
You know me Nick- I’m direct, but I love the Church of God and am passionate about Missions. Look down the road with me if we continue to maintain the status quo- do you see it? At the end of that road, the WM dept has become irrelevant. Pastors and churches are involved in Missions, but they are working around the system, not through it…the seeds have already been planted for that harvest. Are we fighting the battle to save the 2.5% and losing the war against the erosion of trust which is the greater threat?
There is hope- for the same reason there was hope for that homeless poney-tailed guy. You know that road as well- it begins with confession and repentance. We preach that on an individual level, but it is now time for us to do it corporately…who will lead?
My point is that WM is not in the position to lead until we are real about where we need to change direction. Are we going to actually talk about the where we have gotten off-track, or just propel ourselves further down the road with our “loyal silence”?
Hear my heart brother: I’m not mad, and I’m not bitter- but I know that together we can do better.
Shape Matters…World Missions must lead in returning to Missional from Promotional.
J. Augustine,
I appreciate your insight in this matter. You are absolutely correct when you stated that Am. Church is working around the system. This system has created an attitude that we will do the bear minimum 2.5% or we can find ways to support a missionary so that they will not be crippled financially by the WM board for receiving funds outside the system. It is sad that we cannot look at better ways to support the field.
This is not a battle the WM should have taken on. In the end you may win the war, but this is a battle that is already lost. It may be written in the minutes, but I suspect there will be many pastor’s who will just look for other ways to circumvent the system. In the end, they will look back on this with clearer vision and realize that they should have listened to the heart or this matter.
Thanks for your keen insight.
The vast majority of US churches that I have knowledge of are NOT doing the bear minimum 2.5%. We are doing the 2.5% + supporting individual projects and offerings, which is what I as a pastor have been asked to do by CoGWM. I have not read any opinions that suggest that we support any ministry less. All that is being asked is that EVERYONE step up and be the best stewards of God’s money.
Let me back track to an earlier post. I believe in the CoG and our leadership. I believe that we will do the right thing. But the right thing is not passing arround blame, the right thing is finding a Godly answer.
Some times Dale, you sound like you are accusing the CoG and our leadership of greed and dishonesty.
Does that exist in the CoG, I am sure it does somewhere, but I believe it to be the exception, not the rule. We have a great church, and good men and women in all areas of that church doing our best to follow God and impact this world.
In order to make a change like this we must all look at the situation with clear perspective. The need for change does not have to imply that anyone at CoGWM has done wrong, I don’t think that they have, nor does it mean that the EC and C18 are being greedy and trying to bring down the WM administration, I don’t believe they are. No matter who we are and what we are doing, we can do better at it, that does not make us dishonest.
Dale,
You know that I love you and I know your love for missions around the world. But the desire of most pastors in the USA that I’ve had contact with is to reduce the amount that goes to HQ as a whole — not specifically to one department.
It was the creators of the GenCouncil agenda that announced the battle, not World Missions. WM has offered middle ground to the C18/EC on the matter, but the agenda is what it is.
As for missionaries, we all receive 100% of the moneys earmarked for our project number (missionary account). Special offerings go directly to the missionary unless it goes over the annual limit, which in case the moneys are applied to his missionary budget.
There is also a slight misconception that World Missions primary mission is to give a platform for missionaries such as Jonathan and myself to fulfill their calling. But that is not its purpose — it’s primary purpose is to care for the development of the Church of God (the denomination) around the world.
“To support the field”, as you worded it, does not necessarily mean to support the missionaries. For the support of national workers is usually much more cost effective than supporting a missionary. And ultimately, that is the aim of all of us missionaries – to work ourselves out of a job (with the hope that nationals will eventually carry on the work after we have left).
The change of having missionaries raise their own budget took place in 1988 – 20 years ago! Had World Missions not made the change, they would only have a limited number of “missionary positions” available from the 2.5% – and even less funds available to support national workers, bible schools, and other ministries around the globe. The change of structure has (1) opened up the number of possible candidates for missionary ministry, and (2) brought more local churches in closer contact with the ministry of the COG around the world.
Is the system perfect? By no means. I have long advocated a hybrid system if possible. And I know that WM has looking into various possibilities. Some missionaries are much better at fund raising than others – almost to the point that it’s not fair.
Is World Missions perfect? By no means. Jonathan pointed out some reductions that hit some areas without prior warning. I was fortunate in that we (Moscow) did not have a reduction. The communication was poor, if not non-existent apparently. But the budget is set by a board of men that is selected by the EC.
Having said that here is the point. Missionaries knowingly have taken on a “job” that entails that them to raise and maintain their budget. This is certainly the case with me. The policy of salary structure and raising a budget is known by every missionary before they’re hired.
I could complain if I want to about my salary, but I have chosen to take this job. I know what is to readjust a salary due to budget constraints. But when it is all said and done, it was my decision to work for COGWM. And if I need to raise a budget, I knew this in advance of being hired by World Missions. Fundraising is a part of the job description.
The original question of this thread – CG Agenda item for the realignment of funds – and does the proposed realignment hurt or further the cause of COGWM. Nick has advocated a flat cut/reduction across the board, but maintaining separating budgets. And from I’ve heard informally, COGWM has expressed its willingness to compromise.
But when you cut beneath the veneer of the desire to give tax relief to the local church there lies in Agenda Item 2 a struggle for money and the power to allocate those resources. And there I would refer back to Nick’s 2nd point.
Hey Tom,
Thanks for the help in understanding the way missionaries receive their funds.
I would never ask you or any missionary take a reduction. No more then would I like to yet as we both know, it happens to us weather we like it or not. Many factors cause this.
I am 100% for a reduction in the overall giving of the local church to the HQ. The issue for me is why does it have to be a WM issue to begin with. It should never have been. I am sorry if my thoughts are jaded to a degree because I beleive that all HQ needs to be under one budget and work within that frame. This means all depts. doing their part to make that happen.
I feel that the 2.5 for both WM and HM should never have been equated with the TOT had it been simply what it was in its origin then we would not have this conversation. Be it what it may we are here now and HQ knew we would be, hence the issue of reduction and realignment. This needs to be done effective immediately. Sorry
I am fully supportive of what every missionary does in the field, and I know they have to raise their own funds. It is the way it is and as a local church pastor desire to do what ever I can to help. I was in a local AG church not long ago, and on their missions board this local congregation which is smaller then us numerically, supports 35 missionaries. While we struggle supporting the couple we have under our system. Why is that? They are no more affluent then we. So what is it in their system that we do not have in ours? I do not want the field personnel to be hurt and if you are still having to raise your salary I know you personally will be okay. Neither of us are in this for the money anyway. We both do what we do because God called us to it and if there was no WM Dept. or HQ we would look to fulfill our call anyway. :} As far as if the realignment will hurt, yes it hurts. Anytime you have to make cuts someone is going to get hurt. Cutting jobs and realigning your budget will be difficult in the beginning. Hey I live in Steel mill country, 20 years ago they had 26, 000 employees, today less the 2600 work their and their output is greater. Did it hurt? You remember the 80′s have we recovered? Yes both the church and the employees. Now I know that it is not the same per say, the point is, if the powers that be understand that it has to happen, they should be doing what ever it takes to make it happen. In the end when it is final. The message will still be the same, and the local church and WM will be better for it.
God Bless,
PS. Please look me up while at GA, I buy dinner.
Dale,
This will be my last post (probably) in this thread. Both of us have taken up a lot of real estate here
Just imagine what would have happened many, many years ago when the COG instituted the 2.5% mandatory offering (isn’t that an oxymoron?). What would our missions awareness in the local church look like now?
I suspect that when the 2.5% measure was implements, many pastors (either consciously or unconsciously) considered their missions obligation taken care of. Unknowingly, the need to create an awareness of missions in the local church was reduced. Missions was “taken out of the local church.” And til this day, many local COG congregations give nothing beyond the 2.5% to missions. (I can think of one very vocal pastor in Northern Indiana, for example.)
This might explain what you saw at the AG church. Their tradition had always kept missions/missionaries “present” in the church’s awareness.
The other aspect of the AG system is its decentralized structure. Its advantages and drawbacks – both in the US and its relations abroad – however, is a topic for another thread.
See you in TX.
Tom R.,
I know you said that was your last post, and maybe this is a question for the next thread. But..
If I remember reading the original minutes, wasn’t the 2.5% supposed to come from a mission awareness/ offering service once a month or quarter with a minimum of 2.5% equal to the tithe. I think that was supposed to be a very present reminder to every congregation in the C.O. God that we ARE a mission giving church.
You’re right…now that few churches have such a service, it just comes out the tithes alone and is hidden and the awareness is lost.
Also, since missionaries are now funded by “mission services/ offerings” it is difficult to have multiple mission offerings (one for W.M. and one for an individual missionary) during the same month. I know this personally!
Tom R. #2,
Hopefully it’s not too late to respond to your post. Although I agree that I knew what I was doing when I “signed up” for this “job,” I do believe that we (W.M. and the C.O.God) can do a better job concerning our missionaries.
Beyond the obvious and moral dilemma of choosing only one department to take the hit for reduction, one reason I am opposed to the W.M. cut is that I am already struggling to raise enough funds for my family to even be here. I cannot imagine trying to help raise even more funds for the Bible Schools where I serve, and the nationals. Nor can I imagine competing with even more “Reps” that would then be employed to cover the losses.
You seemed to imply that “we” the missionaries could simply choose not to go with the C.O. God and go someone else. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case. 100% of my Mission students at Lee chose “OTHER” denominations and Mission programs to be affiliated with. I was told by Dr. Jenkins when I asked him to come and give my seniors an application to become a C.o’ God missionary, “You are the FIRST professor to do ask me to do that.” Do you know how many students felt compelled to join their own denomination’s Mission group and turned in the application? ZERO!
I think we can do better! I believe in the W.M. position on caring for the C.o’ God development around the world. I do believe in some of the theory behind it. I just wonder why it is when I have visited other mission agencies smaller and larger than our own, that they affirm, assist, promote, motivate, give resources, and celebrate the missionary where I feel like a burden or a side note to the W.M. I feel abandoned!
I believe Dr. Vest was correct when he said that our denominational structure is an “Upside Down Pyramid.” I believe W.M. can accomplish its goal of “care for the development of the Church of God (the denomination) around the world” and yet maintain a higher priority for the missionary. Please don’t mistake that I am upset for having to raise my funds, although it does take me off the field more than I want. I’m talking about being at the bottom of the priority list, and the idea being, “If you don’t like it…Then go with someone else.”
How many missionaries feel like we are on our own until we become successful. Then, someone will come and take some pictures of what you’ve done for a promotional video of “What the C.o’ God W.M. is doing around the world.” How many have joked about that even on this thread?
I would like to have a W.M. department that my students actually want to be a part of. There is so much more to say about how my A.G., Baptist, Methodist, and others missionary friends are taken care of on the field, but I think you get my drift.
By the way, thank you for your comments. I really enjoy reading them, and think you are right on in many ways.
Matt Jett,
You said:
Personally, I resent being forced into giving for Missions. We give out of passionate calling to do so. But, that emotion that comes out of me in no way compares to the emotion I feel when I am asked to cut mandatory giving to Mission before I am allowed to even discuss cutting mandated giving to a really large, seemingly unresponsive bureaucracy. I resent that. I feel distrustful of the call to do that. That’s unfortunate.
We should be having another conversation…so that people weren’t talking about the feeling of being manipulated. Instead we could be talking about the shared pain of mission, the joy of togetherness, and a renewed passion for the mission of Jesus and Gospel advancement.
Matt,
I don’t mind responding, but I don’t intend to be a thread hog.
As for the original minutes, I really don’t know how things were to be handled (monthly offering, etc…). That would be interesting to know. One cannot forget, however, that the American COG was much more uniform or homogeneous back then.
Can WM do a better job for its missionaries? Yeah, probably. I wrote earlier about a hybrid model of supporting missionaries. I’m against a Darwinistic “survival of the fittest in fundraising” mentality that may exclude some very effective missionaries (but poor fundraisers).
I appreciate you sharing from your experiences at Lee (no one signed up for COGWM) and your experiences with other missions agencies.
I think that some of what you’re feeling and have experienced is a sign of the postmodern times. Denominationalism as a whole is “out” — smaller, more flexible enterprises are “in”. Hierarchical structures are flattening out.
I think Dr Vest knew what Leonard Sweet meant when he wrote in SoulTsunami,
Dr Vest, at least what I read in his pamphlet on leadership – “got it.” But he didn’t have the time and/or resources to invert the pyramid.
Perhaps some of what you have mentioned as it relates to WM is symptomatic of where we as a denomination are as a whole — or at least in the United States.
Travis & Tom R.,
I realized I was responding to both of you so…
I just got off of the phone with a dear friend who is a Methodist missionary and a part of “The Mission Society.” The M.S. is a missions “SENDING” agency. Similar to some of our groups like People for Care & Learning, they are still under the umbrella of their denomination U. Methodist. Since the U.M. Missions department is not really sending missionaries any more, small groups like this one have popped up.
His comment to me (without knowing the WHOLE story) was basically to allow the W. M. department to be taken into the International Headquarters and see if a renewed focus on mission sending would not rise from the church. Perhaps an increased interest and support for Mission sending and organizations like his would rise.
Some pastors have told me, if the 2.5% mandated offering was released, I would probably have an easier time raising funds from the local church in the newly freed up money. I don’t know what that would really do especially for the many programs and schools abroad that I believe in.
Perhaps in a PERFECT system, the International offices may be able to do a better job in “caring for the growth of the denomination abroad” and we may actually flip the pyramid to have a focus on Missions and Missionaries again.
Unfortunately, my response to him was more like Travis’ above. I am not willing to have that conversation until we get the following things straightened out.
1. Only 1 option for reducing administration fees has been offered and that was to cut 100% of only one department’s budget. That’s not a cut it is a removal!
2. That department, although I want it to change, seemingly has better results with lesser funding than the department that wants to “absorb” it.
3. That department happens to be the only department that seems to be transparent and fully disclosing of its expenditures. Why can’t we see ALL of the information to make an informed decision.
4. Why can’t we have the full discussion with that information.
Remove these and other “trust” issues out of my way, and I would be willing to look at some other changes!
Right now, I find it difficult to believe that we have a PREFECT system. I can’t help but feel that we would just pile more “stuff” onto the top of our upside-down and top heavy pyramid.
Matt,
Perhaps you know something about the UMC’s international structure?
I appreciate your input and dialog!
Tom R.
You’re probably thanking God right now! 
I’m leaving the country in a few hours, and wouldn’t you know it, my computer is acting up! The dissertation I just wrote for the post is now lost.
I would love to see an informative paper of the various stumbling points in history from the major denominations in the states. Are we (the Church of God) committing the same mistakes that will inevitably lead us down the same roads? When I say C.O.G., I mean our G.A., the W.M. department, Higher Committees, our schools, etc…
The post I lost, contained some specific examples, but it would be better to talk about them in person.
I spoke on the phone with a common friend of ours earlier. I look forward to meeting you at the assembly!
Good to hear your thoughts Brother Nick! I have often wondered why we couldn’t just cut 5% of the TOT/missions, with the cut divided equally between all three basic parts (state, int’l and missions) of the present 15%? Which is basically the same thing as it sounds like you’re advocating here. I wonder how we could “touch” the 10% at this General Assembly, though, if the basic proposal as it is can’t be changed by the General Council.
By the way, with absolutely no “snippiness” meant at all–I hope you know how highly I regard you, my brother–as a matter of fact many, many CoG pastors like myself have no set wage at all, and just trust God (and their faithful sheep) for what comes in from week to week. Also, unless you’ve come up with a way to absolutely make your people “give” each week, it seems to me that [b]all[/b] our support as church leaders and workers is voluntary and not compulsory. So I don’t know that the analogy you gave is all that persuasive at least on that particular point.
In any case, I absolutely support your idea of reducing the TOT/missions in the way you have described it. I wish I could be there in San Antonio, but the finances just won’t permit it right now.
Hope to see you maybe the next time you’re in Florida. Heck, for a $1000 a week, I might even consider moving to Ireland to work in a factory! LOL.
Brother John
Matt,
You stated
Hey, don’t believe all the lies you hear about me. Only half of them are true!
[...] Proposition #2: Reduce funding by local churches to general headquarters to 10% and mandate 1/3 of this amount coming into International Headquarters be designated by the General Assembly for World Missions. [...]
Good to hear from John Earp!
John, I am a pastor and a church planter and certainly no politician. However, the Realignment of Resources measure specifically refers to the funds raised by the tithe of tithes – therefore it should be open to amendment.
I certainly take your point about pastors only receiving salary when the funds are there. I’ve been there & worn the T-shirt in that regard – in fact for the last couple of months I’m still wearing the T-shirt! My wife goes out and drives a bus sometimes so I can keep on pastoring, church planting, and overseeing the churches (National Overseer in Ireland is an unpaid position).
As for those $1000 per week factory jobs in Ireland – Hey! You’d be welcome. A lot of Americans come here to do just that. Of course they get a shock at paying $1500 per month for a one bedroomed apartment, or $8 for a gallon of gas! I’m already in Houston, Texas, this week – and I’m making the most of the incredibly cheap prices & cost of living in the US. I brought empty suitcases with me and am buying all my clothes at less than a third of what I pay in Irish stores. And as for your incredibly cheap gas prices …… heaven!
[...] Council of 18, 13 are not under appointment by the Executive Committee. 11 are pastors, including Nick Park and Tony Scott. The complete list of Council of 18 members are [...]
[...] was especially exciting to see Nick Park go on the Council of 18. He’s a good, non-pretentious brother with a massive heart for Jesus [...]