I don’t have time to write a lengthy article here and this is too long for a tweet, but I’m going to vent my spleen a little and you can chime in. I read some things today that got me thinking, and fuming, and writing. So, here it is. I’m not giving details because I don’t want this to be personal.
My church is having a tough time financially. Yours is too, probably. The vast majority of non-profits in America are struggling. Churches. Associations. State conventions. The SBC. We are all in the same boat – sailing in a sea of red ink and leaking fast.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that your church gives a healthy percentage to missions. Ours gives 12% to missions through the Cooperative Program, and a total of around 20% to various local, national and international causes. And we have a pretty substantial set of local obligations. The bank wants its cut and the light company is pretty rigid about receiving payment. We have three full-time pastors, and our church has been exceedingly generous with us all. We have other employees as well. There was a time when we had a comfortable nest egg in the bank. No more eggs in that nest. The cupboard is bare. The well is dry. The pockets are empty.
So, what does our church do? The last two or three budget cycles we’ve been increasingly careful about trimming all the fat from our budget – you can see the rib cage through the thin layer of skin in our annual spending budget.
So what do we do?
Too many churches are taking the easy way out. They trim or withhold missions giving. I was looking at our state paper today and saw that our CP budget was down nearly 15% from 2010 to 2011. What happened? As I examined the report, I noticed a trend. There have always been churches that gave nothing to missions through the CP. Always will be. But I noticed that several churches that were once substantial givers now gave nothing or nearly nothing.
And I think that is the wrong way to handle a church’s financial troubles. I’m nobody’s judge, but I do have an opinion. You shouldn’t balance your church books at the cost of world missions.
Missions is not an option for a Christian church, it is the heart of who we are. Isn’t that what we say when we cut CP to pay our bills? We have to take care of ourselves first before we give to world missions. I do not believe that God will bless that kind of selfish spirit. Someone told me today of a Baptist church (not SBC) who cut their missions support to help the church pay it’s bills. “Missionaries can live cheaply and make sacrifices” the church was told.
I am not a strict advocate for tithing in the NT era. (I’d like this discussion NOT to be about that). But what I am is a financial supernaturalist. When you give generously, 2+2 no longer equals 4. God’s supernatural provision is promised to those who are generous. Remember that the promise we all love, “My God shall supply all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus” was made the the Philippian church, the same Macedonians Paul praised in 2 Corinthians 8, for giving “as much as they were able and even beyond their ability.”
They did not give what they could afford, they gave what they could not afford, and God promised to supernaturally provide for them. Frankly, I do not believe you have really given to the Lord until that giving becomes a sacrifice. True giving has to be costly, like the widow’s mite.
I believe that is the principle we need to remember. God blesses gener0sity. “Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.” That’s 2 Corinthians 9:6. Verse 7 goes on to recommend joyful, generous giving.
I have an idea. If your church is having problems financially, why don’t you recommend that the church INCREASE its missions giving. Give God a reason to bless you! Get more involved in the worldwide mission of God. Don’t depend on math and accounting to solve your church’s financially problems, but depend on the miraculous generosity of a God who owns it all.
Boiled down, I think that cutting back missions is the wrong way to deal with a church’s financial problems.
I’m going to make a promise here. Right now, things are tight at Southern Hills Baptist Church, but we are squeaking by. We have paid our bills and I have yet to miss a meal. But if the drain continues and things get more extreme (we are in the middle of 3 to 4 month flood gifted to us by the Army Corps of Engineers that is further depressing our already less-than-vibrant economy), I am going to go to the leadership of the church and suggest we increase our missions giving by a half a percent, or a percent. I hope our people will decide to respond to crisis by faith and not by sight.
We have an awesome God and a reason to give. It is not right, when times are tough, that we sound the retreat.
I have made so many financial mistakes in my life, but I was taught generous giving (well beyond the tithing concept) and I have seen the power and provision of God.
In fact, the most directly I have seen God at work has been in financial things.
For anyone wanting a good book on what missional giving looks like here it is:
http://www.amazon.com/Generous-Soul-Introduction-Missional-Giving/dp/0982571941/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1310507401&sr=8-1
🙂
Oh yeah, it has a couple of great reviews as well. 🙂
Who is this Marty Duren of whom you speak. Sounds like some sort of cult leader.
(For the newly initiated in bloggery, Marty was one of the most prominent of bloggers in the Wild West days of early Baptist blogging.)
Good article. With you all the way on “increasing givng.” Not sure we are on the same page as to increasing giving to the Cooperative Program, if that is how you are defining “World Missions.”
I don’t think the decrease in CP giving is all related to the economy. I guess it could be, and we probably can’t know for sure. But, I think we have to at least consider there may be other reasons for the decrease.
Every church (and every believer) should take time to reevaluate our giving. I’m doing this in our church. Far too many people who have rented space on a pew are not paying for that space. We can and should all do better.
My point was not to promote the CP or anything. My point was that cutting back on worldwide missions (however you do it) is the wrong way to solve a financial problem.
My dad used to teach that financial problems aren’t really financial problems. They are either spiritual problems manifesting in the financial or spiritual challenges.
My son lives in Boston and we visited him there. Went to the Old North Church. Really cool. But the sanctuary had little separated sections. You bought a pew area and sat in it. You could decorate your area any way you wanted. Some people had really ornate pew areas.
Thought of that when you talked about renting a pew.
amen, brother!
I dont think the economy is the only reason that giving to the CP and Lottie and Annie will be down….
It may be that increasing overall missions means the staff takes a pay cut. Is that a price you are willing to pay?
It may be that your church feels that staff support is as valid a mission as the two-thirds of your Cooperative Program giving that stays (on average) in your state.
It may be more efficient for example to (a) cut CP giving by half, (b) increase Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong giving directly through the church budget by using half of the amount cut from CP, and (c) use the rest to balance your budget. You put more dollars overseas and at home for church plants.
I understand the challenge of increasing missions giving in a time of financial distress. Is this testing God or being foolish? Depends.
I don’t think there is a set answer, Dave. The Cooperative Program sustains the staff and program accretion of our halcyon financial past. Is it the best use of the church’s money to continue this, or, is it an opportune time to reevaluate it all? Surely the latter is called for.
As for me and my church, I volunteered a pay cut for me and, to a lesser extent, for my one full time staff colleague (the church accepted that, thereby demonstrating my considerable leadership skills). We increased giving to international missions and, slightly, to NAMB.
CP giving is very meager, but then I have resigned myself to not being elected president of the SBC on account of low CP giving.
I was wondering if anyone was going to bring up this issue. Is keeping missions giving at current levels worth a cut in staff pay? Obviously the practical answer to that is going to depend on a number of variables, but as principle… is staff pay off limits or only a last resort? Is missions giving a higher priority than staff?
Situations may vary too much to come down on any kind of firm answer.
I did ask our church to start funding a church planter two years ago and told them I’d rather forgo any raise that year in order to see that happen. The church graciously chose to do both, but I was serious. Then again, there’s a difference in forgoing a raise and taking a cut in pay.
That would, of course, be a tough choice. But here’s the key to what I am saying. There is an assumption in the question that this is a zero sum game.
But God is powerful and can provide. I don’t mean to be too flip and I cannot say this without coming off judgmental or whatever, but if a church I was pastoring was in the position of having to either cut pastor’s pay or cut missions giving, I would lead the church to get on our knees and ask God if there is anything in our church that is not pleasing him and causing him to withhold provision.
I’ve actually done this, when my previous church was in financial difficulty – we didn’t just mess around with our budget, we tried to find root causes. God does not lack and those who walk under his blessing will not have all they want, and will sometimes be tested in our faith, but God provides for our needs. God provides!
Again, I operate under the assumption that the kind of financial problems you are speaking of are generally a sign of greater spiritual issues.
This is a general statement and not intended at or against any particular church.
Doggone, I’m gonna get killed for this comment.
One aspect to consider is this:
Based on the published numbers from IMB in the Lottie Moon material, it costs slightly under 50k to support an international missionary. Also, under current strategy at IMB, the plan is only to put missionaries in areas/cities with more than 1 million people.
Meanwhile, the average full-time staff pay/benefits (per Lifeway’s study, which is open to interpretation) runs over 60k.
And usually they’re not the only family unit trying to reach the community they are in, and that community is rarely 1 million people or bigger.
I think part of the overall question is this: are we expending the resources of the church to pay people to do stuff that we shouldn’t be paying people to do? If we think, as Southern Baptists, that a handful of people is enough for a city of millions, why do we need 3, 5, 9 people in one church? In places where there’s more than one Southern Baptist church, not to mention Christian church?
We’re in trouble financially because we’ve become spiritually selfish: we can’t get volunteers to teach youth, so we hire it out. We can’t get nursery volunteers, so we hire it out. We spend millions on fancy buildings and have to keep them clean and repaired, but don’t have time or interest to do it, so we hire it out.
We’ve blended the Faith and marketing. Somehow, that’s just not working. And we’re surprised by that?
“We’re in trouble financially because we’ve become spiritually selfish”
Yep
Doug,
Those are great points. Our church used to pay someone to clean the building, but now we rotate that responsibility through several families and individuals on a monthly basis.
God says that He provides for all of our needs and that should include the people needed to do the ministry and work of the church as well.
Then again, the argument could be made that if you cut your giving to world missions and amped up your local missions and church presence in the midst of dire situations and disaster, you might find yourself blessed down the road to give more back to world missions.
Sometimes world missions means the world immediately outside your front door…
I’ve thought about this in the context of churches in Africa sending missionaries here. Why don’t we partner with them, save everybody money, and let the African churches send missionaries to places in Africa, and we send missionaries to places here in the USA?
Is it because Africa is way more “glamorous” than the inner city of Chicago? What do you think would look better on a resume – “served in Africa on an international missions team for 4 years” or “served in Micro, North Carolina on a missions team for four years”?
Or worse – “we are going to raise money for a missions trip to Chicago” vs “we are going to raise money for a missions trip to Ecuador”. I’ll bet, though the trip to Ecuador is orders of magnitude more expensive, it would raise money better than a trip to Chicago.
Remember the hypercalvinists? When William Carey was going to go to India, his “hyper” buddies told him something like “If God is going to save people in India, let Him do it without you.” When “missions” = “international missions”, the same thing happens here “If God is going to save people in Chicago, let Him do it without you.” In other words, there are plenty of churches here – let them handle this.
Now, I am in full support of the notion of letting churches who cannot bear the cost of international missions support local missions while letting churches blessed to bear the international mission charge go ahead full steam. But, the way “missions” is presented today, leads many small churches to feel “less glamorous” when they go on missions trips to less glamorous areas. Heck, even going to New Orleans after the flood was glamorous. But going to places in the US without much church influence (or predominantly non-Christian influence) is looked on as a cop out.
Just my $5.03.
Jeff.
Worth at least $5.24, Jeff.
Jeff,
That really hits close to home. When we left Arkansas for South Dakota, we were originally in the MSC (mission service corps) program through NAMB. We were considered missionaries and had support from our local church back in Arkansas as well as a couple of others. Then after the beginning of our second 2-year term, NAMB reworked the rules of the MSC program and discouraged it being used for established church “ministry positions” like pastors and youth pastors and so forth. It was as if NAMB said that doing ministry in a church setting in the US wasn’t missions anymore. This was even before the GCR as it happened about 5 years ago I think.
Dave,
I do think there is much truth in what your Dad taught. Stewardship is definitely a spiritual matter–a high priority spiritual issue.
Great article Dave!
Churches that cut missions giving in tough times are teaching members to “cut” their church giving when times get tough.
Blessings!
Let me simply state that the main problem facing the traditional church in America today is that it is mostly rooted on the wrong ontology. For the most part, mainline churches have more in common with the corporate world than they do NT modeling. Big BUDGETS, pensions, salaries, employees, operational debt, lobbies, etc. This is all foreign to the descriptions and prescriptions of the NT. Paul didn’t wait until his work was ‘fully funded’ before he went to Lystra. Nor did Timothy have a full-time paid ‘worship leader’. We need to reexamine how we carry out our commission in this life and reevaluate our priorities. We are too much like the world.
That’s the problem right there! I think the “elephant in the room” in this whole issue is church debt. Big fancy building that had to be financed. I just am not in favor of churches borrowing money. It’s the American way, but it shouldn’t be the Church’s way.
If your church building holds 400 comfortably, and you have 600 people shoe-horned in there every Sunday, and God has not blessed you with the funds needed to build a bigger building, then take those 200 “excess” Christians and start a new church!. In an old barn or a Quonset hut or something else that can be constructed inexpensively.
If you absolutely have to build a new building, then raise the funds and then build the building.
Just my 2¢
Squirrel
Or, if a new church plant doesn’t make sense (small town, local community, whatever) have multiple services. Most of us could preach twice on Sunday mornings and it wouldn’t kill us.
Have you read the latest Guidestone health reports?
Nope. My insurance is with somebody else, so I don’t get them.
Although this much I know—the preaching ain’t gonna kill us. The donuts and fried chicken will.
i haven’t actually read them either, but couldn’t resist the joke.
fried chicken and donuts havent ever killed anyone.
I know a lot of people, who eat fried chicken and donuts all the time…and they lived a long, long time…..
“In an old barn . . . ”
well, that’s where Our Lord was first adored on this Earth wasn’t it?
Christians can ‘Come To The Stable’ and pray . . . it’s how it all began. 🙂
True, Squirrel. Large percentage of problems root in church debt.
The first church I served at in the Dakotas is now gone, primarily because they ran up a huge debt to construct a bigger auditorium and fellowship hall addition on their building. Just because you build it doesn’t mean that they will come.
I know that their story isn’t uncommon at all.
First of all great article. I agree with SO much of what you have here. Especially the summary of don’t balance the budget at the expense of missions.
And has has been mentioned: the elephant in the room (esp. in the large/mega church era) is Church Debt. I have long said that if most church members carried the relative amount of debts that most churches do they would be condemned by church leaders.
But I do have a question about 1 statement in this article…and it isn’t just here it is all over our churches and in so much of SBC teaching- esp. those who hold very tight to tithing and that is this statement: “I have an idea. If your church is having problems financially, why don’t you recommend that the church INCREASE its missions giving. Give God a reason to bless you!”
I struggle to balance this because at best it is only SLIGHTLY different than the prosperity gospel preachers. I mean, isn’t this EXACTLY what those guys say “Give God a Reason To Bless You”? I hear the same thing at my church frequently and the only difference I can see between that statement and something I hear on Prosperity Gospel TV appears to be the motives behind it. Now, in SBC world the “bless” usually gets quantified at some point as “not necessarily financially” and yet financial blessings in return for giving seem to almost always be hinted at and somewhat promised even in a backdoor fashion. The mentality just seems so dangerous even if the motives seem pure.
And yet, I agree with what you are saying about God blessing generosity as well- so there is much conflict in my own mind.
I guess in general I think it is time for the giving discussion in SBC to move beyond being primarily the “Give to get” mentality and onto something more robust.
(I understand this post doesn’t represent the entirety of Dave’s views on giving and missions so I am certainly not trying to point this at him specifically- just a general observation of some things I have seen/heard at a more broad level so please don’t take any of this as any type of personal attack).
I agree. We should never give to receive. We give to glorify God. On the other hand, God does bless generous givers. That is clear. Its a matter of my heart and motive.
According to all I m seeing, hearing, and reading these days, the task of giving to missions is soon going to become all but impossible. Within the past few weeks I have received numbers of materials, financial news letter, news reports, etc., that the economy is headed for a complete collapse. My prayer is that God will intervene to prevent this, bring down the price of gas, move people to start inventing and creating things that will bring jobs into being to provide for the employment of the masses. Right
now we are suffering, I fear, from a planned effort to sabotage the world’s economic system, and jobs are wanting for a number of reasons. Primarily, however, they seem to be wanting due to automation, computerization, and robotics. 20 years or so ago, I wrote a paper evaluating some information supplied to me as a counselor and Industry Education Coordinator by the vocational director of the county school system. She had been to a conference and brought the materials back. I wrote an evaluation, and never hear heard a word about it. Based on the information supplied, I concluded that there would be no jobs in the future for our children. The reasons were automation, computerization, and robotics.
One example supplied by the information told of a Burger King that employed 400 people, a 24-7 operation. They automated, hired a lazer cooker technician from German and paid him $90/an hr. and a Japanese female assistant at $60/an hr. The rest of the crew at minimum or near minimum wages totalled some 18 people. In effect, 380 people lost their jobs. If they can do such with a fast food operation think what they can do with automobile factories. (note they had built two fully automated plants in Japan which only required some 60-70 technicians to keep them operating. They had to close them down due to the fact that so many people were put out of work). There is more, but I often stared in knowing wonder at the assembly lines during the car company crisis last year, gazing at the assembly lines with robotic arms flying, with few and sometimes no hsuman being in sight as the arms assembled the cars, doing very complex operations.
We are facing the greatest hour of trial, I think and pray not, but cf. Rev.3:10. some folks talk of 7 years tribulation, but the hour of trial for the whole earth raises the spectre of the issue of the quality of a trial…not simply its quantity as to time. And who is there to say that not all of the saints pass through many tribulations or much tribulation in entering the kingdom (Acts 14:22)? I suggest that we need a concerted prayer meeting for help from Heaven in order to maintain our mission programs and, indeed, our own lives as well.