This is just a bent of mine that I am not angry about nor upset but am open to figuring out a better way to manage the issue. This is a two part post. Now I want to discuss where a church funds their missions program then the next post will discuss the missionary at large, the terminology and how they personally raise support. Hope not to offend anyone, I got a great few friends in mission work and love them dearly. I just want to throw out my thoughts no matter how wrong I am, correct me if needed, thanks.
Should missions giving come out of General Funds or just what the people give and pledge to missions? This was a question that popped in my head this morning as I sat in a staff meeting as we debriefed about the previous night's board meeting as they discussed the financials for 2009. As we look at MANY churches across the nation they reflect the financial depression of America. Now don't shoot me, I don't say depression as the 1930's, I say depression in reference to the depressed nature of people, they are mentally feeling that we are in dire straights. So again, I propose the question, should missions giving come from General Funds, meaning the general tithes that people give back to the church, or should the people see the needs and become more missional in their giving?
The difference is the heart of the giver. IF people believe in giving to the need AND believe in tithing then churches don't need to give to missions to cover the peoples shortages, they would reach all the needs both communally and around the world.
As I referenced in a
previous post, The Pareto Principle explains how 20% of givers counts for 80% of the general income, the other 80% only make up the last 20%. Now our personal church has taken about a 15% hit which is not huge compared to the overall downturn for a lot of churches, but when you look at the Pareto Principle in relation to our situation we are pretty close to the expectation. That means the 80% are not doing their 20% efforts. Now how can I say that the 80% are responsibile of the 20%? You can refer back to my previous blog,
Within Reason...
"...the Pareto Principle, the law of the vital few. It is based off the principle of factor sparsity, basically 80% of consequences build from 20% of the causes, the vice versa is true. 80% of greatness is created by the 20%."
Tippers and Tithers:- Tippers give $10 or $20 a week (typically what's in their pocket or available at the given time).
- Tithers give a percent of their income.
Most church's givers that are tithers are committed and understand the value of stewardship and know that giving isn't an option, it is all God's to being with and he has given it to us as stewards and we are merely giving it back to him. The next MADE series video will address this so keep tuned for the Part 2 of this post and next week and for the video! Your 20% are your established, understanding, experienced people that are faithful, now in this economy no doubt they are affected and might give less or as often but you can still count on them. The tippers are the ones who are project/need oriented. Great people, again, dependable but do not tithe, just give what's in their pockets, $10 here, $20 there. If a need is presented, a project, a mission then they drop that money in for that. The tough thing is they give regularly just not to the same area so the church can not be dependent on that and when things are tight like our economy they are the first to stop giving. They simply are not your 20%.
Maybe we need to be investing in people and projects and allow the congregation to invest in missions? This is a statement that is new to my thinking but I am slowly feeling it may be appropriate. We invest in the people monetarily, spiritually, emotionally, etc, and then present the missions needs and allow them to give to that above and beyond their tithe.
Tell me, am I wrong? IS there ONE correct way? Does this idea help solve any problem or produce its own kinds of problems?
...read more on "Money, Missions and Responsibilities PART 1"!
Should missions giving come out of General Funds or just what the people give and pledge to missions? This was a question that popped in my head this morning as I sat in a staff meeting as we debriefed about the previous night's board meeting as they discussed the financials for 2009. As we look at MANY churches across the nation they reflect the financial depression of America. Now don't shoot me, I don't say depression as the 1930's, I say depression in reference to the depressed nature of people, they are mentally feeling that we are in dire straights. So again, I propose the question, should missions giving come from General Funds, meaning the general tithes that people give back to the church, or should the people see the needs and become more missional in their giving?
