There are few things more frustrating than being foolish and needing to apologize. But that is where I find myself. I am sorry for the language I employed to bring attention to the post entitled, “Skimming Work Funds.” I apologize to anyone I offended, and most of all am sorry for confusing the issue further. The language I chose was inflammatory, and that was wrong on my part.
The worse part of it all is that the inflammatory language I used prevented about 98% of the folks who read this particular post, from working through the material contained in the post, or even dealing with it in a rational manner. Yet, that is certainly no defense.
But I am not sorry for having raised the issue. I was not referring to, nor complaining about Salary reductions (which are not salaries at all, but rather allowances). Instead the point of the entire post was the 15% administrative fee imposed on Mission-Field Approved Specials and Missionary Work Specials (Car funds and Outfit funds excepted). My points were as follows:
1. The Great Commission Fund (GCF) is in trouble; income is falling short. (Though, through the amazing generosity of some people, we have been bailed out of this current urgent situation!)
2. Giving to missionary projects and work funds are soaring (according to what one Board member told me).
3. Number two did not cause number one, but is rather a result of how number one is funded and disbursed in my opinion.
4. Re-appropriating money that givers intended for one thing, to something else (anything else!) needs to be questioned, even when you have a legal right to do so.
5. The reason for the rise in Work and Approved Specials (in my opinion) is that less and less money from the GCF is actually going overseas (I am referring to a less percentage of money, not an actual dollar amount) and this decrease is being address by other donors in the form of Approved Specials and Work Specials.
6. To keep us out of this quagmire, I suggested a two-fund system where we raise missions dollars that go to overseas missions, and that we raise North American dollars that fund North American ministries.
Again I am sorry for the language I chose to use and for the pain that I may have caused any individual or group. Unfortunately I will probably make more mistakes in the future. But this is a critical issue for us as Bolman and Deal say in their book Reframing Organizations “Organizational ethics must ultimately be rooted in soul - an organization’s understanding of its deeply held identity, beliefs and values.” God has more than enough resources to accomplish all His tasks for today, and His mercies are there fresh and new each day.
The worse part of it all is that the inflammatory language I used prevented about 98% of the folks who read this particular post, from working through the material contained in the post, or even dealing with it in a rational manner. Yet, that is certainly no defense.
But I am not sorry for having raised the issue. I was not referring to, nor complaining about Salary reductions (which are not salaries at all, but rather allowances). Instead the point of the entire post was the 15% administrative fee imposed on Mission-Field Approved Specials and Missionary Work Specials (Car funds and Outfit funds excepted). My points were as follows:
1. The Great Commission Fund (GCF) is in trouble; income is falling short. (Though, through the amazing generosity of some people, we have been bailed out of this current urgent situation!)
2. Giving to missionary projects and work funds are soaring (according to what one Board member told me).
3. Number two did not cause number one, but is rather a result of how number one is funded and disbursed in my opinion.
4. Re-appropriating money that givers intended for one thing, to something else (anything else!) needs to be questioned, even when you have a legal right to do so.
5. The reason for the rise in Work and Approved Specials (in my opinion) is that less and less money from the GCF is actually going overseas (I am referring to a less percentage of money, not an actual dollar amount) and this decrease is being address by other donors in the form of Approved Specials and Work Specials.
6. To keep us out of this quagmire, I suggested a two-fund system where we raise missions dollars that go to overseas missions, and that we raise North American dollars that fund North American ministries.
Again I am sorry for the language I chose to use and for the pain that I may have caused any individual or group. Unfortunately I will probably make more mistakes in the future. But this is a critical issue for us as Bolman and Deal say in their book Reframing Organizations “Organizational ethics must ultimately be rooted in soul - an organization’s understanding of its deeply held identity, beliefs and values.” God has more than enough resources to accomplish all His tasks for today, and His mercies are there fresh and new each day.
17 comments:
I know very little about the situation, however, to me it does seem quite logical that any kind of donation necessarily have administrative costs attached to processing the donation. All the work of receiving, processing, receipting, and disbursing donations does not happen for free and those costs have to be accounted for somehow. Also I heard that the administrative fee is going to the GCF.
Also one more comment as an interested non-expert:
to me the idea of two systmes does not seem to promote unity. I would like to see us (all of us in the Body of Christ) operating as one team. Just to me personally the idea of splitting that along ocean lines just doesn't seem to feel right. but hey, I just work here, I'm in favor of whatever works and promotes God's Kingdom.
Unfortunately, the perception by some of why this action was taken is not completely accurate. This change was a matter of fairness to those who faithfully give to the GCF and expect their donations to carry a reasonable portion of the costs of providing administrative services. In reality, by having the restricted donations (i.e. Approved Specials) excluded from any administrative costs, the GCF donations unfairly carry the actual costs of administering the restricted donations. The action taken by the Board should have occurred the day the first dollar was given for a restricted purpose. The amounts at the beginning were so small that it was immaterial, and thus, I believe, were overlooked. With the significant growth in this segment of giving, the problem of proper allocation of administrative costs to all donated dollars has become exacerbated. This is the right thing to do no matter what the status of the GCF or restricted gifts. I believe the Board recognized this unfairness and chose to rectify this inconsistency knowing the backlash could be significant. Years of special treatment in cases like this are hard to overcome but I hope the missionaries of the C&MA and their donors will recognize the rightness of this action and praise God for bold leadership that desires fairness and blessability above popularity.
Excellent points, cumm1252 and Beth! David, I also think you're a little off on your understanding of why giving to work specials has soared. Unfortunately, many donors today fail to see the benefit of giving to a general fund. I learned this in a seminar I attended for nonprofits several years ago. Even though the GCF makes it possible for missionaries to remain on the field by paying their living allowances, housing, health insurance, visas, MK education, travel to and from the field, etc., people today tend to prefer giving to a specific ministry project because it seems more personal. I think the Alliance family should work together to communicate exactly what the GCF does and how C&MA missionaries couldn't even be on the field without it. I've known missionaries from another organization who had to return from the field within a year because they couldn't raise enough support. It was heartbreaking. I praise God for the Great Commission Fund and pray daily that He will continue to bless it, to the point that it overflows.
Beth, I checked on where the administrative fee is going, and it is indeed going to the GCF (based on David's previous blog and another comment I heard, I think there was some confusion about this). David's blog on this topic seems to indicate that the reasons for the administrative fee have not been communicated clearly to C&MA missionaries, and I hope to see this rectified.
David,
Thanks for both for demonstrating Christlike humility and for bringing up an important issue.
In reading through comments, I am suspicious once again that some are missing your point. However, perhaps I am missing your point - and don't you love having everyone telling you what you really want to say ... :)
I am not sure that the issue is "Administration Costs". I am suspicious that we all agree with the fact that there will be administrative costs ... and I personally am grateful for those in the National Office and the job they do. I don't know what we'd do without Beth doing her job (be benefitless? I know I'd be clueless, because I don't really understand all that stuff anyway!) and I really appreciate all that Julie has done for promoting ministry in Mongolia on a National Level. So the issue really isn't National Office costs, per se.
I think the issue is more of a root issue. We raise money every year - every day - by telling the US Churches: give money to this fund and you are supporting Missionaries and overseas work and reaching the unreached. Which is true. Mostly. However, the concern that I have (and to interpret what I hear David saying) that there seems to be a growing amount of US ministry that is also being funded by the GCF. It seems that everyone wants a slice the GFC pie. I say that also as a non-expert. And I may be dead wrong. However, I came from a District that seemed to thrive on seeing how we could get GCF money to fund ... Church plants ... but, well ... I will leave it it that. The issue is that there seems to be a lot of money that is going to North American ministries, that perhaps should come up with their own way of funding (and my personal opinion is that these self-funded ministries ought to include DS salaries, as well). Because it is wrong to fund all of these ministries by telling people in the churches that the money is going to Overseas Work, when a growing chunk of it is not. As David stated before, there are things being funded by the GCF that the GCF was never intended to fund.
This is why the 15% off of work specials is not solving anything. I think seems it a little steep personally. 7-10% would be a little more in line, in my opinion. However, the issue isn't really even the 15%. (I really don't think C&MA missionaries are quite as miserly as that!) The issue is that this doesn't really solve a greater problem.
The duel funding that David is referring to is not a "split" of the body. But I think there is a form of that which needs to take place. It's not right to tell the churches at missions conference time one thing, and spend the money (administrative costs aside) by funding a lot of North American ministry.
Thanks for raising the issue and the discussion again David.
Bernie
Hi, Bernie--thanks for your kind words about my efforts to promote Mongolian ministry. To be honest, I couldn't do it without you. I really appreciate your blog and your passion to engage the Alliance family in what you're doing for the Kingdom.
Working in the National Office, I am aware that the GCF does fund U.S. church-planting efforts. I honestly didn't know that this was not being clearly communicated to the churches that give to the GCF. Since the AVM and other communications venues (Call to Prayer, etc.) tell stories of God at work in the U.S. Alliance family, I kind of thought it was understood that the GCF also funds North American ministries. Maybe this needs to be communicated better.
Rather than a two sided fund, can we not all get behind the VISION of the C&MA? I fully recognize the need to have strong healthy churches in the States to facilitate strong healthy churches overseas. So, Can we not paint a picture of the total ministry of the C&MA and what the totals costs are? If IM needs $40million and NCM needs $10million, then we say that in order to accomplish the goal or the vision of the C&MA it is going to take $50million.
I firmly believe that if we get people excited about what God is doing through the C&MA as a whole, the slicing up of the pie will not be an issue. God will provide for it all because we become vision driven NOT budget driven.
Trent
AMEN Trent! I second your motion. I attend an Alliance church. It is regularly communicated that the GCF funds overseas ministries AND U.S. ministries. We're just one church, but we do know where our money is going.
I second that AMEN! Great post, Trent! This is exactly what I think every single time I have the privilege of viewing the Alliance Video Magazine. I think to myself, "Who wouldn't give to the GCF after seeing these stories of God at work?"
I have read and discussed this with Bernie at length with much interest, having been in church ministry, district ministry, missions mobilizing ministry at a national level and now as a missionary. So, David, you know me, and Renee' can no longer refrain from commenting :)(although this may show up as Bernie)
While I agree whole-heartedly with the VISION of the C&MA and "Living the Call Together", I am reminded of the welfare system in the US. While no one wants to be accused of not having concern of compassion for those genuinely in need, it can be very frustrating when people who are capable of work receive handouts. It's not that I am saying this is the reality. I am saying that "welfare" is sometimes what it feels like (and this is not a new feeling because we are now missionaries, by the way. Bernie and I felt this way as Church Planters and during subsequent pastoal ministry in the States, as well).
If we are to share the same VISION and the same monies, why not share the workload. Require church planters and US ministries to go on tour, write prayer letters and speak up and promote the GCF. I realize that some Church Planters and District Superintendents do this very well. However, I also know that there many who do not, and some who almost give the feeling of entitlement. Perhaps next year for Great Commission Sunday, a need in the US could be presented to our churches?
The issue is that the GCF is promoted as a missions fund in the majority of our churches. I know that there are churches that communicate the pie chart well. As a former missions mobilizer, I also know that there are many that do not.
I would be interested to know how the knew Work Special policy will be communicated. Will it be communicated in the same way the potential salary reductions were communicated? Or will the pie chart be revised in hopes that no one notices. I haven't been able to find anything about this on the website. Will it be communicated to pastors and church treasurer's?
Like you, David, I know people who started contributing to Work Specials rather than GCF because of how it was divided out. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next five years? Will the GCF improve? Or will work specials go down as well? If people start giving to missionaries apart from these two avenues, what happens? Then there is no accountability. Will the next move be to eliminate direct giving to bail out both the GCF and work specials?
Those are just some of the questions that have been running through my mind. I hope, very much, Trent, that a picture will be painted of total needs and total costs will be painted. I also hope in that picture will be total responsibility on the part of all C&MA workers.
Having spent time in the National Office as well as General Councils and District Conferences, my heart's desire is also unity. Sometimes my heart grieves over its absence. My first question is: What is the best way to achieve this? I don't know. My second question is: If we aren't unified the way things stand now (please note the "if") why is changing the way monies are handled considered disunity? Just because we have Missions $$ going to missionaries and DCM $$ going to National ministries, does that mean we are not unified? Or could that make a way to find a unity based on shared vision and shared efforts.
Here's another twist to this in my mind. Several years ago there was consideration of having districts send a percentage to the NO. There was quite an outcry over this "tax." What was the outcome here? It seems to me a fair sharing of the load.
This is a comment from the "average guy in the pew", though perhaps a little better connected and informed from reading wonderful posts like these. I too searched the C&MA website in vain for a mention of the 15% solution. Are pastors and givers being informed of this change? The 15% would of necessity go to the GCF, since that is where eveything else if funded, so calling it an administrative fee would seem to be a misnomer. I recall the missions mobilization director telling me a few years ago that a 5% levy on specials was being considered, and I rose up out of my chair at the statement. My sentitments run with Bernie and Trent that more is being demanded of the GCF than it was designed for. There is one Kingdom, but two fronts on which it is being expanded. Rather than competing for funds, Trent's approach of setting a budget that includes and publicizes both fronts makes sense to me. I'm not sure why the districts were opposed to a "tax" for NO operations - our district has each church provide a percentage of their budget to district operations, so it seems to make sense that NO operations could be funded in a similar manner. I have heard that nearly half of C&MA churches don't contribute to the GCF - if this is true, perhaps that is where the opposition to funding NO operations comes from. Makes one wonder why those churches remain in the C&MA, but that's for a topic for another day.
Wow! I'm getting an education just reading these posts! There is some great dialogue here - I hope everyone can continue to work together to figure this all out!
I've been thinking about this since David's original, now deleted, post. I'm most concerned by three things:
1. How emotively people responded to the language of David's post rather than the substance of it.
2. How few people are willing to express themselves on this issue. A lot of people read these two posts...but few have responded in a public forum.
3. There isn't a medium within the CMA for open and frank discussion about issues like this.
This is great dialog. I wish we had a forum where everyone could talk about it, where everyone's identity was known and were posts weren't deleted...for one reason or another.
Renee is asking some great questions. What will happen to designated giving over the next five years? Will donors continue to give to designated funds...or simply find another way of making a full investment of their choice to the work of their choice?
Jeff (David, et al,)
I have been thinking and am wondering if there isn't a way to have some sort of unofficial forum for this sort of discussion. If there's anyone who can come up with a forum solution, surely the "Missionary Geek" can do that :) ? I know that there are forums that I have seen with an almost universal template. I have a hosting account that could probably manage it, if necessary. (it just might have a "remembermongolia" address - but I have TONS of bandwidth that I will never use)
I would be quite interested in something like that - Jeff - contact me if you think it's something that we could actually do...
Bernie
Bernie, I'm working on something like this. I don't want to create a place to gripe. I want to create a place for the IM team to communicate and develop community.
I would like to create an online community where we could discuss all manner of things. Maybe one forum section would be for discussing the latest articles from EMQ or other journals. Maybe another would be for themes/trends like insider movements or contextualization. Maybe another would be for discussing "makeover" suggestions.
I'm thinking of a companion wiki for things like the latest tools people are finding to do x.
I don't know if it will go anywhere, but I think the IM community has a lot to offer one another.
Jeff - Perfect! Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. I think that sounds like a great tool ... of course we could also carry on alll of these discussions here on David's blog... :)
Post a Comment