Out the Door

A New Approach to Fundraising

Once the difficult task of arriving at a church budget has been completed, a more important question arises, "How to we raise the funds to meet this budget?"

Here's some things I plan on implementing in the coming months.  Many of these are my take on ideas from the book It's Not Your Parent's Offering Plate, by J. Clif Christopher. 

1.  Recognize that generosity is a spiritual gift.  It is no more nor no less important to the Kingdom of God than any other spiritual gift, but it is one which some people have and some don't.  Like all spiritual gifts it is my job as the pastor to help people nurture and use their gift.  This starts by identifying who it is that has the gift of generosity which requires that I as the pastor know what people are giving.  In my mind, knowing what a person gives is no different than knowing how often a person is in worship or whether or not they participate in a small group.  Each of these are quantifiable measurements of a person's spiritual health.  Of course, while no one's spiritual health can be fully measured, only God knows what is in a person's heart, giving, worship attendance, and small group participation are good indicators.  Further to fail to recognize and affirm a person's spiritual gift of generosity is as nonsensical as failing to recognize and affirm any other spiritual gift.  Even further, just because someone doesn't have the gift of generosity, doesn't mean they don't need to be generous any more than someone who doesn't have the gift of mercy doesn't need to be merciful.

2.  Share the good news about what's happening in our congregation.  Testimonies about God's goodness should not be a thing of the past.  People want to know that their contributions are making a difference in the lives of others.  Too often we have simply assumed that people knew what was happening in the church.  We dare not make that assumption any longer.  We will be sharing the good news by projecting videos of church events and ministries during the offering and by asking individuals to share where they have seen God at work in their lives and in the church.

3.  Using a three-tiered approach to fund-raising letters.  This involves sending a different letter to tithers and top givers.  Another to those who are consistent givers.  And yet another, to non or nominal givers.  It doesn't make much sense to send a letter to a tither which says, "won't you please tithe."  Why ask someone to do something they are already doing?  Similarly it doesn't make much sense to ask a non-giver to tithe since that idea is completely off their radar.  Saying thank you to tithers, asking consistent givers to move toward tithing and encouraging non-giver to give just a little seems like a wise move to me.

4.  Produce a narrative budget.  This goes back to people wanting to make a difference.  It's impossible for most people to visualize how X amount of dollars to pay the electric bill is going to change anyone's life.  However, tell them that X amount of dollars is being used to provide Sunday school materials and to provide space where children are giving their hearts to Jesus and people will get on board.

5.  Say "Thank you."  It is impossible to say thank you enough and I'm committing myself to doing a much better job of that.

So that's basically my plan.  Check back in a year and I'll let you know how it worked out. 

I Hate Church Budgets

It's Charge Conference time again, which means it's time to devise the annual church budget.  There's few things I dislike more about being a pastor than having to come up with a new budget every year.

I've always felt like budgets do more to restrain ministry than to promote it.  Back when I served as a city council member in Pierson, I was part of the budgeting process for the city.  According to state law, once something was budgeted the city was locked into that amount.  It didn't matter if some item came in under budget and there was money in the account, those funds could not be used to address any other need that may have arisen.

One of the problems I have with church budgets is how anyone to know where God might be moving in a some new way a year from now.  How many opportunities have churches missed through the years because, "there's no money in the budget for that"?  I have this strange belief that if God is calling the church to do something, God will provide the resources to make it possible regardless what the budget says.  In our rapidly changing world, the church must be able to move quickly to meet the needs around it.  Too often, rather than making that happen church budget inhibit that from happening.

Another problem I have with church budgets is the fact that most every year of my 20+ years of ministry, the primary question centered around the budget is "how do we keep from spending any more money than is absolutely necessary?"  Now I am profoundly aware that the money the church has comes as gifts from its members who rightly expect that their gifts will be used wisely.  This is especially true during the difficult financial times we live in where many people's gifts are more sacrificial than during good times.  However, I firmly believe that the problem lies not in the fact that the church is spending too much money, but the fact that people are not being obedient to God. 

The scriptures consistently speak of a tithe, 10% of one's income as the standard by which faithfulness is measured.  Because so few people live out that standard the church is left to struggle and try to restrict spending money on ministry.

Church budgets then end up addressing the symptom rather than the root cause of the problem.  It's like a doctor prescribing a cough drop for someone who has pneumonia.  The person's cough may disappear for a short while, but eventually it's going to return because the real disease hasn't been dealt with.  I have never served a congregation where I thought that the budget was too high, that is not the real problem. 

It seems to me that if churches spent half as much energy teaching and encouraging people to financially support the work of the church as they do trying to control spending, trying to control spending would be rote.  I'm praying for the day when all God's people act faithfully and the Church doesn't know what to do with all the money. 

Really Freaked Out by Children Singing Obama's Praise

By now most everyone has seen or heard about the New Jersey school children singing praises to President Obama.  If you haven't here's one of several that are on-line.

This video freaks me out to the point I am about lost for words.  I remember growing up and seeing pictures of school children in communist countries singing songs to their leaders.  This is the stuff of dictatorships and atheistic tyrannts.  If these children were singing about Castro, or Stalin, or Saddam Hussien, I could see that happening.  I would expect nothing less from these types of dictators.  Yet here are American school children singing, "Mr. President, we honor you.  Mr. President, you're number one." 

Now I'm all for honoring our president regardless who it is.  But when little children who have no choice are coerced into singing about how great a man the president is goes way beyond honoring the office.

What is our nation coming to when children can sing songs to the president to the tune of "Jesus Love the Little Children," and can't sing the original words to that same song because it speaks of Jesus?  President Obama should speak out and say while he's honored by the gesture, we are one nation under God and not one nation under the president.  Of course, that's not going to happen so this attack upon the freedom of thought which is central to our country's way of life will go unchallenged by anyone in a position of authority.

Don't like the rules, then change them

Ever child learns that rules are designed to make a game fair and because of that you can't change the rules just because you're bigger or stronger.  It seems this is a lesson that the Massachusetts Democrats failed to learn.

In 2004, the rules in Massachusetts were that if one of the Senator's seats became vacant before the end of a term, the governor could appoint someone to fill that position.  John Kerry abandoned his Senatorial seat in order to run for president that year.  The Democrats who controlled the state legislature changed the rules so that rather than the governor appointing a replacement, a special election had to be held.  It just so happened in 2004 Massachusetts had a Republican governor and the Democrats were afraid he would name a Republican replacement.  So being bigger and stronger, the Democrats in the legislature changed the rules.

Fast forward to 2009.  Once again a Massachusetts Senate seat is open.  SURPRISE!!  The Democrats want to change the rules again because now there's a Democratic governor.  They now want the governor to have the power to appoint someone to the Senate position.  I have little doubt they will make this change.

Isn't it great to be bigger and stronger than your opponent, so you don't have to play by the rules and you can just make them up as you go along?  Is it any wonder that there is a growing lack of respect for authority and the rule of law in our land?  When those empowered to make the rules will change the rules whenever it is to their advantage the lesson is clear, playing by the rules is less important that getting whatever you want.

More Choices than a Vegas All-U-Can-Eat Buffet

With 33 pages of statements on nearly every conceivable issue the UM Social Principles offer more choices than a Vegas Buffet.  And it seems that people pick and choose as freely.

One person favors government run health care and thus quotes these lines;
Providing the care needed to maintain health, prevent disease, and restore health after injury or illness is a responsibility each person owes others and government owes to all. para. 162V

The same person who favors homosexual  marriage and thus passes over these words;
We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. para. 161B

Another person opposes genetic enegineering and pulls out these words:
We oppose the cloning of humans and the genetic manipulation of the gender of an unborn child. para. 162O

This same person who likes a beer with their hotdog at a baseball game overlooks these words:
We affirm our long-standing support of abstinence from alcohol as a faithful witness to God's liberating and redeeming love for persons.  para 162L

Now I'm not in the position to point fingers because I must confess I've been just as choosy.  But I wonder if people can pick and choose which of our Principles they endorse and which they reject, how much real power do these Principles have?

My answer is "not much."  My bet is that the majority of United Methodist don't even know there is such a thing as the Social Principles and that even fewer have actually read them or studied them.  I realize I may be wrong about this since the Social Principles are the bedrock document for a number of United Methodist clergy.  But it's been my experience that even these individuals emphasis some and ignore others.  Something tells me it just shouldn't work that way.

Maxie Dunnam's Response to Amendments Defeat

Maxie Dunnam had made a passionate appeal for the defeat of most of the proposed contitutional admendments on YouTube.  Now that the majority of Annual Conferences have had the opportunity to vote of these, it has become apparent that all of the most controversial ones are headed toward defeat.  Dunnam has recently released a statement about the apparent disconnect between those who are in leadership positions in the church and the women and men who live out their faith through the UMC.

Below is a "Reader's Digest" version of his statement.  To read the entire statement click here (PDF File)

In l859, John Henry Newman wrote an article entitled "On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine."  It was printed in a Roman Catholic periodical, The Rambler, of which Newman was the editor.  Newman not only affirmed the critical role of laity in the church, he insisted that the consensus of the faithful may preserve important doctrines even when the bishops fail.  Newman made the case that there is lodged in the Church; the Body of Christ which is comprised primarily of laity, a depository of profound practical theological wisdom.

If the Roman Catholics can positively entertain that notion, how much more should we be able to do so as Protestants who champion the priesthood of all believers and the ministry of the whole people of God?

I believe our recent dealing with the Constitutional Amendments is related in part to this issue.  Enough of the votes on these amendments have been reported by the annual conferences to make it possible to reasonably know the results. The sense of the faithful has been registered, not alone in terms of laity, but faithful lay and clergy across the connection.

Let me quickly register the fact that the doctrine of the church is not to be established by popular vote.  That's the reason our General Conference, though it is the final authority for the church's life and ministry, cannot change our Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith.  However, how our doctrines are lived out in the concrete realties of life and ministry are determined in large part by the sense of the faithful.

How could the General Conference approve what the church has now overwhelmingly refused to ratify?  Could it be that we simply did not take enough time for study, prayer, and holy conferencing to discern the sense of the faithful?  Could it be that ideological interest groups and small geographic areas of the church dominate the organizations and structures of influence?  Or, could it be that the way the issues were brought to General Conference was prejudiced? 

I'm thinking particularly of the amendments related to worldwide nature of the church. 

These amendments came out of a non-representative task force and were brought to the General Conference endorsed by the Council of Bishops and approved by the Connectional Table.  Somewhere there is a disconnect...either in communication or in leadership.  As I understand it, the vote of the Connectional Table was 75% in favor of the worldwide nature amendments.  Early reports indicate that the vote of the church may be just the opposite...60 to 75% in opposition.  Where is the disconnect here?  How representative of the church is this body, and to whom do they pay most attention?

Another amendment of particular interest is the amendment that would change paragraph IV in the constitution.  This amendment was "pitched" as an effort to open the doors of the church to everyone.  The church is already open to everyone, but there are requirements for membership.  It was clear from the beginning, though some proponents tried to disguise it, that this was another effort on the part of a passionate minority to undermine the church's position on the practice of homosexuality.   At the last report, the amendment had not received 50% of the vote, when 66.7% is needed.

How long will bishops, pastors, seminaries, and general boards continue to force an issue which diverts focus, resources and energy from mission and ministry?  Does the sense of the faithful not matter?  Isn't there a measure of arrogance in a small part of the body continuing to passionately push their convictions which they know threaten the vitality and unity of the church?

I believe the vote on the amendments is a positive vote for the church, reflecting the "sense of the faithful."  If we are going to fulfill our mission "to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world," then we must respect the integrity of the faithful in order to engage them in our kingdom ministry.
 
 

Healthcare Reform will fund abortions

There can be little doubt that in the Democratic's version of healthcare reform that abortions will be fully funded through the governmental plan. Millions of pro-life Americans will be forced by their government to pay for the killing of children.

While the word "abortion" appears nowhere within the bill which is now before Congress, the language of the legislation speaks of "all necessary medical procedures." For pro-abortion advoates who dominate the ruling Democratic Party, abortion is a necessary medical procedure.

A coalition of pro-life groups have banded together to fight this expansion of abortion. They are running an ad informing the public of the implication of the healthcare reform bill. Below are a CBN report about the commerical and the commerical itself.  Make sure to check out the Stop The Abortion Mandate website.

Healthcare Reform Questions

There's been so much said and written about the healthcare reform and the governmental takeover on 1/6th of the US economy that I have been hesitant to add my voice.  However, as I have listen to the debate, I have some questions I would like answered.

1.  Whose responsibility is it to provide for the healthcare of the citizens of the United States?

I find nowhere in the Bible where the government is given the responsibility to provide healthcare for anyone.  To use the Old Testament prophets words to Israel justify governmental intervention distorts them.  The USA cannot be equated to ancient Israel.  In the same manner, Jesus' words which command us to care for the sick are not addressed to a governmental body, but rather to His body, the Church.  It's time for the Church to be the Church and to quit relying on the government to do the work to which the Church is called. 

There are approximately 225 million Americans who claim to be Christian, median person income is about $32,000.  Thus if every Christian gave a tithe of their income the amount with which the Church could do ministry would be $720 billion.  If only a quarter of that amount was used to provide for the healthcare of the 46 million Americans who don't have insurance, that means each uninsured person would receive about $3,900.  The average per person cost for health insurance is $3,250.  Problem solved!  And it didn't require governmental intervention, rather it required that those who call themselves by the name of Jesus Christ are faithful to the commands of scripture.

2.  If the governmental plan is so good, why has Congress exempted themselves from it?

The fact that the healthcare reform bill impacts the lives of every American except those in Congress is elitist.  Obviously, those in Congress who support this bill really don't think it is really going to help the people who are forced into the program.  Why else would they exempt themselves?

3.  To think that the governmental healthcare plan can be put into place without increasing the national debt is naive.  How much debt are we going to place on the backs of our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren before it will be more than they can possibly carry?

Presently, the government is spending 185% of its income.  In other words, in order to balance the budget taxes would need to be about doubled or spending cut in half.  Since the healthcare plan increases spending by upward of a trillion dollars, the only option is to more than double people's tax burden or else lay it on the backs of future generations.  Since future generations don't vote, it's not hard to figure out what the politicians will do.  When is enough, enough?

I've been curious

This Sunday during worship I'm giving the members of my congregation the opportunity to ask a question which they have pondering.  I'm going to see what happens when people can text in questions. 

I have some questions that I’d like answered.  Some of these questions are deep, questions that people have been asking through the ages.  Others are just things that I can’t figure out.  They are in no particular order.  I’d love to hear how you’d respond to any of these, leave a comment or email me at john@newsharonumc.org.

• Why do we say mean things to those we love most that we’d never consider saying to a stranger?
• Why do young people full of potential suffer and die, while aged folks who have lived their lives and are ready for heaven linger?
• Why are Americans who have so much sadder than people who live in impoverished countries?
• Is there life on other planets?
• Why did God create the universe that is mostly invisible to the human eye?
• How do people fall in love?
• Why does the largest animal, the blue whale feed on one of the smallest, krill?
• Why does doing the right thing often seem hard, while doing the wrong thing comes so easily?
• Why is it that we know a lot of people, but have so few good friends?
• Why can I birdie one hole and get a triple bogey on the next?
• Why is reading a novel easy while reading the Bible takes real effort?
• Where are all the technological changes leading us?
• Why are TV’s getting larger and smaller at the same time?
• How can some people suffer much and remain happy and positive and others, including me, complain at the slightest inconvenience?
• How can Congress that oversees the Post Office which loses billions of dollars a year doing the simple task of delivering a letter possibly oversee something as complex as the health care system without major cost overruns?

No Apologies Necessary

'm not much for passing along emails which end with "If you love Jesus," or "If you're a true American" or similar ridiculous statements, once in a while I receive something which I think is worthy of being passed along.  Here's one of them.  (I don't make any claim as to the truth of these reports, but I'd like to think they are true.)

 

JFK'S Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was in France in the early 60's when DeGaule decided to pull out of NATO.  DeGaule said he wanted all US military out of France as soon as possible.
Rusk responded "does that include those who are buried here?
DeGuale did not respond.

 ***********************************************************************

When in England , at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.
He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders.  The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.'

 *************************************************************

There was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American.  During a break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying 'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims.  What does he intended to do, bomb them?'
A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: 'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency  electrical power to shore facilities; they have three  cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.  We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?'

*********************************************************************

A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S. , English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of Officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English. He then asked, 'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?'
Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied, 'Maybe it's because the Brit's, Canadians, Aussie's and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.'

******************************************************************

AND THIS STORY FITS RIGHT IN WITH THE ABOVE...
Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on.
"You have been to France before, monsieur?" the customs officer asked  sarcastically.
Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously..
"Then you should know enough to have your passport ready."
The American said, 'The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it."
"Impossible. Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in France !"
The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard  look.  Then he quietly explained, ''Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find a single Frenchmen to show a passport to."
 
You could have heard a pin drop.