After reading Alan & John's comments, I felt I needed to explain my position further.
I believe very firmly that every Christian and every congregation should do ministry out of their passions. When people minister out of their passions they do it more cheerfully and enthusiastically.
I suspect most everyone has been forced at some time in their lives to do something that they had no passion for and really didn't like doing. They did it begrudgingly because they had no choice. Because appointments require people to support things they have no passion for, they end up giving half-heartedly or reluctantly because they feel that have no choice. Either that or they don't give at all.
What the Task Force's recommendation did was provide congregations a means to support the portion of the Conference's ministry which they felt passionate about. The basic needs of the Conference, salaries, General Conference appointments, and other fixed costs were to be paid out of a tithe of each congregation's general giving. Other ministries would then be supported by allowing people a choice of what they wished to give to.
For example if my congregation has a passion for camping ministry but could care less about legislative advocacy, then my congregation will give more cheerfully and generously knowing that their money is going toward ministry that they are passionate about. If your congregation has a strong passion for social advocacy but evangelism is not a high priority, then your congregation will likely give more cheerfully and generously if they know their money is going toward what they feel strongly about. If some other ministry exists that not enough people feel passionate about to support, then it should be abandoned.
My point is that in the present system, passion for ministry does not come into play whatsoever for no one can be passionate about everything the Conference does. And in fact, the opposite is true. People are expected to give to things they are opposed to. Why, because if they don't they are accused of destroying the connection.
The UMC needs to wake up and face the facts that people in the 21st century are not going to give to things they don't support. And as long as we expect them to, we can expect that appointments receipts will continue to be paid at less than 100%.
Part of what I was trying to say in my previous post, is that the church's liberal leadership doesn't want people to give out of their passions because they know that their programs and ideas can't generate enough support from the people in the pews to fund them. Thus they fall back to the institutional giving model, that is you're a UM so it's your duty to pay your appointments and support the connection. Unfortunately, that model of giving lost its effectiveness about 40 years ago.
I appreciate the clarification, but I"m still not buying it.
You write, "The UMC needs to wake up and face the facts that people in the 21st century are not going to give to things they don't support. And as long as we expect them to, we can expect that appointments receipts will continue to be paid at less than 100%."
If it isn't the church's job to educate people about giving and giving freely God's money back to God's work, who's job is it?! So we just go with the culture on this one and concede the fight? We're supposed to be in the world, not OF it.
If your congregation is particularly interested in a camping ministry, then have a special offering, above and beyond, for that ministry. Or better yet, have the congregation go to the local UMC camp and clean up brush, put in the dock in the spring, and sweep out the cabins.
"the church's liberal leadership doesn't want people to give out of their passions because they know that their programs and ideas can't generate enough support from the people in the pews to fund them. "
And what I was saying is that you provide no evidence that this is the case. I thought you conservatives thought that the UMC is way liberal and is getting more-so as conservatives leave. So, liberals can't get other liberals to pay for their pet programs?? Unlikely. But mostly I wonder why you have a need to blame liberals for everything. Don't like the funding? Blame the liberals. Denomination loosing members? Blame the liberals. Remember that every time you point a finger, three more are pointing back at you. So then consider that perhaps giving is decreasing, not because of the vast liberal menace, but because folks like yourself aren't willing to stand up and talk about Biblical giving because you're too willing to acquiesce to the culture on this one.
God gives us all so abundantly that there would be plenty of money and more for the church if people would actually tithe. The argument about who gives what where is silly because it's predicated on the assumption that people are going to be cheap and stingy in the first place. We need to teach them better, which would solve both problems.
Posted by: Alan | November 15, 2006 at 09:54 AM
I appreciate the expansion of your comments, and I see the value you place on passion in the connection.
I still think the key issue here is whether we are framing the issue as 1) reluctantly forking over OUR money to a bunch of liberal yahoos, or 2) giving back to God a small portion of the abundant gifts he has given us.
Yes, yes. I know. Argument 2 does not go over well in the pews. The head of my finance committee used to call apportionments our "church tax." You can imagine what kind of joyful giving this inspired.
But isn't, I don't know, nearly all of the gospel this kind of Argument 2 kind of stuff. None of it goes over well in the pews!
It seems to me that underlying issue is whether the connectional system is viable any longer. I have no idea how to answer that one. I think the UMC is a much greater church as an unweildy whole than as so many isolated congregations. But perhaps in this post-modern world that is where we are heading.
Posted by: John Meunier | November 15, 2006 at 10:09 AM
Alan,
You have a point that I am often too quick to blame the liberals for all the problems in the church. I'm really trying to be more careful about that.
That said, I know that when this recommendation came to the floor at Conference it was the liberals of our Conference who voiced strong opposition to it and stated that accepting it would mean that some programs would likely not be funded. So when I point a finger, I do so because I have witnessed the actions of others which I believe to be wrong.
Posted by: John B | November 15, 2006 at 11:22 AM
Well, you know more about this particular situation than I do. I would agree that the defense, "Then these programs won't be funded" is a pretty lame one. The correct answer should have been, "We don't legislate in this way." That is, funding or not funding a program should be a separate decision from giving. (At least, I'm assuming that's the way the UMC works.) If the church frames the discussion as "funding this program or that" rather than, "What are your stewardship and membership responsibilities to the church?" is very likely to just create more cynicism.
It reminds me of a very heated debate I observed in college, when two of my floormates were arguing about whether or not tithing was pre-tax or post-tax. If that's the argument, then you really shouldn't bother giving at all until you've got your head on straight. :)
Posted by: Alan | November 15, 2006 at 01:14 PM
I think actually that you are onto something. One of the problems is -- WHO is passionate about some of the things we really have to support; like GFCA? I just can't imagine a local pew-person saying, "My passion is actuaries and insurance plans."
(Just a moment of silliness..)
But you really do have a point -- and by looking at the proposed giving we could tell better what people are interested/ passionate in.
And I'm not a liberal or a conservative or a moderate. I'm a RADICAL. (from radix, meaning root).
Posted by: rev mommy | November 15, 2006 at 06:28 PM
Theresa,
You're right that there are necessary expenses that people aren't likely to get very excited about. That's where the tithe under the proposed system came in. A tithe of each congregations offering would be sent to the Conference for such expenses. Another 10% or so would be requested for passion-driven ministries.
Posted by: John B | November 16, 2006 at 09:28 AM
I'm reminded of the incident where Jesus is anointed with a very expensive perfume and the disciples were grousing about the waste of the perfume that could have been sold for a large amount and given to the poor. Yet Jesus commended the lady for her passion and her service to him.
I think there is every bit of a reason to think that the tithing and passion driven giving system is something that Jesus would welcome. The current system feels a lot like a bunch of grumpy disciples to me.
Posted by: Larry B | November 16, 2006 at 10:38 PM
The next logical step, though, might be to apply this at the local church level. Before I was a pastor, there were a few clergy appointed to churches I attended that I had no passion for. By such principle, I should have marked my donation checks "not to be used for clergy salary" or "no more 10% of my donation to be used for clergy salary." Or, perhaps the local church votes to buy new hymnals out of the general fund and I don't want new hymnals, so I mark my donation, "not to be used for hymnals." Or, I oppose new carpeting for the sanctuary, so I change my giving from 80% general, 20% building to 100% general. I'm giving according to my passions. Or, I don't attend Sunday School and have no interest or passion in it, so I mark my check, "not to be used for Christian education programs."
In the local church, we can raise money for capital expenditures 3-4 times as fast as we can raise money for mission work. Should I encourage people to only give by their passions or also sometimes by their need. Of my own will, I don't know that I have any passion for ministering to prostitutes or tax collectors, but Jesus does and asks me to take up the cross.
Further, I would be concerned that in the end, it would simply lead to United Methodists as a whole following the steps of the The Mission Society for United Methodists and setting up a multitude of agencies outside the denomination.
Since you've already made it clear that you don't desire liberals and conservatives to be in the same denomination, it makes me wonder if the proposal isn't just a step along the way to schism by destroying the connection.
If I were convinced that it just was a matter of "passion" and flexibility, I might see it another way. But what I see down the road if the proposal were adopted is many folks saying, "hey, we don't support the same programs, so why are we pretending to be one church?"
In the past, Methodists on the whole were not very passionate about ending segregation within the denomination. But there were enough leaders who had such passion to get it done.
Posted by: Joel | November 19, 2006 at 08:23 PM