UMC—Part 4
(Note: I’m very grateful for the spirit of the discussion this week. I hope these posts don’t come across as arrogant but as humble suggestions from someone who cares. I acknowledge that my ideas may not be possible — or may not work, but hopefully, they will spur on helpful conversations.)
When I was an associate pastor at First United Methodist Church, our church grew from about 300 people to close to 700 people (which at the time was considered a very large church).
Each Methodist Church paid their share of “apportionments.” Although I’m not certain where the apportionments go, I’m assuming they support UMC missionaries, hospitals, benevolence ministries, district superintendents, bishops, administrative costs, etc.
It was also my understanding (and my UMC friends can correct me if I’m wrong), that the apportionments also helped support smaller churches that couldn’t make it on their own. I firmly believe that UMC churches partnering together is one of the keys to its future! The denomination’s connectedness is a great strength. But heavy apportionments on larger churches could ultimately hurt the whole. I’ll explain.
At FUMC, we paid approximately 17% of our budget to apportionments. (I was told larger churches paid higher perecentages.) This model could prevent strong churches from growing stronger. If the church has more resources to put toward evangelism, church planting, their own ministry passions, and expansion, perhaps the churches could grow larger and more influential.
If the UMC had more growing and visible churches (like Granger Community Church, in Indiana, Ginghamsburg Church in Tipp City, Ohio and Church of the Resurrection in Kansas City, Kansas), these churches could help attract new leaders and bring a wave of hope and optimism.
Visit 
Apportionments are also very hard on smaller churches in this economy. We’re growing back after a dump in membership, and we’ve had months where it was a struggle to pay the bills, let alone apportionments. I know, got to have it, but it’s a real problem.
To say nothing about the programs and causes The UMC supports with the apportionments.
Just to note, Church of the Resurrection is a United Methodist church. Their strength has had a tremendous impact on other UMC churches throughout Kansas.
I am a UMC pastor in the Residents in Ministry program in the Indiana Conference (meaning I’ll be up for full membership in 2011). I have enjoyed reading this series.
I don’t think every conference does this, but Indiana has moved to a tithe model when it comes to conference support. I think this is a fantastic move. If we expect our members to tithe, shouldn’t the churches set an example? Unfortunately, though, not every church does this. I think it is much easier to operate on a tithe model rather than apportionments, and I am at two small churches, one of which is struggling financially, but still pays 100% of its tithe. Sadly, I believe one of the churches that don’t pay their full part is Granger (their financials are available on the conference website), and they haven’t paid 100% since 2000. It is disheartening to have one of the leading churches in the conference disassociate itself from the conference. They should be a leader when it comes to working together, but they are not leading by example when it comes to this particular area.
Apportionments have also become the ultimate test of loayalty. They determine how the cabinet sees a pastor and the local church. Success and outreach mean little if the apportionments are not paid in full. A bureaucracy needs the little people to feed it with little regard for the individual church or pastor. Success is almost looked at in a paranoid way by the bureaucracy (nothing should be more important than the bureaucratic machine), and mediocrity rather than success is looked on with favor. I realize this is rather cynical — chalk it up to 39 years of experience in the “institution”.
Craig,
Hmmm…seems to me that a church’s portion of IT would be more important than the amount of financial resources it puts into evangelism, church planting, etc. :)
Don’t forget about how apportionments (the amount paid over your ministry) plays a part in determining where you are appointed. But then again, so does the growth of your churches over your ministry. So, we have a catch 22, “Grow! Grow! Grow!” But, when a church does grow and needs to add staff, consequently, driving up expenses (which raises apportionments) we get the pressure of, “Pay! Pay! Pay, or else! Furthermore, we are commanded to pay while no one expects accountability in the form of budgets from the ministries we support. So, I am starting a new movement: “No accountability; no apportionments!”
[...] http://swerve.lifechurch.tv/2010/02/24/umc%e2%80%94part-4/ [...]
great series! didn’t know your history with the methodist church. i am in one now.
Craig,
I’m a UM Pastor outside of Atlanta at a church that averages 85 people on a Sunday morning. I came from an Associate position at a church that averaged 1300, so I’ve seen both ends of the spectrum. Both churches paid 15-20% of their budget in apportionments and of course, there’s good news and bad news in that.
Most church members just view them as a tax, even though a lot of good is done with them. I think there are at least a dozen better ways to fund some of these ministries, but you know how fast the church changes…
One word of note for your post. Several years ago, the level of apportionments was determined partly on what your church membership was. That’s no longer the case. It’s based on what the church spends ON ITSELF in a year. In other words, every church reports what it spent on non-missional expenses, building expenses, and staff salaries and apportionments are determined on that figure alone. If 100% of our expenses involve ministry to the community, we pay $0 in apportionments. It has little to do with church size now and everything to do with church stewardship. Those smaller churches that do no outreach to the community or the world get slammed the hardest.
Some reform has come. Hopefully more will follow in the next year or so. There is discussion of a called General Conference in May of 2011 that will address this issue and the issue of overwhelming minister’s pensions.
Alex, Thanks for your clarification. God’s best to your ministry near Atlanta.
Actually, the formulas used to determine apportionments to local congregations vary widely by conference. Some still use membership figures. Others factor in actual worship attendance. Others look at income. And still others say something else.
What the conferences MUST do, by Discipline, is guarantee, by whatever formula they use, that the entirety of the General Church apportionment is paid. If they cannot do that, their formula has to be changed until they do.
And concerning the tithe idea– at least one conference (Iowa) has been told by the Judicial Council that its “tithe” formula did not meet that standard, and they were ordered to change it. I guess we’ll see whether and how their ruling in that case applies in other possible cases as well.
So… as with so many things in the UMC… it’s complicated.
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Alex, Thanks for your clarification. God’s best to your ministry near Atlanta.