“The Way to San Jose” is a new PNJ series dealing with issues facing the Global Methodist Church as we approach the convening General Conference in San Jose, Costa Rica (September 2024.) The thoughts expressed are the author’s alone.
by Chris Ritter
When the Global Methodist Church gathers next September for its convening conference in Costa Rica, it will do so on a little-known centennial anniversary. The Methodist system of centralized apportionments crystalized in 1924 in the Methodist Episcopal Church as the primary mechanism for supporting connectional work. For the 100 years prior, general agencies and missions mostly relied on special offerings.
“Apportionment hangover” (a subcategory of UMC hangover) is something shared by most GMC congregations. It was not only the amount of money paid but the top-heavy and unaccountable structures it benefitted. Seemingly to prove that GMC “connectional funding,” is not apportionments by another name, the South Georgia Provisional Conference recently set their official conference funding rate at 0%. But they ask for 2% of the local church income. It remains to be seen if voluntary offerings will flow reliably enough to cover even a lean connectional structure. My guess is no.
The low cost of GMC membership for the local church has been a selling point. But this lives in tension with ambitious plans for mission, including church planting and cross-cultural ministry. Even with proposed partnerships carrying the bulk of international mission funding, the GMC is going to need money to move forward. A Global Church, like a global corporation, requires resources to exploit opportunities, develop leadership, maintain good order, and answer threats. Transitional realities, like uncompensated presiding elders (DS’s), hardly seem sustainable.
The Other Growing Denomination
As the GMC departs from UMC culture, it may wish to look to other denominations for workable funding models. The fastest growing denomination in the United States (beside the GMC!) is the Assemblies of God. AOG connectional ministries are funded, in most part, through a system of ministerial tithes. Instead of clergy putting all their tithes into the local church, they are expected to direct at least a portion of them to regional and general church bodies.
What type of revenue might clergy tithes generate? We have no salary data from the GMC, so models must be extrapolated from UMC numbers. Statistical tables from my UMC conference of origin, even with many small and part-time appointments, report around $2 million in clergy payroll per district. With ten districts, a clergy tithe would have roughly covered a quarter of the total UMC conference budget (enough to fund the superintendents). Denominations that require a clergy tithe tend to do so on the total income of the pastor, including secular income. If the GMC followed suit, these numbers adjust upward.
In the Southern Missouri Network of the Assemblies of God, ministerial tithes from 900+ clergy yield $2.7 million and comprise almost the entire general budget. Here the network (conference) policy states:
It shall be considered the standard of cooperation with Network policy that a minister contribute not less than one-half of his or her tithe, from ministerial and secular income, to the Southern Missouri Ministry Network… It is recommended that remittance be made on a monthly basis, and all active ministers of the
(SMMN Bylaws, see page 54.)
Southern Missouri Network who fail to contribute at least quarterly to the Network shall receive a letter
from the Network office requiring an explanation.
Other regional bodies of the AOG set their own rate. (I found another example rate of 7.5% of income.) There are guidelines for how clergy in extension ministries are to divide their tithes. The AOG national office additionally expects $300 annually from each ordained clergy’s tithe. With some 37,000 ministers (3 times of the number of churches!), this equates to around $11 million annually.
Benefits and Objections
Are there advantages to GMC clergy tithes being required as a means of funding connectional structures?
- Methodist clergy membership is in the conference, not the local church. There is logic that clergy tithes should help fund the conference.
- There would be immediate accountability for clergy to tithe. The Assemblies of God conditions credentialing to faithful payment of tithes. (Grace is also built into the system in cases of financial hardship.)
- Clergy will tend to be loyal to and invested in the work of the district and conference. Jesus said we can find our hearts and our money in the same place. (Luke 12:34)
- If the clergy of the conference find themselves unwilling to fund the conference, this might serve as an early warning sign that the conference not worth supporting.
- If the basic administrative structures of the denomination could be handled through clergy tithes, local church giving could be directed toward aspects of ministry that touch heartstrings and inspire generosity.
- There is currently no guaranteed appointment for GMC clergy and no ongoing cost for being a GMC clergy. Requiring a tithe from all clergy may tend to keep the clergy rolls clean, lean, and accountable.
Dr. Jay Herndon, secretary-treasurer of the Northern California and Nevada District of the Assemblies of God, answers objections he sometimes hears to their system of clergy tithes. 95% of the ministers, he says, understand the system and follow it. To the other 5%, he responds:
- “The tithe belongs to the local church.” That is nowhere in Scripture. In the Old Testament, the beneficiaries of the tithe were quite fluid over time and based on circumstance.
- “Tithing should be totally voluntary.” All aspects of Christian discipleship are voluntary. This is not the same thing as optional. Just as church members are expected to support the church financially as a condition of membership, ministers can likewise be expected to reliably support the denomination. Many offerings to God in Scripture are fixed and required.
- “Other groups don’t fund their denominations this way.” Dr. Herndon answers simply, “If you are an Assemblies of God minister, the first portion of your tithe belongs to the fellowship.” The clergy tithe is built into the constitution of the denomination and this expectation is part of their shared life.
One obvious question is whether a system of clergy tithes is just another way to shuffle money away from the local church. We simply do not have good data on the percentage of pastors that tithe to the congregations they serve. In the Assemblies of God example, only a partial tithe is generally required and generosity on the local level is assumed. My gut tells me that such a requirement would equate to new money, not just money redirected from local church coffers.
Taking Care of Business
In the life of a denomination, a good amount of the structure is related to clergy supervision and credentialing. If clergy tithes shouldered the supervisory and board of ministry functions, the GMC would be a long way down road toward fiscal viability. The clergy session at annual conference could become a vehicle for GMC clergy to manage the work their own tithes support.
A departure from past practice, this suggestion deserves to be controversial. Whatever we do should to be carefully analyzed with the law of unintended consequences in mind. The best reason to implement any system is that it is simply the right thing to do. As the GMC seeks to enhance accountability in all areas, there is an opportunity to replace the apportionment system with something more worthy of our aspirations. The AOG example demonstrates the effectiveness of each clergy significantly supporting the organization to which they pledge fidelity.
I look forward to reading your comments.
People Need Jesus 
Thanks for the research on this, Chris. This is such an interesting idea. There is power to giving directly to something. If Connectional Funding is just budget line item for a church, does it have the same power? Probably not. I’m not totally sure how the funding works between the Conferences and the General Church.
It would be fun to run some numbers. A church may be very close to the same place financially if they don’t have any Connectional Funding obligation but lose a chunk of their pastor’s giving.
The Methodist Church of Venezuela (begun 2007) has a model similar to the AOG. However, I have not seen it in written policy. The Evangelical church in Venezuela is heavily influenced by the AOG models since it has been the dominant denomination for over 100 years. The Bishop of the Methodist church gives me a “tithe” (% unknown) of his income as he considers me his “spiritual covering.” I always just invest it back into the ministry of Venezuela Now. When I have tried to reject the gift, he has made it clear that to him it is a spiritual obligation. His pastors and churches have high trust in and accountability to the bishop. The church there has grown from about 250 members in 11 congregations (2007) to over 10,000 in 60 congregations today. These are real numbers, not the UM membership type numbers.
Your proposal is interesting. One major obstacle is the deep distrust of the denomination by those who were so mistreated by their former denomination. Successful implementation will require a stronger trust than currently exists.
Note AOG spouses are also expected to tithe to denominati
Chris, thanks for the article. It is an interesting idea and one that I haven’t even considered.
Also, thanks for the South Georgia shoutout. I love that our required giving is 0%. I believe it will inspire more giving, not less. Time will tell!
It would be a telltale sign of which former UMC clergy have tithed before. I like the idea of a partial clergy tithe going to the conference. Skin in the game sounds appropriate for clergy.
This approach has real possibilities. I do know that AOG military chaplains are expected to tithe 10% of their base pay (not benefits), that the AOG endorser knows the salary of every active duty chaplain, and if the tithe is not forthcoming, both endorsement to serve as a chaplain and ordination to BE clergy are withdrawn. Automatic deductions remove paper trail hiccups.
Chris, thanks for your article! I love your writing and well-thought-out takes on the nature of the church. This particular blog post does leave me scratching my head with the idea of required clergy tithes to the denomination. Isn’t that the same as a tax or paying union dues? I believe it robs the tithe of its gifting nature and replaces it with legalistic obligation. Is that Wesleyan? Does that better attune the clergy to the movement of the Holy Spirit, or does it guarantee better income for the denomination? I adamantly want the Global Methodist Church to be both fruitful and well-funded, but there is a limit to the costs (spiritual) associated with its success. A required clergy tithe to the denomination is another building stone of UMC 2.0. We need to run from any of those ideas and find new ones led by God that bring us freely to a closer relationship with the Holy Spirit through the church.
Thanks, Sterling. Our local church requires lay leaders to give proportionally. I don’t think that requirement takes anything away from the joy of giving. The AoG is lean and very similar in polity to what is planned for the GMC. I appreciate the feedback.
Thanks for responding! I think there is a difference between asking the laity to be regular givers (tithe or other) connected to volunteer service and the required clergy tithe as a vocational obligation to the denomination (with penalties if not done). I worry that if, say, some opinionated pastor in Houston decides not to pay his required tithe and instead gives to the church or his family foundation, that said pastor may face losing his appointment or, even worse, his credentials. That seems much more like taxation than an opportunity to return a portion of what God has blessed us with to the denomination. Does that then turn Presiding Elders into enforcers as opposed to the spiritual mentors that we aim for in the GMC? It makes me think of the union reps in the John Candy, Eugene Levy, and Meg Ryan movie, “Armed and Dangerous.” I envision guys my size, whose sole job is to make sure people pay their union dues or else. I don’t want to do church like that, and I’m not suggesting that you do either, but I think the very real example of the AOG and our budding polity makes it important to raise red flags as we begin to propose legislation.
Are you a lawyer? 😉
There’s always greater accountability when you’ve got “skin in the game.” Tithing is foundational to stewardship, self-respect, and soundness of mind.
If the tithe is to be a condition of membership for the pastor, it is not a tithe but a membership fee.
Understand the need and concern for funding. Not arguing against a systematic and effective funding mechanism. Am not adverse to a membership fee. Simply consider it illegitimate to use the term “tithe” coupled with traditional understanding of that term as a cover for a quasi financial charge to pastors for membership in the annual conference.
The example of funding in the AOG is tenuously connected to Methodists. One might as well look at the Baptist idea of a Cooperative Program wherein local church financial support not only provides the basis of funding the broad denominational work at the local, state, national and international levels but as well determines the number of representatives (term used is messengers) at state and national conventions where decisions are made. The idea of such giving as cooperative and very helpful. A suggested expectation is 10%. But, the participation by voting is determined by actual dollars given up to a maximum of 15 messengers for any church. This gives smaller churches as much voice as larger churches and restricts the largest mega churches from dominating everything.
“To tithe” is biblical in character; “to mooch” off the church is not. Tithing is good for the heart. Fine shaving our nomenclature to satisfy the ambivalent is not recognizable leadership.