by Chris Ritter

I appreciate David Donnan of the South Georgia Conference taking time to critique my recent post. In “Funding the Movement” I suggested that the Global Methodist Church may want to consider the model established in the the American denomination experiencing something approximating sustained growth. The Assemblies of God financially underwrites nearly their entire denominational operation on the tithes of the clergy. A partial (5% to 7.5%) tithe is requisite for ongoing credentialing.

David is an online friend. I recommend his blog site and only wish he would write more often. He outlines three objections in a most gracious and gentle way. In what follows I summarize and respond.

Liberty of Heart

First, “Governing additional aspects of local church affairs runs against the spirit of the GMC.” Donnan argues that a required tithe would be the sort of heavy-handed mandate (ala UMC) that churches paid great sums to escape. The objection here is one of liberty: “Pastors should have the freedom to send their tithe where they feel led by God to send it.”

I agree the UMC was too controlling of the local church with its top-down structure. But that is not what we are talking about here. The real downfall of the UMC was its notoriously laxness in its accountability for the clergy. We all ended up suffering for this. Our Methodist General Rules state we should “trample underfoot” the “enthusiastic” (antinomian/anti-law) idea that no one should be expected to do good unless their hearts be free to do it. Hearts are followers, not leaders. If clergy invest their treasure in the conference, their hearts will follow along (Matt. 6:21). This is good for the movement. If clergy do not view the conference as a worthy place to invest their giving, we have a much bigger problem. Accountability means expecting one another to practice holy habits that our carnal natures resist. GM clergy need more accountability, not less, to keep our hearts aligned.

Small Church Exodus

Second, Donnan is concerned that a mandated clergy tithe would cause small churches to leave the GMC. Pastors, he says, are sometimes the largest givers to these local churches. Following the example of the Assemblies would equate to the denomination stealing one of the largest local giving units. With no trust clause to hold the local churches in, perhaps they would leave.

I don’t see this happening. There are plenty of small churches in the Assemblies of God. What might cause churches to leave are high connectional giving requirements. Church members, blessedly, don’t usually know who gives what. Lay leaders tend, however, to know what their church is expected to pay. The whole point of my proposal was to help the GMC meet its ambitious goals (church planting, mission partnerships, etc.) while not over-taxing the local church.

The conference IS the congregation for the clergy. The pastor is not a member of the local church. I trust that laity will understand that a clergy needs to support his/her congregation just like a church member is expected to support theirs. Again, the Assemblies generally do not require the full tithe to the conference/network. Clergy continue to give to the local church. The incentive for clergy would be to keep the conference structure lean so they can maximize local generosity.

Vision over Mandates

Donnan concludes with the well-stated argument that giving follows vision: “My observations have been that individuals are far more generous when there is a vision for how the church will use their resources faithfully.” Amen. He gets no push-back from me on this. We want people excited to give to the Global Methodist Church and our conferences. I think my proposal may serve this end. Consider:

If a conference could fund its basic administration through clergy tithes, it could demonstrate that a very high percentage of local church connectional funding goes directly to mission and ministry. I calculate that partial clergy tithes should be just about enough to fund the superintending and board of ministry structures of the conference and denomination. This frees local church giving for the “good stuff.” Think of how the administration of UMCOR was handled by a separate income stream. Funds were raised in times of emergency with assurance that 100% would go to relief work. The same principle could work here. The clergy fund the structure so that local churches can fund the ministries that strum their heartstrings.

Conclusion

Our movement needs money for conference partnerships, church planting, mission revitalization, and, yes, administration. I agree with Hudson Taylor: “God’s work done in God’s way will never lack God’s supply.” I just wonder if this dawn of a new day might be a time to lay down a basic expectation: “Leaders lead.” People like David Donnan, a tithing pastor, set a great example. We have no way of knowing whether he is the exception or the rule. Having a rule would quickly clarify this.