By Bernie Schnippert
(Note: After I wrote my column for this month, income increased in response to Mr. Tkach s letter. Thank you very much for your response. I ll comment more on that next time.)
Income increased in March to a daily average of $115,715, but failed to completely reverse the shortfall begun in the first two months. The tabular report and graph below tell the story.
The graph shows that the daily mail income average in January and February fell significantly from the end of last year. Consequently, we began to see that if this disturbing trend were to continue unabated through March we would experience a shortfall of income under projected income of numerous millions of dollars.
This in turn would eat into cash reserves. And, if the trend were to continue and immediate budget cuts were not made, cash reserves would be drawn down over time to a dangerous condition where emergency cuts would have to be made.
Since we never know whether a dip in income will continue down or turn around, we were forced to make budget cuts to try and meet the shortfall.
At the same time, Mr. Tkach sent an urgent letter to you sharing our financial picture and asking for your support.
It is a bit too soon to know precisely what effect Mr. Tkach's letter will have on our finances, but early indications are that many of you are responding with prayers and a financial commitment of some kind.
We here are truly grateful for your love and financial efforts on behalf of the church. And, your efforts go a long way to bridging the financial dip.
Nonetheless, while income seems to be recovering, it is almost inevitable that many of the budget cuts we have begun must be made to balance expenses against income.
On the other hand, if income holds, it is possible we will not have to dig down as far. Since I write this report more or less during a financial dip, or, perhaps, just as we are beginning to recover from it, and since I can t see the future, I am here outlining the possibilities (depending upon income) rather than saying dogmatically we are going to do this or that.
We are committed to always balance the budget. It is only with the commitment to live within our means that we can rest assured of continuing operations for many years.
Here is how we ensure we will live within our means:
* If we can balance the budget without further cuts, we stop cutting (unless a cut needs to be made for policy reasons, of course). If income falls, we must cut to match the projected income. Any other choice, except for the short term, will lead to a drastic pull down of reserves in the medium to long term, and the consequent emergency such a policy would bring.
* Our tactic is for income to be the thermostat of the budget. We respond to financial fluctuations, especially dips, with whatever action is necessary.
Unfortunately, since income is greatly reduced from previous years, and since in previous years we first cut every other operation other than the field ministry, the only area left to cut is the field, in some cases moving from a salaried to a nonsalaried pastor.
As Mr. Tkach has pointed out in other places, the church is committed to having each congregation pastored by a loving and qualified elder, whether he is salaried or not.
However, a move from a salaried pastor to a nonsalaried pastor is not easy for the congregation or the previous pastor. For this and other reasons we ask you to continue regular, consistent giving as you are able. And, as always, we covet and thank you for your prayers.
Even though we don't regard the Holy Days of the old covenant as required, and even though we keep them a bit differently than we used to, why do we still take up local offerings on these days?
And, if we take up offerings on these days, why don't we take up weekly offerings and send the money to Pasadena?
Two reasons exist for continuing local offerings on festival days.
First is member giving habits born from our tradition. The church has a long tradition of taking up offerings on the annual festivals.
This became so ingrained that in time the church found that one-fifth of its annual income came from these offerings.
Even though we no longer regard the days as commanded, a significant amount of our income still results from these offerings.
Members by and large still honor this traditional giving opportunity, and, consequently, our fellowship still relies heavily on these offerings.
This is not unusual, since nearly all denominations receive income from collecting offerings, often weekly. It is to our collective advantage to respect this giving pattern and continue this practice.
The second reason is that the offering is an act of worship. The principle of giving an offering as part of worship is firmly grounded in the Bible and in our experience.
Some, then, will ask why we don't take up offerings at other services, such as at an annual incarnation or resurrection celebration, or on the weekly Sabbath?
According to Church Administration, offerings on other annual days are appropriate if and when a congregation decides to do so.
However, taking up weekly collections locally and sending them to Pasadena just like we do on festivals is a slightly different matter, with a different conclusion.
After much input from our financial, accounting, legal and computer specialists, we feel that for now this would probably hurt income and create more work for the following reasons. 1) Studies from denominations who collect locally show their average local giver gives less per person than our central giver.
2) Our system of processing donations through the mail is secure and efficient, while the local system would be less so.
3) Processing boxes of envelopes from each local area each week would mean handling more than 22,000 boxes a year, a formidable increase in work for a staff that barely keeps up with regular mail (which would no doubt continue to be the giving choice of many).
4) Members are in the habit of giving through the mail and find it convenient.
5) Our practice of central funding of salaries, hall rentals, previous obligations--such as our facilities here and in Big Sandy--are more assured using the current approach. When we compare the potentially negative effect of this practice against only a theoretical positive impact on finances, we conclude the risks associated are too great for us right now.
After the properties sell, it will be theoretically possible to 1) retain the current system, 2) move to a local system with central or decentralized processing, or 3) use a hybrid approach.
Any change could occur only after the property sells and only after the implications of each alternative are understood by members and ministers. Once done, this could not be undone easily, and it should not be done without a consensus of informed professional opinion.
May WN pages 28 and 29
| WCG Home | Issues | Contents |
Copyright © Worldwide Church of God, 1998