I think that’s just a misunderstanding of the church Planting partnerships/church planting back setup. That isn’t your fault. We’ve just got to communicate it well. That takes time, work, and intentionality. They are COG plants. Michael Williams in Madison, AL and Shane Tarpley in Temple, GA are very sharp guys...new churches...digging it out. They each received $50,000 and had to raise a matching $50,000. They are both launched and are sending in 10% total to rebuild the bank for the next planters behind them. I love that!When you think about that, we have the capacity to push $3 million into church planting from our $1.5 million appropriation. The next ten years, that would have us looking at a rolling $30 million into church planting. Powerful! 30 million in 10 years with a “ BIG IF†that none of the churches plants fail or have hard times. What will be our loss ratio of church plants? I love arc it is a great deal for the Church of God international office and an excutive committee that is desperate for church plants. It relieves them of the finding funds burden. . But how much is the church of God contributing to the local church aside from what arc is bringing to the table. We know 50 grand is coming from ARC how much money in addition to the arc funds is coming from the church of God. The church of God needs to contribute as well. 1.5 million in an account is great but what is the church of God’s expectation. What is the church of God’s financial commitment to the church plant that receives arc funds is the cog providing 50,000 like arc or is it much less. I just want to make sure the cog brass is pulling the weight. I have been involved as a consultant at 4 arc church plants. I have been on the launch Sunday’s no one presently plants churches like arc. They are excellent. I have seen a/g and non denominational churches launch in Florida with over 200 on the first Sunday. But what is the church of God contributing? 1.5 million will only supply funding for about 10-20churches if we do Those churches RIGHT. We need to pull our weight in this relationship. Cause if we don’t the planting pastor will just do arc on there own with no relationship with the COG. I think the COG needs to commit to giving a set amount of money just like arc. We need to make this fair we don’t need to give more funding to one plant while neglecting the other plant. Politics need to neutral in this. The cog just needs to say X amount of money is available to x amount of church plants if and only if you commit to the cog/arc planting agreement . No more no less money than x amount of money to the church plant. Arc tells you up front what is available to you. We need to do the same. if The COG doesn’t provide more than name to the planting relationship we are just going to lose more churches. And if those church splits and pull outs occur they can get arc funding. We really are at a disadvantage. I know 2 churches in the last 5 years that are COG pull outs or splits that have gotten arc funds presenting themselves as new Church plants it is tough we need to bring something to the table. SouthFloridaman (I like that name),ARC isn’t putting up the money. The COG is. If an approved church planter comes up with $50,000, a matching $50,000 comes from the COg church planting bank. That money largely comes from the TOT. I cannot agree with you more. The COG needs to have skin in the game (as does the planter). This arrangement achieves that. Another thing that I very much agree with you about. Favoritism and politics should have zero place in who received this money. That specifically has been addressed. I do not think it is settled for life. We are particularly prone to that. It is very important that we elect leaders that advance people based on merit and not on anything else. We have put together a process to shield against this. I believe it is our heart to do this. If there is a place that we will slip up on this intiqgive, this is it (I believe).Finally, some church plants are will fail. We need to be OK with that. The way we ins Kate ourselves against that is to get and keep solid church planters on the approval committee and stay out of our way so they can select the right people without interference. If we award funds to people who are not ready, who have a spouse who isnt ready, who hasn’t demonstrated the qualities necessary for planting, or who isn’t properly vetted, we will have too high of a failure rate. That will result in lost credibility and the inability to maintain the trust needed to co TJ he advancing the initiative and the fund.