|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The fitness club model of financing for churches
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
As anyone knows who has attended fitness clubs, martial arts clubs or the like, most of these are kept alive (profitable) by "ghost members". The typical sequence is that somebody new comes in for the (usually free) trial session, then signs up for some "package deal" that appears cheap (£20 monthly instead of £10 per session, or the like) but is tied to a regular "direct debit" payment. Then they come a few more times, and disappear without a trace. What doesn't disappear though - often for years (!) - is the regular payment that has been set up. In consequence, much of the money flowing in is from ghost members, who are ideal customers: they pay a lot of money for the possibility of getting something, but are not in fact making any demands on equipment, staff time, etc.
The reason why this happens is fairly obvious. People come with idealistic goals ("I want to lose weight", "I want to learn self defence", ...) and sign up for the payment while initially enthusiastic. Then their old habits take over and they drop out. But cancelling the payment (a) would require some work, and more importantly (b) would require admitting that they failed their idealistic goals. So people push this "problem" aside with excuses like "I will go next week" until it disappears from memory. The payments probably get cancelled more by financial necessity than honesty, i.e., at some point the expense can't be ignored any longer.
That as background. Now, the church I'm currently attending has decided to make a big push for people signing up to "regular contributions", rather than relying on what they collect during mass. They priests have preached the financial needs and their investment visions from the pulpit, letters have been sent to the parish members (after first having a drive for people to "sign up", i.e., provide their addresses as parish members, which at the time didn't mention any financial plans), and we even received what I would call a "lukewarm call" (a "cold call" that was announced by the priest would eventually come, from volunteers of the parish). I should perhaps mention that attendance in this church is rather high, with a considerable number of masses in a decent size church, and with rarely a mass less that about 70-80% full, and with some regularity no seats left if you come late.
Now to me with my prior experience from fitness / martial arts clubs, this looks like trying to set up exactly the "ghost member" way of financing church. Make people sign up for regular contributions by playing on their good intentions, and then rely on them not cancelling their contributions when they do not follow up and stick to their old habits. It's basically saying "if these people never darken the doors of our church, at least they can pay for it."
As you may have guessed by now, I don't like this one bit. But maybe I am being unfair. What are your thoughts?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
I'm uneasy with it for some of the reasons you mention - though hadn't thought of the fitness club comparison which is good.
On the flip side, these days central funding pots are becoming smaller and smaller in many denominations so I can see why locally a church may want to do something like this for budgetary reasons.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
gog
Shipmate
# 15615
|
Posted
While it can be seen in that way there are several admin advantages to this method:
1) Gift Aid: A lot easer to identify gift aided giving when it is by direct bank transfer, thus gain the 25% bonus on giving.
2) Regularity of income: knowing when the money is due to arrive (usually a set date). Also despite the description of a high attendance, is it the same people attending each week. People intend to give but if not present then tend to forget. (With from memory average attendance being less than weekly now)
And for the individual there are some advantages:
1) No need to remember to get cash out each week before church.
2) Can budget how much to give, and have it go out with other regular bills.
3) Some people are willing to give more this way, as they don't want to carry large amounts of cash around.
Posts: 103 | From: somewhere over the border | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
I think there's a side to this which is reasonable and which both Church and gym share - the desire to have some regular income they can rely on and thereby do some planning.
The bit to avoid is the cynical ploy to actually seek out "ghost members".
Maybe it's a protestant thing but most churches I've been a part of encourage regular giving. At least partly this is because it tends to go hand in hand with Gift Aid - though it's much easier to do this with one-off gifts than it used to be. But then I think that would be aimed at regular attenders/members so less chance of getting "ghosts".
With my current church I've had to go out of my way to find out what the details are to set up a direct debit. But I think that's because I'm a regular without being a member and have not therefore made it on to the church database yet.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Hmmm...sounds like a standard "stewardship campaign" to me. Not sure what I think of it; but ISTM that it generally makes congregations grumbly.
I understand that some synagogues charge for certain High Holy Days services, and require an annual contribution.
Your church could always try something like our public broadcasting fund drives. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) 3-4 times a year, a station will have a pledge fair/drive. Lasts maybe 2-3 weeks each time, depending on how quickly their budget is met. Much regular programming is interrupted, or replaced with special shows. A radio show might end 10 minutes early, and a couple of announcers will talk on and on about how great the program is, and if you want it to continue, please pledge--and you'll get various gifts for certain levels of pledge. (Tote bags, DVDs of shows, gifts donated by various businesses.)
On TV, they'll put on some special shows that they save for the occasion, like Lady Gaga and Tony Bennett together in concert, something about "Downton Abbey", a health seminar, or a retrospective of various music styles that Baby Boomers like. Long breaks, with the same elements as radio pledging.
So you (gen.) need to get some tote bags made up with the church's name; get a business to donate some pledge gifts; and find someone with a sturdy voice who can talk on and on about the joys of pledging to the church, while making bad jokes, and getting so tired that they start spouting nonsense.
Basically, you annoy people until they can't take it anymore; get them to donate as much as they can afford; and give them a thank-you gift to dull the annoyance.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
NOTE: I DO love public broadcasting!
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
Do the organisations' motives make a difference? A commercial fitness club wants to maximise revenue and minimise costs, and hence they value ghost members higher than attenders.
OTOH, a non-profit club set up with the goal of promoting cycling might still appreciate ghost members (bills need paying) but would much prefer they became more actively involved.
Both organisations could still appreciate direct debits. As well as increasing income, they help make it more predictable.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Addendum about pledge fairs:
Traditionally, a pledger would pay over a certain number of months. (E.g., a basic $30 pledge might be split up over 2-3 months.)
But stations--here in SF, anyway--have moved towards getting a person to pay something every month. You can also be a "sustaining member": you give them your credit/bank info, agree for them to charge you every month, until you tell them to stop. (E.g. $10/mo. for years on end, unless you change your mind.) Sustaining members get special perks, and the station can plan out its budget more dependably.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
In the UK this is very common. Until a few years ago, there were tax breaks available for regular donations that weren't available for irregular donations, so people had to do this for tax reasons. That's established the pattern even though tax relief is now available on small donations.
A positive way of looking at it is that, with a regular payment, you decide on the regular payment as an independent part of your practice of church membership. Putting money in the collection can seem like paying for the magic of the mass, which is a less healthy way of thinking.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
A gym advertises to get members, knowing full well that many of them won't stick with it (I'm a little bit ghostly myself right now), and they also sign people up for a fixed period.
If you're simply going to current members, and not telling them they have to commit to doing it for a certain period of time, then I don't think the situation is the same.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Regular financial commitments (via standing orders or envelope schemes, gift aided if possible) are a normal part of church membership responsibilities where I come from. Offerings at services are in addition to that, very often directed to special immediate and unforeseen needs.
I'm not sure how typical that is of other nonconformist congregations, but from the ones I know, a pretty similar pattern applies. In general, in the independent churches, the direct connection between local giving and local activity is very easy to see.
The local church is also a giver to missions outside itself and to missionaries sent out from amongst us. Around a tenth of all giving is given away this way. The rest goes to meet building expenses, staff costs, local practical service to the community (e.g. local foodbank, school holiday lunch schemes). Again, these levels of local support are quite common these days in nonco congos I know.
In order to manage these activities well, the church leader and administrators budget, monitor actuals against expected (both income and expenditure) to make sure we can sustain what we do, keep our promises and commitments to others.
I think regular, committed, giving helps these planning processes to function better than reliance on one-off giving. And without regular commitment, every offering is in practice a "one-off".
I don't think we have any absentee givers. Nor is the current regular financing supported by inheritance bequests. People who cease to be church members, either because they have to move or they spy greener grass elsewhere, normally cease their regular and irregular contributions anyway. They give where they go to.
I appreciate different criteria may apply if you belong to a large denominational network, but that's the way it works where I'm at. With minor variations, that's the way it's been for the last 40 plus years.
[ 12. March 2015, 10:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Basically, you annoy people until they can't take it anymore; get them to donate as much as they can afford; and give them a thank-you gift to dull the annoyance.
Or, as in my case, I had the check book out ready to give to my PBS station until they pushed the direct debit thing to the point of making me feel like my lump sum donation would have been a big bother, so I didn't give at all.
I understand why churches and businesses like the direct debit thing. It gives them money coming in that they can totally depend on when budgeting for the year, but then I like to have money I can depend on, too. If I have a sudden loss of income or a big health event, I don't want my income already sucked out to twenty different places for random things that I might chose to delay until the crises is over. I only direct debit my utilities and pay as I go for everything else.
Even "pledging," has never sat well with me. Lately, I've been in the habit of giving to my church by giving them one of my monthly social security checks each summer. Summer being the time I know collections are down. I also put something in the plate when I'm there, but that check is the main part of my giving. If they don't like getting it that way they can trash it.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
I had a rather bad experience (or, rather, my father did) with direct debit in another context. He had authorized an insurance company to direct-debit premiums for health insurance from his checking account. After he switched companies, the old company continued to direct-debit the premiums. The only way my father could stop it was to close the account and open a new one.
Twilight's experience reminds me of Mark Twain's story of the missionary. Hearing a missionary speak at church, Twain had resolved to put 25 cents in the plate when it came around. As the missionary talked on and on, he resolved to put in 50 cents, then 75 cents. But the missionary just kept going on and on, and when the plate finally came around Twain took a dollar out of it.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dal Segno
al Fine
# 14673
|
Posted
Asking members to set up direct debits is acceptable. Would it make it more acceptable to you if the church actively sought out ghost members and tried to get them to come back to church, rather than just allow the money to keep flowing unnoticed?
In the past, ghost members could be a liability. A protestant church I knew in the 1980s was assessed by its national body for an annual levy to pay towards ministerial stipends, etc. The annual levy was based on number of members. Many people on the membership list did not actively attend the church, but liked to be on the list because they wanted to feel that they belonged even though they could not be bothered to attend. The church therefore took a financial hit for people who contributed none of their money and none of their time. The church actively contacted these ghost members, asking politely if their names could be removed from the membership roll and largely got the answer "no, I want to stay on the roll".
Would it be so bad to ask such people to pay a monthly contribution?
Would asking them to pay focus their minds on what really matters to them? "If I'm paying, I should attend to get my money's worth" or "If they are asking me to pay, I don't want to be a member of that church"
[ 12. March 2015, 11:37: Message edited by: Dal Segno ]
--------------------
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
Posts: 1200 | From: Pacific's triple star | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think we have any absentee givers. Nor is the current regular financing supported by inheritance bequests. People who cease to be church members, either because they have to move or they spy greener grass elsewhere, normally cease their regular and irregular contributions anyway. They give where they go to.
Among Western Catholics, 20-30% still make it to mass and consequently can be expected to give to the collections there. Mass attendance has been dropping steadily, even where the number of Catholics has grown (or at least held relatively steady), see for example the data here. This if fairly typical for Catholicism in Western nations. We have here the classical "cultural" vs. "practicing" Catholic divide. It is to my mind inevitable that this kind of financial drive - if it is successful - will recruit a considerable number of "cultural" Catholics into giving money to the Church, while not turning them into "practicing" Catholics otherwise. Even if they would recruit only "practicing" Catholics now, and I don't think that this will be the case, then current trends still suggest that soon enough many of them will become "cultural". And I would bet that many will not immediately cancel their financial commitment, precisely because that would amount to admitting their lack of any practical engagement.
I have to say that I find collections rather ideal. To me they are the opposite of bullshitting about the membership of your church, and about the actual engagement of these members. If people cannot be arsed to go to mass with good regularity, then why pretend that they are Catholic? And if people do come to mass, but cannot be arsed to give a decent chunk of money in the collections, then why pretend that they actually care much about what the Church does? Collections are to me a fairly precise measure of where people are at here and now, and all the better that they are largely anonymised concerning how much any one person gives.
If your collections are down, or at least down a lot more than people's incomes, then there's a simple reason for that: your church sucks. People may lie to your face about just how wonderful your service / sermon was, or how important they find the charitable work that you do, or whatever. But people rarely lie with their purses, at least if it is about the sort of anonymous and appreciative giving that collections imply.
At least in the Catholic context, I see this as just another stopgap measure to avoid facing up to the fact that people actually have stopped appreciating Church. The proper answer to me is to scale down operations to where they are sustainable in terms of the people that still do appreciate Church, rather than trying desperately to get money from (soon-to-be) "cultural Catholics" by appealing to the rudimentary allegiance that they still have.
Incidentally, I have also found that good fitness / martial arts clubs / instructors usually have very decent "pay as you go" options, or indeed often do not offer "long term sign up" schemes at all. Because people actually want to come to their classes, and their numbers are sufficiently high to absorb fluctuations from individuals not attending for a while. Or where their numbers are too low, they do this as a mere side job - keeping things real.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Regular giving by envelope schemes, standing order or direct debit is pretty common fare in the circles I hang out in (Protestant, non-conformist).
It's encouraged for a number of reasons already given: easier admin for the office, easier visibility for Gift Aid, more predictable cash flow for the Treasurer etc. but also as an exercise in getting people to think carefully about their giving.
This latter works on a number of levels: if you're a member and therefore have a say in the budget and expenditure (congregational governance) then it also behoves you to think about your role in making that budget happen. When we vote, we're voting on what happens to 'our' money, not some putative faceless central fund. It also encourages folk, members or otherwise, to really think about what they give (to the local church and to other targets outside) and not simply chuck in some loose change each week.
I wouldn't say the ghost member thing is either a driver or an issue in the context I'm used to. Whenever financial needs are highlighted and people are asked to review their giving, there is an acknowledgement that for some this may mean giving less not more, as circumstances change. There's also a high awareness that the church is not the only recipient of giving in the majority of cases (in our mob, at any rate). And finally, we do have periodic 'purges' behind the scenes for all sorts of reasons, where absent friends are explicitly followed up and asked whether they still want to be on X list or give Y monies (this isn't a pastoral thing, that's separate and more frequent, this is getting in touch with folk who've moved away but not requested their name to come off the fellowship list or whatever).
Whilst I can sort of see the gym analogy and ghost member issue in the context you (IngoB) raise, I'm not sure it's entirely valid even there. Ultimately people don't set up standing orders to the church because they've set a New Year's Resolution to lose their spiritual flab and do 50 prayer-pushups every Sunday, so want to retain access to the facility. They do it because they're committed to the local fellowship/organisation. Those who are likely to become 'ghost members' in the gym sense are unlikely to set up the facility in the first place.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
On the other hand, all the "ghost" members I can think of from churches I have been to were elderly people who couldn't get to church, and hadn't been able to in a while, but still cared. So of course they gave. It was one of the few things they were still able to easily do for their church. And of course almost no one knew if you didn't need to handle money.
Also I don't know much about gyms, but the martial arts organizations I've loved were all based basically on children. The black belts (and everyone who keeps coming eventually does become one) are the heart, but they are few really and you can't finance a school on them. It's the kids who pay the salaries. Interesting comparison to the church.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
The big difference between your gym analogy and a church is what the money is paying for. In a gym membership the sales pitch is directed entirely to your benefit. The implicit understanding is that you are paying X amount of dollars so that you, personally, will have access to clean equipment, possibly showers and/or trainers. The promised benefits are entirely yours, so if you don't show up, you haven't received what you paid for.
This is not the case for most churches. Yes, to some degree there is the implicit benefit promised of worship and fellowship. But for the most part, most churches I have been a part of have stressed their mission to others-- what they are able to do thru your contributions in the community and in the world. That work will continue whether or not you come on Sunday. So in that sense it's more like giving to any other charity-- if they are doing the work they promised to do, in a cost-effective and reasonable way-- then you have received the benefit you signed on for, regardless of whether you are around to see it.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Then I think perhaps fitness clubs and gyms really are somewhat different because I think by the time one is serious about a martial art, one really does believe in the goals. If I suddenly magically became very rich, I would probably think about giving considerable money to the dojang (Korean word used for a place to practice Tae Kwon Do) just because I approve of it and want to help it flourish. I would probably increase my gifts to the church too. If I attended a fitness club, I cannot imagine I would make a donation there.
Yes-- there's a big difference from a business providing services that you pay for (regardless of payment scheme) and a charitable or community organization with specific goals that you support that have nothing to do with your own personal benefit. The similarity between the payment schemes is IMHO, incidental-- they are really quite different things.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I think another difference between church and gym club is that there's no obvious benefit to the church in not having people attend. I don't believe that the biscuit bill is the largest item of expenditure in any church. The main item of expense, the salary of the clergy, has to be paid whether two hundred people attend mass or only the altar girl.
On the other hand, I think it is in the interest of the church that when somebody walks through the door before the service for the first time they see a large congregation already there. (At least, so long as they can find a seat by the aisle.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
Many people on the membership list . . . could not be bothered to attend. . . . The church actively contacted these ghost members, asking politely if their names could be removed from the membership roll and largely got the answer "no, I want to stay on the roll". Would it be so bad to ask such people to pay a monthly contribution?
"Buy your way to heaven; that comes to one pound seven. Bless you, Luv." The Who, Tommy
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
Congregational "ghost members" tend to come around on the High Holy Days, and very much want the support and attention of pastor and congregation during significant family events -- baptisms, weddings, funerals, etc. ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
I have no problem with hitting up the lily and poinsettia Christians for regular giving -- if the church is going to be there for them at the holidays, it needs to keep standing the rest of the year. I'm one of them right now. I rarely go to church these days, but I'm keeping up my pledge via direct debit because I want the church to be there when I go back. I love direct debit -- it means I never worry about getting behind in my pledge.
I can see what you're talking about IngoB, but in my experience what you're talking about doesn't happen, in large part because pledging and the direct debits associated with it are done on an annual basis. At the church where I work, if someone pledged and set up a direct debit last year but didn't respond to the pledge drive for this year, we contacted them and asked if they want to make the same pledge for this year. We don't just get people to set up a direct debit and forget about it -- we ask them to make a conscious decision about this every year. The key to avoiding the fitness club model is tying the direct debit to the annual pledge drive.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Another scheme which has mostly died out is pew rents or pew fees (I'm not aware if it continues anywhere). You paid a rental amount and claimed ownership to the seating. Often kept cushions to sit on there as well. I doubt that the rent was related to the cost of the pew.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I send out the monthly reminder for the local writers group meeting - 32 people on the list, about 6 or 7 show up any week out of a pool of maybe 12 actives; I emailed each of the inactives - some haven't showed up in years, some have moved far away - saying I really don't want to be spamming anyone so let me know if you want to stay on the e-list. All but one said "keep me on!" (The one said "I've moved away, take me off.")
Costs nothing extra to have 31 instead of 12 get the email, but I was intrigued that people who moved out of town ages ago and never were very active still want the monthly reminders.
Some people may like the continued sense of connection for their own reasons.
One local church told me they used to be charged dues to national by head count, but that has changed, it's now a percent of the budget. That brings it's own distortions, a lot of (minor, but they add up) expenses are off budget, you don't get a receipt for the donation so the church doesn't pay a percentage to national. All supplies for VBS for example, "we need construction paper, scissors, glue, crayons, glitter." Collections for charity of the month - adult diapers one month, new premie clothes another. There's no recording and crediting of these donations for tax deduction.
Another thought - One advantage of lots of people contributing cash via automatic deduction is far less "social pressure" to put something in the plate. Lots of people put nothing in the plate due to their automatic deductions. This might make church a little more comfortable for those financially on edge or those who feel "church just wants our money."
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes-- there's a big difference from a business providing services that you pay for (regardless of payment scheme) and a charitable or community organization with specific goals that you support that have nothing to do with your own personal benefit. The similarity between the payment schemes is IMHO, incidental-- they are really quite different things.
I very much support the Church for my own personal benefit, and that of my family. I benefit from her "spiritual services", if you will: the sacraments, the organised worship of God, mutual spiritual support by a like-minded community (a largely theoretical proposition for me as far as Christian churches are concerned, other than virtually through the internet), and in a wider sense, transmission through the ages to me of true teaching about God as well as of functional spirituality, and perhaps the provision of a historical framework of belonging. If all that wasn't there, then I wouldn't care about the Church much. Given that the Church does provide those things, I am happy to support her to extend these services to other people, whether here or elsewhere.
And yes, it is nice that the Church organises practical charity. But while I think that it is essential for Christians to be active in practical charity, I do not believe that this is the main purpose of the Church. It's more a kind of natural consequence of Christians needing to be active in practical charity, and hanging out together in Church, that the Church ends up doing practical charity as an organisation. But I was supporting charitable organisations with money and activity before I became a Christian, and that was not at all what I was looking for in the Church.
By the way, these are my attitudes. I make no claim that they are widely representative for Catholics, or anything like that. But I do think that they are not so uncommon for actual converts (not just Christians jumping denominations). You need some pretty strong motivations to join a new religion and to stick with it, and without a healthy dose of self-interest being invested into that I doubt that it will happen for many...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
The way I had it explained to me, when regular giving first came in, was that if God is important to you, you'd set aside regular contributions to the church's work before spending the remaining money on other outgoings, rather than the other way around. Thus the emphasis is on how important you think God's work is, rather than whether you actually attend church each week.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I've known a (Methodist) minister and a church treasurer imply with knowing chuckles that if you set up a direct debit you can be of help to the church even if you don't appear every Sundays. The joke is that your money may be more important than your presence!
Let's be honest: just like gyms, few mainstream churches would turn down regular money from benefactors who hardly if ever turned up. I'm sure some churches (and some gyms) would prefer it that way, because more people attending church sometimes creates more difficulties for those already present, whereas money is always welcome.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[if giving is down]... then your church sucks...
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I very much support the Church for my own personal benefit, and that of my family. I benefit from her "spiritual services", if you will: the sacraments, the organised worship of God, mutual spiritual support by a like-minded community (a largely theoretical proposition for me as far as Christian churches are concerned, other than virtually through the internet), and in a wider sense, transmission through the ages to me of true teaching about God as well as of functional spirituality, and perhaps the provision of a historical framework of belonging. If all that wasn't there, then I wouldn't care about the Church much. Given that the Church does provide those things, I am happy to support her to extend these services to other people, whether here or elsewhere.
There is something about these two quotes that really bugs me and maybe someone else can help me figure out what it is. I think it's the "payment for services rendered" model. I don't give money to the church for services rendered; hell, I don't give money to the church at all. I make offerings to God. The fact that the church disposes of the money contained in that offering is important only in that I want it handled properly (i.e. not into someone's packet for casino expenses). But I'm not buying anything from the church.
And if the church is fantastic, I'm not giving extra. If the church sucks like a Dyson, I'm not giving less (though I may head to another service somewhere else). Because the two things do not, ought not, connect in my opinion. What I give ought to match up with what I think God wants me to give to him, and in what venue. But it's not like "Let's leave a good tip for the pastor, the sermon was halfway decent today."
Am I hopelessly naïve?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I have to say that I find collections rather ideal. To me they are the opposite of bullshitting about the membership of your church, and about the actual engagement of these members. If people cannot be arsed to go to mass with good regularity, then why pretend that they are Catholic?
Well, I'm not Catholic, do show up, and far, far prefer to give via monthly direct debit. It means I don't have to remember my checkbook, or remember to have cash. I write checks about twice a year, and spend cash only in bars, so it would be inconvenient to have to make a special trip to a cashpoint every week to get cash for the church, which they will then carry to their bank.
So once a month my bank makes an electronic transfer to my church (which actually means that they print out a check and mail it, because of the idiosyncrasies of the US banking system.)
I see it as a mirror of getting paid direct to my bank account. I don't need my employer to hand me a brown envelope with cash in it every week.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've known a (Methodist) minister and a church treasurer imply with knowing chuckles that if you set up a direct debit you can be of help to the church even if you don't appear every Sundays. The joke is that your money may be more important than your presence!
Let's be honest: just like gyms, few mainstream churches would turn down regular money from benefactors who hardly if ever turned up. I'm sure some churches (and some gyms) would prefer it that way, because more people attending church sometimes creates more difficulties for those already present, whereas money is always welcome.
I have turned down money, although never because they weren't an attender, although came close to that with someone who thought a donation bypassed the requirement for membership prior to baptism.
As noted above, it's not really true that less people = less expenses for a church in the same way it would for a gym. For the most part lower attendance creates more problems, not less, for those attending. It's only when you get to megachurch status and start having parking issues that it becomes even an annoyance.
I think Lamb Chopped nailed it-- as per usual.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't give money to the church for services rendered; hell, I don't give money to the church at all. I make offerings to God.
I didn't realise that God needs money to pay His electricity bill... Or do you mean that you offer your money as a sacrifice to God? Any particular reason why you do not simply burn it then? It would be a burnt offering, a money offering, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The fact that the church disposes of the money contained in that offering is important only in that I want it handled properly (i.e. not into someone's packet for casino expenses). But I'm not buying anything from the church.
Now look at them yo-yo's that's the way you do it
You play the guitar at the Offertory
That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Money for nothin' and chicks for free
Now that ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Lemme tell ya them guys ain't dumb
Maybe get a blister on your little finger
Maybe get a blister on your thumb
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And if the church is fantastic, I'm not giving extra. If the church sucks like a Dyson, I'm not giving less (though I may head to another service somewhere else).
So being binary in your decision to financially support a Church is more principled than a graded response how exactly? And do you tell the church just how much they can suck before you take your business - sorry - your sacrifice to God elsewhere?
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
What I give ought to match up with what I think God wants me to give to him, and in what venue.
And Gabriel came to her and said, "Hail, full of money, the Lord is with you!" But Lamb Chopped was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, LC, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will receive in your bank account and bear a financial offering of $153.46, and you shall give it to the new Lutheran joint down the road." And Lamb Chopped said to the angel, "How shall this be, before or after taxes?"
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But it's not like "Let's leave a good tip for the pastor, the sermon was halfway decent today." Am I hopelessly naïve?
Rather a bit too cynical, I would say. Yes, I know, chances are that you will get yet another load of shallow, sentimental drivel centred on whatever happened to the pastor lately. But just maybe one day the pastor speaks some inspiring words that make you glad to contribute to his or her livelihood, rather than considering that as money you burn for God as sacrifice. It could happen...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As noted above, it's not really true that less people = less expenses for a church in the same way it would for a gym. For the most part lower attendance creates more problems, not less, for those attending. It's only when you get to megachurch status and start having parking issues that it becomes even an annoyance.
Well, it depends. Obviously, institutional churches need enough members/attenders to carry out the various customary roles in the church, and to pursue the church's vision. They need to be able to give a minimum of financial support - or else to arrange for the funds to be raised by other means.
However, churches that are set in their ways can be unsettled if newcomers of a different type begin to appear and change things. This is the history of some denominations (e.g. the Methodists) that began life small with very high standards, and then found that large numbers of newcomers meant that standards couldn't be maintained.
And more recently, CofE congregations of elderly people who suddenly have to make room for young families who are attending in order to win a place at a church school can find it hard to adapt....
quote:
I think Lamb Chopped nailed it-- as per usual.
She said this:
quote:
I don't give money to the church for services rendered; hell, I don't give money to the church at all. I make offerings to God. The fact that the church disposes of the money contained in that offering is important only in that I want it handled properly (i.e. not into someone's packet for casino expenses). But I'm not buying anything from the church.
And if the church is fantastic, I'm not giving extra. If the church sucks like a Dyson, I'm not giving less (though I may head to another service somewhere else). Because the two things do not, ought not, connect in my opinion.
Unfortunately, as a former church steward I can't easily buy into the notion that we should simply see our offerings as heading directly to God, conveniently bypassing all the other grubby issues that money brings with it.
Maybe it's just me, but a lot of what churches spend their money on seems to be wasteful - and it's with difficulty that I reconcile that with 'giving to God'. (But I accept that Christians in other cultures may be far more convinced of what 'God's money' is being used for than I am.)
Moreover, although I'm aware that the notion of duty plays an important part in compelling individuals to give their money and time to 'God's work' in the church, I find it hard these days to accept that it makes sense to keep giving and giving to a church that doesn't appear to be generating enough of a spiritual payback in return. Maybe this makes me a lowly consumer of 'spiritual goods' - but it seems that even Lamb Chopped agrees that it's reasonable to withdraw one's time, money and presence in order to find another church where those 'spiritual goods' are more to one's liking; where 'giving to God' is made more appealing.
One could also argue that the plethora of competing churches in the British towns and cities of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (and the USA until more recently, I think) was a great breeding ground for Anglo-Saxon consumerist attitudes towards spirituality, and consequently towards everything else, so it's probably unwise for Christians to imply that this sort of attitude is beneath them. For good or ill, it probably isn't.
[ 13. March 2015, 00:31: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As noted above, it's not really true that less people = less expenses for a church in the same way it would for a gym. For the most part lower attendance creates more problems, not less, for those attending. It's only when you get to megachurch status and start having parking issues that it becomes even an annoyance.
Well, it depends. Obviously, institutional churches need enough members/attenders to carry out the various customary roles in the church, and to pursue the church's vision. They need to be able to give a minimum of financial support - or else to arrange for the funds to be raised by other means.
However, churches that are set in their ways can be unsettled if newcomers of a different type begin to appear and change things. This is the history of some denominations (e.g. the Methodists) that began life small with very high standards, and then found that large numbers of newcomers meant that standards couldn't be maintained.
And more recently, CofE congregations of elderly people who suddenly have to make room for young families who are attending in order to win a place at a church school can find it hard to adapt....
All very true, and ground that's so well covered that if it were at all controversial it would be dead horse territory. But it really doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about here. We're not talking about whether churches are open to change. We're talking about whether or not it is beneficial to churches to have "ghost members" who contribute w/o attending.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
I think Lamb Chopped nailed it-- as per usual.
She said this:
quote:
I don't give money to the church for services rendered; hell, I don't give money to the church at all. I make offerings to God. The fact that the church disposes of the money contained in that offering is important only in that I want it handled properly (i.e. not into someone's packet for casino expenses). But I'm not buying anything from the church.
And if the church is fantastic, I'm not giving extra. If the church sucks like a Dyson, I'm not giving less (though I may head to another service somewhere else). Because the two things do not, ought not, connect in my opinion.
Unfortunately, as a former church steward I can't easily buy into the notion that we should simply see our offerings as heading directly to God, conveniently bypassing all the other grubby issues that money brings with it.
Maybe it's just me, but a lot of what churches spend their money on seems to be wasteful - and it's with difficulty that I reconcile that with 'giving to God'. (But I accept that Christians in other cultures may be far more convinced of what 'God's money' is being used for than I am.)
Moreover, although I'm aware that the notion of duty plays an important part in compelling individuals to give their money and time to 'God's work' in the church, I find it hard these days to accept that it makes sense to keep giving and giving to a church that doesn't appear to be generating enough of a spiritual payback in return. Maybe this makes me a lowly consumer of 'spiritual goods' - but it seems that even Lamb Chopped agrees that it's reasonable to withdraw one's time, money and presence in order to find another church where those 'spiritual goods' are more to one's liking; where 'giving to God' is made more appealing.
As you just noted, Lamb Chopped did, in fact, recognize that there are times when it is reasonable to withdraw one's time & presence to one more to one's liking. However, she didn't include withdrawing money in that criteria. Rather, she indicated in a separate part of the post that withdrawing money was more of a function of the "wastefulness" you mentioned. Her general point was similar to the one I made earlier-- that contributions to a charitable organization like a church are different from payment for goods & services such as you make to a gym. She gives to the church because she believes that, through that, she is participating in the work of the Kingdom. I happen to agree. She did not suggest that every church does that equally well. And there would be times when one might withdraw ones' money because one simply couldn't support the way it was being spent (wastefulness being just one of several possible problems). One would then find another place that was doing the work of the Kingdom and give to that. But either way, the point being that it's not about the benefit being given to me, personally-- that's why one goes to the mall. It's about being a part of what God is doing in the world.
I would add that there are times when giving in a particular place simply isn't healthy for you or for them. That is the one few times when I have told a parishioner to give their money elsewhere. It had become a controlling situation, where the money was buying influence in ways that subverted a prayerful discernment process-- something that was unhealthy for the church, but also for the giver. I counseled the parishioner to continue to give-- because we must give, that's who and what we are. But in that particular situation, I asked her to give to something far, far away (ie overseas)-- for her benefit as much as for ours.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As noted above, it's not really true that less people = less expenses for a church in the same way it would for a gym. For the most part lower attendance creates more problems, not less, for those attending. It's only when you get to megachurch status and start having parking issues that it becomes even an annoyance.
Well, it depends. Obviously, institutional churches need enough members/attenders to carry out the various customary roles in the church, and to pursue the church's vision. They need to be able to give a minimum of financial support - or else to arrange for the funds to be raised by other means.
However, churches that are set in their ways can be unsettled if newcomers of a different type begin to appear and change things. This is the history of some denominations (e.g. the Methodists) that began life small with very high standards, and then found that large numbers of newcomers meant that standards couldn't be maintained.
And more recently, CofE congregations of elderly people who suddenly have to make room for young families who are attending in order to win a place at a church school can find it hard to adapt....
All very true, and ground that's so well covered that if it were at all controversial it would be dead horse territory. But it really doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about here. We're not talking about whether churches are open to change. We're talking about whether or not it is beneficial to churches to have "ghost members" who contribute w/o attending.
It's relevant because for the situations I mentioned the long-serving church members might well have preferred it if the newcomers had donated their money from a distance rather than turning up in person with their demands and their expectations!
Of course, few churchgoers want to be seen as mercenary folk who just want an easy life, so for a shorter discussion we could all agree now that it's much better for donors to bring themselves along (in a suitably worshipful state of mind, if possible) as well as their money.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But just maybe one day the pastor speaks some inspiring words that make you glad to contribute to his or her livelihood
If you truly believe that those words were 'inspired', then this seems rather a bizarre comment to make.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't give money to the church for services rendered; hell, I don't give money to the church at all. I make offerings to God.
I didn't realise that God needs money to pay His electricity bill... Or do you mean that you offer your money as a sacrifice to God? Any particular reason why you do not simply burn it then?
If you believe in providence, that God provides for all things for His people, then the money we put in the plate was given to us by God in the first place. He provides us with the money to pay our electricity bill, house, clothe and feed our families, and support His work. Does He not also provide for the needs of His priests, and for the fabric of the buildings His Church gathers in? I suppose He could arrange it that priests regularly trip over brown paper envelopes of cash. But, it does seem a lot simpler to just use the money He's already given to His people.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
Rather than a gym which tend to be companies whose aim is to make money, a more apt analogy might be a members golf club. The members own the club and decide how much money needs to be spent each year. So that determines what the membership costs. If the club want to build a swanky new clubhouse they need to ensure that they will have enough money and the fees may need to be put up. Now it's not a great analogy because there is still too much of a transactional element to it, which I do not recognise in giving to church.
As a member of my church I go along to the meetings where it is decided what we want to do (or rather we try to discern what God's will for us is...) When considering things like new buildings or staff it is explicit that if we choose to do something we will need to support it financially. That may be along the lines of: "if we want to do this our giving will need to increase by 10%" for example. There is no other source of income other than ourselves. The vast majority of giving is by standing order, though we do have a monthly collection which is symbolic more than anything.
There was a discussion a few weeks ago on a different website about giving and there did seem to be a marked difference in the CofE and Catholics. There was a lot more attitude of just bobbing a few quid in the collection plate when you went along. Whereas by my reckoning the average giving per member/couple at my church is about £150 a month. They were astounded that people gave so much, and I'm equally bemused how people think the church works with people giving so little.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But just maybe one day the pastor speaks some inspiring words that make you glad to contribute to his or her livelihood
If you truly believe that those words were 'inspired', then this seems rather a bizarre comment to make.
Hardly. Let's say you are paying to have water pipes laid to your house. You can pay for leaky pipes with a diameter so small that they will clog quickly. Or you can pay for watertight pipes that have a sufficient diameter for the expected water flow. What scenario would make you happier? I expect it is the second one, even though the pipes are obviously not the source of the water but just its conduit. And the reason is that what counts for you in the end is how reliable your water supply happens to be.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If you believe in providence, that God provides for all things for His people, ...
The strange thing is that you seem to be addressing this to me, rather than to Lamb Chopped. It was her, not me, who came up with this strange dichotomy between giving money to the church and making offerings to God. I was being sarcastic at her for just that reason.
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
There was a discussion a few weeks ago on a different website about giving and there did seem to be a marked difference in the CofE and Catholics. There was a lot more attitude of just bobbing a few quid in the collection plate when you went along. Whereas by my reckoning the average giving per member/couple at my church is about £150 a month. They were astounded that people gave so much, and I'm equally bemused how people think the church works with people giving so little.
£150 per month on average?! Do you eat your hosts with caviar, or what? I do not want a church that syphons off that much cash per member. Not unless that Church is currently building a cathedral as my future place of worship, or something like that.
I should perhaps mention again that I consider giving to practical charity a different matter to giving to the Church. Sometimes I give money to charitable organisations of the Church, sometimes to other organisations, but in both cases this is a different pot of my money than what goes to the Church collection. And if there is a special collection for some Church charity, then it is generally separate from the one for the Church and usually happens after (not during) mass.
I hope this explains at least some of the disparity, i.e., I hope you are folding in charitable spending there. If not, then frankly I have no idea what you do with all that cash. Or perhaps this is because your Church allows married priests and consequently ends up paying much higher salaries?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
Rather than a gym which tend to be companies whose aim is to make money, a more apt analogy might be a members golf club. The members own the club and decide how much money needs to be spent each year. So that determines what the membership costs. If the club want to build a swanky new clubhouse they need to ensure that they will have enough money and the fees may need to be put up. Now it's not a great analogy because there is still too much of a transactional element to it, which I do not recognise in giving to church.
This is better, but still falls short because it lacks the family aspect. In a membership golf club, the costs are divided equally in a fairly business-like model. If someone can't afford the dues, too bad-- you're out. To say nothing of the history in the US of these organizations having audaciously racist and/or sexist membership policies-- it's a club for people like us and we get to pick and choose who we want to associate with.
The "family" metaphor is a tired one, but it's tired (and biblical) for a reason-- it fits. Like a family, we don't get to decide who gets born or even adopted into our family. As Svtlana pointed out, that can cause some friction as people decidedly "not like" us join, but we are enjoined to make it work. As difficult as it may be, there is no other option-- they are part of the family. And, to the $$ scheme, like a family, everyone pulls together. It's not "your money/dues" and mine-- it's ours. Those who have more are expected to contribute more to support and care for those with less. Like a family.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
I do wonder if some of the disparity in view here comes from different models/perceptions of church.
If one has a very hierarchical church which is perceived to be collectively wealthy, and in essence operates on a "top down" decision-making basis with your minister/priest imposed on you and funded centrally, then I can see how there's more distance between Anon Attender and The Church when it comes to what one puts in the plate, and how one feels attached to what happens with it.
If one has a flatter structure, no or little perceived organisational wealth, largely congregational governance so that what happens with the money is agreed by all[1], and things like who your minister is, what the manse arrangements are etc. are all choices made by that congregation, not imposed, then the relationship and the game changes somewhat.
Not that one is right and one is wrong, but it's going to affect the degree to which individuals are financially and emotionally invested in their local congregation, and how they interact with it.
In rough terms, our congregation turns over about £180k p.a. all from giving/Gift Aid. A significant chunk of that (OTTOMH ~30-40% by the time all factors are included) goes on the ministry team - salaries, pensions, provision/maintenance of property, office support staff, etc.. At full strength we had three pastors plus two paid part-time administrators, so no-one is getting rich here. An almost equally large chunk is given away, either through supporting those in training, or direct giving to missionaries/mission organisations (probably around 25%) or to other external projects. The rest is spent funding all the various activities and groups in the church, of which there are many.
On top of that there's usually a one-off thank offering, and the odd special project.
Given that we're also very volunteer-heavy (all musicians, stewards, youth work helpers, mid-week activity organisers etc. etc. are un-paid and often don't even bother to re-claim expenses), it just shows that if you're an active church, a lot of money can disappear very quickly without people being dishonest or incompetent.
[1]Or at least, all who are elligible to attend/vote at meetings, which will be a smaller group than all who chip in to the pot
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If you believe in providence, that God provides for all things for His people, ...
The strange thing is that you seem to be addressing this to me, rather than to Lamb Chopped. It was her, not me, who came up with this strange dichotomy between giving money to the church and making offerings to God. I was being sarcastic at her for just that reason.
Well, perhaps because I largely agree with Lamb Chopped. What goes in the plate on Sunday, or out of my account monthly by standing order, is an offering to God. It happens to pass through the hands of the church treasurer, that doesn't affect the destination of that dosh. And, rather than passing up to heaven then coming back down into brown envelopes of cash for the priest to find magically stuffed down the back of the sofa when the electricity bill lands on the door mat, a much simpler method of getting that money where it's needed is used.
An argument could be made that the problem with the "fitness club model" is that it works on the premise that church finances are better managed if there can be a reasonable budget set with an expected monthly income. I would know some people who would claim that shows a lack of faith that God will provide what is needed when it is needed.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
by my reckoning the average giving per member/couple at my church is about £150 a month.
£150 per month on average?! Do you eat your hosts with caviar, or what? I do not want a church that syphons off that much cash per member.
Obviously I don't know a think about quantpole's church, but it wouldn't seem all that unusual for a church to have an annual expenditure of £100k - costs of ministry (you're not going to have a full time minister for less than £30k), building maintenance/hall hire, etc. If you have 50 adult members, that's £150 each on average, assuming no other income.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
IngoB
Does your local congregation publish accounts? It's not a difficult exercise to divide expenditure by regular attendance to arrive at an average per capita contribution to make ends meets. Of course you have to make allowances for those who don't earn (or those in retirement who are on the breadline) and that bumps up the per capita contribution need.
My local congo is based in a relatively impoverished part of north Norwich; high unemployment, lots of broken homes, struggling single parents. The congregational membership reflects that; it also has people who are relatively better off. People factor that into their giving. Plus many folks are still influenced by the notion of a tithe as a standard.
The UK average salary in 2014 was just over £26K. Knock off, say, about 20% of that for tax and NI and you're looking at average takeaway pay of around £20K. 10% of that is £2K, or about £160 per month.
So quantpole's £150 per month looks pretty close to the amount the average earner who believes in tithing would contribute. The figure certainly didn't surprise me. Whether it enables a caviar lifestyle depends on the church budget; significantly on the number of paid employees.
In most of the churches I know, only a minority of members meet the old tithing standard, often enough for reasons which are totally understandable.
I agree one of your earlier comments, which implies that wisdom in church management does mean cutting your activity coat in accordance with the available cloth. So it's a good idea to know, via local church accounts, where the money goes. It provides some feedback about fund receipt and management. In my congo, that information is available to members, and can (and does) get discussed at members' meetings.
Maybe that is all a bit prosaic, but good financial management is a significant factor in enabling and sustaining the work of the local church.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
Barnabus and Alan have pretty much covered it. But in case you're interested, our total income is about £90k with £52k on staff, £18k on building hire (we do not have our own), £10k given away and the rest on various projects and expenses.
When we employed a youth worker it was well known how much it would cost, and how much people would need to give as a consequence. Charitable giving is also seen as something different, I think most people in the church also give separately.
I suspect that clergy costs are higher for us, partly because they can marry, but also we don't have a house provided for them.
I would add that it is a relatively well off area, and incomes are generally above average. A lot of the money the church gives away is to support other churches which would otherwise not be able to pay for their own clergy.
There is no emphasis on tithing. I've been to churches that are, and it was expected that people gave at least 10% of their income to the church. I found that very overbearing, and wrong that people in financial difficulty still had pressure to give (e.g. "the church should be the first thing you give money to not the last"). As cliffdweller said, it is family, and some will be able to contribute more than others.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
£150 per month on average?! Do you eat your hosts with caviar, or what? I do not want a church that syphons off that much cash per member.
...it wouldn't seem all that unusual for a church to have an annual expenditure of £100k - costs of ministry (you're not going to have a full time minister for less than £30k), building maintenance/hall hire, etc. If you have 50 adult members, that's £150 each on average, assuming no other income.
Two local churches for which I have the budget, total budget $450,000. Roughly 250 households in the directory but some are inactive and others contribute nothing-- if 200 households donate that's over $2000 per household per year but most give far less than that (one church handed out a chart of giving brackets, 50 give nothing and a few give more than $10,000 a year).
For what? Keeping up an old building, one clergy ($85,000 total package), paid staff (secretary, youth worker, organist, music director, cleaner, garden/lawn worker), dues to national, insurance, utilities (air conditioning), local charitable work (soup kitchen).
But also, churches provide different things for members. One church in the area has a lot of tithers, and for any member who wants to go to an approved conference the church pays the conference fees and the motel bill. That helps reduce the disparity between which activities rich and poor can do. I like it. But it's supported by generous donations, can't do that in a small donations tradition.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
IngoB, I find myself slightly bemused by your attitude. I seem to have hit a nerve. And I'm afraid I'm going to go on hitting one. Sorry.
Look, what I'm trying to say (and a bunch of other people here) is that there is no financial contract between me and the church. I am purchasing no services from the church, and the pastor is receiving no payment from me or anybody else. Seriously, you pay for holy things? That just ain't right.
And if you did, you ought to be paying a helluva lot more than any pastors I know receive.
The traditional name for what the pastor receives financially is a "stipend"--that is, money provided to live on while one pursues a calling for non-monetary reasons. (and believe me, they are non-monetary--no pastor in his senses would seek out that amount of hard work for the piddling bit of money that is usually available.)
The understanding is that the pastor is pursuing his calling for non-monetary motives, and the congregation in turn is not offering the crass inducement of money for holy things, but rather is providing an amount to live on while he pursues that calling. There are other professions (notably teaching) where the same tradition applies.
And before you get upset with me, I'm not saying that work-for-pay is a bad thing. I'd accept a job in a heartbeat if I could find one just now. What I am saying is that the service of a pastor, or priest, is not work-for-pay. It's in a different realm entirely.
And so are the offerings of God's people, as I have always understood them. Take the widow Jesus watched giving her two mites. In a pay-for-services model, that makes no sense at all. Her two mites will barely cover the cost of the time some temple bureaucrat takes to count them. And if she's receiving any services, it isn't apparent from her living situation. Yet Jesus gave her action unmatched honor.
Again, take Mary of Bethany, and her offering of perfumed ointment to Christ. It would be a misunderstanding of a particularly egregious kind to say that her offering was "payment" for raising her brother Lazarus. It was no such thing. It was love, it was thankfulness, it was worship. It wasn't precisely useful--Judas' suggestion made far better economic sense. It was in fact about as useful as burning cash, which you suggested to me. But we know which Jesus preferred.
Look, when I put money in the offering plate, it's in the context of a worship service, and accompanied by prayer. If the money gets stolen before it can be counted and deposited (yes, I've known that to happen one memorable Sunday), the nature of the gift is not affected. The fact that the church receives nothing is a nuisance and obviously undesirable; but the offering is still an offering.
You ask why I don't just burn cash; the primary reason for this is because I and all Christianity is following the ancient Jewish offering system set up by God himself. In that system the offerings again were made to the Lord, not the temple; and yet once the sacrifice was finished, the flesh/wheat/wine/fruit or whatever was given to the temple and its servants as their God-given stipend to exist upon. Even more, a fair share of most sacrifices went home with the offer-er, and became the basis for the family dinner, for charity to the poor, and so forth. The "proceeds" of the sacrificial system were put to good use. If God set it up that way then, why should I have a problem with it now?
I will indeed have a problem with anyone who grossly misuses the offerings of God once they come into the care and distribution of the church. But not because I think that I have a right to particular services on account of my offering. I would be upset first in account of the mishandling of holy things (see what happened to Eli's sons as a case in point) and second, because misuse of ANY resources is bad stewardship and a sin against God. If the problem were sufficiently bad and unreformable, I might well take myself off somewhere else. But that would not have to do with me thinking I wasn't getting my money's worth; it would be for the same reason I would leave a church that was teaching false doctrine or encouraging sin. The fact that my offering leaves with me is the least of the church's concerns--or so it ought to be, anyway. There are more important things than money. And I say this as a mostly-unemployed person in a poor church.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Yeah, what Lamb said.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, perhaps because I largely agree with Lamb Chopped. What goes in the plate on Sunday, or out of my account monthly by standing order, is an offering to God. It happens to pass through the hands of the church treasurer, that doesn't affect the destination of that dosh.
Once more, if it really didn't matter where that money of yours is flowing, given that you intend it for God, then you might as well burn it. But you never do. Instead you tell me stories of how much better it is to actually give money to your church than expecting miraculous manna money falling from the heavens for her. Well, yeah, that's precisely my point. In reality you are paying the church for what she is doing for you, and others. That's the long and the short of it. And yes, you can interpret that as offering to God, given that God wants us to have churches, and thus presumably is pleased that you help financing one. Fine. But to reverse that order is to me not realistic, but simply pious waffle. It's not like you are standing there in front of a pile of cash, match in hand, and by coincidence your pastor walks by and asks if he can fix the church roof with that money instead.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An argument could be made that the problem with the "fitness club model" is that it works on the premise that church finances are better managed if there can be a reasonable budget set with an expected monthly income. I would know some people who would claim that shows a lack of faith that God will provide what is needed when it is needed.
That's not a problem I have with this. As far as I am concerned, God can provide what is needed when it is needed precisely by raising up people with financial acumen and foresight, who organise church finances well. Joseph in Egypt, and all that...
Neither is my problem that some people decide to rather give by direct debit than in the collection. Good on them.
My problem is the intention to push most parishioners into that payment model, in particular so in a situation where the Church continues to have less attendance at mass over time. That IMHO tries to insulate the Church from facing up to these trends honestly, by making "cultural Catholics" pay the bills of a failing Church long past the point of actual sustainability.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Obviously I don't know a think about quantpole's church, but it wouldn't seem all that unusual for a church to have an annual expenditure of £100k - costs of ministry (you're not going to have a full time minister for less than £30k), building maintenance/hall hire, etc. If you have 50 adult members, that's £150 each on average, assuming no other income.
Apparently you are happy with all this, and who am I to tell you how to spend your spare cash? Hence I'm not at all saying that you or your church should stop - you people can do whatever you want, obviously. But I just don't buy this backward reasoning, from some shopping list of expenses to what every member has to pay, as the only way of looking at things. How about some forward reasoning? One can alternatively start with say £50 per member and calculate forward what one can afford. And if for example one cannot afford a full time minister from that, then perhaps that's just how that is! Either then one will not have one, or one will have to look into grouping up with one or more other small churches.
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
But in case you're interested, our total income is about £90k with £52k on staff, £18k on building hire (we do not have our own), £10k given away and the rest on various projects and expenses.
Well, I find it impressive that you can finance all that with 50 people. But how long is that going to last in the future? You are about twice as expensive as a typical sports club. Maybe you think you shouldn't have to compete with that. Maybe you are right. Maybe nevertheless that's what you are doing, or will be doing, as you face a generation that did not grow up with a strong sense of duty concerning God...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Damn, Ingo. Duty toward God? Have you never heard of love?
And pious waffle? All right, maybe it is. All I know is that pious waffle and miraculous manna from heaven has been supporting our unpaid pastor for what, nine years now. Pretty useful waffle, if you ask me.
You really ought to look into the concept and history of simony. Up to this point I haven't been able to convince myself that you really believe what you're saying, but I'm unhappily changing my mind.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
