Thread: The fitness club model of financing for churches Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028924
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
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.
Posted by gog (# 15615) on
:
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.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
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.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
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!
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on
:
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.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
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.
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
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.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
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.
Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on
:
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 ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
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.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
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.)
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
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
Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on
:
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. ...
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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."
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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...
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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 ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
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.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
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
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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.
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
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.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Yeah, what Lamb said.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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...
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
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.
A number of problems with this; You can't tell the quality of the pipe by the amount of water that comes out of it. More prosaically; life doesn't consist of a constant series of inspired moments, and our ability to judge what is inspired and what isn't is impaired anyway, or possibly the inspiration wasn't - on that one occasion - meant for you, but for someone else.
This is getting off topic though, so I'll leave it unless someone wants to start another thread.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
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 last part... you are paying for what the church is doing for others. THAT'S what Lamb Chopped is talking about. The offering, as she has already explained, is primarily about the heart-- about the sacrifice to God. But, in his grace, God uses our offerings, pitiful though they may be. In his grace, God has decided to allow us to be a part of what he is doing in the world. He doesn't need to do it-- yes, he could make envelopes of money appear on the sidewalk. But instead, he lets us be a part of it. And that is a blessing to us. And that's why we don't just burn it up. And yet, as Lamb noted above, if it happens to tragically catch fire (or be stolen, or misused by unscrupulous or inept employees) on it's way from my wallet to the church's bank account, it is still a gift-- an offering unto the Lord.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
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.
There probably are some clergy, or elders, or church treasurers, who are "pushing" it for that reason. We are human, after all, and subject to the same temptations and failings as everyone else. But the churches I know that set up such systems are doing so primarily for two reasons:
1. Many of their parishioners prefer it (myself included) because, simply, it's convenient. So why not?
2. It helps with long-range planning, which makes us more efficient in the use of our money. Something many here have indicated is a concern.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
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.
Most churches do precisely that. Church budgeting is always a messy proposition, because it involves weighing one good thing against another good thing. But generally it involves lots of back and forth discussions along the lines of precisely what you just described. Generally two or more options are laid out-- if we go with staffing/ ministry goals #1, it would cost X, which translates to an average of $X per person. Or we could go for starvation budget Y, with staffing/ ministry goals #2, which would cost Y, which averages $Y per person. Then there's hopefully a great deal of prayer, and thoughtful discussion and creative thinking, that generally yields something in between plans #1 and #2.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
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.
Which is sorta like saying your mortgage payment is about twice what you're paying for your monthly ice cream allocation. You're comparing apples and oranges. Your typical sports club has very very different goals, and very very different motivations for the people giving to them. It's not generally considered an offering in the sense that Lamb Chopped is describing. It could be, under certain circumstances (say, they are reaching out to low-income kids or doing gang-diversion work). But generally, it comes under the category of "entertainment" spending. Which is fine, appropriate, wonderful-- but not the same as rent or utilities and very much not the same as one's offering to the church.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
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...
In my experience, that's not the case. As has been noted on another thread, what we see now days (at least in the US) is that churches are smaller, but more committed. What you are suggesting would actually have been more true a generation ago, when churches had a large number of members who were a part of the church for a wide diversity of reasons, many of which having little to do with faith. So yeah, those nominal members might have been a hard sell on the understanding of giving that Lamb Chopped and I are advocating.
But today there are far fewer numbers of people attending church. Which means that those who DO attend church are generally doing so precisely because they believe in what the church is doing-- and for pretty much only that reason. So I find that most of those members, including especially younger members, are quite open (if not there already) to the sort of understanding of giving Lamb Chopped is describing.
And, fwiw, those younger members will often prefer giving thru direct donation, purely for the convenience. Many of them wouldn't know a checkbook if they tripped over it. But they understand ministry, they understand being a part of the Kingdom, and they're excited about what that means.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
What I've experienced in British MOTR churches is that there are always appeals to the congregations for more money, and in the vestry there's grumbling that the laity don't give more.
IOW, although there are still people in a secular society who are willing to go to church that doesn't automatically mean that they're entirely committed to whatever plan church leaders may have for their money. Such churchgoers are unlikely to give large amounts, and they may not envision the offering as a chance to give money to God. Their churches don't necessarily frame the offering in this way either - my old church used to talk about taking up the offering 'for the work of God in this place', which isn't quite the same thing.
[ 13. March 2015, 23:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
IOW, although there are still people in a secular society who are willing to go to church that doesn't automatically mean that they're entirely committed to whatever plan church leaders may have for their money. Such churchgoers are unlikely to give large amounts, and they may not envision the offering as a chance to give money to God. Their churches don't necessarily frame the offering in this way either - my old church used to talk about taking up the offering 'for the work of God in this place', which isn't quite the same thing.
hmmm... neither of those things is evidence contrary to what I said.
I certainly never suggested that all the church members of any given church will be entirely committed to "whatever plan church leaders may have for their money." I said that in the US, virtually all church attenders (as opposed to members) are committed to the faith. As I said, budgets are always messy-- family budgets, government budgets-- and church budgets. We will always have disagreements-- often quite heated ones. That really doesn't have anything to do, though, with what we're talking about here.
And, while people in churches will argue about how money should be spent, sometimes quite bitterly, I think they do, in fact, "envision the offering as a chance to give money to God." That's why they give-- whether the amount they are giving is large or small (which, again, seems irrelevant to what we're talking about here). In fact, that's also why they argue-- because it matters to them. If their fitness club makes changes they don't like-- drops pilates in favor of hot yoga or paints the locker rooms a horrid color-- they'll either shrug it off with a small grumble, or cancel their membership. But in the church we argue about budgets precisely because it is so important to us-- precisely because we DO think of it as money given to God, money for the ministry in the world that God invites us to be a part of. It's important to us.
Similarly, when you say, "my old church used to talk about taking up the offering 'for the work of God in this place'", that sounds exactly like what Lamb and I are talking about, and is explicitly suggesting their belief that God is working in and through the members of the church to both fund and carry out his work in the world.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
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.
Obviously I pay for holy things, and so do you. Or perhaps you don't, but at least most Christians do. Indeed, we have just learned that many even pay £150 per month by direct debit. If all of them didn't pay this money, would they still receive the holy things? No, they wouldn't. Or at least they would receive much fewer holy things in much less convenient form much less frequently. This flow of money is not somehow accidental to the flow of holy things either. People are not randomly throwing money into the air, and it happens to land in the hands of the Church. And if there is a funding drive, people will get told just how the provision of holy things will be improved with that extra money. And if the funding drive is to be successful, then probably in quite some detail, too.
The difference to regular buying basically amounts to this: the exchange of temporal goods establishes communal rights, not individual ones.
By giving money to the Church, I do not obtain an individual right to for example receive the Eucharist. However, my money contributes to establishing the communal right that the Eucharist will be provided. The priest cannot simply take the money and then go on a vacation. The money is given for a communal purpose, and in justice a corresponding service must be rendered for it. (Obviously also a priest can have a vacation, that's not the point.)
Likewise, the priest has no right to deny the Eucharist to me individually, just because I did not give any money to the Church. Also from this side the exchange of temporal goods acts at the level of the community. If the community does not provide any salary (call it "stipend", if it makes you feel better) to the priest, then the priest can in justice refuse to provide any service to the community. And if they give some but not enough to carry out certain works, then the priest does not have to somehow fill the gaps himself. However, he cannot single out people according to their financial contributions.
The problem of Simony is the individual buying of holy things, the assumption that personal entitlement to holy things can be obtained with temporal goods. That however holy things are being paid for communally is just a fact of life. A budget is a budget, it doesn't become a mystical entity just because it is a church budget.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
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.
Sure, but that has little to do with the point I am making. The point I am making is that if the temple bureaucrat takes her money, and that of many others, and spends it on a nice meal in a posh restaurant, then that's an injustice. That widow, and everybody else who gave money, intended it for the running of the temple. And all these people, including the widow, will profit spiritually from the temple being run. They hence have all de facto traded temporal goods for spiritual ones. But not quite in the usual manner that would establish a direct individual entitlement.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
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.
Again, this is basically besides the points I'm making. The question I'm asking is basically: what if Mary had instead given Judas the money, telling him that it was to be used for anointing the Lord. Would it have been OK for Judas to ignore this and instead pay it out to the poor? If not, then clearly Mary should get for her money what she expects, even though it is an offering in thanksgiving to the Lord. One does not abolish the other.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
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.
If somebody steals your offering before it reaches the Church, then you of course have still given. You gave when you handed over the money, from then on it was already the money of the Church. The thief then has stolen from the Church, while the money was still in transit. If the thief is apprehended, then it is not you but the Church who will get the money back.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
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.
Indeed, it is ancient practice that priests are supported by the community for the services rendered, both in the sense of giving what is needed for the service and enabling a reasonable livelihood for the priests. Back then it was mostly in kind, now it is mostly through money, but the principle has stayed unchanged.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
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.
Maybe you can see that "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but is a zebra" is just a little bit too convenient?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
You Just.Don't.Get.It.
quote:
Maybe you can see that "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but is a zebra" is just a little bit too convenient?
With the brand of logic you're applying here, you could just as easily argue that because a man brings home a paycheck and his wife manages the resulting funds, and they have sex every so often, therefore this is an exchange of money for sex.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
The only problem I see with the fitness club arrangement is that in almost all cases, you sign up with the gym or whatever and you give THEM the right to deduct a sum from your bank account. I doubt most churches are proposing this-it's just too much of an administrative burden to manage.
So long as people set up their own direct transfer to the church, that THEY can cancel at any time I think it's a brilliant idea. Some people expect the church to be there for them even if they only attend at Christmas and Easter-so be it-that's fine but it'd be nice if they contributed to the year-round costs of the maintenance of the building and the payment of staff to make sure both are there when they are wanted at Christmas, Easter and the odd wedding and funeral.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
The only problem I see with the fitness club arrangement is that in almost all cases, you sign up with the gym or whatever and you give THEM the right to deduct a sum from your bank account.
I haven't been able to contribute to this interesting discussion, but I can't resist pointing out that it can be more evil than that.
I once new somebody who signed up for a fitness club and later decided to back out, only to discover that in fact by signing up she had taken out a credit for the entire year's subscription with a separate company.
By cancelling her gym club subscription, she lost the right to go to the club, but did not halt the credit.
(Meanwhile, here in France it is the Catholic church's annual fund-raising time of year; in addition to mailshots to the entire population, we are currently assailed with posters on every bus stop of Pope Francis giving a thumbs-up and saying "the Church, like!" à la Facebook, which this non-conformist finds particularly galling)
[ 14. March 2015, 06:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Effectively the fitness club model (which also applies to a lot of other services, such as phone and cable TV) is that you sign up to a contract. You agree to make certain payments in return for the option of using certain services, you can decide not to take up the option of those services but until the end of the term of the contract you can't back out of the payments (without paying whatever cancellation fees were in the small print of the contract - potentially more than the remaining payments).
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
ISTM that if a church (or other religious group) needs lights, rent, insurance, salary for the clergy, it doesn't matter whether you call it a "love offering", "duty", tithing, or "keeping the lights on"---it's still serves/honors God, and it's still necessary.
Unless you're in a group that uses a free space, pays no salaries, and takes turn bringing communion/eucharist elements *and* snacks, you need money. (I've been in that kind of group, and it worked out well.)
But if you want supplied toilet paper, roof repairs, utilities, rent, and a parsonage so the pastor doesn't have to sleep in a doorway somewhere, then you need money (or a really good barter system). No religious labels needed--they're just operating costs.
Lamb Chopped--at that crazy, sick, almost possessed church you and your husband served, weren't finances a problem? How were they managed before and after the craziness? If you don't want to open that wound, it's ok.
[ 14. March 2015, 07:48: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I certainly never suggested that all the church members of any given church will be entirely committed to "whatever plan church leaders may have for their money." I said that in the US, virtually all church attenders (as opposed to members) are committed to the faith. As I said, budgets are always messy-- family budgets, government budgets-- and church budgets. We will always have disagreements-- often quite heated ones. That really doesn't have anything to do, though, with what we're talking about here.
And, while people in churches will argue about how money should be spent, sometimes quite bitterly, I think they do, in fact, "envision the offering as a chance to give money to God." That's why they give-- whether the amount they are giving is large or small (which, again, seems irrelevant to what we're talking about here). In fact, that's also why they argue-- because it matters to them. If their fitness club makes changes they don't like-- drops pilates in favor of hot yoga or paints the locker rooms a horrid color-- they'll either shrug it off with a small grumble, or cancel their membership. But in the church we argue about budgets precisely because it is so important to us-- precisely because we DO think of it as money given to God, money for the ministry in the world that God invites us to be a part of. It's important to us.
Similarly, when you say, "my old church used to talk about taking up the offering 'for the work of God in this place'", that sounds exactly like what Lamb and I are talking about, and is explicitly suggesting their belief that God is working in and through the members of the church to both fund and carry out his work in the world.
If you feel that any of my comments are irrelevant, you are free to ignore them....
However, I've said above that some church leaders encourage standing orders, openly stating that this ensures that churches can benefit financially even if the members aren't present. (IME this isn't really sold as a way of making things 'convenient' for churchgoers, although I'm sure that some of them do find it more convenient.) This is where the church's attitude to money can be directly likened to the 'fitness club model of financing'.
Indirectly, but still relevant, IMO, is my general sense that many churchgoers in mainstream British churches don't take the same high-minded perspective as yourself and Lamb Chopped with regards to money in the church. Predominant, I think, is the longing to meet personal needs, and this is where the 'fitness club' metaphor resonates. I suspect that the greater the sense of satisfaction, the more money is likely to be given. British churchgoers are probably less satisfied with and less generous to their their churches than American churchgoers are! The circumstances here for churches are simply less favourable. Successful evangelical churches and others with a strong sense of vision will be the exceptions.
Note that in no way am I claiming that churches like yours are doing things wrong. On the contrary. I'm glad that the members of your churches feel so engaged.
[ 14. March 2015, 11:13: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
]If you feel that any of my comments are irrelevant, you are free to ignore them....
Sorry... that came out snarkier than I intended. My point was just that the point you were making didn't seem to disprove what I was saying.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
However, I've said above that some church leaders encourage standing orders, openly stating that this ensures that churches can benefit financially even if the members aren't present. (IME this isn't really sold as a way of making things 'convenient' for churchgoers, although I'm sure that some of them do find it more convenient.) This is where the church's attitude to money can be directly likened to the 'fitness club model of financing'.
Really? Are you sure that's how they're billing it? Again, I can only speak for American churches, but I have heard many, many stewardship campaigns that have included the direct deposit model and ALL of them have stressed the convenience factor. Most have stressed ONLY the convenience factor. And, as I mentioned above, I highly doubt that very many churches are adopting the scheme for the same reasons as fitness clubs or are actually interested in "ghost members." They adopt the model because it is convenient for their donors and because it tends to even out contributions in a predictable way which helps to manage money more efficiently, something many shippies have mentioned as a concern.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Indirectly, but still relevant, IMO, is my general sense that many churchgoers in mainstream British churches don't take the same high-minded perspective as yourself and Lamb Chopped with regards to money in the church. Predominant, I think, is the longing to meet personal needs, and this is where the 'fitness club' metaphor resonates. I suspect that the greater the sense of satisfaction, the more money is likely to be given. British churchgoers are probably less satisfied with and less generous to their their churches than American churchgoers are! The circumstances here for churches are simply less favourable. Successful evangelical churches and others with a strong sense of vision will be the exceptions..
I don't think things are any different in US than in UK in that regard. Circumstances for churches in both places are currently unfavorable-- i.e. we're losing more members than we're gaining, the cultural shift is away from church membership (see SBNR thread). But again, that means that the people left in the churches, are more committed to the faith than they were in years past. In years past there were lots of reasons to go to church beyond religious-- it was a good place for social, political and economic contacts. Today there are much more effective ways to make those contacts-- so pretty much the only reason to go to church is religious.
But that doesn't mean those more committed church members are mindlessly pleased with everything that happens in those churches-- quite the contrary. As I said above, American churchgoers just like British ones are OFTEN dissatisfied with where their money goes-- and will let that be known in a variety of ways, including but not limited to, giving less or nothing at all. That's true everywhere.
Where I'm disagreeing with you is your conclusion that that means they don't see their givings as "giving to the Lord". I believe most do, and would be highly offended by the implication that they are giving only for their own benefit. Some of that is self-deception, of course. All of us are far more selfish than we like to think. But still, the underlying motive is not entirely "paying for what I get". The reason they object to the way the money is being spent, again, is precisely because they believe it is intended for "God's work"-- and so it is intensely important to them.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Lamb Chopped--at that crazy, sick, almost possessed church you and your husband served, weren't finances a problem? How were they managed before and after the craziness? If you don't want to open that wound, it's ok.
No, that's a long way in the past, thank God. I should probably start by saying that that church wasn't ALWAYS crazy. It's just that our resident sociopath made a power grab during my first couple years on the Ship, which turned an awesome church into a dreadfully scared and freaked out church.
But things were a bit simpler there. First of all, my husband was a called and financed missionary (district level), so the young refugee church didn't have to shoulder the cost of paying him, which would have been impossible at below-minimum-wage jobs.* Second, the building didn't belong to us, though we had responsibility for utilities and upkeep, so the bills were high but manageable. Not your normal church situation at all, and I don't think we can really extrapolate anything from it.
Our young Christians gave freely and generously until hell broke loose, and we had no fundraising campaigns or stewardship pushes, etc. The district WAS pushing us to assume the building ownership and to become fully self-supporting in an unrealistic length of time (these were non-English-speaking immigrants at poverty level), but to be fair, district was having their own financial issues and wanted to get rid of their missionaries. They did in fact lay them all off shortly after the nutcases destroyed the congregation, and we were one family that got the financial axe. But as I was saying until I so rudely interrupted myself, we were making really good progress towards being financially self-supporting, and if the crisis from hell hadn't intervened, I figure our congregation would have been the denominational poster-child on how to grow mission plants to full independence. Oh well.
* In our current situation, support of a pastor is still financially impossible despite the very generous giving of our people, which is why we are dependent on "miraculous manna" and "pious waffle" to provide our daily bread as a family. And thanks be to God, he has provided it and goes on providing it, in spite of my anxiety issues. It's been what, nine years now? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
And we're still here, and not sleeping in a cardboard box under a freeway overpass, either. I should probably learn something from that, o me of little faith. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
It seems to me that there's a fundamental disconnect between IngoB's understanding of "the church", "giving to the church", and "church finances" and a lot of the other posters (self included).
I have no idea whether it's personal, cultural, experiental or theological/doctrinal (RC vs Protestant vs non-conformist).
I deleted a massive post last night because I feared it might give offence which was not the intent, but it seems to me that some of it must be tied up in how the respective denominations manage and conduct themselves. There's a vague spectrum on the degree of top-down hierarchy, imposition, regulation etc. through to looser, collaborative, congregational and/or network-based structures.
The church I attend is not a service provider. I am not paying for services rendered. If I was, they'd find my monthly contribution decidedly reduced. The church I attend is just the local community of believers I happen to knock around with at this point in time. The money that goes in the offering is for that community to use in accordance with what it believes God's direction is - be that to keep the community going, to support local projects, to support international projects etc. etc.
This will sound pious (and also totally false if you actually knew me!), but just as one seeks to honour & glorify God through your job, your friendships, your romantic relationships, it's just another aspect of using the resources you've got for the Kingdom. In the abstract theory, allowing for human failing and so on.
It is not a contract, a transaction, a payment, an assurance, an insurance or anything else. It's an expression, and also an enabling. And I'm not chipping in to something that's then whisked away and dealt with at a distance, in a black box, with no further input.
If your church runs on a model where the offering is hoovered up to somewhere else (parish, diocese, national, international level) and all the decisions about what happens to it are made elsewhere, with no input from the local congregation, and decisions are imposed from on high, and there's potentially a much higher degree of nominalism* and sporadic attendance in the congregation I can see how you might have a different view. I'm not seeking to imply that's where IngoB's coming from, and not seeking to make a side swipe at either RCC or CoE for that matter, just kicking around abstract ideas.
*In terms of the significant number of people who are "Christian: Anglican" simply because they're British, but know nothing of their local church or indeed the gospel. And I am minded of a friend growing up who was an atheist, but also a very vigorous defender of Roman Catholicism because "You're born a Roman Catholic, it's like nationality; in fact, it trumps nationality; even if I don't believe, I am one, and can't not be".
Posted by gog (# 15615) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Among Western Catholics, 20-30% still make it to mass and consequently can be expected to give to the collections there.
Question regarding the figure quoted, this is an overall weekly attendance figure, and not the general attendance, thus there may be the same amount of people attending, however they are attending less frequently.
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?
On this one a pedantic point, that it is the attending of Mass frequently that you are calling for (ie that they are coming often). While regularity could mean twice a year, as they are there regularly, but infrequently.
Also many infrequent attenders (of all places of worship) may still wish to give support to it and to do that frequently (thus they joy of the standing order).
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
With the brand of logic you're applying here, you could just as easily argue that because a man brings home a paycheck and his wife manages the resulting funds, and they have sex every so often, therefore this is an exchange of money for sex.
Not in the sense of an individual and immediate entitlement, but in the sense of benefits and duties arising from their communal state. You are trying to make this sound like some kind of prostitution, but it is not really the same. Both can expect certain benefits from their communal state, and have duties towards it. Both have to pull their weight concerning finances, and both enjoy the benefits if they do so, or suffer if the other doesn't do so. And the same is true for sex, no matter how queasy we are nowadays to speak of marital rights.
The connection between money and sex is not one of direct "buying", it is not like one side puts some money on the table and in response expects the performance of sexual acts. But rather both money and sex are in a benefit and duty relationship to the communal state "marriage", and hence can be causally related to each other through that. If for example the husband blows all his earnings on booze and gambling, then the wife is in her rights to refuse sex to him in consequence. Not because he is not paying enough for the sex, but because he is failing his duties to their shared state, and she can justly respond by refusing her marital duties as corrective punishment. And in the positive, if the husband is being a good husband, which it the setup you describe would include working hard and providing his earnings as shared resource to the marriage, then he is justified to expect to have sex with his wife with reasonable frequency. Not in the sense of "on demand", which would get us back to buying sex, but because that is part of the "package deal" marriage both have freely signed up for. And if he is doing his bit, then he can justly expect her to do hers.
And none of this speaks against "love". An analysis of what is just does not hinder love or deny love. Rather, it provides the framework for love. I'm hence not at all saying that say bed talk should be a benefit and duty analysis. Nor am I saying that loving partners always need to act "by the book". Love can operate "above and beyond" justice. But there would be no "above and beyond" without the grounding of justice. In order to for example appreciate love seeing and acting beyond the failings of a partner, we must first appreciate that one can indeed fail, that there is such a thing as the right thing that ought to be done.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Of my group of 20 close friends who are married all the wives are the breadwinners.
Just sayin'
My Church uses direct debit to collect the offerings and 60% of people give in this way. Most of the rest use an 'envelope scheme'.
I never once considered that the Church was using a 'fitness club model'. I simply saw it as easier on both Church and givers.
Posted by Signaller (# 17495) on
:
Is there a pond difference here, or just loose use of terms?
I'm very surprised to hear of (UK) churches using direct debit. That takes the amount that is given out of the hands of the giver, and puts it under the control of the body receiving it, which a lot of people are uncomfortable with (although they accept it as a convenient means of paying utility bills). For this reason, AIUI, my church asks for standing orders, so that people remain completely in control of how much they are giving.
That's not to say that there aren't a lot of 'ghost' givers, whose standing orders carry on irrespective of whether or not they turn up on Sundays.
[ 15. March 2015, 12:56: Message edited by: Signaller ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I should think it's just using the terms as though they are interchangeable, Signaller. And as you say, they aren't the same.
I've never head of a church using a DD (rather than an SO) approach to regular giving. I suppose it could happen, but I wouldn't want to put that temptation in the way of a hard-pressed treasurer! Who knows what scripture or tradition might get invoked?
[ 15. March 2015, 13:08: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Of my group of 20 close friends who are married all the wives are the breadwinners. Just sayin'
And why would you be saying that? My comments above do not depend on who is the breadwinner, and who stays at home. I was simply following Lamb Chopped's setup there, and my post was not a comment on gender politics and economy, but on how sex and money can get exchanged between the spouses without this becoming prostitution. (The basic point being that they are not being exchanged directly for each other, but in terms of their shared enterprise "marriage".)
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I've never head of a church using a DD (rather than an SO) approach to regular giving. I suppose it could happen, but I wouldn't want to put that temptation in the way of a hard-pressed treasurer! Who knows what scripture or tradition might get invoked?
Haha!
Yes, I meant to say SO, not DD.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Of my group of 20 close friends who are married all the wives are the breadwinners. Just sayin'
And why would you be saying that? My comments above do not depend on who is the breadwinner, and who stays at home. I was simply following Lamb Chopped's setup there, and my post was not a comment on gender politics and economy, but on how sex and money can get exchanged between the spouses without this becoming prostitution. (The basic point being that they are not being exchanged directly for each other, but in terms of their shared enterprise "marriage".)
You seem to have missed Lamb Chopped's point, at least as I understand it. I believe her point was that money and services (including but not limited to sex) can be a significant part of a relationship without being the defining element or the driving motivation. Most of us enjoy the sexual part of our marriages, as well as the financial benefits inherent in having two breadwinners and sharing expenses. And indeed a good part of marital life revolves around those things, at least as measured by time. And there are often complaints about one or the other or both, especially when they are limited. Husbands & wives will disagree about how/when sex and money are distributed. But they are not the defining characteristic or the driving motive. If one (sex or money) is lost or limited due to illness, disability or unemployment, the marriage continues, or at least it may. It's rough, and people will notice and mourn what is now missing. They will grumble and complain about the discomfort of having to go without. But the marriage continues because those things, while important, are not the defining characteristic.
All of which seems instrumental to describing the difference between the way you understand the relationship of a Christian offering-giver to the church, and the way Lamb Chopped understands it. I actually had thought of the same analogy when we were discussing this, but LC beat me to it.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
Apropos nothing really but I noticed on the way back from church this morning that the gym about 100yards down the street from our place has in fact suddenly closed down. There's a notice in the window telling you what to do to get a refund on your yearly membership fee.
[edit: spelling!]
[ 15. March 2015, 15:09: Message edited by: Paul. ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
With reference to my posts above, I should say that my experience is mostly with MOTR British Methodist churches, large numbers of which have had to close due to lack of money (or lack of willingness from the members to give what they had - something my ex-minister used to grumble about). Many such churches are small and dominated by the elderly. But these problems are hardly unusual for the CofE either, or for other historical denominations.
Unless he lives in a well-heeled area IngoB's RCC is probably also dominated by elderly members who may not have much money, or by younger working class and/or migrant worshippers whose work situation may be insecure, so a standing order wouldn't be advisable for them. I also understand that RC theology has a stronger sense of the clergy offering spiritual services on behalf of the laity, which might lead the individual to adopt a more transactional relationship with giving money to the church. The 'direct to God' aspect feels more Protestant, and indeed, more evangelical....
Most commentators here with a purer, less transactional sense of church giving do seem to be from evangelical churches (I don't know about Lamb Chopped's Lutheranism, though.) This is interesting, because IME the mainstream (i.e. non-evangelical) British denominations tend not to spiritualise things like giving money, or time or expertise to the church in a very prominent way. They should probably start doing so.
Ultimately, while almost all churchgoers would agree that giving money to the church is the right thing to do, I suspect that this involves a complex psychological process, with several conflicting impulses behind it. And I'm sure that a serious study would show differences between denominations, between congregations in different circumstances, and congregations in different cultures.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of which seems instrumental to describing the difference between the way you understand the relationship of a Christian offering-giver to the church, and the way Lamb Chopped understands it. I actually had thought of the same analogy when we were discussing this, but LC beat me to it.
Once more, with feeling: nothing in what I've said stands against considerations of love and/or spirituality in the Church or in relationships. If people grumble about this or that in their relationships or in the Church, then so because they perceive a lack concerning what should be. I'm precisely discussing one particular aspect of what should be. You may disagree with my points concerning that, but it is just bullshit to snipe at it by saying that marriage or Church is about love etc. That's quite simply a different discussion. Love might explain why we stick to a relationship or Church in spite of grumbling about it, for example. But we can still ask whether we are justified in those complaints, irrespective of that. And there is value in that discussion, for if we are not justified in our disappointments, then love should make us work towards adjusting our expectations. But if we are justified, then love should make our partner adjust their behaviour. (And in most realistic scenarios, both should happen in due proportion.)
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I've never head of a church using a DD (rather than an SO) approach to regular giving. I suppose it could happen, but I wouldn't want to put that temptation in the way of a hard-pressed treasurer! Who knows what scripture or tradition might get invoked?
Haha! Yes, I meant to say SO, not DD.
"Portsmouth Diocesan Trust
Administered by: Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trustees Registered
DIRECT DEBIT FORM
... Parish & Town: ..., Reading
... I would like to pay the sum of £ ....
...MONTHLY (on the 15th of every month) ... until further notice."
(bold font and capital letters in the original)
I can type this off the form in front of me, in spite of having thrown the letter I received into the garbage can, because this Sunday the direct debit form was "helpfully" attached to our Parish newsletter again. Yes, on the backside of the same page there is also a half page standing order form (the other half page on the back is about tax / gift aid). But the full front side is given to the direct debit form, which clearly is the preferred way of paying. And direct debit, not standing order, is what has been repeatedly mentioned in Church. The direct debit is not restricted to any time period. Indeed, nowhere on the entire form is there any mention of an end date for the giving, neither a standard one, nor one that one could fill in oneself.
And the Parish newsletter itself always has about a third page written by the priest. Usually it's a reflection / mini-sermon. This time we are reminded of the financial goals. And this text includes the following interesting information: "Bishop Philip has been emphasising that this initiative, which is currently underway in many parishes in our Diocese, ..." So this apparently comes from our Bishop, not just from the local parish priests.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Ultimately, while almost all churchgoers would agree that giving money to the church is the right thing to do, I suspect that this involves a complex psychological process, with several conflicting impulses behind it.
I would say this is true of pretty much anything at all we do, but yeah, particularly so with religious actions. I don't think it negates what Lamb and I are saying, but it is an accurate reflection of the inner reality behind it.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If people grumble about this or that in their relationships or in the Church, then so because they perceive a lack concerning what should be. I'm precisely discussing one particular aspect of what should be. You may disagree with my points concerning that, but it is just bullshit to snipe at it by saying that marriage or Church is about love etc. That's quite simply a different discussion. Love might explain why we stick to a relationship or Church in spite of grumbling about it, for example. But we can still ask whether we are justified in those complaints, irrespective of that. And there is value in that discussion, for if we are not justified in our disappointments, then love should make us work towards adjusting our expectations. But if we are justified, then love should make our partner adjust their behaviour. (And in most realistic scenarios, both should happen in due proportion.)
And I'm in total agreement with that. Which, as I've said several times, is why you frequently have arguments in churches about "where the money goes." Not because (or rather, not just because) people are acting out of their own self-interest, but because also because they see their offerings in the way LC and I do-- as "doing the Lord's work." So they care about it, and will argue and/or advocate for what they think is right.
I may very well be misreading you, but it seems to me like the direct debit thing is tied up for you with the budgeting process itself. I don't see that. The direct debit thing is simply a vehicle for giving-- if it works for you, is convenient, great. If not, if you'd rather write a check or drop some cash, fine. Nothing really inherently more or less moral in either approach. It's a matter of convenience.
Which is quite different from the decision re; how the money once rec'd is spent. As has been noted, churches vary greatly according to denomination (and also, I suspect, even w/in denoms. according to the leadership of any particular congregation) in how much input the average pew-sitter has. In some places, little or none-- in others, it's entirely up to the average pew-sitter. And a 100 variations in between.
As I said, church budgets are always messy. They always involve difficult choices and a dozen "sophie's choice" type trade-offs. The fact that we care so much about those messy trade-offs is a reflection to how we view the offering-- that it is much much more to us than just "getting the thing we want" (although, being human, it is that too).
[ 15. March 2015, 19:47: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Ultimately, while almost all churchgoers would agree that giving money to the church is the right thing to do, I suspect that this involves a complex psychological process, with several conflicting impulses behind it.
I would say this is true of pretty much anything at all we do, but yeah, particularly so with religious actions. I don't think it negates what Lamb and I are saying, but it is an accurate reflection of the inner reality behind it.
It doesn't negate it at all, no. But I think the two of you come from a particular church context that isn't necessarily normative for all congregations. My own experience is valid for me, although obviously not for you.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Still having trouble seeing what aspect of LC's and my church experience would not be valid for your church experience/ tradition (in reference to this thread, of course. Many other parts will vary certainly).
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
The fitness model perhaps might equate better with something we've introduced to get non-habitual churchgoers, but ones who are glad to have a church presence in the town, to get interested in supporting the church financially. It's called 'The Friends of St.*Pasty's'.
Individual members pay a small amount, corporate members pay more; they get invited to attend church social functions, sponsor events, advertise their businesses in the magazine, etc. Of course, they are also welcome to attend church services and / or put money in the collection, but that is not the primary aim.
Also, regular church members are also welcome to be Friends as well, if they wish - but similarly it is not compulsory. I guess it's a way of saying to the Fringe of the church, 'You are part of us, too'.
The Friends raise a significant amount of money this way, which hugely supplements the regular weekly collection during services.
(*or insert other name here, such as is suitable for a Creamtealand church)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
That model would seem to be particularly viable with churches of some historic or architectural interest (much fewer of these in the US). I imagine lots of members of the community (especially local businesses) would want to support the upkeep of such a church as it would be of value to the community, possibly bring in tourist $$ etc. It might even make sense to separate the upkeep expenses from ministry expenses for that very reason. Keeping up a historic bldg might be costly and inefficient, and not particularly useful or convenient for the ministry of the church-- but again, worthwhile to the community so that even non-Christians might want to support it. Conversely, the things LC and I think of as "the Lord's work" (both local and global) may or may not be of much interest to non-churchgoers in the community, but (IMHO) might be higher than maintenance/ facility issues for the church members. So having a "friends of St. Pasty" fund separate the operating/ ministry budget would make a lot of sense, and allow people to give toward what really matters to them.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Still having trouble seeing what aspect of LC's and my church experience would not be valid for your church experience/ tradition (in reference to this thread, of course. Many other parts will vary certainly).
Well, I've tried to explain it over several posts and obviously not done very well, so I don't know what else to say. It seems pretty obvious (and fairly uncontroversial) to me that not all churches will have the same relationship with money, depending on various cultural, social and theological factors.
What I can say is that it's a very good thing that you've had such a positive experience in this regard, and I certainly wouldn't take that away from you. But I'm afraid I don't recognise it as a significant part of my experience. I'm sorry that I haven't been able to communicate this to you more clearly. Maybe next time will be better.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Still having trouble seeing what aspect of LC's and my church experience would not be valid for your church experience/ tradition (in reference to this thread, of course. Many other parts will vary certainly).
Well, I've tried to explain it over several posts and obviously not done very well, so I don't know what else to say. It seems pretty obvious (and fairly uncontroversial) to me that not all churches will have the same relationship with money, depending on various cultural, social and theological factors.
What I can say is that it's a very good thing that you've had such a positive experience in this regard, and I certainly wouldn't take that away from you. But I'm afraid I don't recognise it as a significant part of my experience. I'm sorry that I haven't been able to communicate this to you more clearly. Maybe next time will be better.
Perhaps we're both not communicating well. (I'm really not being snarky-- honestly having trouble explaining).
I don't know why you (and to some degree Ingo) keep saying things like "it's a very good thing that you've had such a positive experience in this regard" when I've made it very clear that budgets at the churches I've been a part of are just as conflictual as they are every place else. Budgets are always conflictual. Being on the inside, I've seen some pretty bad stuff go down in regards to church budgets. But perhaps you mean something else by what you're referring to as a "positive experience"?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I may very well be misreading you, but it seems to me like the direct debit thing is tied up for you with the budgeting process itself. I don't see that. The direct debit thing is simply a vehicle for giving-- if it works for you, is convenient, great. If not, if you'd rather write a check or drop some cash, fine. Nothing really inherently more or less moral in either approach. It's a matter of convenience.
No, it isn't just that. The point is - unsurprisingly - the one I have raised in the OP. A direct debit scheme is a lock-in to regular and frequent giving. Of course, for Churches it is not yet a lock-in by contractual obligation, unless you are in the German RCC. But in practice it works that way, because such payments are usually started with good intentions and ending them for many will feel shameful.
None of which matters if you are anyhow giving regularly and frequently, and are not about to stop any time soon. Then indeed this is just one more convenient way of paying. But most Catholics do not give regularly and frequently, and many will stop soon - this reflects the plummeting commitment of Catholics to actual Church life. So I see this as mostly an attempt to turn liminal Catholics who can still be guilt-tripped into cash cows, and to lock-in the financial contributions of the remaining faithful before they start disappearing.
Basically, I've seen the end result. I've been a member of the German RCC. There you have one of the richest churches in the world, which still is increasing its financial take year upon year. And at the same time, the churches are emptying steadily and for all other intents and purposes religious activity is dissolving into secular humanism. The German RCC is dying, while swimming in cash. Why? Because they have institutionalised this kind of "direct debit" scheme: they managed to get the state collect a fraction of income tax of everybody who declares himself "Catholic" to the state. (And you have to declare your religious allegiance to the state, and if you say "none" as a Catholic, then the Church will de facto excommunicate you - though technically they don't, to avoid Rome doing anything about it). Since Germans have steadily increased their earnings, church tax has been going up even as member numbers have been falling. Of course, eventually this financial bubble will burst, but it hasn't yet.
I see pushing hard on direct debit giving as a way of copying the cushy setup of the German RCC (if not quite as professionally). If successful, a decade or two down the track we will see even emptier churches, which however keep afloat on "ghost members", just like the German RCC. I see living off the collection as a way of keeping the bastard bishops honest, so to speak. If nobody shows up to mass, the supposedly central event of your religion, then you get no money to celebrate it. Perhaps you should have been more convincing...
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
I think I understand your concern Ingo, for the context you are talking about. The church traditionally relied on money on the collection plate, so there was some incentive to get people to come along. If they set up a DD/SO, then that incentive is removed, and congregations dwindle even if they are financially ok.
It's just so far removed from my background though that I'm not really sure what to say. A number of years ago I would probably have thought that it highlights the nominalism in Catholicism and how that is such a bad thing. But I'm not so convinced about that any more - I think it is quite good in a way that people feel such an identity with the faith.
It still doesn't feel 'right', though what you are describing may be a very practical point. Serves to remind us that whilst we may say that money is our offering to God, as people we will probably still have a part of us that views it in a transactional way. In my background if someone stops coming to church they would stop the standing order. We don't have any other structures to fall back on, it has to be somewhere that people want to come along to otherwise there just wouldn't be a church. But in that case I think lack of money would be my least concern.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[The German RCC] have institutionalised this kind of "direct debit" scheme: they managed to get the state collect a fraction of income tax of everybody who declares himself "Catholic" to the state. (And you have to declare your religious allegiance to the state,
Which is, in my mind, a really bizarre thing for the State to do. What reason has the State in collecting taxes for the church? Does that work other ways too? If you declare "Lutheran", does a portion of the tax go to the Lutheran church? If "Muslim", does it go the mosques? What about Anabaptists, would they simply refuse the money because the church and State are entirely separate?
The State forcing people to give to a particular denomination is so far removed from a free will offering to the local congregation I have an association with that it seems ... well, almost irrelevant to the discussion we've had so far. We may rightly say that a standing order is preferable to a direct debit, though the difference is marginal. We may say that a standing order/direct debit form should include an end date (eg: will be for a monthly amount for one year, and thereafter the member would need to renew it for a further year). But, for the government to take a tax from you and hand it to a church just because you declare yourself a member of that church ... well, what is that all about?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The German set-up is an odd one and goes way, way back ... you can opt out of paying the church-tax from what I can gather.
I might be wrong, but I think there's a similar arrangement in Sweden where the Lutheran Church is seen as some kind of 'spiritual NHS' rather more so than Anglicanism is seen as such in this country.
People nominally belong to it unless they consciously opt out.
Meanwhile - hi Quantpole - how're things in Leeds?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't know why you (and to some degree Ingo) keep saying things like "it's a very good thing that you've had such a positive experience in this regard" when I've made it very clear that budgets at the churches I've been a part of are just as conflictual as they are every place else. Budgets are always conflictual. Being on the inside, I've seen some pretty bad stuff go down in regards to church budgets. But perhaps you mean something else by what you're referring to as a "positive experience"?
I'm saying that because I want to be non-confrontational, and because I don't want you to think that I'm dismissing your experience! But it seems as though my words have had the opposite effect!
What I object to is your implication that I don't really understand the churches I've been a part of, and that you have a better insight into them than I do. To me, that comes across as rather patronising, I'm afraid.
I'm not talking about disagreements over what church leaders want to do with church funds (although those disagreements may be symptomatic of other issues). After all, most church money goes towards just keeping the church going, which few churchgoers would object to. No - the issue, IMO, is that there are subtle and largely unspoken differences in attitude and theology regarding money, and those differences will have a knock-on effect in each congregation.
You could say that each congregation has at least two (hopefully not too divergent) theologies; the one promoted in its liturgies, hymns and sermons, and another one internalised, lived and pursued by its members. This may sound controversial, but it seems to be true for other aspects of church life, so I don't see why it should be different for money.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't know why you (and to some degree Ingo) keep saying things like "it's a very good thing that you've had such a positive experience in this regard" when I've made it very clear that budgets at the churches I've been a part of are just as conflictual as they are every place else. Budgets are always conflictual. Being on the inside, I've seen some pretty bad stuff go down in regards to church budgets. But perhaps you mean something else by what you're referring to as a "positive experience"?
I'm saying that because I want to be non-confrontational, and because I don't want you to think that I'm dismissing your experience! But it seems as though my words have had the opposite effect!
What I object to is your implication that I don't really understand the churches I've been a part of, and that you have a better insight into them than I do. To me, that comes across as rather patronising, I'm afraid.
Oh, definitely sorry about that-- not at all my intent. I'm definitely not trying to tell you what you experience is, or what your church is like. I have no way or knowing either-- and haven't tried to guess about either. I have articulated a certain way of understanding giving-- one that I think would be compatible with any Christian church tradition, although of course I'm open to correction if that is not the case. That doesn't mean that's the way giving is articulated in your church or even my church. I'm just suggesting it as a way to view giving, one I feel is shared by many Christians-- but obviously not all, hence this debate.
But I'm still not seeing any answer to my question above nor understanding what you mean by "it's a very good thing that you've had such a positive experience in this regard", since what I've described is NOT in general a "positive experience", but rather, as I said, a conflictual one. So, again, I'm wondering what you mean by a "positive experience". Once you answer that question, it will probably be easier for me to understand and appreciate how your experience differs from that.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You could say that each congregation has at least two (hopefully not too divergent) theologies; the one promoted in its liturgies, hymns and sermons, and another one internalised, lived and pursued by its members. This may sound controversial, but it seems to be true for other aspects of church life, so I don't see why it should be different for money.
Nothing controversial about that at all-- I think we would all understand and appreciate that. And yes, I would agree that it is true w/ money-- probably more so than in any area.
[ 16. March 2015, 19:50: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which is, in my mind, a really bizarre thing for the State to do. What reason has the State in collecting taxes for the church? Does that work other ways too? If you declare "Lutheran", does a portion of the tax go to the Lutheran church? If "Muslim", does it go the mosques? What about Anabaptists, would they simply refuse the money because the church and State are entirely separate?
The details are somewhat complicated, but to put it simplistically: any religious our philosophical organisation that is institutionalised, is not acting contrary to state law and has a reasonable chance of lasting for a while (which de facto means that it is fairly sizeable and/or has a long tradition) can apply for for a special corporate status, which will enable it to have the state collect "church tax" for it.
The Lutherans (EKD), the German RCC, the Old Catholics, the "Free Religious" (Free Thinkers / Humanists), the Unitarians, and the Jews all collect through the German state. There's some weirdness in Hamburg and Berlin where some groups actually collect church tax themselves (I guess the tax office tells them how much they can take): Mennonites, Evangelical-Reformed, Danish Seamen Church, French Church. And then there are groups that have the necessary corporate status, but do not choose to have the state collect taxes for them: Methodists, Salvation Army, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Orthodox, ... The reason they go for this corporate status is that it also allows them to do other things, like run a cemetery.
Other than for the Hamburg Mennonites mentioned above, I don't know about other Anabaptists. There is only one Muslim organisation that has the corporate status in one region (Hessia) of Germany (Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat). They do not collect "church tax" so far.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, for the government to take a tax from you and hand it to a church just because you declare yourself a member of that church ... well, what is that all about?
I'm not much of a historian, so take the following with a grain of salt.
But roughly what happened is that the medieval tithing system slowly disappeared with secularisation, and then the state grabbed almost all church assets in the early 19thC (in particular land, but also capital). In consequence, the state ended up having to pay for the upkeep of churches from the general taxes, in order to avoid the financial collapse of the churches. Then in the mid to late 19thC there was on one hand a population boom (meaning the allocated funds from the state were insufficient) and on the other hand the separation of church and state was tackled seriously (so the question became why the general tax payer should pay for the upkeep of the churches). Church tax was introduced by the state as the solution, and in the beginning basically forced onto the churches, which generally preferred to stay on direct state subsidies.
While this is not true in a direct legal sense, I guess you could see the church tax as the last remnant of medieval tithing, which the state inherited by on one hand secularisation of society (making it less and less possible for the church to enforce tithing) and on the other hand blatant stealing of church property.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
IngoB
I accept, unreservedly, your reservations and criticisms about the RCC Germany church tax system. However that system arose, it seems to me to have precious little to do with any kind of offering that I can understand.
Posted by JeremiahTheProphet (# 18366) on
:
I would like to add that we can get too religious or over spiritual about such stuff. A church like any organisation needs money in order to carry out its mission. As long as there is openness honesty and trust without any manipulation or coercion that I for one would have no problem with asking regular givers if they would like to set up a standing order. I am a committed member of my local church, support the mission and as such want them to succeed. I am also a trustee of the charitable trust and understand it from the perspective of needing to budget and pay wages etc
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0