|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The fitness club model of financing for churches
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
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?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
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. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) 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)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
gog
Shipmate
# 15615
|
Posted
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).
Posts: 103 | From: somewhere over the border | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Signaller
Shipmate
# 17495
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 113 | From: Metroland | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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".)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
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. ]
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 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 ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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"?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 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...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
JeremiahTheProphet
Apprentice
# 18366
|
Posted
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
Posts: 5 | Registered: Mar 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
