This week, the General Church and Academy Capital Campaign kicked off. I’ve been reflecting on the issue of giving to the church for some time, now. We often try to avoid talk of money in the church, and especially from our priesthood, I think in part so as to avoid any appearance that the church has any motivation beyond serving the Lord and others. I think it’s good that we are not driven by profit, and that we want to be clear to others about that. But money is a tool—a very necessary tool—and I worry that by being cagey about it for a hundred years we have developed habits and ways of thinking that will strangle our ability to function in the natural world.
Interestingly, money corresponds with truth, the true spiritual wealth. And so the Lord speaks in His Word quite frequently about coins and precious metals and business practices and such. And I wonder if the discomfort we sometimes feel in sharing our truths with those new to the church is somehow connected with our reluctance to talk about money. I haven’t sorted that out, yet, but it’s something to think about.
What I do know, though, is that the material business of performing the uses of the church and the priesthood takes a certain amount of natural wealth to accomplish. In the history of our organization we have had wealthy individuals who were moved to support the church to such a degree that the average member could contribute not a penny and the church would continue on. And now we have investment funds and endowments that likewise give the illusion that the average member’s contribution doesn’t matter. And this is really unhealthy. Across the world, tens of thousands of churches survive—and thrive!—hand-to-mouth without endowments or foundations, but somehow we have come to assume that without such things we would cease to exist. This is both false and unhealthy.
It is true that schools have different (and far larger) financial needs. But churches don’t. Churches and schools work best with very different models. (And this makes our odd situation—being a church born out of and acting more like a school—quite challenging.) What churches need is committed members who give of their time, their wealth, and their affection, on an ongoing basis, because they believe the church will be useful not to themselves, but to other people. And in doing so, they still benefit themselves. Not only do they get a church, but they get the rewarding delights that the Lord uses to encourage all charitable behavior.
[This also appears as the “Pastor’s Box” in the 2009.09.14 Bryn Athyn Post.]
#1 by Brandy on 2009.09.14 - 9:31am
It seems like every church has a building fund, vacation fund, retirement funds and even funds to fund the other funds important to the future evolution of the Church. It doesn’t make much sense, to put a financial burden on the followers who can’t afford to give to the church.
It’s like squeezing an orange that has already been squeezed 50 times. You’re going to get very little juice, out of this orange. You can’t keep asking for money, from people that don’t have it.
I’m not just talking about your Christian Church, I’m talking about large and small religious organizations all over the world. I’m talking about people who are always asking for money, to fulfill their life dreams or missionary work.
When I say, that you need to be careful when giving money to your church, I’m also talking about, using caution, looking for red flags and anything else, while giving money away to any religious organization or anyone who has a personal goal that they believe God wants them to fulfill. Some of these people can be rather obnoxious.
If you’re interested in stopping world hunger, I suggest that you support a group that is working diligently and not wasting their money, in a confident effort to stop or at least slow down the effects of world hunger.
#2 by Mac on 2009.09.14 - 10:03am
Great points, Brandy. I think my particular denomination started out with the idea that church was too much about money, and gotten itself into the opposite position. Until recently, they rarely asked for anything, and always did it in a sort of sheepish manner. No vacation funds, retirement funds, or whatever.
I do think in part the problem is we think church needs to be expensive. Most businesses lease, but for some reason churches need to own real estate and maintain their own buildings. Do away with the real estate, and churches become far easier to maintain solely through member contributions without outside support AND without being a big burden on anyone.
#3 by Caira on 2009.09.14 - 12:41pm
Thanks, Mac.
I think it would be very interesting for our church to discuss tithing – but I do not think that the magic number of 10% is necessary. Historically churches took care of the sick and the poor, and now we’re paying well over 10% to social security, medicare, etc. The church doesn’t have the same financial obligations that it used to. However, I’d be very curious to see someone calculate a number: what percent would every member have to give in order to support our church well enough? 2%? Putting out a number might let the ‘littler guys’ feel like they’re doing their fair share.
It also supports the idea of ‘on-going support.’ This is not a one-time contribution that is necessary. It might also encourage to consider donating to the church as part of their basic household budgets. Don’t just give what’s leftover after having bought the biggest house you could afford, or the newest car you could afford. There’s rarely anything leftover at the end of the month, unless you pull money out of your budget for the things that are important to you. Like “pay yourself first” for retirement savings, we could create a habit of giving to the church 2% (or whatever) first.
Our church needs to come to terms with the need to ask for money. Any industry knows that they need to keep advertising or their sales will slump. My children feel comfortable reminding me to feed them. The church knows we need to be reminded weekly to “cease to do evil, and learn to do good.” We also need to be reminded of the church’s financial needs and what we can do to help.
#4 by Chuck Ebert on 2009.09.29 - 8:49am
Caira,
It is a great idea to have a goal. I like the 2%. We are encouraging that in the Boulder NC. A slightly more complex form (to account for ability to pay) is to use a non linear goal. For example 7% of you income taxes. That might average out at 2%, but suggests a higher goal for people of greater means.
#5 by Mac on 2009.09.29 - 9:58am
Right on, Caira! And I, too, think 2% sounds like a reasonable number to start the discussion with. I had not heard, Chuck, of the 7% of income tax number. That sounds confusing to me. Especially given that people with greater means will often adjust their charitable giving specifically in order to reduce their tax burden. But overall that doesn’t sound like a bad place to start the conversation either.
Either way, we need to be talking more openly about this across the church.