a question for pastors
Pastors, a non-PC question: Did it bother you to see so many of your church members give money for Haiti relief when so many aren’t giving to the church?
In January, US nonprofit groups received $528 million in donations for Haiti. Yet recent studies by LifeWay Research indicate that more than 50% of US churches have been negatively affected by the country’s recession and 3% are considering closing their doors. The Barna Group reported similar findings; about 20% of churches have had to cut staff and, ironically, 1 in 25 churches have also cut missions support. (Interestingly, only 3% cut back on building plans and facility improvements. But that’s a subject for another day.)
I’m not saying we shouldn’t give to Haiti relief efforts. But it must be hard to support the Haiti push with an undivided heart when the offering comes in below budget every week and you’re deciding which staff person to lay off next.
People love to give to big causes, but they don’t want to pay the light bills. They’ll give $100 one time but not 10% every week. It’s understandable (as noted earlier, I hate tithing) but our churches are suffering.
Does it bother you? Be honest. It would bother me.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
February 2, 2010 -
Posted by Jennifer |
giving & giving back, the church | Barna, haiti, lifeway, Lifeway Research, recession, tithing
Twittering @seejenwrite
okay, I admit when I read this my thoughts went the other way: people will give to what they perceive as real need, and it’s possible they do not see supporting “church” as real need anymore. Big churches are trying to hunker down and protect the stage lights & plasma screens they bought (like everyone did) when the economy was up. They still don’t get it. They’re trying to save buildings and programs and those lovely 4-week message series you love so much.
But what is the church as a body doing to help its members who have lost jobs? (Besides laying off staff and putting more people in that position?) People who are unemployed in America can still have compassion for Haiti. But paying for plasma screens and banners sure doesn’t seem as necessary.
Cynical generalizations, to be sure! But I think it’s time to re-think church, and we’re all kinda looking for what that is. Maybe it’s a pastor who sells the plasma screens to help members pay the rent. (to be clear, I realize the issue is not TVs, it’s just an example.)
Jen,
Wow, not hard to want to comment, I am just struggling with myself over what I want to say.
As a development professional, I can say that one possible Glory-giving to God upside to the disaster in Haiti is the front row seat that many of us have to watching people of God respond. God’s people have the habit of responding; heck, God is not opposed to using others to respond, even calling people to Himself through this (it’s just how He rolls).
In your Barna (never met him) survey, you state that some (many) churches have experienced down trends in their giving. That is not arguable (and I have had a more than average amount of coffee today and am just looking for an angle). However, what about those churches that refuse to change their approach or continue to do the same things over and over again? Maybe churches that stand up and demonstrate “the need” (week in and week out) more appropriately are not experiencing as drastic of a down trend in their finances. Some are even up in their giving.
I am not asking local churches to artificially create “the need” and I am reminded of that old insurance joke with the punchline, “How do you start a hurricane?”
Honest, Genuine, and Sincere. Do you think the local church has something so powerful to affect life change (glocally)? Well, the people of God who have responded to the devastation in Haiti know the answer to that question. Are we living out that call of change the other 11 and a half months of the year (glocally)?
Unfortunately, so many of us in America suffer from the Janet Jackson syndrome. Just once, only once, with the right donor, or the right congregation, the appeal should be, “Janet Jackson and I want to know. . .what have you done for me, lately?”
It feels like we often respond quickly, neglecting or at the expense of what we know to be right over the long haul. I pray that churches and organizations will make such compelling pleas (honestly, genuinely, and sincerely) that we will no longer be convinced that Barna (never met him) knows more about the trends in my local church than do God’s people who are responding to a call to change the world and affect life change.
Our experience hasn’t been this way at all. We haven’t seen a dramatic drop in giving. I’m guessing that’s not the norm but we have excess that we will be giving to our missions. Our Haiti relief giving (that which we collected) just about matched a normal week’s offering.
Had our circumstances been different, then yes, I probably would have a hard time with…just to be honest!
I’m hearing you say that perhaps there is a heart issue with a Christian who fails to give faithfully yet pats himself on the back when he gives during an emergency.
Jan and Shane – I totally get your perspectives, and I agree with much of what you say. I think people vote with their wallets and they’re much more interested in doing something “real” (or something that feels real) than they are supporting the infrastructure of their local church—especially if they don’t always agree with how that money is used.
However, if they care about having a church, someone has to pay the bills. Not for plasma TVs and other extras, necessarily (although it’s interesting how many of the same people will pay hundreds of dollars to attend Passion or Catalyst conferences where those things are an intregral and welcome part of the experience) but for electricity and communion supplies and running water and paperback Bibles to give away and, and, and…..you get my point. Gathering together (which the Bible tells us to do) requires some money these days……unless we’re going back to being entirely house churches, which doesn’t seem to be working for most groups.
I guess my point is that I TOTALLY understand the appeal of giving money to an immediate real need vs. the less heartstring-tugging (or even questionable) needs of the local church. But when I read the Bible I see commands to support *both*.
The bigger issue I see in these comments is that if churches seemed as relevant (I hate that word, but I can’t think of a better synonym), “glocal” and important to the world’s people as the Haiti relief efforts, the money would follow. Now……who wants to tackle THAT one??
I wonder how Jesus feels about His disciples creating a capitalist/democracy hybrid in the church by “voting” with their wallets.
I had a person all set to go to churches in the northern Indiana area to introduce them to the Lord’s work in Ghana. Then Haiti came along.
No need to go. All they want to do is help Haiti. So we are sitting it out until some time passes. I know this seems like we are chicken, but people are offended when we need to pay evangelists, nurses and buy medicines for a poor country that needs them but is not in “crisis”.
Giving flits from one crisis to another. I need guidance on what to do. We will NOT artifically create a crisis to pay our obligations, but we need to pay them none the less.
[...] wrote the original post after the earthquake in Haiti, but the same questions apply when it comes to helping Japan. For the [...]
Pingback by new to you friday–a question for pastors « Write About Now | April 1, 2011 |