Or something.
I have had a rather spirited discussion with a conservative colleague about Obama's decision to bow out of public financing this fall. Many are suggesting that this represents a lie or flip-flop on Obama's part, and perhaps this is true. I wish he had never suggested this before, but think that in a few weeks, this will be old news. I also can rely on the fact that Americans have a very short attention span when it comes to financing. You start explaining stuff like this and the eyes roll back in the head. If it isn't about illicit sex or being an "unamerican Muslim" most will just gloss over.
But one thing struck in my mind. Obama's fundraising has been impressive (to say the least) and amazingly democratic--from some 1.5 million different donors. We are part of that. The biggest concern about campaign finance is the idea that donors then line up when the candidate wins and get their legislation pushed through--or get that cushy Ambassadorship to Bermuda--or get no-bid contracts in Iraq. But when most of your donors are small, that is much more in the spirit of public financing. We gave some money to Obama's campaign, but have no thought that our check will get us noticed, or get us any additional access. Of course it will not. And that wasn't why we gave it.
But thoughts of that kind of fundraising have led some of us (conversations with Anglican, SOF, and Mary--among others) to muse about how this kind of thing works outside politics. What about churches? How do most churches raise money? And more importantly, how does that funding impact the type of church you get?
I guess this is a question for our resident Pastor, but I am always curious how churches do this. As religion was democratized here in America, the power of those strong institutionalized churches like the Catholic and Anglican churches faded in favor of smaller, and more diverse denominations and bodies. Those bodies functioned (and function) in a kind of religious marketplace. If people don't want to go to this church, they can go to that one. If Church A tells me I am going to hell, might I not decide to go to Church B where I am one of the elect?
I have to believe that can impact sermons, programs, policy decisions. If that church is routinely bailed out by the wealthy and powerful in the community, how many sermons are critical of wealth? Or consumerism? How many churches can preach about the importance of environmental responsibility if their big money members drive Hummers to church?
5 comments:
It's human nature not to speak too loudly against one's allies. I've noticed that I was much less quiet and plainspoken about my opposition to a certain DINO senator's voting record before I started working at a firm that occasionally asks his office to write letters in support of amnesty petitions. There's a sense that if you spend your "political capital" in a way that risks alienating people who support you, you'd darn well better accomplish something by it.
Bucking the system in a risky way but still keeping things together takes a lot of strength, a certain personality type, and more social savvy than most church leaders (or leaders in general) have, IMO.
You raise some interesting points here, Streak. In my clergy days, I was always careful to stay in the dark about how much individual members contributed to the church, so as to avoid treating anyone differently based on their giving (or lack thereof). I think that is standard practice for many pastors. But at the same time, the church was in an affluent area, and there weren't any "woe to you rich" sermons.
Steve, I forgot that we had more than one "resident Pastor" though you are not one right now (right?). Interesting that you tried to keep away from that kind of knowledge. But that would seem hard to do over the years, I would think.
Leighton, you are right--that kind of political capital is the coin of the realm--in any realm. We all work in political capital. But the process that makes sense in a law firm or even local volunteer group can look really weird when it ends up dictating (however indirectly) theology.
I have made it a point to avoid completely anything to do with money. One of the most heated arguments I got into with another pastor was over whether or not the pastor should have access to giving records.
I see no reason why the pastor should have access and it reflects an obvious conflict of interest. I mean, some pastors may be more prone to "minister" to those who give more. The other gentleman argued that the pastor needed to know who was giving because a lack of giving is "blatant and obvious sin". He of course didn't qualify, in what he meant was giving to the church.
He also said that a pastor needs to know "who the tithers are." That I still fail to understand for multiple reasons.
For matters of integrity and favoritism, I do not have access to the giving records and only three people have access in the church I currently serve; the treasurer, assistant treasurer and secretary.
There are some obvious problems with the church being supported by member tithes and offerings (as well as the pastor's salary being paid by member tithes and offerings) and it will influence to a degree what some pastors will or will not preach. Though it has never happened I have heard of it happening before that some members have threatened that if certain things do not go their way, they will withhold their tithes until things improve.
I have yet to encounter that attitude, and I hope I don't. Ultimately, giving is a matter of the heart. The member who gives joyfully $40 a week as opposed to the member who gives $4,000 a month because it buys him something in the establishment is the one much more an offense to God. I would much rather serve a church full of members who give a little gratefully than a church supported by two or three key wealthy members. And I am glad that is where I am now.
It looks like Tony and I see eye to eye on pastor's having access to giving records. And I'll happily leave the title of "Resident Pastor" in his capable hands. I have been out of that line of work for several years and have no plans to go back.
Post a Comment