[QUOTE=jayjay]
You now have my nomination to win the whole damn thread.
[/QUOTE]
Amen.
[QUOTE=Algher]
We are crossing each other in posts!
I won’t argue that either system is superior. As I posted earlier, I was happy to understand the religous reason why you don’t pass the plate at the Temple.
The problems I can see with the required payment system is that the amount required is either going to be regressive, progressive or arbitrary. In every one of those, someone gets burned (though not at the stake, I hope). I remember friends in graduate school trying to scrape up the cash for the High Holy Days (apologies if I get the term wrong). For us, it was free to go to the several services around Christmas and Easter - and nobody commented if we only put $1 in the plate.
However, the fee based system WOULD eliminate the free-rider problem. It would also make church budgeting MUCH simpler.
Is your goal more at the service, or a predictable revenue stream from your existing congregants?
By eliminating the required fee, our church has a better chance of getting more people to come by and try it all, to then stay if they like.
Stewardship campaigns, however, are painful.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I can appreciate that any system dreamed up is goint to have its benefits and drawbacks.
My point is simply this - that in order to have X amount of community services and the like, any institution must somehow raise Y amount of resources - whether in cash, kind, or volunteer labour.
Those numbers are always going to be the same, no matter what. That being said, it strikes me (unless there is some flaw in my thinking) that a system which relies essentially on volunteer donations has to somehow extract more resources out of each and every person who actually volunteers donations - because of the free rider problem.
Thus, assuming that $3,000 is the level of community services you want, and assuming again there is no fraud in the system (that the community organizers aren’t simply pocketing the cash but rather that all of it goes towards services), an all-volunteer system has to raise enough so that it works out, on average, to the very same same value - $3,000 per family - whether in donation plate cash or in volunteer time or whatever.
Given that there are no controls on free-riders whatsoever - I assume they are not shamed, coerced or ostracized - I would assume that there would be plenty of free riders, human nature being what it is. This mean that those who do contribute must contribute a lot more to cover said free riders. The figure od 80/20 was mentioned in this context, though I would think rather than many contribute, only not to the full amount (the “$1 in the collection plate”).
Or, as I would have assumed is more likely, the actual level of community services would be lower - that is, the “X” and “Y” in the above equation would be lesser values.
[QUOTE=Belrix]
These are not the top-down Catholic/Episcopal/Lutheran variety that receive money from some large pot gathered from all and then redistributed.
[/QUOTE]
This seems to be a common theme in this thread, but speaking from an Anglican (Canadian) perspective, it’s not accurate. It confuses the hierachical structure of the church with the financial organization.
In my experience each parish is assumed to be self-sufficient, with contributions to the administrative expenses of the diocese. There’s no central pool of money at the national level that gets doled out for individual churches.
There are some financial arrangements for mission churches or parishes that are going through a rough patch, but in the long run, if a parish isn’t self-sufficient it eventually will fold.
If I’m wrong about this with other churches, I’d be interested to hear about it.
[QUOTE=Northern Piper]
This seems to be a common theme in this thread, but speaking from an Anglican (Canadian) perspective, it’s not accurate. It confuses the hierachical structure of the church with the financial organization.
In my experience each parish is assumed to be self-sufficient, with contributions to the administrative expenses of the diocese. There’s no central pool of money at the national level that gets doled out for individual churches.
There are some financial arrangements for mission churches or parishes that are going through a rough patch, but in the long run, if a parish isn’t self-sufficient it eventually will fold.
If I’m wrong about this with other churches, I’d be interested to hear about it.
[/QUOTE]
I think the confusion may stem from stuff like (for example) the recent spate of lawsuits against the Catholic Church, where (in newspaper accounts at least) “the Church” is said to be on the hook for big bucks. When that happens, does the cash come from some sort of central organization, or from each affected local congregation? I honestly do not know, but I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, the former.
I’d be pretty offended if my Quaker meeting required fees for membership, or even suggested the I should be paying more than I do. Sheesh.
Everything is free.
The list from someone else’s post:
**Daycare **- free when we have it for special events
Sunday school - free
Ceremonies
- **Weddings **- free
- **Funerals **- free
- **Baptisms **- We don’t do baptisms, but if you want to become a member, the clearance committee certainly isn’t paid for their time.
Minister and all other professional staff - My breed of Quakers doesn’t have ministers. Most meeting functions are performed by volunteers. I think we pay someone to mow the lawn, and we pay someone for daycare.
Building - The mortgage was just paid off this past year.
People pay what they can. I make peanuts now and don’t contribute much, but I’ll be making more soon. Obviously the meeting isn’t short on cash since we paid off the mortgage in like 10 years, and it’s a pretty nice building. I bet our expenses are relatively small though, given that we have lots of people willing to volunteer and that there’s very little actual cost involved in weddings, meeting for worship, etc.
I think once a year or so I get a reminder about the meeting’s budget, how much the average contribution is, and where to send money. If I ask, they’d give me 12 stamped addressed envelopes, but I just have my bank send money once/year. I’d rather pay in one lump sum than waste time doing it multiple times per year.
I was also asked to serve on the Ministry and Oversight committee, for which I have a meeting this evening. They may not ask for money, but they do ask for my time now and then.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
I think the confusion may stem from stuff like (for example) the recent spate of lawsuits against the Catholic Church, where (in newspaper accounts at least) “the Church” is said to be on the hook for big bucks. When that happens, does the cash come from some sort of central organization, or from each affected local congregation? I honestly do not know, but I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, the former.
[/QUOTE]
But they aren’t lawsuits against the “Catholic Church”, which doesn’t have any corporate status. They’re lawsuits against the particular churches where the abuse occurred, and the dioceses that contain those parishes, because the allegations were that the bishops (the heads of the dioceses) were moving molesting priests around, and hence were liable.
[QUOTE=Northern Piper]
But they aren’t lawsuits against the “Catholic Church”, which doesn’t have any corporate status. They’re lawsuits against the particular churches where the abuse occurred, and the dioceses that contain those parishes, because the allegations were that the bishops (the heads of the dioceses) were moving molesting priests around, and hence were liable.
[/QUOTE]
Ignorance fought. 
But OTOH - who pays? The individual churches, or the diocese as a whole? If the latter, there is still some validity in the notion - as it is the diocese which has the “pot”, not the individual congregations. It is still an organization with resources that transcend the bottom-up variety, albeit on a smaller scale - a diocese rather than the church as a collective whole.
The financial system of the Catholic/Anglican/probably Orthodox churches is a little weird.
Money comes from donations to individual churches. However, this money doesn’t go only to the church. Some of it is sent on the Bishop’s office, which does stuff with it and oversees various charities and organizations. A lot probably stays in the church itself (the price of even a fairly basic church building can easily run into the 7 figures, and it has to be paid over years.) Churches may also have local charities or send money overseas. And how the money gets used at the Bishop’s level is a whole knotty mess. The system was made by people with no interest in making more money or investing it, and who probably had no financial training.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
Ignorance fought.
But OTOH - who pays? The individual churches, or the diocese as a whole? If the latter, there is still some validity in the notion - as it is the diocese which has the “pot”, not the individual congregations. It is still an organization with resources that transcend the bottom-up variety, albeit on a smaller scale - a diocese rather than the church as a collective whole.
[/QUOTE]
In my experience, parishes are generally expected to be self-sufficient and also to raise money to be sent to the diocese. I believe that each parish is assessed a certain amount of money to be sent to the diocese. The money flows up, and most is spent on diocesan level programs rather than redistributed back to the parishes, although struggling parishes may receive a subsidy for a time Parishes have their own pot, and they may be expected to send a greater amount to the diocese if the diocese is found liable in a lawsuit It’s sort of like most of the organizations I’ve belonged to - I paid dues to my local union, which in turn paid an assessment to AFL-CIO. I paid fees to the local Little League for my son to play, and some of those fees went to the national organization. Money didn’t flow back down, but was used for programs bigger than any individual unit.
[QUOTE=Ruken]
I’d be pretty offended if my Quaker meeting required fees for membership, or even suggested the I should be paying more than I do. Sheesh.
[/QUOTE]
My best friend was gently urged to not come to his meeting anymore because he wasn’t donating, or wasn’t donating enough.
[QUOTE=doreen]
There’s an advantage that at least some Christian churches gain by “passing the plate”- contributions by non-members. I’m Catholic, and there are certain services that are heavily attended by those who don’t normally cross the threshold of a church. I don’t mean weddings, funerals or baptisms, which IME ,don’t involve a collection. I’m talking about Christmas, Easter, and certain regularly scheduled Sunday Masses which are associated with another event. In my parish, the Christmas collection is about twice the amount of an ordinary collection.
[/QUOTE]
Our old paster referred to them as CAPE Catholics–Christmas, Ashes, Palms and Easter. This was in reference to getting to you usual Mass earlier than usual to secure your seat against the hoard to be arriving. 
[QUOTE=gigi]
Our old paster referred to them as CAPE Catholics–Christmas, Ashes, Palms and Easter. This was in reference to getting to you usual Mass earlier than usual to secure your seat against the hoard to be arriving.
[/QUOTE]
CAPE Catholic quote: “And they wonder why we never go to Mass…it’s so CROWDED here!”
[QUOTE=doreen]
In my experience, parishes are generally expected to be self-sufficient and also to raise money to be sent to the diocese. I believe that each parish is assessed a certain amount of money to be sent to the diocese. The money flows up, and most is spent on diocesan level programs rather than redistributed back to the parishes, although struggling parishes may receive a subsidy for a time Parishes have their own pot, and they may be expected to send a greater amount to the diocese if the diocese is found liable in a lawsuit It’s sort of like most of the organizations I’ve belonged to - I paid dues to my local union, which in turn paid an assessment to AFL-CIO. I paid fees to the local Little League for my son to play, and some of those fees went to the national organization. Money didn’t flow back down, but was used for programs bigger than any individual unit.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, but what would happen if a particular church begain to fail as a financially self-sufficient unit? Would it be allowed to fold - even if it served a srategic (in terms of numbers of believers) area? Or would the Bishop get involved, perhaps replacing the priest, putting a little cash in?
The key difference I think is that in a bottom-up organization, there is nothing whatever to stop failure - if the congregation goes broke, it is their business.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
Ah, but what would happen if a particular church begain to fail as a financially self-sufficient unit? Would it be allowed to fold - even if it served a srategic (in terms of numbers of believers) area? Or would the Bishop get involved, perhaps replacing the priest, putting a little cash in?
The key difference I think is that in a bottom-up organization, there is nothing whatever to stop failure - if the congregation goes broke, it is their business.
[/QUOTE]
In the Catholic Church, the diocese will try to keep parishes open for the benefit of the parishioners, especially if they are in poor neighborhoods. Many poor parishes are set up with “sharing parishes” in more well-off neighborhoods, and they have separate collections and fundraisers to help. The diocese will also help with their own funds in certain circumstances. Parishes do fold, but that’s usually due to underattendance…if the parish doesn’t have enough parishoners, they will close it or merge it with another parish. If it has a thriving community, they will try to keep it open, even if the population is poor and need to be helped out a little bit. So, in that way, there IS distribution of funds, but generally speaking they are funds raised for that particular purpose.
And it should be noted that while they try to keep parishes open as long as there is attendance, parish-affiliated schools do close due to financial problems. My hometown has an extensive parochial system (there are at least 16 Catholic parishes in a city of roughly 50,000 people), but when I was in grade school, at least 3 of those parishes had closed their affiliated school. All three of those schools had their student bodies distributed to other parish schools. I know that our school absorbed about 20 students from one of the schools. Also, our parish was the designated sister parish for a parish across town whose school had closed several years before I was born. We were the designated school for children from that parish to attend.
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
Didn’t most people attending Sabbath services drive there? Wouldn’t that break the rule against lighting a fire on the Sabbath?
[/quote]
The Conservative and Reform Jewish movements are OK with driving to synagogue, the Orthodox are not. I don’t know about Renewal or Reconstructionist, but AFAIK they don’t tend to a strict letter-of-the-law interpretation of these things as the Orthodox do.
Conservative and Reform synagogues also tend to have kosher kitchens, even though most Conservative and Reform Jews don’t keep kosher. Somehow it would seem more wrong to eat non-kosher food in the synagogue than elsewhere.
Tradition. That’s something Christians do and Jews traditionally do not. And it’s not as if there isn’t another way to get the money that doesn’t require anyone to handle money on Shabbat- sending out bills for dues serves that purpose.
When I first went to a synagogue with the then-future Mr. Neville, I asked him if there would be a collection plate- there usually is in a church, and I didn’t want to be caught with no money if there was. I think he was thinking about what you were when I said that.
[QUOTE=Anne Neville]
Tradition.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you so much, Anne Neville. Now the ghost of Zero Mostel has set up shop in my head. But I suspect you knew that would happen… :dubious:
[QUOTE=jayjay]
Thank you so much, Anne Neville. Now the ghost of Zero Mostel has set up shop in my head. But I suspect you knew that would happen… :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
Hey, at least you’re not hearing me sing it…
[QUOTE=gigi]
My best friend was gently urged to not come to his meeting anymore because he wasn’t donating, or wasn’t donating enough.
[/QUOTE]
Well, meetings certainly come in different flavors. The only times I can recall people being asked not to come were 1) obvious crazies, and 2) a convicted child molester. I may be missing other situations though.
That said, members certainly are expected to support the meeting, since they are the meeting. I’ll ask what happens when that support is lacking.
[QUOTE=elmwood]
In person twice (first when I joined, to explain my finances and that I’m single, my income is quite low low compared to other Jews in the Cleveland area, I have limited disposable income, I’d be willing to volunteer in the office, yadda yadda yadda), a second time with my rabbi (who really doesn’t have any control over it); and once over the phone with a membership committee member who called me.
I want to stay at that temple. Its membership is diverse and generally liberal, the rabbis are phenomenal, I’ve met a lot of people through there, and I converted to Judaism there. I feel guilty that I can’t financially support them to the extent they want me to, though.
[/QUOTE]
True, rabbis don’t really have that much control, but often, they have ways. They have people who listen to them. What precisely did he say? Was there anything positive at all? What did the membership committee say? Did he call before or after you talked to the rabbi. Sometimes it takes more than just volunteering in the office. Would you be willing to volunteer more than just in the office? Have you communicated this to your rabbi?