I love my church and I really love my pastor. That said, I have a problem with our new stewardship campaign.
We are working on our budget for 2007. It represents a pretty large increase over 2006, due in large part to our efforts to reach out to poor in our community, help rebuild in New Orleans, and an effort I head up to provide support for a poor church in Costa Rica that feeds hundreds of hungry kids every day. I really believe strongly in the direction my church has taken.
There is a line item in the 2007 budget for “Consecration Sunday”. This is a stewardship program that encourages people to give not based on what the church is asking, but on what they are feeling called to give.
The program costs $8,000. $1,000 is for a special speaker and $7,000 is for a catered meal for the church.
What?
Hang on here. We are treating ourself to a $7,000 catered meal?
So I wrote the following letter to my pastor. Your opinions are appreciated.
Please, I ask that there be no bashing or hating in this thread. There are ample opportunities to debate the merits and evils of Christian sprituality in other threads. I am interested in your take on my letter withinthe framework of a Christian debate. Thanks in advance.
Out of curiousity, do you have an approximate number of people who would be attending this luncheon? I ask because, as a member of a small congregation, I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around why a catered luncheon costs $7000. I’m in no way criticizing your church newcrasher, it’s just that amount boggles my mind.
I definitely see your point, and I think it’s a valid one. $7000 can buy a lot of food for a food bank. And I’ve never really understoond the idea of something huge and fancy as a fundraiser when the money could go towards the cause itself. A less expensive fundraiser could do just as well in many cases.
However, perhaps those in charge think that by spending this $7000 on a fundraiser, they’ll get back a lot more than that from the attendees? Unfortunately, some people won’t just donate money or time for nothing, so this may be a good way to coerce some people into donating who would not have otherwise.
Newcrasher, I would have the same reaction you did, and I think your letter is perfectly appropriate.
The congregation I belong to often (too often!) wrestles with this sort of thing. A wealthy benefactor wrote a check to cover the cost of a new Steinway for the sanctuary, and the reaction of many folks was, “But we should spend that money on mission projects!”
If someone approved spending $7000 on a catered luncheon at my church, there’d be an outright mutiny.
They want to ensure the maximum number of attendees at the “kick off”. The people who put on the program say it is hard to get people to RSVP to a potluck.
These are people who make a living selling this program to churches.
If 400 people attended that’d be $17.50 a head which is not too bad for a catered luncheon. Especially if it’s a really good catered luncheon. Still makes me a little puzzled as to why spend that much, but then again I’m cheap and work for a non-profit organization.
$7,000 for 400 people works out to $17.50 a meal. I’m assuming your church wants to draw more than 400 people, but still, the sum would bother me. The question is, how much of a return does your church hope to see for that $7,000 and how does it compare to what they’d expect to see using some other means? If they spend $8,000 (including the speaker) and get $10,000, netting $2,000, it seems rather small to me. If they spend $8,000 and get $16,000, that seems more reasonable, but still, $7,000 is a lot of money.
I like your letter, especially about how a fast is called for rather than a feast. I agree that a potluck is harder to get folks to RSVP to and harder to coordinate for that matter, but surely there could have been a better way.
newcrasher, your letter is very thoughtful and raises some good points. I encourage you to send it. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if others in your congreagtion felt the same way.
I completely agree with your point, OP. I would only suggest that you omit the reference to “trickle down.” This phrase brings in an allusion to party politics that only risks inflaming emotions in a way that is irrelevant to your desired outcome.
Treating our already blessed church family to a catered luncheon while our neighbors struggle is something I find difficult to advocate. We are incenting the wealthy in the hopes they will share their abundance (presumably with the poor). The phrase “trickle-down” comes to mind.
