I Read a Joke The Other Day...

[Pete Vecchi]

Iread a joke the other day about two men who were stranded on a deserted island. The main topic of the joke was that one man was worried that they were doomed, while the other man wasn't worried at all because he made $100,000 per week and tithed at his church, so he was sure his pastor would find him.

I purposely didn't tell the joke properly for full effect, but the joke got me to wondering about the idea of pastors knowing who gives what to the church.

Some people say that pastors should know who gives what to the church.

Other people say pastors should not know who gives what to the church.

For other people, the answer lies somewhere in between.

Therefore, I'm going to attempt to conduct my first poll on this forum. I'll try to include enough responses so that people can vote for what they believe most closely represents their views.

Oh, by the way, you can vote for more than one option.

[Pete Vecchi]

The ability to choose more than one must be working because the poll shows that there have been three voters and 5 votes have been cast.

[Marsha Lynn]

I can't go with the "yes" options because I see no obvious NEED for the pastor to know about individual giving. But the "no" options are too narrow for me.

How about:

___ Only when there is a specific 'need to know'.

I've kept individual giving records for almost 18 years under three pastors. I don't talk about people's giving patterns and nobody asks me. I'm perfectly willing to share what I know with my pastor but don't mind that I'm not asked to do so.

There are few circumstances that trigger a "Pastor needs to know this" response on my part. The only time I remember deliberately sharing giving information was when some people who never attend started making weekly contributions. It surprised me because I thought they were part of another church, I wasn't sure if there was an unwritten message arriving along with the weekly checks (conveyed by a child), but decided to pass on the info and let my pastor decide whether to act on it or not.

If people here quit giving in order to send a warning to church leadership, they need to announce what they're doing because neither I nor the pastor will notice (at least not until the end of the year). The counters might, but they're on a monthly rotation and don't ever have the entire picture.

The Manual requirement that church leaders be chosen from among those who support the church financially is handled by requiring nominees to sign a compliance form listing the requirements for church officers in order to be on the ballot. It might be because of that approach that we have enough loose cash come in each week to support my thinking that while I may know who DOES support the church financially, neither I nor anyone else knows who does not. I like being able to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

I think being able to know who gives what without having it affect one's attitude towards people is a blessing from God. As the town librarian, it's not unusual for me to see people in public places and mutter to my husband, "That person over there has overdue library books," shaking my head at myself even as I do it to realize that I'm wasting perfectly good brain cells carrying around the overdue list in my head so I can hit people up on the streets for their library materials. But even when someone is making strong statements about how the church's money should be spent, it's rare for their giving record to enter my mind. I don't think it benefits anyone for opinions to be cast aside because there's not enough money behind them.

Marsha

[Bruce Carriker]

In the church where I worship, there is a stewardship committee. The committee knows, and I'm okay with that, for the reason behind the option above that said:

Giving is primarily a spiritual matter.

We all know that the committee knows, so when we elect the board we think about those things. Doing it this way, we make ouselves accountable to one another and remove the pastor from any possible charges of catering to those who give the most.

Do the stewardship committee folks come around and harrass everyone? Not at all. But any appeals for money, any special offerings, any pledge campaigns, all those kinds of things are done through the stewardship committee. If someone has pledged $1,000 to the fund to refurbish the nursery and they haven't paid any of it, it's not the pastor who makes the phone call.

Are their dangers in doing it this way? Possibly. But are they any greater than doing it any other way? Probably not. And one thing that it really has done, at least for some folks...we recognize that its our church, not the pastor's church. It's our responsibility. And we need to learn how to become accountable to one another.

So far, it works.

[Marsha Lynn]

In the church where I worship, there is a stewardship committee. The committee knows, and I'm okay with that, for the reason behind the option above that said:

Giving is primarily a spiritual matter.


I'm trying to remember if at any time in the past 18 years a negative change in spiritual condition has shown up as a change in giving. I can remember one time when a couple did do an abrupt change in their giving pattern to a lower, less frequent amount and I became concerned and wondered if I should mention it to my pastor. However, there was no corresponding change in their level of involvement or commitment to the church. I finally concluded that something about their income had probably changed and let it go.

I really can't remember a single time when monitoring someone's giving habits might have sent an early warning of spiritual lethargy. (I do remember one time when someone changed churches completely and I didn't notice either his personal absence or the absence of his checks for months. That was very embarrassing to me, but there wasn't a spiritual cause to the change; he got married and started attending another church with his new wife. Also, I think I might sometimes know when certain people are having problems with money management, but that isn't necessarily a spiritual issue or something the pastor needs to know about.)

Maybe the experience of others is different. If there is more of that sort of thing when the giving is monitored, I wonder if the monitoring itself tempts people to convey a message of disgruntlement by withholding their financial support.

Marsha

[Gina Stevenson]

... that we can vote for more than one anywhere near the options [that I could find, anyway]. So, since you told us, I voted. Now I should maybe delete my post re the same, so as to not tell absolutely everybody who reads this thread how I voted, huh? ;)

gina

I thought I marked the box that said a person could vote for more than one when I set the poll up.

Can any moderators help me out here?

[Pete Vecchi]

Only one day left to vote in this poll. So far 16 people have voted in the poll. Are there others who have an opinion on this matter?