Award given for Picture

[Steven Stone]

Read an article (link is below) about a Reuters photographer who won an award for taking a pictured of a child famine victim. He won $12,000. To me there is something wrong with that. Here we are trying to raise money and do all we can to help victims of hunger and someone wins a cash prize for taking a picture of a famine victim. It doesn't say, but I would hope he would give some of that prize money to help this child or other children. $12,000 could go a long way.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1602892

[Mark Metcalfe]

Sorry, Steven. I don't understand the issue.

Perhaps Pastors should turn their bonuses back into the church?
I think the suggestion you are making is that the photographer didn't
turn his cash prize over to poverty relief. I am not saying that Pastors
do not turn their bonuses back into the church, but raising the question
somehow implies that they should.

I suppose a truism would be to ensure that we each use our money wisely.
Many of us know exactly how someone else should spend their money.

Mark

[Jim Franklin]

I have been in the church for over 60 years and I have never heard of a bonus for a pastor. When did this start? "Food poundings" yes. When I was selling suits for JCP I had a Nazarene pastor come into me and say a member had given him a goodly some of money for the expressed purpose of upgrading his wardrobe but that was and individual gift and not a bonus voted by the church board.

[Mark Metcalfe]

I have been in the church for over 60 years and I have never heard of a bonus for a pastor. When did this start? "Food poundings" yes. When I was selling suits for JCP I had a Nazarene pastor come into me and say a member had given him a goodly some of money for the expressed purpose of upgrading his wardrobe but that was and individual gift and not a bonus voted by the church board.

Jim, I suppose some churches give them, and some do not.

In case of food pounding, remember to give the beets to the food pantry.
(I am too cheeky here, I believe. Some people like beets. My father-in-law
likes turnip!)

Mark

[Marg Webb]

Talking of "Poundings". We thought that would be just wonderful for our Pastors family as they had three sons, very active boys.
I decided we as a family should give all dried foods and in that was a very, very large container of Oatmeal. The pastor's wife whispered to me, "what will I do with that oat meal, we hate it". :)
Thank the Lord today we all have checking accounts and just give checks. No one in that little church at that time had hardly a check, let alone a checking account.:)

[Cindi Hammons]

Mark,

I agree with you. This is how photojournalists make their living. Their job is to shoot images that will change how people think...which I think this photo fits in that category. So, should all the photojournalists around the world who are giving us images that sear into our minds turn over their paychecks and do this for free? Should the Salvation Army workers refuse to take a paycheck? Anyone working with the poor? I think not.

Cindi H.

[Barbara Moulton]

I have been in the church for over 60 years and I have never heard of a bonus for a pastor. When did this start? "Food poundings" yes. When I was selling suits for JCP I had a Nazarene pastor come into me and say a member had given him a goodly some of money for the expressed purpose of upgrading his wardrobe but that was and individual gift and not a bonus voted by the church board.

We often have received a Christmas love offering. I guess you would say that is a bonus.

[Barbara Moulton]

I think I can understand Steven's question.

Let's say the same photographer went to a city park and took a picture of a well fed, well dressed child with chubby fingers pressed up against his mother's lips.

Same photographer. Same pose. Same relationship (mother & child). But would the picture have won recognition and an award? Probably not.

Because the circumstances are different. What gives the photo its impact is the desparate circumstances of the child.

I think this is a little different then aid workers who take a salary to enable them to devote their energies to alleviating suffering (or a pastor who gets a bonus or love offering). They aren't receiving profit from the suffering of another. But in the case of the photo, it is the child's suffering that gives it the impact that led to the winning of the award.

Now, perhaps he deserves to be recognized for seeing this scene and understanding its impact and recording it. In fact, Reuters did say that it was his work as a photo journalist that was being awared. The ability to hold "....mirrors so the world can watch and understand itself." That is a skill that can be rewarded yes.

But ethically, since he wouldn't have had that opportunity but for the suffering of the child, it seems that those whose suffering made the photo possible are entitled to some type of compensation.

Let's personalize this. Imagine you yourself have just gone through some sort of tragedy. Perhaps you are standing at the side of the road after a car accident and your child is being loaded into an ambulance with severe injuries. A photographer is walking by and sees your anguish and snaps a picture that powerfully portrays that emotion.

How would you feel if you found out that s/he won $12,000 for recording your anguish?

[Jon Twitchell]

Another angle...

We will never know how many people were inspired to give to poverty relief because they saw that photo. In many ways, the photo may have already generated far more poverty relief than the $12,000 prize.

Grace and Peace,

Jon

[Barbara Moulton]

Another angle...

We will never know how many people were inspired to give to poverty relief because they saw that photo. In many ways, the photo may have already generated far more poverty relief than the $12,000 prize.

Grace and Peace,

Jon

I agree. That's what photo journalism does...raise awareness. And for this someone can and should be recognized.

Here's the basic quesiton, if someone profits because of a photo they have taken, is the subject of that photo entitled to any compensation?

Legally...maybe not. But ethically?

Did he go up to that woman and ask permission to use her image? If he had, would she have been able to understand enough to give informed consent?

[Mark Metcalfe]

All of it is speculation and supposing what another person should do ethically.
The article makes no mention whatsoever what the photographer
did or did not do with the $12000. Can we suppose that he did not do
anything "charitable" with it? Can we suppose that he helped the subjects
of his photographs then and there with whatever he had available to him
at that time? Can we suppose that he has been charitible with much of
his salary, even if he does not use the $12000 for anything more than
unexpected expenses? (I've had several significant unexpected expenses
come up in the past few weeks that bonus money would help very much
with.)

I just think that the exericise of supposing what other people should do
with their money (awarded, earned, or inherited) is pointless at best,
unless perhaps it guides us into considering what we each should be
doing with our own money.

Mark

[Barbara Moulton]

I just think that the exericise of supposing what other people should do with their money (awarded, earned, or inherited) is pointless at best, unless perhaps it guides us into considering what we each should be doing with our own money.

Mark

Well, that's why I like ethics discussions. To me, is not about stating what I think this photographer should do with his award money. None of my business.

What this type of discussion leads me to is what would I do?

Here's an ethical dilemma that has some similiar overtones, that I had to work out in the context of my work at the hospital.

In Canada, funeral homes work with families to plan the funeral. They usually tell them what the clergy fee is and pay us. Carl and I will not accept fees for doing funerals of someone who attends and supports our church. That's the duty of the minister, to be there to conduct ceremonies. (Neither will we accept fees for doing weddings of people who attend our church...same reason).

But now that I have been in the community for six years, and the funeral homes have seen what kind of funerals I do, they will occasionally call me when a person dies in the community, who doesn't have a minister. For these funerals I accept the fee that the funeral home passes on to me, treating it as employment income and tithing on it to my church.

OK..two very clearly different circumstances.

But here is the ethical dilemma that arose when I started working at the hospital as a chaplain.

I have met many people during the course of treatment (specifically cancer treatment) who later die. The family, having met me and made a connection, will tell the funeral home (or contact me directly) and ask me to do the funeral.

Now, these are people I met through my work, yet I conduct the funeral outside of my regular work hours. I put about 10 hours of work into every funeral I do (meeting with the family, preparing the service so that is personal and meaningful, conducting the funeral and committal and doing after care).

I am a part-time employee at the hospital. I work 15 hours a week and that is what I am paid for by the institution.

So, the ethical dilemma that arose for me, was around the regular funeral fee. These aren't church people, for whom the fee would be waived. They aren't people that I don't know from the community. They are sort of inbetween.

There are some similiar overtones to the question we have been discussing...in that I stand to earn money as a result of their sorrow.

I worked through the solution that satisfied my ethical sense and my conscience before God.

But before I tell you what that is...what would others do?

[Gina Stevenson]

But here is the ethical dilemma that arose when I started working at the hospital as a chaplain.

I have met many people during the course of treatment (specifically cancer treatment) who later die ... people I met through my work, yet I conduct the funeral outside of my regular work hours ... So, the ethical dilemma that arose for me, was around the regular funeral fee. These aren't church people, for whom the fee would be waived. They aren't people that I don't know from the community. They are sort of inbetween.

There are some similiar overtones to the question we have been discussing...in that I stand to earn money as a result of their sorrow.

I worked through the solution that satisfied my ethical sense and my conscience before God.

But before I tell you what that is...what would others do?

Hmmm ... at first the tho't came to me that since they're are "sort of inbetween," half & half, cut the fee in half, perhaps?? Then, decided that perhaps what one might do is let them know that (whether you've chosen to accept all or half of the fee) since it was something generated by regular work, an opportunity that one would not have had if it had not been for the regular work, that the fee (or half of either the whole or half) would be given to the church ... so none involved, chaplain nor the family, would feel anyone was making great gains from others' sorrow ... ???

Confusing enough? I'll be curious to hear what you did decide, Barbara. ;)

[Jon Twitchell]

I'm curious...

Do you pay your janitor more on weeks when there is a wedding or a funeral in your church?

I wouldn't dream of trying to convince you to do something against your conscience, but I'm not convinced that pastors should decline fees for weddings or funerals. When I began pastoring, I tried to decline these fees (for the same reason you've stated) and simply ended up offending the family members. They were of the opinion that the pastoral care given during the week of a funeral is more than a normal work, and that the pastor should be compensated appropriately.

So now, I generally let the family work out the details with the funeral home, and since the funeral home actually cuts the check, then I take whatever is given. If I decline at that point, then the funeral home would end up with a bookkeeping hassle--either trying to return the money to the family or keeping it for themselves.

Now, I tithe on that honorarium...just like I imagine the custodian tithes on the extra money he gets on weeks of funerals/weddings.

I suppose that different churches have different policies and expectations, but my church has actually set a fee schedule for the pastor officiating at weddings--so that's not an issue at all. They never set one for funerals--I suppose because they know that the funeral home takes care of setting that number.

Anyway, I hesitated to post at all, because I don't want to try to convince you against your convictions. But since I don't particularly share the conviction, then I guess I would have no problem accepting a fee from those you've met doing hospital ministry.

However, if I shared that conviction, I would probably consider those families part of my extended or outreach congregation, and so would not accept a fee from them...Or, alternatively, if they insisted on a fee then I would ask them to write the check to the church instead of to me.

Grace and Peace,

Jon

[Barbara Moulton]

I'm curious...

Do you pay your janitor more on weeks when there is a wedding or a funeral in your church?


LOL! We are a very small church. My husband (the pastor) does most of the janitorial work along with some other volunteer labour provided by church members. And yes...we do charge a janitorial fee when the building is used for a wedding and those fees are usually put in the missions account. But we would never think about charging for a funeral at the church.

I guess our feeling about the fee for funerals and weddings is that this is part of the minister's job in his/her ministry to those who consider this their church home. We don't charge extra for preaching a sermon or doing a bible study or visiting a shut-in or doing communion. The people pay a pastor a full time wage so that s/he is available to them for that cradle to grave ministry, which includes the rituals involved in weddings and the burial of the dead. These things are part of the job description as it were.

Normally, it is no problem to simply call the funeral home before they meet with the family and tell them not to include any honorarium for us in the invoice they prepare. If people do insist on giving us payment anyways, we usually put it in our missions or memorial account at the church. We would never refuse any offering that a family wanted to give us. That would be rude.

Having said all that, with my own ethical question...

Since doing a funeral is not part of my hospital job description and not connected with my church in anyway, I decided to accept the fees as given and tithe on them to my church. I make sure I put my heart and soul into the funeral and inevitably the service is personal and meaningful for the family.

I came to the opinion that it was not unethical to receive payment because I wasn't profiting from someone's sorrow, I was providing a service.

I also make it a point to keep the hospital informed of how many funerals I do as a result of my hospital work, to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest.