Where does the money in your offering plate go?

[MineralMan]

Last edited Mon Aug 20, 2012, 08:45 PM - Edit history (1)

I had that question when I was 18. So, I asked the pastor of the Presbyterian Church I attended. I asked him if he could break down the dollar and let me know how it was divided up. His response was to tell my that I was being impertinent. My response was to stop putting any more dollars in the offering plate on Sunday. As a teenager, I was donating from my own part-time wages, which were sparse, at best.

My impertinence eventually led me to understand that that church, and I assume most others, were businesses, and that the members were not allowed to know how the offering money was spent. Eventually, I gave it all up and found that disbelief was equal to belief.

So, if you are a member of an organized church - one with a national or global scope - where does the dollar you put in the offering plate go? How is it divided? How much of your donation goes to support things you want to support, and how much goes out of your local area and may be used to support things you do not support? Do you know? Has that information been revealed to you? If so, please show us the breakdown, if you've a mind to. I think it would be very interesting.

Since I am not longer associated with any religious organization, I make my donations directly to organizations that are doing things I support. I find it difficult to voluntarily donate to organizations which support things I do not. My taxes sometimes go to support things I do not agree with, but they are not voluntary. My personal donations, however, are voluntary. I insist that I know how they are distributed. As DUers, do you know where your voluntary donations to religious or other organizations go? If not, perhaps it would be a good idea to find out. If the organization tells you that you are being impertinent to ask, I suggest you reroute your donations more carefully.

[rug]

1. I see your funds don't got to DU.

Perhaps you don't agree with it. Perhaps you don't donate to anybody.

Here. This is what you're getting at in your own roundabout way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1221919

[MineralMan]

3. I had a star until this week, and I will have one soon again.

It happens that I cannot afford to donate at this time. I have had a star on DU since I first joined it, and will, once again, very shortly. My wife and I are freelancers, and work for ourselves. There are months when we do not have extra money available. When we do again, I will retrieve my star. Thank you for pointing that out as a way to sidetrack the discussion.

It appears that I am not the only one on DU without a star.

Answer my question, if you have an answer. Diversion does not become you.

[rug]

12. Your question was answered. Click the link.

The Economist has a very thorough breakdown.

And don't accuse anyone of diversion when the answer is in front of your face.

[MineralMan]

28. My star is now renewed.

A check came in. Thanks for your lack of courtesy, really.

[rug]

31. Good timing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=1833

[MineralMan]

32. Yes. I would have had to wait until next month.

Now, I'll bump what I contributed to the full $60 when the next project is finished.

[rug]

33. I wrote a post in that thread.

My star expired at midnight.

[MineralMan]

34. And mine expired last week. But, a couple of checks

that were due came in from my wife's clients. I also wrote a post in that thread.

[cbayer]

2. I grew up a preacher's kid.

We lived in a parsonage. My father's salary and all of our expenses were paid for by the congregation, and we lived very, very simply.

The upkeep of the church building was paid for by the congregation. The services of others (the secretary, janitorial staff) were paid for by the congregation. Food and coffee supplies also came out of there.

Money went to local causes. We had a coffee house that provided a place for political activists to gather. The church was involved in gang work. Money was given to families or individuals who were in crisis. The weekly bulletins and monthly newsletter were in the budget. Flowers, candles, communion supplies, music for the choir all in the budget.

Most churches have boards or selected/elected groups of people that oversee the budget. I don't recall that there were open meetings to discuss it, but I wouldn't be surprised. I don't think there was ever a secret. I do know that there was sometimes not enough money.

So, yeah, it's a business. So what?

You asked once in one church as an 18 year old? Congregations are always looking for members to take care of things like budgeting. Perhaps they would have welcomed your help.

So give your money where you feel comfortable. I won't question it. Why would you question how others give their money?

[msongs]

4. the OP author was criticized for asking something the minister did not want him to know nt

[cbayer]

8. That's an assumption on your part.

[2ndAmForComputers]

23. Assumption?

Are you implying the OP is lying about that past event?

[cbayer]

26. No. Hello there 2AFC.

[cleanhippie]

24. He was told his question was "impertinent." And you call it "assumption? WTF?

im·per·ti·nent
   [im-pur-tn-uhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
intrusive or presumptuous, as persons or their actions; insolently rude; uncivil: a brash, impertinent youth.
2.
not pertinent or relevant; irrelevant: an impertinent detail.
3.
Archaic . inappropriate, incongruous, or absurd.
4.
Obsolete . (of persons) trivial, silly, or absurd.

WTF, cbayer?

[MineralMan]

5. It was a valid question then, and it is always a valid question.

For some local churches, all the money collected is spent locally. That is not the case with other churches, which have obligations to parent organizations.

Given that the pastor considered my question to be impertinent, I doubt there would have been much interest in putting me on the board of deacons, the average age of which was about 70.

It's a simple question, and one I ask of every organization to which I donate. If they cannot or will not answer, my decision is made. If they can and do answer, I look at the information. I do not have a great deal of money to donate in any given year, so I want to donate it in a way that accomplishes some material thing.

But, thank you for your advice. I will consider it. And you needn't answer any question I pose on DU. There is no obligation to do so.

[cbayer]

9. Perhaps your question was impertinent.

Perhaps it was the way you asked it.

DU won't give you that information, yet you say you have given money to DU and plan to in the future. So if you ask every organization, have you asked this one? When they told you they wouldn't give you that information, did you also feel that you were being considered impertinent?

My, my. I think you might have considered being a minister yourself. Seems like it would have suited you, lol.

[MineralMan]

11. How DU spends its donated money is pretty obvious.

It offers a very good forum where people can discuss political issues, and I use it for that purpose. Beyond that, I know that the Admins are paid. The servers and bandwidth must be paid for.

I have donated to this site, and will resume that shortly. I donate here to help keep the forum operating so I can post my opinion.

My question to that pastor was not made in an impertinent way at all. It was a matter of wanting to know the answer. I received no answer.

As for considering the ministry, I did, for a very brief time. In fact, that very church offered me a full ride scholarship to Wheaton College. I chose another path, since I was already questioning my ability to believe in supernatural entities. I was a very serious young man, and remain a very serious old man today.

[cbayer]

13. Why would a church be any different?

It's provides a forum where people can celebrate/share/discuss their religious beliefs. The minister is paid. The building is paid for. There is telephone, electricity, water. It's the same thing really. It's just where you decide to place your trust.

People donate to churches to keep them going so they can continue to have a place that may meet many of their needs.

FWIW, there are internet memes out there that accuse DU of all kinds of nefarious financial practices, including enriching it's owners. Laughable, really.

Not at all surprised that you considered the ministry. If Wheaton College (IL, to be carefully distinguished from Wheaton College, MA) was your option, I can see why you declined. There are many flavors of christianity, and the one served up by Wheaton would be one many would reject.

[MineralMan]

14. Yes, it was the Illinois Wheaton.

When it came right down to it, it was not something I could do. I would have been good at it, and a skilled minister, I'm quite sure. But I would have been living a lie, and that's really not my way. At the time, Wheaton was a reasonably legitimate protestant bible college. It has changed somewhat over the years. But a lot of Methodist, Presbyterian and, of course, Baptist ministers were educated there. I'm quite familiar with it, then and now.

[cbayer]

16. Yes. What it is not known for is producing liberal/progressive clergy -

or liberal/progressive anythings, for that matter.

[MineralMan]

17. Not these days, certainly. In the mid 60s, though,

it was not as conservative as today. It has changed a lot since then.

[cleanhippie]

25. "Perhaps it was the way you asked it. " Ahh, I see, it was his TONE!

[trotsky]

64. Yes, quite.

How very dare he! Atheists and their horrible tone, no wonder people don't like them!

They should learn a lesson from black civil rights movement, or the GLBT rights movement. Everyone in those groups is quite and meek and defers to the status quo!

[woodsprite]

6. Our Presby church has a breakdown of their budget that we vote on

at a congregational meeting each year. Anyone who is a member is allowed to question the budget, etc. and vote against proposed actions. Sometimes we hold a meeting mid-cycle if an issue comes up requiring more funds than allocated. Our church is a service-oriented congregation.

We have one pastor (approx 30K salary), but gets housing because we have a manse on the church property. Small amounts go to youth ministry (we have only a handful of young ones), music ministry (some new music purchases and part-time salaries for organist/choir & bell directors). Our big expenditures are church building upkeep, mission and outreach (assisting with the community food pantry, helping people w/ expenses when needed, Meals on Wheels, Emmanuel Dining Room, Sunday Breakfast Mission, Friendship House, among others) Free activities for the community include VBS, Easter fair/egg hunt, and a community lecture series (the next one is on emergency planning). We have, in the past, made a good amount for mission through a Christmas festival/concerts/historical home tours that we put on, which is free to the community, but we sell crafts, baked goods, soups, have free-will donations, silent auctions, etc. to go toward expanding our support in the community areas that need it most. We also have a medical benevolence fund and a small pastor's discretionary fund that helps where it can (it usually goes back into the benevolence fund or to help someone with their bills). Our "White Gifts" giving around xmas goes directly to replenish the community food pantry. We also have had special donations in the past for Presbyterian Disaster Relief.

It's a small church - never more than 200 members for the 20 years I've been there, and we stretch our budget fairly well. I'm proud of how we handle our money and account for it. I've been in other situations that haven't been as transparent or had such strong congregational and community support.

I'm much more comfortable here than at a mega-church!

[MineralMan]

7. Thank you. That sounds like an equitable way to do things.

It sounds like a well-organized and honest organization. Thanks for sharing that.

[cbayer]

10. I think that's pretty typical of how smaller, mainline churches handle their finances.

It sounds a lot like what I grew up with.

[dimbear]

15. This long article answers all your questions if you happen to be Catholic.

http://www.economist.com/node/21560536


Pay special attention to the recurrence of the words 'secret,' 'not disclosed' and the like. They reflect the policy that confession is good for the soul.

[MineralMan]

18. Thank you. I will read it.

[rug]

19. Confession has nothing to do with it.

And that link was already posted.

[MineralMan]

20. Actually, your link was to a thread of yours, not to the source article.

I have read that now. It's clear that I would not donate to any such organization. The numbers are very poor, not to mention all the money spent to provide some sort of recompense to victims of the Church's own misdeeds. Not my idea of a well-placed donation at all.

[rug]

21. Which lead to the article.

Good for you. I'll file your disppprobation. Now don't forget that DU donation.

[2ndAmForComputers]

22. "I find it difficult to voluntarily donate to organizations which support things I do not."

I believe everybody here shares that sentiment.

If you know what I mean.

[cbayer]

27. That must explain your not having a star.

[MineralMan]

35. That was very unkind of you to say, cbayer.

There are many reasons some DUers do not donate. Calling them out on it is unkind, at best, and snarky, at worst. I'm surprised that you wrote that.

My star was gone, too, for about a week. Until a couple of checks from clients came in it was either not eat the mac and cheese or not donate right away. The checks came in. The donation was made.

I'm disappointed, frankly, that you wrote such an unkind thing.

[cbayer]

36. This member snarks at me all the time.

If I occasionally snark back to make a point, so be it.

I will just have to live with your disappointment.

[MineralMan]

37. Ah, the "Johnny hit me first" gambit.

I never found that to work well when I tried it on my Mom as a kid. Maybe it'll work better here.

Any time you attack a DUers regarding his or her star status, you lose. There are many very fine DUers who cannot afford a star. You attack all of them when you attack anyone on those grounds. You'll do as you please, I'm sure, but it's worth thinking about...

[cbayer]

38. I didn't attack him, I was making a point.

You sure do a lot of preaching.

[MineralMan]

39. Oh, dear...

On that note, I'll leave the irony standing.

[cbayer]

41. And I will leave the sanctimony standing.

[MineralMan]

45. Sanctimony? You will find me standing no matter what.

I'm offended by your position on this. Whether that means anything to you or not, I do not know.

[skepticscott]

48. And here's betting that

our host disappears in denial. All the while telling herself that she's been personally attacked (no, we were just making a point), harassed, persecuted and stalked, relieving her of the responsibility of apologizing for really lousy treatment of someone here.

[trotsky]

40. Great post, MM.

It's unfair to attack people based on whether they donate to DU.

[MineralMan]

42. In all the time I've been on DU, since 2008.

I've had a star. My star ran out last week, and I couldn't contribute right away. In that short time, two people used my non-star status to suggest that I was somehow less worthy than they. Both situations were in this thread. I find that alarming, to tell the truth. Well, the checks I was expecting came in, and I took advantage of Skinner's generous offer to let people donate what they could.

One week without a star, and it's a point of attack. Disgusting. I do not believe I have ever mentioned anyone's star status here. Rude.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=41893
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=41904

And worst of all:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=41983

I find this sort of thing to be truly alarming. We are supposed to be progressives, and yet some castigate those who may well not be able to afford to donate. There's a contradiction in terms there, I think.

[skepticscott]

43. If you actually HAD a point

and if you had actually made it with that post, then this might be something other than BS. But all you did was make a personal attack on someone, allegedly for not having a star, but actually because you're angry about being incapable of addressing their criticism of you in a rational, factual way.

Really, really inappropriate behavior for a host...and I don't give a damn what a jury thinks.

[trotsky]

46. "inappropriate behavior for a host"

And disturbingly, this is not a lone incident of poor behavior.

[MineralMan]

44. That poster was replying to my OP, not to you.

Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:43 PM - Edit history (1)

You say you weren't attacking the poster, but you chose a reply to my original post to chide that poster for not having a star. I'm sorry, but I don't get that at all. The poster wasn't even writing to you. The poster was writing to me.

Frankly, I'm very, very disappointed with this, overall. Why attack a poster for a reply that isn't even to a post of yours?

I find this very disturbing, in a group where I like to post.

[cleanhippie]

49. Cbayer, you need to resign your post as a host.

No excuses. It's the right thing to do, your time has come to step down.

Do it with dignity, please.

[polmaven]

53. At this time I also do not have a star...

After many years, my financial position has prevented donations, temporarily. Oh, and, by the way, that includes putting any money in the collection plate at church, and no one there has made a snarky comment about it.

As a matter of fact, my church family actually took a "love offering" for me, which far exceed the expectation of even the pastor in the amount collected.

I do find your comment to be a little disconcerting.

[cbayer]

57. This thread is about how and why people donate to specific groups.

The response was to a member who chooses not to donate to this site, but chides others for where they decide to donate or not donate.

It was not an attack on the member, just an observation.

Sorry if you find it disconcerting, but it wasn't said to you and there is a history here of which you may not be aware.

[eqfan592]

59. I have to be honest, I'm not entirely sure of what sort of history could really justify...

...your post in the first place. If you have a negative history with a poster, that's fine, but unless you have some further knowledge of the persons financial situation or DU background (as far as reasons why they may not be a star member), then making such a comment was inappropriate at best, at least in my opinion.

I'm also not a star member, tho I once was. I have my reasons for that, reasons which are private tho I have explained them to one or two people when asked privately. Your comment would imply that somehow my not being a star member would lend my opinion less credence on this topic. I would have to strongly disagree with that position.

[cbayer]

60. Because I respect you and your opinion, I take this seriously.

When I was modding, we had some rather strict rules about calling out new members or members without stars. Comments regarding these were almost always removed by the moderators, particularly when used to imply that the member's contributions had less value.

Before posting what I did, I asked if that is what I was doing and decided that it was not.

Perhaps I was wrong, but I will explain my reasoning.

This OP essentially chides and shames people who choose to give their money to religious institutions. It crows about how thoughtful and careful the writer is and encourages others to follow his lead.

2AFC then comes in to to make a rather snide comment which I interpret, in light of previous interactions and threads, this way: members who choose to give their money to the church are supporting bigotry (and worse) and therefore can be assumed to be bigots themselves.

I responded with an equally snide comment implying that since he didn't financially support this site, he may not think it supports the same things he does.

It was not in reference to his financial status or ability to pay, but to his choosing not to.

That being said, I am entirely done with this topic.

[trotsky]

61. "It was not in reference to his financial status or ability to pay, but to his choosing not to."

The thing is, you had absolutely no knowledge of the situation to know if it was that poster's choice.

You assumed. And it was a shameful assumption loaded with very bad connotations.

I think you owe an apology to all star-less DUers. (You can exclude me if you wish, because I do choose to not donate at this time.)

[Heddi]

62. Way to raise the level of discourse here, as you're always demanding that others do

You have no idea who chooses or does not choose to donate to DU vs people who can vs cannot chose to donate.

You are being quite classist here...if someone has a star, it's because they CHOOSE. Not because they have the funding to do so, not because other financial issues take precedent. Because they CHOOSE.

Way to slam those with lesser incomes. Way to slam those with serious medical issues that take precedence over voluntary contributions to whatever cause.

Maybe food on the table, or medicine in the blood, or clothes for a child, or gas in the car, or rent for the month, or gas bill is more important than DU.

But again, I'm glad that you're willing to stand behind your repeated calls to make DU, and the Religion group, a place where everyone feels welcome. Well, everyone but poor people. Everyone but struggling people. Everyone but people who have different priorities, or bank accounts, than you do.

:cheers:!!!

[trotsky]

63. ...

[trotsky]

68. "Perhaps I was wrong"

And perhaps you should apologize to all star-less DUers. As I mentioned, you don't have to apologize to me because I choose not to donate at this time. Also because you're shunning me.

[Evoman]

65. Wow. That's a horrible thing to say.

You don't know why he doesn't have a star. I don't because I can't work because of my cancer treatments. Most of the meager amount I have go to necessities and things like stoma products.

History is not a good excuse in this case. You attack one star-less Duer without knowing the reason he doesn't donate, you in essence attack us all.

[trotsky]

67. It really was.

A pity she can't even offer a weak apology for hurting others.

[D23MIURG23]

29. Some of it pays for baseless speculations about supernatural entites.

That's why I choose secular charities.

[cbayer]

30. And god knows, speculation doesn't come cheap.

[MineralMan]

47. Fair notice: I have started a thread in Meta about this thread.

I want to make that clear, so I can't be accused of going behind anyone's back.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240136365

[cbayer]

58. I am shocked and disappointed, to say the least.

[Adsos Letter]

50. Our church publishes a complete yearly accounting of where the money goes

including the amounts taken in and distributed via the non-allocated funds in the offering plate.

It's transparent enough that it has sparked scandal, at times.

[MineralMan]

55. That's how it should be, I think.

Thanks.

[Freddie]

51. I'm the Treasurer of my church

(ELCA Lutheran)
Nothing is secret, financial statements are available to anyone who asks and the budget and financials are published annually for the congregation.
Building upkeep and salaries are the largest expenses. Like many churches, giving has declined in the past few years but we have been able to continue community programs such as a food bank and children's summer programs (free to anyone). We also budget a certain amount to the synod (regional governing body) which is directed to Lutheran World Relief and other church-wide charities.
Our church members have the option of notating where to direct their offering (building fund, music, etc.) on their envelope and these directives are followed.

[MineralMan]

54. Thanks.

That sounds like very good policy.

[pnwmom]

52. My church publishes these numbers. They get approved by the Pastoral Council.

It's been a long time since I read them, but the vast majority (as I recall, about 95%) stayed in the Parish, paying for upkeep and maintenance of the buildings, and the salaries of the priests and nuns. The remainder went to Diocesean programs, like Catholic Charities. Every year there was one collection, called "Peter's Pence" for the Vatican, and no one had to contribute. There were also special collections for Catholic Charities and other groups.

[MineralMan]

56. Thank you for the information.

It seems that my old church wasn't being upfront with their financial matters.

[Thats my opinion]

66. My critererian

No church, religious body or not-for profit that will not send me a complete budget of income and expenditures deserves my financial support.

[LiberalFighter]

69. I don't know how other churches operate

But the one that I use to belong had committees that determined how the revenue would be spent and it was reported regularly in the church bulletin. Which meant that everyone knew. It was probably meant as a way to encourage everyone to tithe appropriately because we would know if we were short in reaching our goals.

[MineralMan]

70. Clearly, that's the way it should be.

Several people have said their church did the same thing. The one I mentioned didn't. And national or global organizations sometimes don't, either.