God and Mammon.
Apr. 15th, 2007 09:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rivkaToday was the budget meeting at church. Michael, in his role as church Treasurer, presented a proposed budget to the congregation for discussion of funding priorities. On Tuesday, the Board of Trustees will be hammering out a final budget that they all agree upon, and then the congregation will vote on it at the congregational meeting in two weeks. All in all, it's been a process that has had Michael tearing his hair out for at least the past month.
The big issue comes to this: people want more program funding than we have member donations to support. (That's always the case.) The church has substantial investment and endowment funds; right now we've got about $1.2 million in both funds combined, plus a couple hundred thousand dollars in specialized funds like a capital fund and a fund for "perpetual maintenance" of our buildings. Everyone agrees that some percentage of the interest yielded by our investment and endowment funds can be applied to funding current programs. There is substantial debate, however, about how much of the investment yield ought to be spent. Take more than about half the expected yield out, and certain members of the old guard start screaming that you're robbing the church's capital.
Today, at the budget meeting, one of our relatively new members raised her hand when Michael got to the part of his presentation where he reviewed our account balances.
"Why do we have so much money in the bank?" she asked.
I saw eyes blinking in confusion all around the parish hall. I don't think that's a question that's ever been asked in our church before. I don't think anyone has ever spoken up in a meeting and asked whether it makes sense for us to be storing up as much money in the bank as we possibly can.
And, you know, it's a damned good question. Why do we have so much money in the bank? Is "having a lot of money" part of our church's mission? If there are programs and building improvements that would make the church a better place, or social justice projects that would make the world a better place, does it make sense to put so much emphasis on maintaining or increasing the balance of our investments instead?
There have been some awfully lean years in our church's history. I suspect that some of the fiscal ultraconservatives remember the darkest days of the 1970s, when weekly attendance was down to a score or so of people and the church was dependent on welfare from the rest of the denomination to maintain our historically important building. Maybe they want to keep our belts tightened for that. But it ain't just that. One of the mainstays of the scrimp-and-savers actually told Michael, at a Board meeting, that we ought to be adding as much as we can to the investment fund because we need to save for the church's 200th anniversary in 2017. So some of it's definitely about looking backward. Some of it's just about holding on - keeping the church on a narrow path so that we can say "it didn't go down on our watch."
We have the same argument when it comes to "staffing for growth." It's pretty much a truism, in church circles, that if you want to increase the size of your program you have to increase your staff first. You can't have a plan like, "We'll wait until a whole bunch of families with young children join the church, and then we'll take that increase in pledge income and use it to hire a religious education director." Families with young children generally won't join a church without a good RE program, so if you wait for them to do so before you develop a program, you'll be waiting forever. Instead, you put money into the RE program first, and then more families join the church and pledge money. That's what our church has been doing, and it's been paying off in a huge way - half the kids in my class are from families who joined this year, and we've gone from a complaint of "sometimes we don't have enough kids to really hold class" to "sometimes we don't have enough chairs for all the kids."
Staffing for growth is obviously working. The strategy is supported by the experience of hundreds of other churches. But you still see the fiscal ultraconservatives complaining that "these new programs need to wait until we have the membership to support them." Meanwhile? We have $1.2 million in the bank.
After the meeting, I e-mailed the woman who asked why we had so much money. Among other things, I said, "It's too bad that, at a Unitarian-Universalist budget meeting, you probably can't get away with saying 'Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.'" I'm not really advocating spending down the endowment - in fact, we can't; the investment fund is technically spendable, but the principal of the endowment fund is required by our bylaws, and by the terms under which most of the money was donated, to be inviolate.
But I would like to see more thoughtful, in-depth discussion of what our savings and investment goals should be, and whether our philosophy of church finance supports the mission of our church. I think that previously the discussion has been framed as "are we going to be responsible or irresponsible about making sure that our budgets don't ever impinge on the investment fund?" More and more, I'm becoming aware that that is completely the wrong question.
The big issue comes to this: people want more program funding than we have member donations to support. (That's always the case.) The church has substantial investment and endowment funds; right now we've got about $1.2 million in both funds combined, plus a couple hundred thousand dollars in specialized funds like a capital fund and a fund for "perpetual maintenance" of our buildings. Everyone agrees that some percentage of the interest yielded by our investment and endowment funds can be applied to funding current programs. There is substantial debate, however, about how much of the investment yield ought to be spent. Take more than about half the expected yield out, and certain members of the old guard start screaming that you're robbing the church's capital.
Today, at the budget meeting, one of our relatively new members raised her hand when Michael got to the part of his presentation where he reviewed our account balances.
"Why do we have so much money in the bank?" she asked.
I saw eyes blinking in confusion all around the parish hall. I don't think that's a question that's ever been asked in our church before. I don't think anyone has ever spoken up in a meeting and asked whether it makes sense for us to be storing up as much money in the bank as we possibly can.
And, you know, it's a damned good question. Why do we have so much money in the bank? Is "having a lot of money" part of our church's mission? If there are programs and building improvements that would make the church a better place, or social justice projects that would make the world a better place, does it make sense to put so much emphasis on maintaining or increasing the balance of our investments instead?
There have been some awfully lean years in our church's history. I suspect that some of the fiscal ultraconservatives remember the darkest days of the 1970s, when weekly attendance was down to a score or so of people and the church was dependent on welfare from the rest of the denomination to maintain our historically important building. Maybe they want to keep our belts tightened for that. But it ain't just that. One of the mainstays of the scrimp-and-savers actually told Michael, at a Board meeting, that we ought to be adding as much as we can to the investment fund because we need to save for the church's 200th anniversary in 2017. So some of it's definitely about looking backward. Some of it's just about holding on - keeping the church on a narrow path so that we can say "it didn't go down on our watch."
We have the same argument when it comes to "staffing for growth." It's pretty much a truism, in church circles, that if you want to increase the size of your program you have to increase your staff first. You can't have a plan like, "We'll wait until a whole bunch of families with young children join the church, and then we'll take that increase in pledge income and use it to hire a religious education director." Families with young children generally won't join a church without a good RE program, so if you wait for them to do so before you develop a program, you'll be waiting forever. Instead, you put money into the RE program first, and then more families join the church and pledge money. That's what our church has been doing, and it's been paying off in a huge way - half the kids in my class are from families who joined this year, and we've gone from a complaint of "sometimes we don't have enough kids to really hold class" to "sometimes we don't have enough chairs for all the kids."
Staffing for growth is obviously working. The strategy is supported by the experience of hundreds of other churches. But you still see the fiscal ultraconservatives complaining that "these new programs need to wait until we have the membership to support them." Meanwhile? We have $1.2 million in the bank.
After the meeting, I e-mailed the woman who asked why we had so much money. Among other things, I said, "It's too bad that, at a Unitarian-Universalist budget meeting, you probably can't get away with saying 'Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.'" I'm not really advocating spending down the endowment - in fact, we can't; the investment fund is technically spendable, but the principal of the endowment fund is required by our bylaws, and by the terms under which most of the money was donated, to be inviolate.
But I would like to see more thoughtful, in-depth discussion of what our savings and investment goals should be, and whether our philosophy of church finance supports the mission of our church. I think that previously the discussion has been framed as "are we going to be responsible or irresponsible about making sure that our budgets don't ever impinge on the investment fund?" More and more, I'm becoming aware that that is completely the wrong question.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 01:34 am (UTC)It sounds like a great problem to talk about!
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 01:37 am (UTC)Do you know about what your membership is, and about how many people attend church on an average Sunday? How many paid staff members do you have? Are members expected to tithe?
(Feel free to ignore those questions. I'm just intensely interested in how things compare.)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 01:40 am (UTC)I wonder if some of your fiscal conservatives come from other churches where the pledges were shrinking and the endowment was used (where legal) to maintain an historic building. I've rarely been in a congregation where that wasn't the case, and it's a hard mindset to lose. Growth of programs and financial security would feel temporary to me.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 01:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 01:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 02:02 am (UTC)I'm actually looking forward to stepping down as the Church Treasurer and stepping into some other role within the congregation, because I feel that I need to hold myself back in many of the discussions about what we ought to be doing. It's my job to safeguard the resources of the Church, and while it's also my job to speak on behalf of what I believe, the conflict is sometimes troublesome. I'm learning more about planting seeds in the right ears and doing the political spadework to get some things done, but I think we have to be more upfront about putting the numbers out there for everyone to see, and speaking out about just what we want to be doing.
It bothers me most to see people treating the church like it's an heirloom meant to be put away for safekeeping, and not something to brighten and enrich our lives and the community around us. I respect and admire the deeds of our predecessors, but I think I know what Enoch Pratt would do if he was in my situation, and I'm doing my best to be worthy to follow in his footsteps. He'd thank those who came before, and he'd look to see what there was that needed doing, and then he'd get to work, and if you got in his way, he'd run your ass over.
I'm doing my best to change the environment of the church into a place where I don't have to look at Dick Humphrey and say, "We won't give you $2,500 for a local anti-racism effort, even though we've got well over a million dollars in the bank". It's taking compromise, wheedling, encouragement, and even a little shame, but we're getting there.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 02:03 am (UTC)Our annual budget is approx. $130k. We get very, very little from facilities fees (our biggest there is that commuters use our parking lot and about twice a year we hit them up for a contribution to help with plowing). We have practically no endowment. And we just had to take out a $40k loan for an emergency roof replacement. Sigh.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 02:11 am (UTC)That's definitely been us in the past. Our building is nearly 200 years old, and there's extra pressure to sustain it because it is so historically significant to the denomination - it was the first building in America that was purpose-built to be a Unitarian church, and it's the site where the foundational sermon defining American Unitarianism (http://people.bu.edu/dklepper/RN212/unitarian.html) was preached by William Ellery Channing in 1819. I've actually seen visiting ministers get all teary when they ascend into the pulpit Channing preached from. I love our building, but there's no question that it's a huge millstone around our collective necks.
The church really suffered - seriously suffered - from white flight in the 1950s-1970s. Three suburban churches were founded during that era, and many many congregants left to join one of them. (Now, interestingly enough, we have many members who drive in from the suburbs to attend First Unitarian.) Over the course of the past decade, though, urban Baltimore has seen a steady increase. People are moving in to the city, not just staying there because they can't afford to leave. The neighborhood the church is in is seeing substantial investment and improvement.
We're also seeing real membership growth. Average weekly attendance is about 160; when Michael and I joined in 2001, it was hovering around 100. Pledge income has doubled in the past five years.
I think it's hard for some people to really believe that all that is really real, though.
It leads to lots of other questions, such as whether there are better ways for your current or future donors to leave bequests than adding to your endowment.
If someone were to die and leave me a lot of money tomorrow (which God forbid), I would want to give a substantial donation earmarked for capital improvements. I'd be particularly tempted to specify that the money was for improvements to our unbelievably inadequate RE building, but Michael would probably talk me into being a little less specific.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 02:20 am (UTC)Membership: 260.
Average weekly attendance: 160.
Average number of children in RE each week: 40.
Paid staff members:
- Two ministers, a married couple who essentially job-share. They each work 3/4 time for 3/4 of the year (they take summers off), which I think works out to 1 FTE.
- Half-time director of Religious Education, whom we hope to bump up to 3/4 time next year.
- Half-time music director/organist.
- Full-time sexton.
- Office coordinator, 30 hours per week.
- Bookkeeper, 9-12 hours per week.
Do members tithe? Hahahahaha. No.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 02:27 am (UTC)A lot of our money goes to staff, given where we are. A lot of it goes to meeting needs to our congregation -- although there is some social justice and outreach, I'd love to see more.
Our prior rector felt that endowments for churches were a bad thing, because people tended to think in terms of protecting the endowment rather than spending the money for better purposes. We took the "spend for growth" track, and as a result have a family ministry that draws in lots of families with young children -- probably a good third of our parish is people under eighteen!
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 02:27 am (UTC)That would've been our church, when we joined. One of the major attractions of the congregation, for us, was that it had a relatively large and active population of childless people under 40. (Not, obviously, that we had a problem with people with kids - but it meant that we had an instant peer group, and a lot of opportunities to join in social activities like potlucks, brunch after church, movie outings, etc.)
The intentional building of an RE program has had a big effect on congregational demographics. We're getting a lot of GLB families with children - it turns out that those folks tend to be willing to go far out of their way to attend a church where they can put their kids in Sunday School without flinching.
Paid staff members: 2 full time + 1 organist/music director who I think has some other work + 0.5 time secretary and about 0.5 time janitor.
Is that 2 full-time ministers? That's an interesting staffing choice for such a small congregation. I wonder, is that a conscious decision that that's the level of ministerial support the congregation wants, or is it a matter of "we used to have two ministers when we were a bigger congregation, and we don't want to take a step back"?
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 02:36 am (UTC)We have been thinking short-term because we were trying to be open to the option of a merger with 1 or 2 other nearby churches, but since they don't seem to be jumping at the offer we need to look hard at long-term viability choices. Our denomination continues to have too many churches close together in old downtowns, a residual effect of the 1920s formation of the denomination from Congregational, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches. But for us, maintaining our "Affirming" status in a merger is a dealbreaker, and not having it may be a dealbreaker for one of the other churches.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 02:45 am (UTC)Urban church, Anglican Church of Canada. Membership in the range of 300 people. According to our diocesan statistics our average Sunday attendance is 291, but I think that's an overly high estimate. One full-time paid priest and two part-time paid ones. We also have five (yes, five) retired or otherwise unpaid priests who conduct services and do other pastoral things. One part-time paid music director. One full-time church secretary, without whom everything would grind to a halt. Sunday school teachers are volunteers, as are all other parish positions. Members are not expected to tithe necessarily, though it is suggested. Most don't, but some people do give a lot. Somewhat over 2/3 of our income is from congregational giving (not counting what people give to special fundraising appeals, or donations for specific programs -- we actually get a LOT of donations which are specifically for our outreach). We do have investment income (maybe 10-15% of our total income?), which is under some restrictions as is all based on one extremely large legacy from many, many years ago. We rent out part of the basement of the parish hall to a playschool, and sometimes rent space to outside choirs for rehearsals or performances.
We are now in our third year without a deficit, which we're pleased about, but we're always skating on the edge of deficit.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 03:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 03:47 am (UTC)But for us, maintaining our "Affirming" status in a merger is a dealbreaker, and not having it may be a dealbreaker for one of the other churches.
Good for you.
Interestingly, because my sister's church incorporates three different denominations, they can't just declare themselves "affirming" - they are simultaneously "welcoming and affirming, open and affirming, and reconciling." Hee.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 04:01 am (UTC)Received last Sunday: $21,495
YTD offering: $184,413
YTD expenses: $215,339
Budget to date: $212,223 (I'm not sure what this figure means, exactly)
The average annual tithing for this denomination, nationwide, is $1,250 per attendee.
There is one senior pastor, who I believe is full-time, and four associate pastors. There is a facilities manager/custodian, office administrator, preschool director, and after-school program director. I think the staff is all some variety of part-time, though I don't really know. There is also an ASL interpreter at every service, and who runs a deaf Bible study, who I imagine gets paid something, though she isn't listed as staff on the bulletin.
There are a few hundred there on a typical Sunday. There are two services.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 04:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 04:19 am (UTC)Man, is it ever interesting to see different churches' cultures around money.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 04:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 05:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 11:12 am (UTC)Our capitalist way of doing things seems to be built on the idea of saving for a rainy day -- and the Old Testament does have the example of Joseph and Pharoah's dream to offer -- but excessive worry and thought about such things doesn't put us where we might wish to be. The problem, as you point out, is determining the definition of 'excessive'.
When I find myself tempted to make a conservative, let's-not-risk-it response based on a previous misery I've suffered of some sort or other, I try to remind myself of an old Mark Twain anecdote -- the one about the cat that sat down on a hot stove. "That cat won't sit down on a hot stove again," said Twain, "...or a cold one, either..."
Part 1: our money
Date: 2007-04-16 11:34 am (UTC)Our membership and average adult attendance are both in the 50 - 60 range, although these are not necessarily the same 50 - 60 people; we have people who are registered members due to historical links with the church, but are no longer able to attend, and also people who attend, but prefer not to be "official". Child attendance is usually around 15 - 20. Our paid positions are a full-time priest, part-time organist and part-time cleaner. We have also recently paid a consultant (who is also a member of the congregation) a modest fee to review our use of our church hall and make recommendations for how we can improve it.
The Church of England recommends that people give 5% of their disposable income, but I think only a few do so. Last time I saw statistics, our area was officially the second most-deprived in the country, so donations are not high in absolute terms; I believe we average around £500/month (c. US$1,000) in standing orders and around £200/month (c. US$400) in cash. To the extent that the donors are identified, are UK taxpayers, and are willing to sign a form allowing us to declare their donation to the Inland Revenue, we also receive tax relief on these donations. In addition, we have modest amounts of income from hiring out our church hall to community groups and selling devotional items such as candles.
From memory, I think we have about £40,000 in investments, most of which is earmarked for specific purposes. A large chunk (about a quarter?) is for youth work, and another large chunk (about half?) is for a buildings improvement programme which is beginning next month (including such things as better disabled access, better meeting facilities for youth work and the like.) A small portion represents our priest's "discretionary fund", which is a fund out of which he can make payments to assist local people in cases of hardship and emergency. For instance, we have had several people who were in danger of becoming destitute after their asylum applications were refused. This fund could be used to help such people with living expenses while their asylum applications are pending. This is something we have recently set up and are hoping to increase via additional collections.
With the exception of the discretionary fund, our philosophy is to use our investments for large, identifiable, one-off projects. We pay our recurring expenses out of income wherever possible, although we keep enough in our investment account to provide a small safety net in case our income falls short. This is particularly important because Church of England parishes are obliged to make quite large payments to the diocese to cover clergy benefits, training etc, and these are calculated by reference to the numbers on our electoral roll rather than actual income. Exercising mission in a relatively deprived area can therefore lead to an increase in our financial commitments without a corresponding ability to increase our income. Our investments have remained fairly constant in the 12 years that I have been involved, largely because the funds set aside for youth work have been replenished via grant applications at about the same rate they have been spent, and the building works have been a long time in the planning; by the end of next financial year, I expect the total to have gone down considerably. We have recently made a commitment to give the sums we receive in tax relief to charity.
Part 2: our programmes
Date: 2007-04-16 11:34 am (UTC)Our other main programme at the moment is a coffee morning that is open to all, but aimed primarily at people who live alone on the local housing estates.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 12:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 01:04 pm (UTC)Or does big-group financial planning not work that way?
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 01:37 pm (UTC)The UU congregation we have chosen to join is built on a hill overlooking downtown Minneapolis in a very affluent neighborhood (really, the house across the park is currently up for sale for a mere $1.995 million, and the carriage house is listed at an additional $695). The church building itself, while very Unitarian in design (boxy, brick) is huge, and the Assembly room is breathtaking, with 30+ ft. ceilings, a wall of windows looking over the Minneapolis skyline, lots and lots of wood, a pipe organ, a grand piano, and just for fun, a baby-grand as well. It is very, very obvious that this church has money, and has had money in the past as well.
It is a large congregation, close to 500 members, and I believe there are over 200 children in the RE program. I know of four other infants all within four months of Boo's age. The congregation seems very diverse in age. There does seem to be an active social justice program, and the youth program does a lot in that vein as well. How much, we're not sure yet. We recently attended the service auction, and we were amazed at the money that was raised - over $21,000 in three hours, plus a special collection for hymnal supplements. $3,000 of that was for the bookstore to order more stock (all profits of bookstore sales go to the social action committee), $5,000 was to support the youth trip to Boston and the rest was for the Habitat for Humanities project our church supports. It was pretty obvious the attendees were the core active membership, and the big donors to the church.
I spent a lot of time questioning if joining an affluent church was really what I wanted, but we liked the people, and what we've seen of the programs so far has all been good. But it does make you wonder sometimes about where the priorities are. The annual meeting is in May, I'm hoping we will be welcome to attend (not members yet) because I really would like to know more about the budget and operating costs and how much of the money we donate will go to programs outside of the building.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 02:17 pm (UTC)Michael's talking about setting up a committee to discuss, and justify, what the ideal size of the church investments and endowment should be. I'm pretty sure that there isn't a general rule of thumb; there's one area UU church (River Road) that spells out on their website "we think we should build up to a $1 million endowment, and here is why," but for the most part these numbers don't seem to be discussed very often.
Just the fact that Michael is publicizing the balance of our funds is a huuuuuge change in the culture of the church. His predecessor (Clare Milton) never reported to the congregation on the size of the investment and endowment funds, probably because he was afraid they would want to spend it.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 02:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 04:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 05:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 05:12 pm (UTC)Here's (http://www.alban.org/weekly/2007/070319_StewardshipRisk.asp) a fascinating article from the Alban Institute, an ecumenical organization that does congregational research, organizing, and consulting.
Contrasting churches with other nonprofit institutions, the author notes: The nonprofits, as a group, were far more willing to risk the treasure in their keeping—which was, in most cases, very little to begin with—in an all-out effort to fulfill their mission. Most congregations, by contrast, act as though the Great Commandment said simply, "Exist."
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 07:29 pm (UTC)YTD offering: $184,413
YTD expenses: $215,339
Budget to date: $212,223 (I'm not sure what this figure means, exactly)
I'd guess that the "YTD" figures are shown as something separate from "budget" to demonstrate the actual expenses for whatever the fiscal year is as opposed to the straight-line extrapolation based on the budgeted figures. Not all expenses occur evenly throughout the year; it's also possible that the budget forecasts were off.
To give an example, our church uses steam heat, and we get billed a certain amount for each quantity of steam we use. Since we only have the steam turned on six months out of the year, looking at an "actual" year-to-date expense might show a zero for steam expense, whereas a straight-line extrapolation would show some amount set aside in anticipation of the expense. Since our fiscal year starts on May 1st (not long after we turn the steam off for the summer), looking at our "fiscal YTD expenses" doesn't show any steam expense until late October, whereupon we start spending $2,000 per month for steam. Our "budgeted YTD expense" includes an expense for steam in May of $1,000, even though the steam is shut off, and there isn't any actual expense.
Over the entire fiscal year, they should both produce the same result. I find that you can sometimes get a false sense of urgency by looking at straight-line extrapolations, though. I think it's much more informative to evaluate in terms of "What was our actual YTD expense for this thing in the same period of last year, and have we properly anticipated any changes?"
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 09:14 pm (UTC)We've got seven million members of all ages, and 14 million total visits to regular church services. 3 400 churches in 2 200 parishes to keep up, and each parish has at least five employees, often more. You mentioned that your church was 200 years old. I've got at least three medieval churches within walking distance. Keeping the churches in good condition takes a large part of the budget, and personel cost is about half of that, but we fund missionary work for at least as much as the maintenance budget. (More in 2005, and I couldn't find later numbers, but that was exceptional, with the tsunami.) One of the employees in pretty much all parishes is a deacon, someone with at least a three year education in some kind of social work (or nursing, or psychology), and a one and a half year church education on top of that. Deacons do most of the down and dirty work with people, and many who don't consider themselves Christians come to the church in time of crisis. I wanted to be a deacon once, but I'm glad I changed my mind. It's a tough job, and I wouldn't be able to do it well.
We who attend church services do give extra money, but it's for the charity of the week, decided on parish, diocese or national level. Sometimes, the charity is a church organisation and sometimes it's a separate one. We generally don't give much. Most people will give coins or small denomination bills; I try to give at least a hundred SEK. The missionary and social work organisations get a lot of separate gifts and inheritances.
The church is the biggest land owner in Sweden, both farm land and forest, and much of that has been owned since we were Catholics. (Of course, Gustav Vasa reclaimed a whole lot of church property when we became protestants.)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 11:55 pm (UTC)We had about 1000 members, most of whom attended.
The staff was four pastors, two secretaries, two janitorial, one music director, one organist, one pianist. Large jobs, like Sunday School Superintendent, were still voluntary. The church buildings also served a Christian school that rented space.
The annual budget was $1.5M and at the time I left, we were starting to run tight on it. We were in an area that was becoming crowded with immigrants, but when I suggested things like food banks, English lessons, and services in other languages, the church board always turned them down. They believed strongly that their primary purpose was to bring people to Jesus as their savior. The problem with that was that the people who were "saved" and started coming to church had no background in church life and expected things (services, picnics, loans, etc.) without giving money. A number of the really big givers were dying off. So our budget was starting to strain a bit. I don't know what their situation is now, but the church still exists.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-17 01:54 am (UTC)I am so going to use that line.
My current job is, basically, trying to convince people that the work of the church involves more than just holding services on Sunday morning and more or less surviving as an institution. It's about way more than just money, it's about a whole mindset that's become very deep-rooted.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-17 02:14 am (UTC)Shit.
I don't know what our endowment is but I seriously doubt it is more than very low 6 figures.
I should be asking more financial questions...
no subject
Date: 2007-04-17 02:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-17 02:59 am (UTC)I'm currently trying to get some information from the Joseph Priestley District on the situation of other comparable churches in our area, but I'm also sending out feelers to other UU church treasurers in the area.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-17 03:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-17 03:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-17 02:28 pm (UTC)Your building is only about 12 years old, right? And your congregation is about twice that age. A young congregation is going to have a completely different financial picture than an old one - you probably still have mortgage obligations, and I'd be surprised if you'd had the opportunity for many bequests. On the other hand, you're not saddled with an ancient, outmoded, falling-apart wreck of a physical plant.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 01:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-27 01:05 am (UTC)Annual budget is $80,975.00. As of February, the general fund balance was barely over $1100, with slightly over $10,000 in trustees and memorial funds. My guess is that the annual budget includes district apportionments, and I think that they're what gets cut when (sadly, I don't think it's been "if" in the last two decades) there's not enough.
The paid staff are, so far as I know, only the pastor -- and, last I had details, his pay was some fraction of a pittance. He does get to live in the church-maintained parsonage, however, which perhaps is worth something. (My recollection is that a fair fraction of those memorial funds are explicitly for parsonage upkeep, in answer to disputes over what constituted reasonable maintenance of parsonage appliances and the like.)
I guess, in some ways, it seems like the proverbial "rainy day" (against one saves up money) has come. I'm not sure how much having money banked up against it would help -- as far as I can tell, the real problem is that none of the church leadership have any vision for the future that they can get the congregation to follow, other than "do things pretty much the same as we always have", which is slowly becoming "fade away".