God and Mammon, part II.
Apr. 29th, 2007 08:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rivkaToday was our church's Annual Meeting. Michael was, unsurprisingly, elected to serve another year as the church treasurer. And we voted on a budget.
I posted about the budget process a while back, and the differences of opinion people have over how tightly we should hold onto our money. The budget presented today was a stripped-down version of the one discussed at the budget meeting two weeks ago - the Board of Trustees had cut it back almost to the bone, in an effort to make the thing balance without taking out more than what's considered a "reasonable and prudent" amount of 5% of the investment and endowment fund. (We anticipate that our funds will grow by about 9% annually.) They didn't quite manage it - Michael's projection is that we'll have to take 5.6% out instead of 5.0%.
The penny-pinchers are apoplectic. Not just over the 0.6%, but also because they think Michael's income projections are too generous. They came to the Annual Meeting prepared to fight. One of them brought with her a sparkly, sequined purple bowler hat filled with fake money. In the period for public comment on the budget, she brought her props up to the microphone and gave a long, harranguing performance about how people seemed to think we had a magic hat full of money. She was sarcastic, scolding, and nasty. She would purse her mouth up and say sourly, "Michael thinks we're going to be able to raise $210,000 in pledges and I certainly hope we can. But that's very" - and here you could tell that she practically wanted to spit - "optimistic."
She spoke at length. Then her husband spoke at length in the same vein. Then a soft-voiced woman spoke up and talked about how the church was starting to bring in a lot more young families, many of whom can't pledge at the same level as the more established folks who filled up the meeting. She pointed out that we are building for the future of the church, that the financial rewards of growth will come in time, and that we should be more worried about our mission statement than our bottom line.
Then it was my turn. I brought forth a lot of the questions that I struggled with in my last post about the issue. What makes us successful as a congregation - having a bank balance that always rises, or having active and growing programs that enrich people's lives? Yes, we need an endowment to support our crumbling physical plant and to provide a cushion for future lean times - but isn't there a point at which we say that our cushion is big enough, and that we're going to put more of our money towards fulfilling our mission?
Michael announced that he was asking the Board to create a task force charged with working out how big our endowment should be - what is a reasonable amount to hold in the bank against future needs. He invited anyone interested in the topic to sign on for the task force. A few other people made thoughtful comments (for example, pointing out that the overage was less than 1% of the I&E funds, and praising Michael for the transparency of the budget process). When it came to a vote, the budget passed by about 70 to 3.
Afterward, Hatful of Money Lady ripped into me. In the same huffy, pursed-up, sarcastic way that she described Michael as being optimistic, she accused me of being "eloquent and persuasive." (One of the nicer backhanded compliments I have received.) She said that she thought I was unfair to her and didn't give her arguments any credit. She - I mean, the person who brought props and waved fake money around at the podium - lectured me about my offensive "tone." "The same thing happened at the budget meeting," she said angrily. "I spoke, and my husband spoke, and we were very practical and realistic, and then you got up and said all of these idealistic things, and you're very persuasive and eloquent, and it's VERY UNFAIR."
I lost my cool once, when she lectured me on my tone. I pointed out that, given her sarcastic comments and sparkly hat, she had no call to speak to me about my tone. After that, I managed to keep calm. I told her, calmly, that it was clear that we held very different opinions, and that I didn't agree with her. I pointed out that it's good for the congregation to hear both points of view fully expressed. She fulminated about how I had made her feel bad, and "as a therapist" something that she's probably lucky I didn't catch. "I intended no personal offense," I told her. "I'm still going to feel the way I feel," she said huffily. ...Okay. I think I was supposed to feel more responsible for that than I do.
I'm still kind of shocked by the whole exchange. As far as I can tell, her only quarrel with me is that I didn't agree with her, and said so in a public meeting. I still can't believe the song-and-dance she pulled with that freaking hat. Adults who are supposedly in community with one another simply shouldn't behave that way.
I posted about the budget process a while back, and the differences of opinion people have over how tightly we should hold onto our money. The budget presented today was a stripped-down version of the one discussed at the budget meeting two weeks ago - the Board of Trustees had cut it back almost to the bone, in an effort to make the thing balance without taking out more than what's considered a "reasonable and prudent" amount of 5% of the investment and endowment fund. (We anticipate that our funds will grow by about 9% annually.) They didn't quite manage it - Michael's projection is that we'll have to take 5.6% out instead of 5.0%.
The penny-pinchers are apoplectic. Not just over the 0.6%, but also because they think Michael's income projections are too generous. They came to the Annual Meeting prepared to fight. One of them brought with her a sparkly, sequined purple bowler hat filled with fake money. In the period for public comment on the budget, she brought her props up to the microphone and gave a long, harranguing performance about how people seemed to think we had a magic hat full of money. She was sarcastic, scolding, and nasty. She would purse her mouth up and say sourly, "Michael thinks we're going to be able to raise $210,000 in pledges and I certainly hope we can. But that's very" - and here you could tell that she practically wanted to spit - "optimistic."
She spoke at length. Then her husband spoke at length in the same vein. Then a soft-voiced woman spoke up and talked about how the church was starting to bring in a lot more young families, many of whom can't pledge at the same level as the more established folks who filled up the meeting. She pointed out that we are building for the future of the church, that the financial rewards of growth will come in time, and that we should be more worried about our mission statement than our bottom line.
Then it was my turn. I brought forth a lot of the questions that I struggled with in my last post about the issue. What makes us successful as a congregation - having a bank balance that always rises, or having active and growing programs that enrich people's lives? Yes, we need an endowment to support our crumbling physical plant and to provide a cushion for future lean times - but isn't there a point at which we say that our cushion is big enough, and that we're going to put more of our money towards fulfilling our mission?
Michael announced that he was asking the Board to create a task force charged with working out how big our endowment should be - what is a reasonable amount to hold in the bank against future needs. He invited anyone interested in the topic to sign on for the task force. A few other people made thoughtful comments (for example, pointing out that the overage was less than 1% of the I&E funds, and praising Michael for the transparency of the budget process). When it came to a vote, the budget passed by about 70 to 3.
Afterward, Hatful of Money Lady ripped into me. In the same huffy, pursed-up, sarcastic way that she described Michael as being optimistic, she accused me of being "eloquent and persuasive." (One of the nicer backhanded compliments I have received.) She said that she thought I was unfair to her and didn't give her arguments any credit. She - I mean, the person who brought props and waved fake money around at the podium - lectured me about my offensive "tone." "The same thing happened at the budget meeting," she said angrily. "I spoke, and my husband spoke, and we were very practical and realistic, and then you got up and said all of these idealistic things, and you're very persuasive and eloquent, and it's VERY UNFAIR."
I lost my cool once, when she lectured me on my tone. I pointed out that, given her sarcastic comments and sparkly hat, she had no call to speak to me about my tone. After that, I managed to keep calm. I told her, calmly, that it was clear that we held very different opinions, and that I didn't agree with her. I pointed out that it's good for the congregation to hear both points of view fully expressed. She fulminated about how I had made her feel bad, and "as a therapist" something that she's probably lucky I didn't catch. "I intended no personal offense," I told her. "I'm still going to feel the way I feel," she said huffily. ...Okay. I think I was supposed to feel more responsible for that than I do.
I'm still kind of shocked by the whole exchange. As far as I can tell, her only quarrel with me is that I didn't agree with her, and said so in a public meeting. I still can't believe the song-and-dance she pulled with that freaking hat. Adults who are supposedly in community with one another simply shouldn't behave that way.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 01:01 am (UTC)Heh. (Sorry; that brought back years of... highly, um, personalized stuff that would happen in the churches I was in, as a choir member or as an organist.) Shouldn't, ideally, but people are people, y'know, and some of them just can't get past their own "stuff" to work together. *wry*
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 01:02 am (UTC)(Now I'm wondering if there's anything in my classical rhetoric texts about the use of props.)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 01:04 am (UTC)I love the whole "practical and realistic" vs. "persuasive and eloquent" setup. It's like she's saying: "I'm right, but because you talk better than I do, so you're TRICKING PEOPLE into thinking you're right."
-J
I forget the name of the heresy
Date: 2007-04-30 01:14 am (UTC)Axiom lock in a community situation is never fun; at least in your church's case it doesn't look like you've got axiom lock with roughly equal numbers on each side.
-- Graydon
Re: I forget the name of the heresy
Date: 2007-04-30 01:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 01:39 am (UTC)Wow, that sounds unpleasant. Her performance might have had more to do with the vote going the way it did than she wants to give herself credit for.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 01:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 01:52 am (UTC)Hee! That's beautiful.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 01:58 am (UTC)That seems to be the sense of it, yeah.
I even kind of got the impression that she thinks that *I* know she's right, at least on some level, and am arguing a different position for reasons of my own. Otherwise, her complaint that I didn't give her point enough credit doesn't make sense. I didn't give it credit because I think she's wrong.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 01:58 am (UTC)I told him they were indeed useful, but they were not enough to persuade me that his point of view was preferable to my own. He let it drop at that, but I suspect it continues to gall him even today... and by extension, she decides to become galled as well.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 02:02 am (UTC)Because, really. Yeah. (Go the Rivka for using tools appropriately.)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 02:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 02:27 am (UTC)I'm glad the budget passed. My parents have had a lot of struggles in their church over this issue. Their church has an eight million dollar endowment, and yet even when the church was having serious problems and needed to invest money in new programs to bring in new members (to replace the gigantic crowd of members who had left), a lot of people weren't willing to dip into the endowment. There are days I feel like that endowment is a millstone around their necks, because the more that's in it, the more people feel the need to cling tightly to every dollar and not let it be spent.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 03:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 03:29 am (UTC)Actually, she sounds a bit like a manager I once worked with. This was a woman who felt that disagreement=rudeness no matter how politely or mildly the disagreement was phrased. It was impossible to have a civil discussion with her on matters where one's opinions did not completely align with hers, because she would get deeply offended and huffy at the perceived "rudeness", and start lecturing on how the other person wasn't being "respectful". It got old very rapidly. I never found a way of interacting with her productively. I hope you have better success dealing with this woman than I had with the manager.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 06:19 am (UTC)Oh, I *like* that.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 07:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 08:46 am (UTC)How do you like your hemlock?
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 10:59 am (UTC)Hoo boy...
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 11:27 am (UTC)Bingo!
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 11:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 12:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 12:54 pm (UTC)Which suggests that investing resources in programs turns out to be financially better as well as closer to the mission statement, just maybe not in the short term. I know you can't go quoting New Testament without detracting from your argument, but that really calls for the parable about the talents. Ah well, I suppose the ones for whom it would be meaningful are already thinking about it.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 01:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 01:15 pm (UTC)Adults who are supposedly in community with one another simply shouldn't behave that way.
Yes.
I'm glad you stood up there and raised the question you cared about. I think it's an important topic for a church. The Task Force sounds like a good idea; I hope the board proceeds with that!
"I'm still going to feel the way I feel," she said huffily
I'm afraid my reply at that point would have been a warm, gushy, "Bless your heart, of course you are!"
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 01:40 pm (UTC)Not challenging, just wondering how it works there. Not urgent.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 01:58 pm (UTC)We're working on changing that, but it's a long, slow process. I think it's really only going to happen when the "humanist" folks from the 60's exit the scene. That's one of the reasons I'm constantly pushing for younger members to be moved into leadership positions, for example.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 03:04 pm (UTC)In a Christian church, you can probably expect everyone to agree that the Gospels are a source of authority, or at least information, about how one should proceed. In a UU church, "we should do this because it's what Jesus would want us to do" may move some individual members, but it's not going to be generally accepted as a good reason to do things.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 03:06 pm (UTC)Thanks for sharing that story - it's really illuminating of the potential pitfalls before us.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 03:45 pm (UTC)Given that Michael is the church treasurer, "asking the Board" is very much a formality. He's already been recruiting people to serve on the task force. :-)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 04:11 pm (UTC)Even apart from it being in the Christian bible, it makes a lot of sense to me, though (not to store up treasures here). Either I'll die and that's it, in which case having the most toys (/best bank balance) won't do me any good, or there is some kind of afterlife. Of course, there are many different beliefs about (the) afterlife, but I can't see myself engaging in worship whose successful afterlife outcome depended on my getting/being rich.
I should work on making that a more coherent statement. For now I'll just point to someone else's entry on Matthew' treasures line: http://turnberryknkn.livejournal.com/408136.html
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 04:14 pm (UTC)Regarding your icon, I saw a Flying Spaghetti Monster temple and garden this weekend (in Lego). There was a meatball tree.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 05:46 pm (UTC)But I'm betting that her perspective is that you helped orchestrate a humiliating defeat for her. She was invested in winning, and she didn't just lose, she was *crushed* (70-3? Yeep!). No one listened to her, no one cared about what she had to say, and damn it all, she felt she was *right*.
None of this is your problem, of course. But if you understand that she's probably speaking from a position of pain, it might help you not take it personally.
The bit about the hat... there are a lot of people passing around some *really* bad arguments (and argumentative styles) and a lot of persecution complexes. If you tell me this woman is a conservative who listens to some of the various *bad* conservative pundits, then suddenly *none* of this is surprising.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 07:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 07:47 pm (UTC)(Incidentally,
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 07:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 08:54 pm (UTC)(I wonder if purple hat lady felt a lot of her own money was in the endowment and she should have more control over it.)
no subject
Date: 2007-05-02 03:55 am (UTC)-J