e-giving
Monday, 12 August, 2002
In the midst of organising direct debit forms for church and tax returns, I saw this article in the Sydney Morning Herald today about electronic giving. Some people have expressed concern that e-giving will be “interfering with the core rituals of worship”. Jack Wilkerson, vice-president for business and finance for the Southern Baptist Convention, says, “God says you bring the offering as an act of worship. My concern is, we're trying to approach a spiritual problem in the heart of people mechanically.” To me, that's nonsense. When Ben and I were first married, we gave by putting money in the plate. And, more often than not, we forgot, or we were away from church for some reason or another and never made up for the week we missed. The heart is deceitful above all things, says Jeremiah; the “spiritual problem” that people have with giving can only be cured through the transforming work of Jesus Christ. Mechanical or un-mechanical, I believe the method by which we give is of little difference as long as we obey God's command to be generous with what he's given us. I actually like the fact that our church has direct debit for general offertory; I'm just not that organised when it comes to withdrawals!
Current:
Bible: Isaiah (ESV) 28/09/2010
seen: Tropic Thunder 26/09/2010
seen: The Life of Mammals 24/09/2010
seen: What a Girl Wants 19/09/2010
seen: Jerry Maguire 19/09/2010
seen: The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 06/09/2010
seen: Tomorrow Never Dies 05/09/2010
seen: Nanny McPhee 28/08/2010
read: Mercury (Hope Larson) 27/08/2010
read: Spellcheckers Vol 1 (Jamie S Rich, Nicolas Hitori de, Joelle Jones) 16/08/2010
read: Solipsistic Pop Vol 2 (Solipsistic Pop) 16/08/2010
read: Chiggers (Hope Larson) 15/08/2010
seen: Josie and the Pussycats 14/08/2010
seen: Mr & Mrs Smith 14/08/2010
seen: Step Up 2 13/08/2010
Blinks:
How to recalibrate the home button on your iPhone.
Unsolicited manuscripts accepted by Pan Macmillan with certain conditions.
Thought Balloon is a group blog in which the writers tackle a new theme every week? month? with one-page scripts. This URL is for their Phonogram ones.
How to sew a zipper on a knitted garment.
Issues organised by tale.
Online magazine that publishes fairy tales that are not reworkings of old tales.
Journal that publishes fairy tale writing.
|
|
Disqus comments
Other comments
While in principle I do agree with you, and like yourself have started using the method of e-giving - It is a great tool to fight my disorganisation.
The problem that appears to come with it, is that the congregation in church sees the plate pass by with no money being put into it. That can be quite disheartening. So, as long as the congregation knows that people are giving using the method it’s not an insurrmountable problem. The same may be true of the un-believers in our midst as they hear encouragement from the pulpit to give generously, and see little.
Having said that, the offering we do need to bring to church is ourselves as servants of Christ, in service to those around us.
Recognising that as an offering we need to make on Sunday’s, would make a great difference to our churches. And that is an offering we can’t e-give.
I agree with you about the offering being ourselves (Romans 12, etc.) but I disagree about the amount in the plate being disheartening; the only people who need to worry about it being heartening/disheartening are the office people who would know exactly how much is being given to the church.
The temptation in church during the passing of the offertory is to look at what everyone else is giving and think, “S/He gave only that?” In this respect it seems that e-giving is quite useful in guarding our hearts; only our heavenly Father (and the church office) can see what we do in secret (Matthew 6).
My point is not so much about the “amount” being put in the plate being disheartening, but rather the “inaction” of regular members putting in an offering, be it in a sealed envelope, or in cash.
It is that “inaction” that people have found disheartening, the apparent non-giving of regular church members. Which is why it is important that e-giving is publicly noted as a way to give.
Though, I do agree that how much people give is a matter for them and God. Related to that, is it then appropriate for the church to show in their bulletin a “target” and “recieved” offering?
It is interesting that you say that the “inaction” of regular members not putting something in the plate is disheartening every week. Yes, I agree that e-giving as an option has to be public; in fact, it is actively encouraged at our church in an effort to facilitate and boost giving. As the article noted, members can give even when they’re on holidays or even when it’s winter and they don’t go to church because of snowstorms. Or when they’re sick, etc. I never thought of that before but it is a good point; if giving is reliant on church attendance, then, of course, the amount in the plate will be less when people are away.
You asked whether it is appropriate for the church to show in their bulletin a “target” and “received offering”. I think so definitely - this should be the section that should be encouraging to read and make up for the disheartening effect of “inaction”. Our church does it every week by way of a “speedometer” model - the position of the arrow denotes whether we are in a critical low area or in a high growth area. So even if the giving is low one week, it might be really high in another week to make up for the previous week’s shortfall. Every month they report back on how we went overall in the month. Sometimes it is discouraging to see that we don’t always make budget. I guess that’s just another thing to pray about.
Our church has a solution to the problem of plate passing - we just don’t. Not only does it mean that nobody is “pressured” into giving, especially if they’re new, but it is strongly pushed to give by direct debit.
Works well, and our church doesn’t seem to be suffering from the loss of plate giving. We do have a box up the back people can give into if they want to.