What is a "responsible pledge?"

Though I don't particularly want to see the discussion of what to cut become yet another plea for people to donate more money, in the emails and comments I've seen the last few days, there's a strong current of thought within our church that people need to pledge more.
While there are, no doubt, some people who could give more, the approach of trying to guilt-trip people into coughing up more cash is not going to get very far. That's mostly because we, as a church, aren't really into guilt, which is basically a good thing. We can't tell people to believe in whatever they want, as long as they're nice to others, and then add in a proviso that whatever they believe better include writing big checks to a church on Fern Street. It won't work.
So why are we pursuing a clearly flawed fund-raising strategy?
What I hear, more or less, is that church members should pledge at least 3 percent of household gross income. Those who give higher percentages are held up as some sort of hero. And 3 percent is a bargain compared to the mythical, biblical 10 percent, I'm told. Someone wrote today that we might even consider a $1,200 minimum pledge.
Well, I've about had it with this whole notion that there's some magic percentage of income that ought to go the church. And I know I'm not alone, though most people will keep mum on the topic.
For one thing, I'm a progressive. I don't believe for a second that everyone should pay the same percentage, for the same reason that America adopted a graduated income tax almost a century ago. The simple reality is that 3 percent from a relatively low income is a whole lot harder to find than 3 percent of a relatively high income.
Just to make it simple, I'm sure that a family pulling in $60,000 a year in West Hartford is going to have a much harder time donating $1,800 a year to the church than a family making $200,000 will have in donating its $6,000 share.
That's because the lower income family is then left to get by on $58,200 while the other is going to have make do with $194,000. The pain isn't equal, but the advantages offered by giving to the church are.
Even to make the argument that everyone should pay some kind of similar percentage is to buy into a reactionary premise that flies in the face of the generally progressive outlook of the Unitarian Universalist Church.
Moreover, and this is probably even more central to the argument, income is not the same as wealth. There are lots of people in this area, and in our church, whose incomes may not be all that high, but who have large investment portfolios, bulging IRAs, multiple homes, costly cars and such. They have wealth that isn't necessarily reflected in their income.
It means a whole lot less to give 3 percent of income when that donation doesn't encroach on someone's accumulated wealth. And I hear enough about ritzy vacations, beautiful homes near the sea and so on to recognize that there are many people in this church who have been blessed with material abundance. I don't have a problem with it -- having long since come to grips with the reality that world doesn't treat everyone the same -- unless those lucky people try to dictate to others who are barely coping that we should all give equal percentages of income.
What all this focus on giving more money really accomplishes is to tell anyone who doesn't have it to get lost. I listen to the pledge chatter in church and think, wow, there can't be many poor people who could sit here and listen to this and feel like they could belong in our midst.
We talk about diversity, but we don't really mean it. We're happy to have gay people, people with different religious backgrounds and people with different racial backgrounds - as long as they have money. But in our constant focus on pledges and dollars, we are sending an overpowering message out that unless you have the cash, you don't belong in this church.
Forgive me, but that's an awful message to deliver week in and week out.
If we're truly trying to be a welcoming congregation, one that has a genuine diversity that reflects at least our own community, then we better focus our appeal on a broader range than the just well-to-do.
Social justice isn't just something we do "out there." It's what we need to do within our own doors.
So how do we get the money to function? I'm not sure.
But it has something to do with looking up from the account books, throwing away the red pencils and reaching out to the entire community. And it probably also means trying, gently, to get those among us who are most blessed with the conventional sort of riches to donate more heavily than they do. We're never going to get far by focusing on hitting up people who basically have made it clear they're not going to give more.
We're not in this to tote up Excel columns. We're not here to glare at members who don't want to pledge. We're not members of a country club with dues and green fees. We come to this beautiful old church to find something that's valuable for our hearts and our souls, something much more lasting than money.
For me, and I believe many others, that includes the music we hear every week.
I fear that in our quest to balance the ledgers, we're going to undermine the reasons many choose to be part of this church. We need to reach out to each other, and we need to reach out to the community beyond our doors. Let's be as welcoming as we claim to be, and see what happens.
Though I don't really consider it anyone's business, I figure full disclosure may mean something so let me add that, truthfully, I can't even remember what we pledged. Maybe $700? I figured that we'd probably wind up giving more than that, but given economic uncertainties and a strained family budget, that was really about all we felt comfortable promising. It's about 1 percent of our net income. But tell me where another $1,400 for the church would come from out of our coffers, because I sure don't know.
So what is a responsible pledge?
The pledge to try our best to do right by each other. Money is an almost inconsequential part of that.
Doing right doesn't include laying off choir directors, cutting the hours of a loyal custodian and paring religious education.
I understand that the Policy Board is wrestling with tough issues, and I know their hearts ache at the recommendations they have made, but, frankly, it doesn't change that they're wrong about what they want to do.
And it's up to the members of this church to rally now to save what we care most about.