A Fair Pledge?

David Arnott sent this along to add to the discussion:

The theories about money versus wealth and status versus circumstances or age and connections are all good reasons for increasing or decreasing one’s pledge. After all, who best to judge the benefit or weigh the sacrifice I am making, except me? And, we are learning there are as many reasons as Members why we pass by one house of worship, or synagogue or steeple to come here, to Fern Street on Sunday mornings to be with each other. That too is a decision which no one can quantify, or qualify, except the individual. Once a Member, whether you are the newest amongst us or the eldest amongst us, your rights and privileges as a Member makes you an equal among us all. In this sense, every pew seat and every space within our house of worship and at every meeting you have the right to speak out, regardless of your time with us and especially without regard to what you pledge. So, what “a fair pledge” is ultimately comes down to what the individual gives.

Once a Member, and a part of your church, however, it is reasonable to know what it costs to run and fund our programs; pay our professional Staff and the annual upkeep costs to sustain our house of worship so that it is safe and operational. Not knowing this basic information shortchanges each of us who care and love our church. I commend the Policy Board, Ministers and Staff for making this information transparent. No one knows more than these dedicated Members and Staff how painful it is to spread and stretch a budget. We come 30, 40, 50 times a year [or 3, 4 or 5 times] and many enter our sanctuary with children, with spouses, partners, with extended family and some arrive with friends. The health of our church reflects on each of us. It does not fall in the laps of the paid and volunteer Members. They are custodians for us—but the church is us—not them. It is our house of worship. They have a role in caring for this church which we have entrusted to them; but the burden is ours. The only benefit our church receives is a tax break provided for in the Constitution under the separation of powers clause; and an endowment, left by our forbears, who entrusted it to us to continue to practice our faith and keep our traditions alive in their passing. It also certainly was gifted to keep our house of worship like our homes—a place to feel safe returning to each evening. Many of our benefactors are interred in the Memorial Garden where, when I pass, I can still see their faces and hear their voices because so many of them still live in my mind and heart.

And this is where the “fairness” issue becomes a “reasonable” issue which we must, as a church, face head-on. How many pledging Members [unit/family, etc.] do we have and what is the average/mean pledge? What is our total budget? Division anyone? That number addresses what each Pledging Member should understand is what it costs to run our church during any planning year. While the church can never have a debate with me about what I must give, this church would be irresponsible if it failed to share with me what a responsible Member pledge should be. In times of deficits as we are now in, only I can assess how to change my current pledge. So, while we would all rather not hear the details, the responsible role of the Policy Board is to share how the news is bad—not just that the news is bad.

I think instinctively we all know revenue shortfalls break-up and eliminate parts of the church. Last year it was RevJean’s hours and pay and Summer Services. This year it is Music and art programs and custodian hours. What next year? How ironic, because our Membership is so talented and gifted. The skills base and backgrounds so diverse, you make me want to be here—to grow, to be like you. Indeed, we do not have a paucity of Members with great gifts.

So, what is a fair pledge is driven not by my finances or by my ability or inability to pay a ‘fair pledge.’ No, that number is my right to give what I feel is right together with the right of the church to press for a pledge to keep our programs alive; our house of worship a safe place to come to and a professional Staff to do our administrative work and Ministers to steer us to become our better selves, to look within and without for a spark of the divine we each carry within us. In this sense, we are family—church family. We each only need to be aware we too are accountable and responsible for doing our small part.

Respectfully
David Arnott

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.