What I want to put out for discussion is that the data discussed by Ms. Sandberg suggest that “less than 20 cents of every dollar given to religious organizations funds programs for the economically disadvantaged.” I can look at this in two ways. On the one hand, running a church, for example, involves a lot of fixed costs: without the building, the heating, the tables, the Associate Pastor, the janitorial services, the kitchen, and so forth, there could be no possibility of the program for serving hot meals to the homeless. Furthermore, churches do have calls other than charitable activity. It’s clear to me that corporate worship, for example, is a central requirement of Christian life, and providing a place for that worship is one demand on church resources.
On the other hand, it is possible that North American churches, regardless of theological sensibility, have grown too inward looking, whether it is a “liberal” mainline church involved in an “pipe organ race” with the church across the street, or a “conservative” evangelical church that is building more and more space for things like “Christian aerobics” that largely serve their existing membership.
So I’ll leave it at this. If you were on a church board and you found that 20 percent of your church budget was going to demonstrably variable costs of programs for the disadvantaged, would you think that this was a good thing or a “Charity Gap”?
1 comment:
On the opening paragraph: here are a couple of articles you may find interesting:
First on small donations and getting the best bang for your buck sans "microcredit" loans
http://www.slate.com/id/2161797/
Second on direct donations via the internet which cut out all intermediary steps and sends the money directly to those in need of the money with not even a cent removed for overhead
http://www.slate.com/id/2159771/
As far as the "charity gap" in church is concerned, I think, and this is only pure speculation on my part, that as churches grow and their budget's increase, their charitable giving decreases in proportion to their total budget while not necessarily in pure dollars. As churches grow, they tend to become less personable and more money is spent placating the masses when it should be used to help the needy. Also, as the church grows, so do the amount of those employed by the church. They will then begin to justify their pay increases by the number of members in the church. Sadly, churches can be just as free market as anywhere else.
While too many chefs in the kitchen can at times be a bad thing, I am a proponent of full disclosure among non-profit organizations. If the church so much as purchases a light bulb, I want to know about it. The more people who are watching, the better chance that red flags can put up about the budget and better spending habits encouraged leading to more money for charity. Or perhaps this is just so much wishful thinking?
Post a Comment