It seems that half the time I venture to Walmart, some organization is set up by the entrance asking for donations. I think there's a really good chance they all do really good things. So why don't I give money to all of them? Simply doing good things doesn't mean I will necessarily support an effort. Here's why.
There are an infinite (okay, not actually, but SEEMINGLY infinite) number of ways a person can help those in need. I mean, first, we have to decide WHO is in need and how we think they need help. This is a personal thing, and one can't fault someone else for having different priorities. You may not agree with them, but isn't it their prerogative? We are all finite creatures, and our resources are all finite. Can we all agree on that? Our finiteness?
Therefore, we each must make choices based on the resources we have, what our priorities are, and what groups use the resources they receive to best meet those needs we care about. Some people do this more intentionally than others, but most of us do this in some way.
So here's what I don't get--the assumption that we are out of line to ask for information that would help us evaluate different programs or ministries as a congregation. Does it not make sense that since our congregations are also finite entities, we also have to make judgments about how best to use our resources.
Just in our local community, there are a myriad of causes our congregation could support. We cannot meaningfully support all. We could, I guess, just decide to give each organization a set amount of money--albeit small. But that would be a bit lazy, wouldn't it? And it would fail to account for different levels of need. Some organizations receive all their support from churches, while for others church giving is simply icing on the cake. And even the groups who rely upon church money have different goals and use our funds in different ways. Is it not fair for congregations to make these choices?
All of this came to a head for me at a recent meeting I attended of a ministry that needs the financial support of congregations. It is one that reaches a particular population in our community--one that is certainly in need of assistance. But here's the thing...is it not fair for us to ask what the goals of this ministry are? After all, it is not the only ministry that reaches this population. On what basis should our congregation choose to fund this ministry and not another that helps this population?
I finally tired to getting looked at crossways when I asked for specific goals of the ministry. I agree that some ministries cannot, by their nature, have as concrete of goals as other ministries, but surely it is best practices for all ministries (as all congregations) to have some goals by which to measure success (and, necessarily, failure, or not quite succeeding, if that sounds better).
At this recent meeting, when I once again pressed for a clearer definition as to what the ministry saw itself creating, I heard, "People's lives are being changed." Okay. That's good. But changed into what? And as anathema as it is to us often in church work, yes, I do have questions about how many lives are being changed. I know this sounds to some like discounting the effect a ministry has on a few lives, but after all, you're asking our church to fund this instead of one of the many other ministries that also changes lives. If "People's lives are being changed" was the only criteria for giving, few groups would receive adequate funding because giving would be spread so thin.
The truth is, non-profit giving is, indeed, somewhat of a competition. Churches themselves have to compete for funds in a world where people can now be very selective in their giving (the specificity of causes is mind-boggling). The groups who will survive in this setting are those who tell a better story, cast a more powerful vision, and display responsible fiscal management. There have been and will be groups who do awesome things, but are not able to get people tied into their work. This is not because people are necessarily against their work, but because given the choice, people will invest in what works and what offers them clarity and a real sense of their giving making a difference.
I wish we lived in a world where no one needed to strive to meet people's basic needs. Sadly, however, we live in a world that is not yet perfect, and since I cannot do all things, I will strive to make the very best decisions and the most responsible choices I can make. And I hope our congregations do the same. Those choices will not be perfect, and all congregations, like all people, will make those choices in slightly different ways. But to deny our givers the basic respect of providing information about what a ministry does and why people should support THAT ministry and necessarily ignore others is to court financial disaster for a ministry. Just as it also spells financial downfall for congregations.
No comments:
Post a Comment