Membership fees
Mar. 2nd, 2009 08:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lavendersparkleWasted quite a bit of time today being grumpy over the internet at someone who posted a rant about how materialistic 'western Judaism' by which he meant the small selection of Reform and Conservative shuls in the parts of the US he had lived in, were. It seemed to boil down to the idea that he felt that it was completely unacceptable for a congregation to charge it's members membership fees. He also claimed that any place of worship that was meeting its members spiritual needs wouldn't need to ask for membership fees because people would love it so much that the donations would exceed the needs of the church. In my experience, the only religious institutions which aren't strapped for cash are crazy brainwashing cults. The more I think of it the more I think that the difference is which extreme of two bad ways that people relate to religion and money I have seen.
The one he seemed to be criticising is the consumerist model. In this model you buy tickets to go to shul in the same way that you would be tickets to go to the cinema (often with special rates for students and the unemployed).* You don't regard the shul as a community which you are a part of but as a provider of a service you are purchasing. I think shuls which work along this kind of model also have a tendency to pander to the desires of this kind of congregant in terms of things like sermons which flatter rather than challenge, after all you want to provide a product the customer is willing to buy.
On the other hand, there is what I would call the delusional infant model. I this model, rather than being big and brash and upfront about money, you don't mention it at all. The place of worship has no expectation that its members will contribute a particular amount to its upkeep, the problem is neither do they. In this model members of a congregation think that they should get special brownie points for just showing up never mind paying to be there. They'll donate money, but see that as something above and beyond the call of duty which they should be praised for. The congregants have this idea that They should be pleased at another bum on seat so They should make sure that there's a church just the way they like it to entice them in without thinking through who They is. Delusional infant congregants can take a little bit of 'tough love' style reproach in sermons but they see it as an affront if anyone mentions money. They also tend to resent anyone who receives money from the church (i.e. it's employees) because they are in denial about how much work goes into keeping the church going and identify the clergy as the closest thing to the ill-defined They that they have contact with.
It reminds me a bit of deadbeat dads who try to buy their children's love and deadbeat dads who 'really love their kids' and expect that to mean that they shouldn't have to pay child support to their 'nasty grasping ex.** In both cases there's something really crucial missing, a genuine sense of being part of and responsible for a group endeavour. What Christians refer to a mature discipleship. I think a danger is that an attempt to move away from a consumerist model could just turn into a delusional infant model, if the only change is a removal of an explicit expectation of money. This isn't any closer to mature discipleship and at least with the consumerist model you could afford to mend the roof. In a healthy congregation people talk about money. There is an openness about how much things cost to run and what could be done if there was more money and members of the congregation understand that being a member of the congregation means contributing the time and money they can afford to ensure that it keeps going and can achieve what it wants to achieve.
So what does this have to do with membership fees? Well, the more I thought about it the more I realised that an a congregation with a healthy attitude to membership, the difference between membership fees and not having fees becomes almost semantic. It's useful to give people guidelines about how much to financially contribute. Telling the congregation that, for the congregation to run it needs to receive £x per person or y% of its members' income helps people get a better idea of what's reasonable to give. People who can afford less will give less, people for can afford more will give more. However, this doesn't seem that different to if a shul charges a fee of £x or y% of income in membership fees, but will lower the fee if someone can't afford it and welcome donations if people want to give more and would never turn away a non-member.
I like that my shul charges membership fees. As with Judaism in general, it's a way of knowing what's expected of you and it's a way of saying 'This isn't just somewhere I go. It's my shul and I want to contribute and take some financial responsibility for it.'
*I get the idea that the kind of shuls which work along this model tend also to be the kind where anyone can stand on the bimah as long as they're ordained or related to the bar mitzvah boy.
**Often these are the same deadbeat dad. That's very similar to the punchline of one of Ed Kessler's favourite jokes.
The one he seemed to be criticising is the consumerist model. In this model you buy tickets to go to shul in the same way that you would be tickets to go to the cinema (often with special rates for students and the unemployed).* You don't regard the shul as a community which you are a part of but as a provider of a service you are purchasing. I think shuls which work along this kind of model also have a tendency to pander to the desires of this kind of congregant in terms of things like sermons which flatter rather than challenge, after all you want to provide a product the customer is willing to buy.
On the other hand, there is what I would call the delusional infant model. I this model, rather than being big and brash and upfront about money, you don't mention it at all. The place of worship has no expectation that its members will contribute a particular amount to its upkeep, the problem is neither do they. In this model members of a congregation think that they should get special brownie points for just showing up never mind paying to be there. They'll donate money, but see that as something above and beyond the call of duty which they should be praised for. The congregants have this idea that They should be pleased at another bum on seat so They should make sure that there's a church just the way they like it to entice them in without thinking through who They is. Delusional infant congregants can take a little bit of 'tough love' style reproach in sermons but they see it as an affront if anyone mentions money. They also tend to resent anyone who receives money from the church (i.e. it's employees) because they are in denial about how much work goes into keeping the church going and identify the clergy as the closest thing to the ill-defined They that they have contact with.
It reminds me a bit of deadbeat dads who try to buy their children's love and deadbeat dads who 'really love their kids' and expect that to mean that they shouldn't have to pay child support to their 'nasty grasping ex.** In both cases there's something really crucial missing, a genuine sense of being part of and responsible for a group endeavour. What Christians refer to a mature discipleship. I think a danger is that an attempt to move away from a consumerist model could just turn into a delusional infant model, if the only change is a removal of an explicit expectation of money. This isn't any closer to mature discipleship and at least with the consumerist model you could afford to mend the roof. In a healthy congregation people talk about money. There is an openness about how much things cost to run and what could be done if there was more money and members of the congregation understand that being a member of the congregation means contributing the time and money they can afford to ensure that it keeps going and can achieve what it wants to achieve.
So what does this have to do with membership fees? Well, the more I thought about it the more I realised that an a congregation with a healthy attitude to membership, the difference between membership fees and not having fees becomes almost semantic. It's useful to give people guidelines about how much to financially contribute. Telling the congregation that, for the congregation to run it needs to receive £x per person or y% of its members' income helps people get a better idea of what's reasonable to give. People who can afford less will give less, people for can afford more will give more. However, this doesn't seem that different to if a shul charges a fee of £x or y% of income in membership fees, but will lower the fee if someone can't afford it and welcome donations if people want to give more and would never turn away a non-member.
I like that my shul charges membership fees. As with Judaism in general, it's a way of knowing what's expected of you and it's a way of saying 'This isn't just somewhere I go. It's my shul and I want to contribute and take some financial responsibility for it.'
*I get the idea that the kind of shuls which work along this model tend also to be the kind where anyone can stand on the bimah as long as they're ordained or related to the bar mitzvah boy.
**Often these are the same deadbeat dad. That's very similar to the punchline of one of Ed Kessler's favourite jokes.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-02 09:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-02 10:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-02 10:50 pm (UTC)The kiddush thing strikes me as a bit odd, particularly given that at my shul people usually sponsor kiddush to celebrate something, like if their child gets engaged or they are moving away from the area (OK that's not a celebration but you get what I mean).
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-02 11:00 pm (UTC)