[Seekers] [Write us] [Homemakers]
This paper is an offering of the Homemakers Mission Group and is based on our work and Prayer. It is aimed at helping people prepare to respond to a questionnaire on stewardship as it relates to the need for Seekers to move. Following the distribution, gathering and summarization of the questionnaire there will be a conversation in a Members Meeting and then in the larger community.
The paper is divided into two sections. The first five subjects are intended to be a neutral framing of several important spiritual issues. But let the reader beware. I know I'm heavily invested in this discussion. While I will approach the sections that frame the issues with disciplined neutrality it might be well to watch for bias just the same. The section called Pat's Response should be taken as a personal reflection and not a position of the Homemakers Mission Group.
The immediately following sections address the following interrelated issues.
Discussion of standards for individual financial giving can hardly begin anywhere else than with the Seekers standards for core membership, a tithe of one's income. A few limited exceptions have been made to this standard. There is little or no accountability in the sense of people reporting their incomes and naming their contribution level. There is no agreement on what counts as income and no agreement on whether we are talking about before or after tax income. Furthermore, there is no formal agreement on whether the standard is individual or family income. In a time of potential financial stress it might be appropriate to sharpen our definition of tithing and become more explicitly accountable, but that is not what I think is most important at this time.
I have been advocating within Seekers for about ten years for a change in the tithe as a standard for core membership. In my paper, "Ten Times Tithing," I have argued that the tithing standard is not Biblical and not the best spiritual basis for individual stewardship. I have also argued that a tithe of income is intrinsically unjust in our circumstances for two primary reasons: a tithe of income reflects the unjust standards in our society for counting and rewarding labor, a tithe of income fails to deal with the critical spiritual issue of wealth. While I am not backing off one inch from these concerns I don't believe that they are the core questions of individual stewardship raised by the identified need to move to a new home.
Whatever else may be said about the tithing standard, it is commonly perceived to be a high standard and there are individuals who have been unwilling to come into membership because they were unwilling to meet it. This makes the tithing standard one of the dividing lines within the community. The sense of division because of the tithing standard may not have been so strong in recent years because we have been raising, even oversubscribing our budget, without a lot of strain. What we have raised as acts of generosity, joy and personal commitment has been enough, and more than enough, for our common needs. This statement is even more significant when it is remembered that Seekers gives about half of its common budget to groups outside of Seekers. But now that we face a period of potential financial strain, the tension of the tithing standard may brighten.
Part of the tension of the tithing standard comes from an additional tradition that Seekers has inherited from the Church of the Savior. One Church of the Savior tradition was the ideal that most of a congregation would be members and that those who were not members would be either temporary visitors or "intern" members, that is, people following a defined and accountable path to membership. The intent of this tradition, a formal standard in some other congregations, is to free those most committed to carrying out ministry in a particular setting from "carrying" people who were not as committed to the common ministry. The emphasis on all members being required to share in a corporate ministry has the implication that a sense of community should derive in significant part from sharing a common ministry.
Seekers has relaxed the standard of requiring a defined and accountable commitment to moving towards membership as a basis for participation in the community for at least five reasons I'm aware of: a general attitude of inclusiveness, a realization that the gestation of membership commitments can take a long time, a valuation of community on an equal basis with ministry and inner spiritual growth, more support for individual ministries and not just corporate ministries, and a desire to make it comfortable for families when one spouse is a member and another is actively participating but not a member.
While Seekers has relaxed the standard of commitment to a defined and accountable path to membership as a requirement for ongoing participation, it has not discarded this standard. Instead, Seekers has sought to keep the concerns that are the source of membership standards before the community in various ways. The intention is to continue to challenge everyone in the community and encourage self-selection. In this spirit, the tension arising from the potential financial strain of needing to move to a new home raises the question, What does my willingness to contribute financially to the future of Seekers say about my fundamental commitment to share the burdens of Seekers? How important is Seekers to me?
One of the keys to understanding why the core membership standards are so important to Seekers is that tithing, and the other standards, make core members peers. There are all kinds of differences between core members, but we respect each other for making significant and equivalent commitments to preparing for and carrying the common life of Seekers. No one doubts that participants who are not core members make important contributions to the common life of Seekers and some make significant financial commitments. But now, as we face potentially significant financial strain, the question of accountability for those who are not showing a significant financial commitment becomes brighter. A derivative question is whether we should do something programmatic about accountability for financial participation for everyone and, if we should, what form that accountability should take. The Homemakers Mission Group plans to develop a questionnaire that addresses the related questions of stewardship for planning purposes. This has accountability implications. What else should be done? Should we do something more with the financial stewardship questions that have been previously developed?
While the discussions of financial giving in Seekers usually start with tithing, tithing has never been meant to be the goal for individual or family giving. Some families are currently giving beyond the tithe. Instead, the standard of giving for core members starts with the tithe. So a second group of questions we could ask are about how might we might best support each other, and challenge each other, to consider going beyond tithing, either with an increased percentage of regular giving, or with a "one-time" gift.
One reason for going beyond tithing is to consider the relevance of wealth for our regular giving. It is a lot easier to give a tithe of income if a lot of familial capital needs have been met, such as buying a home, having a pension, and having college money set aside for one's kids. So, if the basic standard is a tithe, should there be a higher standard for regular giving for those with capital accumulation?
Further questions arise about whether we should be giving directly from our wealth and not only from our income. Such contributions could come in the form of a "one-time" gift, a loan (and what terms?), or an entry in a will. The terms of a loan could include: interest rates, the need to get the loan back in the case of an emergency, and loan forgiveness as part of a will.
Confronting the issue of wealth sharpens the question of being peers to each other. Since there are significant differences in wealth in the community, and in living standards, how can we move toward more peer relationships? Since the percentage elements of the tithing standard I certainly don't mean to suggest a percentage answer is appropriate for dealing with wealth. But wealth is an issue. There is a lot of Biblical concern about wealth. So it seems to me that the fundamental question is whether Seekers will seriously enter this conversation at all. If we did, I wonder what senses of power and togetherness might emerge.
As we consider questions of giving relative to wealth and income, it seems relevant to me to remember that some people have foregone substantial income to follow their Christian callings.
In the process of preparing for and writing this paper, I have reflected several times that while the urgency of these stewardship questions has been heightened by the pressure of thinking about a new worship home for Seekers, all of the above concerns are appropriate stewardship issues whatever the Seekers budget or the financial needs of the community.
But the potential financial strain of moving to a new home does give urgency to the question of how we might generate a lot more financial income for Seekers. In fact, we can't do very effective looking unless we have some sense of what we can spend. This leads to several derivative questions that specifically apply to estimating what we could spend for a new home.
I hope we will ask the above questions because I think we all feel better if we face our hard questions after considering the overall potential resources of the community.
An additional spiritual summary of the above issues is whether an individual or family should decide its overall financial giving to charity, and the proportion given to Seekers, based on a sense of budgetary need or on an independent commitment to stewardship as one of the primary responses to the love of God. Even though the urgency of stewardship questions is brightened by potential financial needs, this does not mean that individual giving should be budget driven.
An additional question, sort of on the other side of the coin of budget driven giving, is whether this is a moment to challenge another theme in many Seekers discussions of giving, the desirability of giving to a person or cause where there is a direct emotional connection to an individual or program, in contrast to more general giving. To be blunt, should our charity be based, or based in part, on seeking a "feel good" response from the emotion of directly helping those we "know?" Perhaps this is an issue best left for individual reflection.
While the previous section makes it clear that we could derive our projection of "what we can afford" out of a much broader base than assessment of our current budget, there are some things we can learn from our budget, including the income side of the budget.
We are currently generating about $175,000 a year in income, most of which is from direct contributions to the budget. For several years we have been generating more income than our target budgets. Before looking at how the budget is spent, there are several additional considerations that may help to add some perspective about our income.
On the expenditure side, in addition to noting that we have some budget resources to transfer to paying for a new home, it is also worth noting that we are sustaining our plan to give 50 percent of our budget to groups outside of Seekers. I've spoken several times to challenge the distinction between "inside" and "outside" giving as intrinsically misleading, since so much of the "outside" ministry of Seekers is offered from individuals. In this context what I want to note is that the percentage of "outside" giving is a substantial figure. Again, as a comparison, of the 8 UCC churches in Washington, DC, only one gives as much 25 percent of its budget to outside giving and it is the one church that is making capital payments. Several of the UCC churches gave less than 10 percent beyond their own ministries. One of the reasons that we have been able to sustain a 50 percent figure without too much strain is because our "rent" has been low. Our "rent" has been low because we have been riding on the capital investment of the Church of the Savior from decades ago. My point is that well chosen capital investment can free up resources for ministry.
Primarily because we have been contributing more than we have been spending for several years, and also because of a bequest to the Church of the Savior of which we received a share, we have about $140,000 in investments and in cash-flow reserves. Additionally, on the basis of the last Church of the Savior decisions, which are subject to change, we have a one-ninth share in the value this church that might be worth $150,000 to $200,000 that should be available in a few years. We have no indebtedness. The only point I want to make here is that Seekers has some capital and we should decide what to do with it as a matter of good stewardship. A few years ago Seekers decided to start holding its capital instead of distributing it because of the possibility that we would be faced with having to move.
Considering the question of the total expenditure for space for Seekers is very different depending upon whether we are considering the cost for the next year's budget or thinking in terms of ten years, or fifty years. Whether renting or owning is more advantageous over a longer time frame has many factors. There is the question of the total money expended. There is the question of whether a rented space or a purchased space more suits our needs. There is a question of who pays which proportions of the total, ourselves or our successors.
If one plans to get a new car every few years it may make as much sense to lease it as to buy it. But, if the goal is to have the least automotive costs for acceptable transportation, it is relevant to compare the costs of purchase and repairs versus never-ending car payments. And, in weighing those costs, it matters if you are going to do some of the repairs yourself and if you plan to loan the car to others. At this point I'm only trying to indicate that the financial desirability of buying or leasing depends on what you get at what price and it makes a difference as to whether you do the weighing over one-year or many years. And finally, in weighing real estate costs instead of automotive costs, it is reasonable to assume that at any point there would likely be some accumulated financial value in the real estate that could be turned into capital for an additional move or for other purposes of ministry. Thus the real "practical" question is a comparison of the sum of (purchase plus repairs minus accumulated value) to the sum of ongoing rental costs. But this "practical" question could be very short sighted, not only for the issues that have been previously discussed but also because the value of the space may affect collateral income from others using the space and also the total giving to community if one space is more supportive to community "growth."
What should we do with the building, once we get it? Just about everyone agrees we want a space for common worship, for church school for the children, for School of Christian Living activities and for mission groups. Though there has been a lot of talk about utilizing Seekers space for various kinds of ministries, no one has been pushing to claim space for a particular ministry.
Should we share space with others? There are a couple of sub-questions that need to be differentiated. The first is whether or not we would be going into a space that someone else controls with Seekers fitting their needs into the schedule of the other institution. We've had experience with this model in the sense of having to take down our alter and reorder the worship space as soon as we're done on Sunday morning. And we've had the experience of a lot of stress over remodeling a class room to better suit young children.
The questionnaires that the Homemakers Mission Group has gathered suggests that we are pretty unanimous about being willing to share our space with others in the interests of full stewardship of use. We might make space available to a child care center for example, presumably for a price.
The point of unclarity, or possible disagreement, seems to focus around how much we want to be able to have control of our space.
The issue of control has several aspects. One dimension is pride and humility. Control can be seen as one element of a generalized desire for dominance or power. Another dimension has to do with the practicalities of what we might lose by not having control? For example, would it be hard to schedule time for special called meetings? It will be hard to deal with the practicality dimension before we start looking at specific properties.
Perhaps the toughest issue of control is the question of identity. Can we shape and affect the space so that it reflects back to us something of who we are? Can we have a space that speaks to newcomers something of what we are like, of what we are about? Think about our "humor" about the possibility of taking down some of the pictures in this church. How has it affected the current identity of Seekers that we have not had control of our space? Even apart from the ways we might shape a space to our esthetic and practical tastes, what would it say about Seekers to "have our own space that others cannot easily take away?" Would we feel stronger or more stable? Would we be more willing to plan and organize in longer time frames?
It may seem funny to talk about a stewardship of identity, but the following question seems important to me. What kind of control of our space do we need to feel that we have an independent existence and a stable base for building toward the future? What is our stewardship of being and becoming what God wants us to be?
Back when Seekers was in discussion with the Church of the Savior about the possibility of obtaining this building we were reminded, somewhat unpleasantly, that other communities had raised money for their buildings and budgets by appealing outside of their membership on the basis of support for a corporate ministry. We were well aware of this fact since Seekers, both individually and collectively, have given a lot of money to other C of S communities for their ministries.
No one has proposed that Seekers should develop a corporate ministry and then appeal for funds so it seems that we are not likely to follow this path to capitalization. But there are other potentials for support from beyond the membership of Seekers.
One, mentioned above, is that we might make some of our space available to others, for a price or as an expression of ministry. If, for a price, then that should be counted in the affordability equation. If, as an expression of ministry, then it should be counted as support for outside ministries. No one is arguing that we should set out to be landlords. Rather, the stewardship of use has implications for involving the resources, or ministry of others.
A second way we might involve the resources of others would be to borrow some of the money needed to purchase a building. Might some C of S friends loan us money at a moderate interest rate? Whatever the interest rate, might we borrow enough money from ourselves and others to avoid the costs and burdens of commercial financing, such as with the American Church Trust Company?
What might happen if we asked for gifts from other C of S communities? We might link such a request to the sale of this church and note that we have given generously to other communities and ministries during their establishment. We might also ask for loans at that point.
Can anyone think of other possibilities that would let us draw outside of the lines of the financial resources of Seekers community? Might someone donate land or a building to us?
When we move the framing of the stewardship conversation outside of the standards for individual giving, when we think of Seekers as a common body existing for decades (even centuries), several things start to shift for me. The shift is even greater if I think about Seekers contribution to ongoing Christianity and not only of its separate institutional existence. Few, if any, Seekers have much taste for trying to create a monument to our own moment, frozen in stone arches with appropriate brass plaques. But I suspect that many of us would like to leave a spiritual legacy, hope that there are spreading ripples from our ministries, believe that the personal and corporate healing that is such a rich part of the Seekers experience will spread out, and trust that others will share our expansion of hope and vision. But, if we think we are carrying something precious, then I think we need to pass on some substance so that our words and visions have resources for manifestation and embodiment. If we think that what we are doing leads somewhere then we can place ourselves in a time frame that doesn't end with our personal deaths or with moving to San Diego. In metaphor, if we prepare some ground and plant some seeds then part of our faithful response to God will flourish in ways we cannot imagine or control long after we are gone, carried by people we do not know. In this sense capital gifts flow beyond our own control as surely as gifts to "outside" ministries. If this seems too esoteric, consider the benefits we have gained from predecessor Christians we do not know, such as those who capitalized the churches of our childhood, the person who gave us a third of our current capital, those who invested in this church and those who built the seminaries we've learned from. In short, to refuse to think in terms of capital and decades (even centuries), is to act as if our own little group and our lives are all important and exist independently.
The concept of a group investment includes a gathering of money previously controlled by individuals and setting it to a common purpose over time. Such investment need not be attached to a building. For example we could choose to endow a fund for outward giving and then count that expenditure as part of the fifty/fifty standard, or we could endow a "chair" for a paid ministry in Seekers which supported both the inner and outer journeys of the community. But no investment makes any sense unless we think of ourselves as bound to Seekers over time. If one does sense such "boundness" then it doesn't matter if one is personally present in Seekers in the future. If we personally die or move or just quit, our investment continues to support an ongoing Seekers and then whatever happens with the energy released when Seekers dies or moves or quits. And if some of us are remembering how little we like the stewardship of "the institutional church," then it is all the more important to try to make space to pass on the words and visions we do believe in. This trusting of a future for Seekers is like those who trusted in a future for Roman Catholicism, for Protestantism, and for the Church of the Savior. The Church of the Savior has gathered enormous capital investment in lands and buildings without losing a commitment to ministry. And when we look to Jesus we remember that he invested his life without knowing where it would lead.
So I am biased toward buying rather than leasing. I consider it an honor and an opportunity to have a chance to play a part in supporting the ongoing flowering of the Seekers spirit beyond what I can see or control. This does not mean that I am unwilling to consider renting either temporarily or for a long time. For some of the reasons listed above it could be the best choice. But I will be unhappy if Seekers is unwilling to even consider buying property as part of this move. I have no doubt that we can afford to buy something that would suit us.
For any who do not want to take on the felt burden of contributing to the buying of a building, I would point out that the stewardship issues for individual contribution in this paper are really as heavy anyhow, we've just been avoiding them.
After all the weighing and estimating is done, maybe it just boils down to having a great love for Seekers, a great faith that Seekers can accomplish whatever it wants to do, and a desire to lay down a base so that more can flow out from our creativity and caring. I want to invest in the financial future of Seekers and I think the best way to do that is to buy a building or buy land and build.
July 10, 1996
Pat Conover
[Seekers] [Write us] [Homemakers]