Church dilemma (all opinions welcome)

[PtldPlatypus]

I attend a relatively small church. We used to be a lot bigger, and have a campus, budget, and infrastructure to match. We have a decent amount of tithing with most regular attending families participating, but generally operate at a deficit.

Part of our budget is our "fellowship fund", which is used to help members who have family financial issues. A few years ago, one of our member families fell on hard times, and our board voted to allocate part of our budget to help support this family on a monthly basis.

Now it's been a few years, and this budget allocation has become less appreciated and more expected. Recently, some of the church leadership has changed, and now there's discussion as to how obligated the church is to continue supporting this family.

On one side of the coin is the idea that this family has really come to depend on this subsidy, and removing it could have a dire impact on them. On the other side is the idea that they have had enough time to come by their own means of self-support, and that it's not really incumbent upon the other members of the church to support this family, especially when the church doesn't have enough income to pay all its other bills as is.

Based on the above, how do you think the church should handle this dilemma?

 

[Denny Crane]

I see three obvious solutions:

1) Continue the subsidy
2) Stop the subsidy
3) Stop the subsidy after a few months

#3 allows them to find a way to make a living without the church money and isn't an all at once kind of shock.

Whether you should continue paying is a matter of doing what you think is right.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I attend a relatively small church. We used to be a lot bigger, and have a campus, budget, and infrastructure to match. We have a decent amount of tithing with most regular attending families participating, but generally operate at a deficit.

Part of our budget is our "fellowship fund", which is used to help members who have family financial issues. A few years ago, one of our member families fell on hard times, and our board voted to allocate part of our budget to help support this family on a monthly basis.

Now it's been a few years, and this budget allocation has become less appreciated and more expected. Recently, some of the church leadership has changed, and now there's discussion as to how obligated the church is to continue supporting this family.

On one side of the coin is the idea that this family has really come to depend on this subsidy, and removing it could have a dire impact on them. On the other side is the idea that they have had enough time to come by their own means of self-support, and that it's not really incumbent upon the other members of the church to support this family, especially when the church doesn't have enough income to pay all its other bills as is.

Based on the above, how do you think the church should handle this dilemma?

My parents have a similar family their church helps, the wife does all of the landscape maintenance, mowing, weeding, trash pick of the church grounds (the husband works) and the husband sets up and takes down all the chairs and tables for church functions on the weekends.

I would talk to the family and see if they can do something similar. If they can do something that would help reduce chruch expenses that helps the church pass the savings on to them as financial support.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

My parents have a similar family their church helps, the wife does all of the landscape maintenance, mowing, weeding, trash pick of the church grounds (the husband works) and the husband sets up and takes down all the chairs and tables for church functions on the weekends.

I would talk to the family and see if they can do something similar. If they can do something that would help reduce chruch expenses that helps the church pass the savings on to them as financial support.

Good thought, but unfortunately, all that stuff is already done by volunteers. Our church's bills are essentially limited to employee salaries, missionary support, utilities, supplies, and activities directly related to ministries. Having operated at a deficit for so long, pretty much all of the "fat" has already been trimmed from the budget.

 

[Sedatedfork]

Well this family can't really expect that this will continue in perpetuity. Are the hard times medically based or a layoff type situation? Is there any reason that they can't get themselves back on their feet again? Would some counseling with the family help? Seems like a tough situation. However, I would think that there might be other services available to help to offset the burden on the church. No real advice here. Sorry.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I see three obvious solutions:

1) Continue the subsidy
2) Stop the subsidy
3) Stop the subsidy after a few months

#3 allows them to find a way to make a living without the church money and isn't an all at once kind of shock.

Whether you should continue paying is a matter of doing what you think is right.

I'm somewhat in this camp, but I know there are other ways to look at this. In theory, #3 should probably have been the plan from the beginning. Part of the concern now is the potential perception that the church is "taking away" money from this family, and how does that reflect on the church as a whole.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Is this a trick to reveal our opinions on Obamacare?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Good thought, but unfortunately, all that stuff is already done by volunteers. Our church's bills are essentially limited to employee salaries, missionary support, utilities, supplies, and activities directly related to ministries. Having operated at a deficit for so long, pretty much all of the "fat" has already been trimmed from the budget.

Make them missionaries and send them to Africa.

Or you can tell them what the prophet Spock said,

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Not religious, but I understand that if there's one thing the New Testament has advice about, it's how we should act towards the poor.

 

[Chris Craig]

I have never heard of a church helping one family financially for such an extended time, with a regular subsidy. It seems like they were given ample time to get back on their feet, and to provide for themselves. That said I do not know their situation. So, if the church was going to end the subsidy to this family, even have given them several years of help, since it might affect them in such dire way, maybe it is time for the church to give them a time limit. The church could offer the subsidy for a few more months, with the family knowing that it is going to end, so that they can have time to get work or find alternative financial assistance. Again, I don't know this families circumstances. Seems like the church should have set perimeters when they started the subsidy if it did not want to find itself in this situation.

 

[blue32]

I'm somewhat in this camp, but I know there are other ways to look at this. In theory, #3 should probably have been the plan from the beginning. Part of the concern now is the potential perception that the church is "taking away" money from this family, and how does that reflect on the church as a whole.

Argh... Was is ever their money to begin with? Obvious answer.

I feel that if they are expecting a hand out now and not understanding that its a true gift from the congregation nor willing to accept that it was a finite term then they are being unreasonable.

People need hand ups, not hand outs. But if given a hand out, then I believe it should have been determined before hand a term length.

Obviously I am more rigid when it comes to this type of behavior. So you probably shouldn't listen to me, LOL.

 

[crandc]

Hard to tell without more information. Is there a reason the temp has become long term? Are there issues with, say, a serious illness or disability that keeps someone from working or racks up enormous medical bills?
I would say, find out what the issue is, use funds to help resolve the problem.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Not religious, but I understand that if there's one thing the New Testament has advice about, it's how we should act towards the poor.

True, but those teachings are more geared toward the individual than the collective. Also, is there a line? Is the church obligated to "help the poor" to the point of ceasing to exist?

 

[Chris Craig]

True, but those teachings are more geared toward the individual than the collective. Also, is there a line? Is the church obligated to "help the poor" to the point of ceasing to exist?

God helps only those who help themselves....oh, so now we know why the Blazers are so bad

 

[barfo]

Start a gofundme page for them and let idiots on the internet pay their bills.

barfo

 

[Spud147]

Have you had discussions with the family about this, is there a possibility the help could be reduced if they accessed other social services? We do the same at my church with a man who isn't able to work (he does do a lot of work around the church) and, for a long time, people were even letting him live with them. Eventually, through a lot of help from people in the church with paperwork, etc. for assistance with housing, we got him into his own little apartment.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Jesus was pretty clear about this, if that is something that matters to your church. Give to all who ask. And yes, every last cent. And yes, especially if you dont expect them to repay you.

 

[GriLtCheeZ]

If you've been supporting them for a few years I'd say you have some responsibility to wean them off the subsidy slowly. They may be angry with you at first and look at you like you're taking "their" money, but it's also possible that they knew it wouldn't last forever and have already brainstormed how to get by without the subsidy. Good luck.

 

[BlazerWookee]

What color are they?

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

I would talk to them and tell them about the churches financial situation. Tell them you will continue to pay them the same amount for 3 months. After 3 months it is cut in half and you will continue to give them the cut in half amount for 3 months. After the 6 months you will no longer be able to provide them with money.

 

[barfo]

Do like our president: Tell them that they can either accept 10 cents on the dollar, or they can take you to court, but you'll outspend them on lawyers.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Merge with a larger, wealthier church.

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Offer them a tithing commision on all the new members they recruit to the church.

 

[Sedatedfork]

You might try referring the family to 211 Oregon or perhaps even call them yourselves and speak to them about the family's issues to get a better understanding of what services are available to assist the family. There are a lot of families in need and they are fortunate that the church has helped them out for so long. But, this can't last forever. I think JFizzle's idea is a humane way of dealing with it. But, be prepared for an emotional response from the family. I might provide a longer leash though. Not sure. It's tough when the kindness is not appreciated and is expected. No good deed goes unpunished.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Wow, this really is a dilemma. On one hand it's kind of hard to grasp that these folks have become so dependent (a nice word for self entitled) on your church's kindness for so long. But having volunteered at my local food bank for the past 3 years, I have grown used to seeing this type of expectation on a regular basis. It's difficult not to be judgemental while still doing the "Christian" thing. I don't know what the family's issues are, or why their dependence has continued for so long, but our food bank's mission is to offer a hand up, not a hand out. We try to assist them in finding a variety of social services that will move them in the direction of self sufficiency. We also offer, with strict guidelines, utilities and rent assistance for the short term until they are back on their feet. But some people just aren't interested. It's easier to take a hand out and keep coming back for more. Or they make poor choices (drugs and alcohol) that keep them broke and unemployed. But again, we try very hard not to judge. There is no easy answer and sometimes hard choices have to be made for the greater good (Lord how I hate that term!). In the case of your church, I would sit them down and explain that you want to try and help others in need, that they have had long term assistance and now it's time for them to stand on their own two feet so your congregation can help others in need. And it's impossible to help anyone, including your congregation if your church can't support it's own existence. I'd say it's time to make that hard choice. Sometimes people need a serious dose of reality to get them motivated.....

 

[barfo]

Put them on commission. Instead of a handout, give them 10% of any money that they can raise for the church.

barfo

 

[Spud147]

Wow, this really is a dilemma. On one hand it's kind of hard to grasp that these folks have become so dependent (a nice word for self entitled) on your church's kindness for so long. But having volunteered at my local food bank for the past 3 years, I have grown used to seeing this type of expectation on a regular basis. It's difficult not to be judgemental while still doing the "Christian" thing. I don't know what the family's issues are, or why their dependence has continued for so long, but our food bank's mission is to offer a hand up, not a hand out. We try to assist them in finding a variety of social services that will move them in the direction of self sufficiency. We also offer, with strict guidelines, utilities and rent assistance for the short term until they are back on their feet. But some people just aren't interested. It's easier to take a hand out and keep coming back for more. Or they make poor choices (drugs and alcohol) that keep them broke and unemployed. But again, we try very hard not to judge. There is no easy answer and sometimes hard choices have to be made for the greater good (Lord how I hate that term!). In the case of your church, I would sit them down and explain that you want to try and help others in need, that they have had long term assistance and now it's time for them to stand on their own two feet so your congregation can help others in need. And it's impossible to help anyone, including your congregation if your church can't support it's own existence. I'd say it's time to make that hard choice. Sometimes people need a serious dose of reality to get them motivated.....

That's the part I struggle with too... we recently had a lady knock on the door of the church on a Tuesday morning needing help. She was probably in her 30s and was clearly in distress, dirty, possibly beaten, definitely some kind of self medication. We brought her in, gave her clothes/food/toiletries, etc. and she was so grateful she said she'd be back Sunday for church and it didn't happen, oh well... BUT, at least she knows there's help if she needs it and it planted the seed. We also do a food/clothing bank and I know there are several churches in the area who do that.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Put them on commission. Instead of a handout, give them 10% of any money that they can raise for the church.

barfo

 

[trailblazer18]

We just approved our church budget for 2017, so I'm guessing your church probably operates similarly and has their family support already budgeted for 2017 as well? One of the Elders or Deacons should be able to sit down with the family to make a plan. Possibly weening them off the support by years end or committing to a lower amount. It is definitely not an easy situation, but a conversation should be had with the family to express the concern of the church, if it hasn't happened already, then go from there...

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I attend a relatively small church. We used to be a lot bigger, and have a campus, budget, and infrastructure to match. We have a decent amount of tithing with most regular attending families participating, but generally operate at a deficit.

Part of our budget is our "fellowship fund", which is used to help members who have family financial issues. A few years ago, one of our member families fell on hard times, and our board voted to allocate part of our budget to help support this family on a monthly basis.

Now it's been a few years, and this budget allocation has become less appreciated and more expected. Recently, some of the church leadership has changed, and now there's discussion as to how obligated the church is to continue supporting this family.

On one side of the coin is the idea that this family has really come to depend on this subsidy, and removing it could have a dire impact on them. On the other side is the idea that they have had enough time to come by their own means of self-support, and that it's not really incumbent upon the other members of the church to support this family, especially when the church doesn't have enough income to pay all its other bills as is.

Based on the above, how do you think the church should handle this dilemma?

Just gonna throw this out there but it could solve your money problems and the family support problem.

PPV crucifictions.

Pick a family member that looks good on camera. After it's over I doubt the remaining members will ask for thing. I know I'd watch!