Donations

Donations are important and good. Much work could not be done without donations. No one will doubt that donations are good for the recipients. But what about for the donors themselves? What if there are expectations for donors? This is not infrequently particularly pronounced in a religious environment. There are expectations that people will donate and that expectation can be built up into real pressure. Then donations are no longer voluntary, but compelled. That’s a problem.

However, donations are essential if we are to shape and sustain communities in this world. Even where no money flows, people invest with time, know-how and commitment. All these things are something that people “donate”. One time it is money, another time they invest themselves. Nothing, however, can be taken for granted. It becomes critical when the unpaid commitment of community members is taken as much for granted as the payment of one’s own salary when one is in church service.

• Church tax is levied in regional churches. You can’t defend yourself there, unless you leave the church. The structure makes donations mandatory.
• In free churches, I have seen ongoing appeals for donations, and not infrequently the requirement and expectation that members donate 10% of income. That would be “biblical.” Such an expectation clashes with voluntariness.

Donations should be voluntary, otherwise we would have to talk about membership and membership fees. Where a church tax applies, or contributions are demanded from parishioners, one could assess it that way. If one observes conversations about money, church taxes, etc., then I notice again and again that one speaks of “services.

Donations should be voluntary, otherwise we would have to talk about membership and membership fees.

Accordingly, there is a link between what you do and what you pay for. In the regular economy, that would be normal. In the church/free church environment, however, the linkage is somewhat different. Donations must carry here what can not be sold directly. Ideal services such as those provided by churches are more difficult to assess.

If one sees the link between service and monetary need more clearly, many questions can be asked differently.

Why do we donate?

People donate for a variety of reasons. This is also culturally influenced.

• In national churches, for example, people often donate “because the church does good.” This is said, for example, by people who “attend church” but never show up at services or participate in church life. They are the silent or distant ones. This church does not live on active members, but on “dead members” who still pay. Payment is made for practical traditional services (baptism, wedding, funeral) and social services, for example.
• In free churches it is different. Here only the active members pay. There are hardly any others. This is completely different from national churches. Free churches focus on living faith and thus on transformation of life. This is also necessary because otherwise hell threatens. Not infrequently, therefore, donations are solicited in the evangelical environment on idealistic grounds (“building God’s kingdom,” “making evangelism possible,” and the like).

Outside of faith communities, donations are made to specific causes, to a specific work, to specific people so that they can be helped in a need or contribute positively to specific things.

Donations are a double-edged sword

“Let’s talk about money.” This sentence aims to make visible and discussable something that is often lost in the perception of churches, free churches and Christian ministries. Money is necessary and value-neutral. Good things can be done with money. But – when money rules, it becomes difficult. For faith communities, money always seems secondary. It’s not about money. Or is it?

• Those who live off donations want to maintain their livelihood. That is understandable.
• Those who donate, on the other hand, want their donations to be used for meaningful purposes.

There is a tension between the two positions. It’s a healthy tension that wants to see donation and service in balance. However, this is not always the case. It is not in balance when:

• The recipients of donations exert pressure on the donors (typical characteristic of cults)
• Donor recipients no longer represent donor concerns
• Donors want to see other projects that are closer to their own development.

Nothing is self-evident. A project may have fulfilled itself over time. Further donations are unnecessary. A new project is started. Whoever proceeds in this way gives room to the changes in society, in the church, and to the demands of our time.

Nothing is self-evident.

Donations are a double-edged sword when donor and recipient are no longer on the same page. This should not worry anyone. All it takes is a healthy approach to expectations and enough sense of reality to arrive at workable solutions. Anyone who no longer wants to donate should simply drop out. If this has consequences for the recipient, he must rethink. For me, as an independent entrepreneur, these are logical considerations. I have no trouble with change. No salary was ever taken for granted. I embrace positive change, towards a better project.

Upheaval leads to new situations

Our time and our world are in upheaval. This affects the church, faith communities, the way we view this world and the way we ask questions. In this upheaval, questions of funding and thus questions of donations are also important. We may have to learn to deal with that first. What’s holding you back from change?

• Old structures want to preserve themselves (backward looking)
• You can’t imagine a change, so it doesn’t exist (negation)
• Rethinking existing structures is challenging and uncomfortable (this requires courage and vision).

Talking about donations in the context of change is necessary. The old church structures are crumbling. Let’s call the institutionalized old church “Church 1.0”. This concerns the traditional churches as well as the free churches. It is about a concept of church, which is falling apart today.

Why does it actually work?

The current changes require a new concept. If the external structure changes, the sources of funds become different or disappear, how can community still be financed? The question arises: Why does it actually work? What could “Church 2.0” look like?

The church of the future

The church of the future will probably have a different structure. While today’s church is strongly hierarchical, with a small minority living off the donations of many, a future church could be people-centered, with a horizontal hierarchy and no more donation privileges. Perhaps the communities are also too small to be able to carry pastors, as happens today. Then new concepts are needed, then more responsibility is needed for the congregation and the theologians to find new forms of community.

Such a change also requires that we talk about donations and the like. They serve a purpose, as we have seen. When the purpose changes, it also requires new approaches to funding new ideas. It is not a clergy or an institution that should be central, but the community itself. Future theologians, in all their work, may have to keep in mind the goal of limiting the stakes, that is, making themselves superfluous as quickly as possible – as in a project – so that costs do not explode.

Today, churches are trying to make up for the decline by rationalizing, merging, enlarging congregations, and the like. You stand on the brakes and hope for the best. However, the process of decay is likely to be irreversible. Money will continue to flow out as a result, and you won’t be able to do in 10 years what you can do today. The self-evident flow of money is over. The reliance on donations will shake up existing structures.

Considering that a pastor in the national church in Switzerland (as far as they are still self-supporting) receives an annual salary between 100,000 and 150,000 CHF/EUR, but more and more people are leaving, one can see with blindfolded eyes that this cannot end well. The wages are adjusted to the usual wages that apply here in Switzerland for equivalent training and positions. If everyone deserves this, it seems fair that these wages be paid at church positions as well. From a financial perspective, being a pastor has long been financially attractive. Free church pastors usually don’t earn as much, but still receive a fixed salary, often including 13th month pay and the like. As a self-employed person, I say: what a luxury!

If admission fees had to be charged on a true-cost basis, how much would it cost to buy an admission ticket to a Sunday church service?

Quite a few congregations today see Sunday worship as the central element of a faith community. Services are provided by a small group of paid people. This is the old church structure. This is church 1.0. Let’s do a mental game: true cost for this structure would mean weighing the current financial cost directly against worship attendance. If admission fees had to be charged on a true-cost basis, how much would it cost to buy an admission ticket to a Sunday church service?

It is not about the church

I can’t help feeling that today’s church and community structures are heavily influenced by money. What is achieved can often be highlighted in a positive way. This does not want to be doubted. At this point, I am concerned with another aspect: one lives from the security of financial income. This is constantly being adjusted, and the EKD in Germany, for example, has had a study prepared according to which extreme financial losses will have to be accepted in the year 2060. One realizes that the church is in transition. How can you make provisions with foresight?

This is all understandable and wise. But: It is not about the church. By that I mean that it’s not about the institution. It is never about the institution or about maintaining certain structures. Then one is merely in love with structure or clings to one’s own armchair, to one’s own supposed securities.

Why does it work? It is about the church itself, the body of Christ. This also includes the many people who are not (or no longer) at home in churches or free churches. That may be most people today. The churches have become marginal. The company is in a different place. In society, but outside of churches and free churches, there is a growing group of Christians who would like to be involved, who would like to fellowship, but who can’t or don’t want to do it the way they did in past generations.

It has always been about the people.

Community is in transition. That’s why you should think about community. Therefore, donations should also be thought about, about how to build community, with what means. It’s not about the church, it’s about the people. Church 2.0 is therefore supported by the people themselves. It will continue to exist even if previous structures break down. When there is no more money, people will still band together. It has always been about the people.

The frugal work

Paul wrote:

“But I rejoice greatly in the Lord that you have at last blossomed to think upon that which concerns me, which you were also anxious to do, but had no opportunity. Not that I say this for a lack; for I have learned to be frugal in the position I am in. I also know what it is like to be humbled, I also know what it is like to have abundance; I am privy to everything and anything: both to be full and to go hungry, to have abundance and to suffer lack. All things I can do in Him who strengthens me, Christ.”
Phil 4:10-13

This was about support for the apostle. The Philippians apparently sent something to Paul before. Paul was grateful for this, but did not want to appear coerced. It should not be because he had a shortage and therefore asked for it. He probably didn’t ask for support at all, but the community recognized how he needed it. Paul testifies that he is familiar with both abundance and scarcity. He knows what it means to be full and to go hungry. The apostle did not have a rosy life with a fixed income.

He drives on:

“Meanwhile, you are doing well to share in my tribulation. But you Philippians also know that in the beginning of the gospel preaching, when I went out from Macedonia, no church called out contributed anything to me for the account of giving and receiving except you alone; for even when I was in Thessalonica, once or twice you sent me something for my need. Not that I seek the gift, no, I seek the fruit that increases for your account. I have now received everything in full, I even have abundance; my lack has been filled since I received the gift from you through Epaphroditus: a fragrant fragrance, a well-accepted offering pleasing to God. But my God will fill all your need, according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus. But to our God and Father be glory for the eons of eons! Amen!”
Phil 4:14-20

Direct help from the Philippians helped Paul. For the Philippians, this was not the first time. So Paul noted that he sees a fruit growing in their attitude. It is not only about what Paul receives, but also about the impact of giving to the church in Philippi. From this it can be seen that it is not just about the money, but about the gain for the whole community – including Paul. Something like a spiritual view of giving emerges here. However, Paul himself emphasized that he was not concerned with the gift, even though he needed it. Paul was frugal. The gift was part of a living community, a larger concept.

Elsewhere, Paul emphasized that he preferred to support himself:

“After this he left Athens and went to Corinth. There he found a Jew of Pontic origin named Aquila, who had recently come from Italy with Priscilla, his wife, because Claudius had ordered the expulsion of all Jews from Rome. Paul went to them, and having the same trade, he stayed with them and worked; for according to their trade they were tentmakers.”
Acts 18:1-3

Changes have already begun

A pastor of a minority church nearby runs a gas station. That’s how he earns his bread. More and more theologians stand outside the institutional church (Public Theology) and earn their bread with other tasks, take on readings, write books, create an account on Patreon, through which they offer regular services as a paid subscription. The self-evidence of a wage based on donations has long since ceased to exist for these people. These theologians are no longer employees, but have become entrepreneurs.

This website kernbeisser.ch is also not created on the basis of donations. I could never live off the donations for this work. Donations, however, are very helpful, sometimes necessary and – as with Paul – it is about much more. It is mutual encouragement with practical value. Because I currently can not live from this work, the use is adapted to reality. Sometimes there is more, sometimes there is less freedom to write or create videos. This is quite “like real life” and, I estimate, also somewhat closer to the reality of a future Christian community. Did I ever mention that I love improvisation? I suspect there will be a lot more improvisation. This will affect congregations as well as pastors.

I think that in the church of the future, people will be much more aware of creating the common space of faith. Donations are made in a correspondingly more conscious manner. Everyone donates with their gifts. This never as coerced, but voluntarily, for the benefit of the community. Perhaps there are more theologians than traveling preachers, as Apollos once was (Acts 18:24-28; Titus 3:13). It is not the church that is central, but the body of Christ that exists across the last two millennia, within and outside of existing churches and communities.

Are donations now compulsory or optional? Donations are freestyle. It is voluntary. It is an expression of a conscious examination, not only of the past, not only of current challenges, but also of a vision of the future, of a way of being Christian today and in the future.