we have a supply of un-numbered offering envelopes and when a person wants more they let the office know and the administrator stamps the appropriate number on some and passes them on..

 

are they dated, GordW?

 

a couple of thoughts-back when I used envelopes-before PAR-I used to ignore th date and donate as I was paid-either every 2 weeks or monthly-one set of envelopes wouls last me 2 years or so

we once made up kid envelopes-so their offering could be credited to parents (and so they felt gron up) labels were stuck on envelopes.

We use Post Church Envelopls from Lindsay, Ontario as our supplier. http://www.postchurchenvelopes.com/

Nope.  THat was the main reason they moved to that system.  Buying dated sets of offereing envelopes just creates massive amounts of waste because there are lots of unused ones each year.

 

I remember those, both as a giver and as a counter. My family UCCan used them. Had special sets for the kids, too.

 

My UU fellowship is largely on PAR or post-dated cheques so we just put out envelopes on the chairs with space to put name if it's cash and you want a receipt. Cheques generally have the info on them anyway. They don't get used much, to be honest. At least that's my perception.

 

One thing I've noticed in at least one UCCan here in London is that they have tokens decorated by the kids that the people on PAR or other payment scheme can put in the plate so that their givings are part of the offering. It struck me as odd but does solve the problem of blessing half or less full offering plates when, in fact, the church is taking in far more than what's on the plate.

 

Mendalla

 

The majority of our church members give by envelope. We take the offering seriously.

Is there an implication that others do not take it seriously?

 

Yes. The act of making the offering and receiving it in worship is serious business. The use of envelopes is a part of that liturgical significance. We have diluted that in our worship with PAR, among other methodologies, and lost the sense that the congregational leaders should also be seen to be givers, just like everyone. We fundraise, we don't engage in growing stewards.  In the congregation I serve still receive a goo number of offering envelopes by mail, with a cheque each month, from the many folks (about 20% of our members) we have living in retirement homes. I have eschewed switching to PAR myself, because I believe it is important for the congregation to see that I also place my offering on the plate, just like they do. Leading by example is important. Critically important.

 

We have cards we place in the offering plate-business card size-they say " I give with PAR" -that way DKS the visible sign is still there. PAR greatly helps our budget as offering is consitenet when folks are away for travel etc.

DKS, you seem to be a very cranky man.

While I'm way ahead of you when it comes to making that observation, I think DKS at least has a point here.

 

I think I somewhat understand what DKS is talking about.  We had a minister at our church once who felt very strongly that the offering (and what we give) was very much a part of our worship service.  So for those who feel strongly in that way, offering envelopes are important.

 

I make my offerings by PAR . . . and I don't use the little cards (although we do have them available).  I don't feel a need to put something, or have others see me put something in the plate . . . but I understand that some do feel the need to include placing something in the offering plate as part of their act of worship.

 

Someone (I think someone here on Wondercafe) mentioned that they don't "take" up an offering, but rather have the plates a the back (or front?) and people just put their offering in when they come in.

 

We also have those cards. Our PAR offering is equivilent to a regular Sunday offering.

I think that part of the point David is making is there a wholsim at work when we take up the offering and bless it.  Money is part of who we are and it is part of who the church is - by not taking the offering up we make a dualism of sacred and profane - money is the profane.  Offering reminds us that our use of it is also a sacred trust .

 

The prayer should also suggest our relationship with money, world and mission,

We have had this discussion before. We do not take up the offering at all. Lead by example, hmm. If you can't give, or have nothing for the plate, what example is bring shown to those who can't give? Humiliation, unworthy, class separation?

None of the above. You offer yourself. It is enough. My leadership is that I give. What I give is my business.

liturgical significance ... Really? Glad to see we have our priorities in order.

What we do in worship is entirely our offering to God. Yes, it has liturgical significance and that is a priority. We worship God, not the flying spaghetti monster.

Thanks DKS. We will never be on the same page on this. I have never thought of a worship service as being an offering to God. So does that mean if the clergy person doesn't do it for us on a particular Sunday its less significant in God eyes and/or to our relationship with God?

 

You miss the point of worship as offering - you may not have the same view but that is a classical understanding of worship......

Thanks Panentheism and DKS - for me it is always a time to be with God - to possibly communion with God - and offering to God sounds like we get nothing out of it...guess after 55 years I have been thinking/doing it wrong...guess we better start screening our clergy more closely as we have never had it explained this way....interesting - new questions for JNAC's and when interviewing clergy personnel.  As for offering, again, for our congregation it was for inclusiveness - I guess if churches have mostly middle class people etc in them its not an issue, but when you have a diverse congregation it makes a lot of sense. (not having an offering)

Jobam, when I think of those for whom offering was an issue there wasn't a correlation to the amount the individual had.

The offering is blind..no one knows how much anyone puts in the envelope.  

Does anyone wish to tackle that "offerings" were originally sacrifices and were brought to commune with God, give thanks to God, express love.... cleansing and atonement?  That worship was/is about ALL those things. That tithing was a tax to Levites? Or is it better to say "This is just the way we do it and have always done it"?

The offering may be intended to be blind, but the people are not. Anyone who believes that the minister, the treasurer, the weekly counters.... do not know is perhaps blind. People who may or may not know also gossip. When we defend "our" way of doing something as the "right way" we insult those who do it other ways. Some cite Matthew 6:3 for not passing offering plates. Some cite Jehoiada the priest in 2 Kings 12for having collection boxes for the offering. There are also those who do not wish money to seem paramount in the kingdom of God. Saying, "our way of worship is better than yours" just does not seem very Christ-like

 

There is no disagreement on the fact it is time with God.  The small theological point is God is in relationship with us and needs, yes needs, our response.  Now it can be action in the world, creating open space so the experience of God can slide in.  I reject dualisms that separate the material reality from the spiritual reality.  IN one sense, the collection of the" offering" is a rejection of dualism.  Yes, it can be done in other ways, but in a sense not having an 'offering' is rejecting the material aspect of life.  I understand the reasons not to do it, like protecting visitors or those with little income. but that seems paternalistic... but if it works fo for it.  Those in my last charge wanted to be full participants and thus understood some small token, like a loonie made them fully human and not second class citizens. It is not a matter of middle class but an understanding of flourishing and letting people decide how they will participate.

double post

I asked a friend, who leads a church that does not take up an offering, the reason why there is no offering. He smiled and said, "ah, but you know there is." and I do. I asked about passing the plates. Listening to the answer, contemplating intent, thinking on Scripture... I can understand. I may or may not agree, but I can understand. There are times I can say that something is based on sound theology, even when that theology differs from my own. You see, the reason he gave was a desire to not put forth stumbling blocks for those who are poor as well as those who are non-Christian or those who do not attend church regularly. Again, whether I agree or not, I can understand. Is it sound? IMO Yes, it is about as theologically as sound as anything I do. It is merely different, not inferior.

I took some time to think on some things mentioned and hope that this conversation has not effectively come to a conclusion. The first being that one does not have to separate 'the material reality from the spiritual reality' because one does not pass offering plates. An offering, material, can be deposited in offering boxes, etc. Saying that one 'rejects the material aspect of life' is a bit heavy and can be very inaccurate. That one is "protecting" can be paternalistic. That a group decides it is proper, right, just... may not be paternalistic. Motive matters. Also, when the decision is freely and self-made by adults with an equal vote, how would it be paternalist? I find "full participants" is also heavy language.One can be fully human and not a second class citizen IMO without a single penny to spare.  Letting people decide, is letting them decide and they may decide to have offering boxes, etc... I can agree or disagree, but I respect it is their decision to make. 

It is always interesting to me that in churches , a few make the decisions for many.

Does everything we do in community require a majority vote?

At least a concensus, DKS

Why? Some communities are simply too large to have consensus. Some decisions are so minor that they don't need to be voted on. Some decisions are BIG decisions. Some are small. Putting everything to a vote is simply bad governance and a waste of valuabe time, not to mention exhausting of the community. Sometimes leaders have to make decisions.

There are also decisions that rightfully belong to the congregation. The UCC, in its formation, provided for substantial freedom for congregations.

I don't disagree with that. In fact, the freedom of congregations in their governance was a foundational principle brought to the union by the Congregationalists, who fought for long and hard, along with the demand for no creedal subscription. That is what "essential agreement" is based on. The person who developed the principles and who fought for them was The Rev. Dr. Hugh Pedley, who, sadly, died in 1924 before the union was consumated.

As with any institution, the interested, engaged and active will direct the policy and process for the others. If the others don't like it, they leave, or stay (and complain).

This applies to all institutions, from federal governance, all the way through to the governance of commercial and not for profit organizations.

 

This thoughtful response demands a like wise one.  It is a question of symoblic action - if we do not present an offering does that not make the connection of the spiritual and materialism split?  If a liturgy is design to be wholistic does that not demand some public action? Yes depositing in offering boxes and the like is a sign of personal piety ( like in the rc church) there is still a place for the private to become public.... so one does not need to pass the pltes but is there some need symbolically to make present the priviate?

 

Yes motivation matters, but my point is often it is a decision of well meaning people.  My point is agency is honored by letting people decide what they will do both symoblically and materially.Yes, one is a fully human without za single penny to spare.  However, it is again a theological point that applies to all - how to us my material wealth..... a penny many be the best one can do and if I remember a parable - of great honor.

Yes letting people decide on method is to honor decisions, but again the motive is important - what is really the worldview at work. I still stand that often it is well meaning paternalism.

Panentheism, thank you for the great and meaningful conversation.

 

As diverse people, we can come from different places and thus perspectives.

 

Being raised Jewish, I would say there was a balance between spiritual and material and that Judaism seeks to unite those. It does not abhor the physical. It also does not over-glorify the spiritual.

 

The dualism some may believe is innate or that has been present and needs accounted for or compensated for, is a creation of some religions, some denominations, some sects, etc…. and not all.

 

I said a blessing over all food, because one could not eat (enjoy the physical) without acknowledging the spiritual. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

 

In Judaism, there was no such thing as a collection plates. There was the Tzedakah Box. Giving was compulsory and they could be found in homes even. My allowance came and some went into the box each week. There was the teaching regarding the eight levels of tzedakah from Maimonides. It did not, does not, cheapen worship nor would I say it was less God-pleasing because of the absence of a public collection and dedication. For me, the same naturally would apply if the church was Christian and did not take up or receive an offering publically.

 

Is it a symbol and ritual in some  Christian churches? Certainly!

 

But, let’s say the question is about tallit.  Is a tallit important because it is a tallit or is the fringe a reminder to the wearer of obligations? It can invite the question, can one be a Jew without tallit?
One might say, “Tallit is required because the Law says….”
Another might say, “Without a prayer shawl and tallit, something significant is missing “.
Someone else might say, “Tallit, schmallit, if you remember the obligation, who cares?”

 

Again, people are diverse and we do not need to agree.

 

IMO What we are called to do, is to leave space for each person to meet God where and when and how God calls them. (Male or female, Greek or Jew, Circumcised or not, kosher or not, etc….) I have no desire to put a stumbling block there or actually get in God’s way with what I think is best or right or most meaningful or what carries symbolic weight for me.

 

For me, rituals and symbols are to show we are partners with God, point to what is holy, point to where our lives should go,  imbue the mundane, elevate worship… If they do not, they are useless. If they once did and do not any longer, well….
 

What is meaningful changes and can be subjective, as we are indeed a diverse people.  Onward Christian Soldiers used to be a favourite.

 

So, it stands that in a congregation where there is little or no value seen in the symbol or ritual, that it may put it aside. One can agree or disagree. One can try to restore value… and be successful or fail miserably. Ultimately, it is their decision and if they find no value, there is no real value. If it does not point there, for them, it just doesn’t.

 

There does not need to be a hole left in worship because something fades out…. Not if that space is filled with something that fills. If there is a something else that shows partnership with God, points to what is holy, points in the direction we are to head,  imbues the mundane, elevates worship…. One has lost nothing.

For me, it is paternalistic to say what another should do, or has been decided to be in their best interest,  whether that it the "parent" saying yes or saying no. Honouring another as a autonomous human being must allow for their decision, whether I happen to say yeah or nay.

 

I agree.  My point is the rationale that some use falls in your defination. It s makes 'poor' feel badly.  This is a decision of well meaning people who seem to know how they feel.  Just as the comment those who visit will feel badly.

The longer post I agree with it.  My point again is again not taking up an offering is not thought while you point is grounded in theological reflection.  It is true I was judging the adequacy of the rationale,  What I read suggested a paternialism and did not understand symbolism.

Panentheism, Perhaps I should have clarified that I believe it should be a decision well thought on and that the congregation came to the conclusion based on many factors (among them the ability for people deciding to take part in the symbolic act). For some, it was means. For others, it was ability to take part in the symbolic act because they have very few who can get up or down easily or walk an offering forward. I find nothing wrong with their decision. They, in arriving there, looked outwardly (what you see as partenalistic), but it was primarily relflection and decision regarding self.

Yes when all are invited to make the decision it is not paternalistic.  My point is often the default position of many in the church leadership is paternalistic.  It comes out in the idea that the poor must be taken care of - not in the sense we need to change society but to protect them from making decisions about how they live. An example is a welfare mother condemning her neighbours for buy beer.  Or, a poverty activist who said sell the beautiful windows of a church, as if the poor did not like beauty.

Panentheism, I agree many (in church leadership and out) come from a default position that is paternalistic (whether they realize it or not). However, with a background of marginalization (on many fronts) and working with clients one empowers (domestic violence)... despite societal influence, I would say my default is autonomy, empowerment and equality, not paternalism.

Of course I agree that your default position is empowerment.  One small point is while it is true working in marginaliized areas makes one more aware, it  is also true one can be aware without that experiece..... Also it does not prevent one from being paternalistic. What you begin with is a critical analysis and thoughtful worldview that cuts through the defualt positions of many in our society.

Thank you, Panentheism. As the commercial says, "be all you can be". Think, be open, think, pray, open more, think, pray.... repeat. I agree that we are not destined to be one or the other. It is also about choice and experience. Having been on the receiving end of much paternalistic behaviour, I was repelled by it. The largest of which was being told it was not in my best interest to be permitted to be gay or say married. My work in domestic violence meant I saw unequal power dynamics.