FRS member Mary Haslinger has sent along a stewardship story:
Judy MacGregor and Linda Tulley, both members of the First Religious Society, regularly attend the Church's Book Group, which meets on Friday mornings at 10:00. The group currently has eight members, but anybody and everybody is welcome to join at any time.
Though legally blind, Judy was able to participate fully by borrowing books on audio tape from the Perkins Institute. This arrangement worked well for her until one day, about a year ago, when she announced to group that Perkins did not have the next book chosen by the group. Perhaps, she suggested, she should resign from active participation.
The group fell silent. Then Linda softly said: "Judy, I'll read the chapters aloud to you." Since then, Linda has driven to Judy's home in Amesbury every Wednesday morning to read aloud to her from the book the group is discussing
Judy exclaims that Linda has enriched her life through her kindness and that she is forever grateful to Linda. Linda points out that she too has gained, because she and Judy now have a wonderful, happy friendship. Judy and Linda laugh and cry together over the chapters they read. They look up words unknown to them. They drink tea.
It's a heartwarming to consider this friendship. And it is a reminder that "It is in giving, that we receive."
It's also interesting to examine what sort of stewardship this story exemplifies. It clearly shows how one person can enrich the life of another, but even more how in doing so the enricher may become the enriched. But there is another aspect: that when we serve each other within this church community, we are also be stewards of the church if, for no other reason, that we are the church. We - not the sanctuary, not the professionals we hire to serve us, not the liberal religious values - we are the church.
Please send your own stories or reflections on how you or others take care of the FRS.
A parishioner wrote-
I have a couple of comments on the Stewardship brochure . . . I do not intend these comments to be critical. As I am sure you both know I feel as if I have really found a home at this church. Consider them the ramblings of a curmudgeon.
The first comment is how little I consider that the church gives to outreach, or benevolence, or charity or whatever you care to call it. When I get out my magnifying glass and read the pie chart I see we give 2% to outreach. I am sure that a certain portion of what goes to the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) goes to outreach, and I am aware that one half of the loose plate goes to different organizations. (To me, this smacks of the crumbs from the table. I find it more than ironic that this month's contribution is going to Pennies for the Poor.) I come from a Protestant background where benevolence was a very important part of your pledge. It has only been recently in my former church when the practice of splitting your pledge into current expense and benevolence was eliminated. When I was treasurer some 15 years ago, we gave about 20% of our pledged income to local and national organizations. This year when their proposed budget had drastic cuts proposed to their benevolence budget, there was such a crisis of conscience that they will be reconsidering their budget.
The second comment I have is about the reasons people come to the church. I think you have left out what should be the most important reason, namely that it is "Unitarian" and it has a liberal theology. This is not a mix-and-match situation. It certainly is what brought me here . . . As I was leaving church yesterday and walking along Pleasant street I overtook two women, one had a cane and may have been blind, and the other was reading to her the historical affirmations from the back of the bulletin. She read them with a sense of conviction rather than as matter of fact. That is how I read them, as well.
The FRS Administrator wrote-
What a thoughtful and moving piece of mail . . . As to the FRS's giving, you should keep in mind that beyond the giving shown in our budget, we will be giving in the community through various of our endowment funds and, even more important, we open our parishioners to giving opportunities of time, treasure, and talent such as the friendship table dinners, the various programs of our Community Human Services Committee, and our Social Action Committee. Such giving does not appear in the budget because it is not paid for by pledged dollars or other FRS sources.
All that being said, I agree with you that our charitable giving as an institution is probably weaker than would have been the case of a church 100 years ago. But then 100 years ago, there were practically no social programs through the government, and there was no income tax to support such programs.
And still I agree with you and can only recommend to you a thorough reading of our budget to see what dollars you would redirect toward charitable purposes. You should keep in mind this startling fact: that of the sixty churches surveyed, as mentioned in the brochure, we were at or next to the bottom in giving. The church giving as a percentage of area family income ranged from 3.89% to 1.41%; the median among these sixty congregations was 2.45%. And that's us, in wealthy Newburyport, Massachusetts, at the 1.4% level.
So ultimately here's the problem: we at the FRS have developed a habit of under-giving, perhaps a holdover from the time when the few on High Street purportedly underwrote the entire operation. And so we operate as if impoverished, meeting primarily our own needs, never achieving the sort of beneficence that you and I believe a church should. Would it be cheeky of me to say, "Think about this as you consider your pledge"?
The FRS Minister wrote-
I would only add that the FRS is fortunate to have a couple of restricted endowment funds, the Swasey Fund and the Swasey Orphan's Fund, from which we are able to give a substantial amount to local individuals and agencies each year: in the case of the Swasey Fund, which functions as a Minister's Discretionary Fund, the amount is around $5000 a year in direct assistance. The Orphan's Fund is used to give support to Newburyport children who have lost a parent to death. Last year we gave over $5400 in awards from the Orphans Fund.
The Young Church program also does some fundraising for outreach; you could ask Julie Parker Amery what sorts of things they have done in recent years.
These are, admittedly, outside of our regular operating budget. Your comments about including "Unitarian Universalism" in our stewardship promotional materials are a good reminder that for some of us this remains a potent inspiration for giving. Thanks for your note and your concern!
The parishioner wrote-
I understand better now how much the FRS is committed to a wider ministry. The same conditions exist at my former church-much more being given than showed up in accounting entries. There we made a 4x8 corkboard, where we posted all contributions given by the various groups within the church. It is called a celebratory board as opposed to an accounting vehicle. I think when it was all added up there was twice as much given as budgeted. It has been successful in helping that church focus on a wider mission. Of course it can be a double-edged sword. "Since we are giving all of that money, why do we have to budget more?" But all in all it has been a success.
I think I will decline your offer to go through the budget and identify opportunities to increase outward giving.
I agree with your demographic analysis. It is also true in other wealthy towns. Does this suggest an inverse correlation between income and charitable giving? I think I read somewhere that political liberals are more stingy than conservatives. I know in some of the more evangelical churches people are required to tithe. I guess all you can do is to continue to hold it up and hope that one by one the necessity and the rewards of sharing will sink in.
With regard to my own giving, it is not too cheeky to ask; after all I am the one who opened my big mouth, and I would have been disappointed if you didn't. I have always been a strong advocate of a wider mission for the church, and I assure you, although you probably would have guessed it, that I have backed it up with a generous pledge . . . and I do intend to increase my pledge this year.
