Why isnt it pointless to designate offering to a church or diversified non-profit when it just means that dept makes their budget sooner?
I see it as an organized shell game by the powers at be, but I'm not blaming them if they're just doing what the donor wants.
Let's say a children's ministry budget is $20K and you designate $5K to that area's general budget, which just means that $5K less needs to be moved from the general budget that year and will go somewhere else once their budget is met for the year, which should happen sooner if you inject a special $5K gift. I'm not talking about specific targeted assets within the ministry, like all new carpet for the children's area, or a building fund for a new family life center. But even then, if a large 'gift' just means the total is reached earlier, such that general donations can go somewhere else sooner, what's the point? Why not just donate to the general budget and let the finance committee decide what the priorities are?
Is it just to make the donor feel good as to what was perceived to be an area they have a 'heart' for? (i.e. Melinda Gates donates millions to the new youth building cause she has a heart for youth, when the building is going to get built whether she donates or not, it just might happen sooner if she does.)
I can maybe understand designation of money if it's for something specific, like a new grand piano that wasn't going to get bought anytime soon without the donation, or a set of hand bells or media equipment.
There are non-profits that pursue a lot of 'projects' in different areas. If I give to just one of them, it just frees up OTHER donations to go somewhere else, so in a way, I donated to those OTHER places. See the shell game here?
I mentioned the subject of designating offerings to someone who said 'churches hate it.' They did not elaborate after someone else spoke up and said.... 'well, they don't HATE it,' implying that it's frowned upon, or at least not the preferred method of giving. I can see how they might not like it if they feel there are other needs that should be higher priority, like staff raises or expansion that they feel are overdue.
I see it as an organized shell game by the powers at be, but I'm not blaming them if they're just doing what the donor wants.
Let's say a children's ministry budget is $20K and you designate $5K to that area's general budget, which just means that $5K less needs to be moved from the general budget that year and will go somewhere else once their budget is met for the year, which should happen sooner if you inject a special $5K gift. I'm not talking about specific targeted assets within the ministry, like all new carpet for the children's area, or a building fund for a new family life center. But even then, if a large 'gift' just means the total is reached earlier, such that general donations can go somewhere else sooner, what's the point? Why not just donate to the general budget and let the finance committee decide what the priorities are?
Is it just to make the donor feel good as to what was perceived to be an area they have a 'heart' for? (i.e. Melinda Gates donates millions to the new youth building cause she has a heart for youth, when the building is going to get built whether she donates or not, it just might happen sooner if she does.)
I can maybe understand designation of money if it's for something specific, like a new grand piano that wasn't going to get bought anytime soon without the donation, or a set of hand bells or media equipment.
There are non-profits that pursue a lot of 'projects' in different areas. If I give to just one of them, it just frees up OTHER donations to go somewhere else, so in a way, I donated to those OTHER places. See the shell game here?
I mentioned the subject of designating offerings to someone who said 'churches hate it.' They did not elaborate after someone else spoke up and said.... 'well, they don't HATE it,' implying that it's frowned upon, or at least not the preferred method of giving. I can see how they might not like it if they feel there are other needs that should be higher priority, like staff raises or expansion that they feel are overdue.
Last edited:
