Soliciting Contributions from inactive members

[La Bonita Zorilla]

One issue arose at church council meeting earlier tonight: should inactive members be pursued for contributions? Most including myself said no, but one fellow vigorously disagreed.

My main reason is we shouldn't appear to be money-hungry. Yes, it costs to keep them on the rolls; but I think pursuing donations in this manner is a little unseemly.

People who visit those whose faces are not seen should accept contributions if offered, I believe, but not solicit them.

 

[ChrisB]

i think it would depend how it was handled. If it was done in the form of a letter sent to all members reminding them of the Church's need for funds this would be fine. If, however, the non-active members were singled out in some way or pressured into giving then I think you would be right in your misgivings.

Also I'm not a Methodist and am largely ignorant about the organisation of the Methodist Church. I'm not sure, therefore, why having non-active members on your rolls would cost money. If it really is a problem could you not institute a rule whereby members who have not attended for, say, a year, could be removed from the roll? There may of course be legitimate reasons for non-attendance (prolonged ill-health, military service overseas etc) but this could be catered for by making application of the rule discretionary by the leadership.

The applicable passage on giving in this situation is, I think

2 Corinthians 9

6Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Chris, good points. We include contribution envelopes with newsletters and appeals for special contributions at Christmas, Easter, and during the summer slump, with the first two mostly neutrally worded.

Inactive members for whom there's no continuing interest cost any organization for mailings. 6-10 per year is not much, but it adds up, which is why purges of the lists are necessary periodically.

In the UMC, local church organization is governed by the annual 'charge conference' and among items of business, purges of the membership list must be voted on and approved. Invariably, there's one or two names on the list where someone will say something like "Jane Smith hasn't been coming but she still considers herself a member of this church, so, please don't take her off the rolls." to which the congregation usually dutifully acquiesces.

 

[lands21]

Something we must remember here is that it is God's money, and he asks for us to give money back to Him to run His Church. If we are Christians, who desire to do God's word, we should be striving to do this. If we are not, then a visit from someone in the Church is called for.

 

[MParedon]

Maybe you could do a special invitation for inactive members, like try to get them coming back again, maybe add in a questionnare to see why they aren't coming.

Or maybe you could do a once yearly fee for the mailings (of course try to make it a small fee and really emphasize the good these mailings do)

Our parish has a bulliten, and they have advitisers that pay for it, they also have a little box that shows how much they've collected for the week or the weekend. There is always a thanx and this little quote about giving to God what is already his...to give him our first fruits not our last. It's done in a really tasteful manner.

 

[BarbB]

The issue is tough, LBZ. I am interested in several churches that I almost joined and still receive mailings from them, but I contribute to each of them every year so as to continue the mailings at no cost to them.

My old Presbyterian church did remove people from mailings and membership if there was no good reason, such as ill health, stopping them from attending.

Speaking of membership, has anyone noticed that there are like 50% attend regularly and 50% members, but it's like pulling teeth to get attendees to join.

 

[Col]

I think the Church's focus should be on trying to bring back the people, not just their money. Making people feel guilty is no way to promote giving.
If people feel loved, included, encouraged and spiritually fed, they will freely give and probably tell their friends as well.
Further more, if your congregation and funds are dwindling, then I think that the Church should take a good hard look at themselves and try to discover where they have lost their way, if indeed they have.
Some churches simply have a season, they may be around for a number of years, and in that time they sow many seeds that will bear much fruit now and in the future. However as time passes and demographics change, viability may become an issue. It is knowing when to let go and accept that the "job is done" and move on, that is important, however difficult it may be.
Maintaining a congregation or a Church, just because it has a long history or that it has become and "institution" is not a reason nor validation for its existence. God uses all types of people and things for His Glory and everything has its time, and we need to be open to God to hear His timing. Not to do this, simply ends up with man making a Church more important than God, which is all too evident today in many ways.


Bless Ya
Col <><

 

[tateziwin]

>>> "If you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you? " <<<

That is very thought provoking Col!
Did you come up with it? If so, well done...you made me stop and think!

 

[Col]

>>> "If you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you? " <<<

That is very thought provoking Col!
Did you come up with it? If so, well done...you made me stop and think!

I would love to take the credit and say that I came up with it, but alas, no.
I saw it on a Bookmark in a Christian Bookshop in Hong Kong about 10 years ago. It stopped me in my tracks and also made me really stop and think.
Ever since then, I think about this everyday.

Bless Ya
Col <><

 

[12volt_man]

I have to be honest, I'm much more concerned with why the church keeps them on the rolls if they're not active.

 

[Lotar]

LBZ, I agree with you, non-active members should not be asked for money.

Perhaps they could remain on the list but not recieve the newsletters, as a compromise?

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Something we must remember here is that it is God's money, and he asks for us to give money back to Him to run His Church. If we are Christians, who desire to do God's word, we should be striving to do this. If we are not, then a visit from someone in the Church is called for.

Believe me, I know that happens in at least three denominations known to strong-arm folks: Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Worldwide Church of God (Armstrongism). Nothing against those folks (though check out Unorthodox Theological Doctrines Forum to see plenty that is) but IMO that is not the image to project, especially in these days when "brand loyalty" in church denomination and political party is for the most part a thing of the past.

I have no problem if, during pledge drive, stewardship committee members do things like say (face to face, not by phone), "We got your pledge of $100 a week, and we thank you for it. However, we are in a little bit of a budget crunch to fund all the church's programs and if we don't get more in pledges, we are going to have to make program cuts. We hate to ask but it's really necessary. Could you up your pledge any at all?"

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Speaking of membership, has anyone noticed that there are like 50% attend regularly and 50% members, but it's like pulling teeth to get attendees to join.

In my senior year in high school I lived with my oldest sister and brother-in-law, who are an ex-nun and ex-priest and they are Unitarians. They tried to get me to go but I tried to get scheduled for working Sundays at the grocery store so I had an excuse not to. I did go a few times. But at least I learned a little about how they operate: like Baptists, each congregation has a lot of independence. This particular UU church required members to pledge $250 a year minimum. So as a result lots of people wouldn't join.

When you have a loyalty to a denomination, it's easier, but most people don't. It's my understanding most of the megachurches do lots of gentle recruiting of prospective members-nurturing, grooming-then put the bite on them AFTER they join.

 

[BarbB]

...
When you have a loyalty to a denomination, it's easier, but most people don't. It's my understanding most of the megachurches do lots of gentle recruiting of prospective members-nurturing, grooming-then put the bite on them AFTER they join.

Too true, LBZ. My brother is a member of a mini-megachurch (about 3,000 on an average Sunday) and their membership percentage is less than 50% but they have no way of knowing who is showing up to get them to join. What a logistics problem. I like his church, but I would like it to be smaller!

 

[ChrisB]

This particular UU church required members to pledge $250 a year minimum.

Perhaps they should have been reminded of Mark 12:41-44