  The Church Dollar One way, though by no means the only way, that the Church can judge of its successful work is by the financial support that it receives. In this Range country nearly all of the Church dollar is raised locally, except about twelve cents donated toward church work by denominational boards. Various methods are used by the local church for raising the other eighty-eight cents. Half the churches use a budget system. That is, they set down at the beginning of the fiscal year an itemized budget of the amount which they need, on the basis of which amount subscriptions are obtained from each church member or family. Twenty-five churches finance all their work this way and ten churches budget only their local needs. Thirty-two churches make an annual every-member canvass, i.e., every member is asked regularly each year to contribute something toward the church. Weekly envelopes, in single or duplex form, are used in twenty-four churches. Forty churches can be said to have a system of regular, frequent payments. The rest of the churches depend upon various combinations of quarterly or annual payments, plate collections at services, bazaars and other money-raising devices. Incidentally, the Ladies Aid and Missionary Societies are real stand-bys in the matter of church upkeep and benevolences. In fully half the churches, women’s organizations undertake to raise some part of the church expenses in various ways, from regular weekly contributions to distributing bags to be filled with pennies for every year of the contributor’s age, or by making gayly colored holders at three cents each. Nearly one hundred thousand dollars were raised by the 3,956 active members in the year of the survey. This is the “real thrill” of the church dollar. The total amount of the budget raised on the field by sixty-eight of the seventy churches[3] was $97,571.98. Of this amount $70,910.74, or little less than three-fourths, was procured by subscriptions; $9,464.24, or slightly less than CHART VI Figures refer to total amount raised and spent, including Home Mission Aid. Considering that nearly half the churches raise their money haphazardly, the average contribution per church and per member, in these four counties on the Range, is most encouraging. Of course, it must be borne in mind that 1919-1920 came at the end of the fat years, and hard upon this prosperous period followed the lean one of high freight rates and low prices for farm products. Church finances depend in part upon the practical presentation of the financial needs of the Church, and upon education in Christian stewardship—i.e., in learning the value of church work at home and abroad. But there is another side to the question which is quite as vital. Is the Church rendering a real service to the community, and has it an adequate and worth-while ministry? After Not quite all the money was spent. In each group there was a small surplus; $85.00 for the country churches, $64.24 for the village, $64.00 for the town, and $365.89 for the city churches. Of the total amount spent, $41,268.79, or about 43 per cent., paid salaries, $24,657.55, or 25 per cent., was given to missions and benevolences, and the remaining 32 per cent. was used for local expenses and upkeep. The total amount given to benevolences averages $6.27 a year. All the money spent averages $24.67 per resident active member, a good record indeed for a homesteading country. The question of benevolences is important because many churches offer no other means to their members of learning and practising unselfish giving and service. One of the standards adopted by the Interchurch World Movement was that the amount given to benevolences should at least equal 25 per cent. of the total amount spent. The proportion of all money raised which is used to pay salaries and local expenses is higher in country and village churches, while the proportion given for missions and benevolences is lower than in the town and city churches. In other words, the country and village churches have less surplus over and above their running expenses. Benevolences receive 14.3 per cent. of all money raised by the country churches, and 12.75 per cent. of all money raised by the village churches. Town churches, on the other hand, give 23.84 per cent. of their receipts to benevolences, and the city churches give 33.65 per cent. The finances of city churches are well proportioned, almost an equal amount going for salaries, missions and all other expenses. Home Mission Aid It has already been stated that about twelve cents of the church dollar come from the denominational boards in the form of Home Mission aid. The total amount given to the local churches in the year preceding the survey was $12,937.50, which went to forty-one churches in amounts varying from $50 to $750. Two more churches would have been receiving aid if they had had a pastor, and still another church had there been a resident pastor. Of the forty-one churches receiving aid, two are city, seven are town, seven are village and twenty-five are country churches. Of course, some of these churches, in their turn, hand back money to other boards in the form of missions and benevolences. The Range has always been Home Mission territory; justifiably too, because homesteaders have not been able to pay for religious ministry. A homesteader’s “bit” is hard earned enough, and seldom adequate to his needs. Nevertheless, the problem of financial aid is always a serious one. Subsidization of persons as well as institutions must be wisely handled or moral deterioration is likely to set in. The Y. M. C. A. never subsidizes a county for its rural work. If the county cannot pay, it must do without the work. Ordinarily, several counties combine for rural Y. M. C. A. work and have one secretary among them. An excellent grading system for their aided fields has been worked out by the Presbyterian Home Mission Board.[4] One of the first questions considered is the prospect of self-support. How far has it been the policy of the Boards to help a church to a status of self-support? Forty-four of the seventy active churches have had aid during the last thirty years. Only four of these churches are now self-supporting. It has already been pointed out that three churches did not receive aid during the year preceding the survey because they lacked pastors. Development toward self-support has evidently not been a criterion of the Boards in granting money. Another test is whether the field is a “strategic service opportunity”—either allocated to this denomination or a field presenting a unique need. Some of the churches fall within such a classification. A total of about $207,170 has been received, given by eleven denominations. City churches have received $40,850, town churches A NEGLECTED OUTPOST OF CHRISTIANITY A village church in the center of a large unevangelized area, served by a minister living thirty-five miles away. Aid Misapplied Some aid has very evidently been granted without a definite understanding on the part of the board as to whether other churches were concerned, whether the community could really support a church, whether, after all, it was good sense to assist a church in that particular situation. Not very much money has been spent. More could have been used to advantage. As H. Paul Douglass says in “From Survey to Service,” “It is in the nature of the case that the conquest of distance by the Gospel will take very disproportionate amounts of money compared with other forms of missions. It can be cheap only when it is adequate.” The policy has too often been to help keep alive a great many struggling churches which did little to justify support, rather than to develop a smaller number of churches in greater need of help in a poorly There are good and bad instances of denominational help. One denomination has aided three churches for thirty years, but has not helped any one of them for the last ten years. They had reached a self-supporting status. But, when a denomination lavishes $18,000 of Home Mission aid in keeping alive a church in a village of 150 population, where there is also another church, and when the village is situated near to a large, well-churched center, such aid is wasted. The same denomination fails to give with liberality to a far needier case, the only Protestant church in a small village, a railroad center, located fairly in the center of a large unevangelized area. In one of its valleys, a resident recently remarked that they had heard no preaching for twenty years. This instance of neglect is in Montana, and the territory has been allocated to this denomination since 1919, so that other churches are keeping their hands off. Yet this church, which had a resident pastor until two years before the time of the survey, is now being served by a pastor of a town church living thirty-five miles away who preaches there on a week-day night. No preaching on Sunday, no pastoral work, obviously no community work in the village and no touch at all on the districts outside of the village! How well could the lavish aid of $18,000 have been put to use in this churchless area! This desperate condition needs as much aid every year as all the Boards give all forty-one aided churches at present. Instead, this church has been allocated to one denomination, and is now getting less attention than before. This case constitutes an abuse of the principle of allocation. |
|
