Religions, money and culture

[Anonymous]

S/o the synagogue dues thread - as a protestant Christian I am surprised by how much the synagogue dues are and how up front the temple is about collecting them and joining. At our church (Presbyterian) they ask for a pledge from members, but they don't require any specific amount. What you put into the hat on Sundays is then collected towards your pledge. But more than the fiscal issues, what surprised me is how up front the temple is about how much you should give. Which is to say - the temple seems much more comfortable dealing with money in a direct manner then my church is.

This reflects what I have experienced anecdotally, that my Jewish friends are much more comfortable talking about money then my Christian friends are. Would you say that 1) this generalization has merit and/or 2) there are cultural relationships with money which extend from our religions?

What do you think?

[Anonymous]

As noted in that thread, the synagogues ask for dues partly because they don't otherwise collect money during the year from members to cover their operations. Depending on how observant you are, you're possibly not even carrying money on Shabbat or holidays, so there's no passing the hat, no opportunity to collect funds except in the annual dues campaign and the occasional separate capital campaign.

Besides, some churches have an explicit requirement that believers tithe 10 percent of their income, which isn't really that different from the approach synagogues take, is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Besides, some churches have an explicit requirement that believers tithe 10 percent of their income, which isn't really that different from the approach synagogues take, is it?

NP. I don't know that you can compare a percentage to a synagogue dictating a number. Or do they ask for a percent? In any case, actual tithing is rare in mainline Chrsitian churches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As noted in that thread, the synagogues ask for dues partly because they don't otherwise collect money during the year from members to cover their operations. Depending on how observant you are, you're possibly not even carrying money on Shabbat or holidays, so there's no passing the hat, no opportunity to collect funds except in the annual dues campaign and the occasional separate capital campaign.

Besides, some churches have an explicit requirement that believers tithe 10 percent of their income, which isn't really that different from the approach synagogues take, is it?

I think only the Mormon church tithes.

OP here. I assume that the synagogue and churches (and mosques?) end up in the same fiscal place at the end of the year (unless there is a big difference that I don't know about.) I'm curious about the culture surrounding the money. In my WASPy culture it's considered very rude to discuss money --and my church doesn't even give a suggestion on how much to pledge. Is there a connection?

[Anonymous]

The answer you're going for may or may not be, "Judaism is obsessed with money," but since that's almost definitely where this thread will end up, we may as well just put it there now.

[Anonymous]

Some synagogues structure dues as a flat amount. Some structure dues as a flat amount which differs for singles, young families, or older families. Some are an income percentage, and some are moving towards a "here is what your share would be .... Pay what your circumstances allow" approach.


That being said, yes, traditionally money is not handled on Shabbat, so the collection model would not work.

[Anonymous]

It's maybe more direct, in that they ask people for a specific amount, but since all of the giving is done privately by sending in a check (or negotiating for reduced dues with the synagogue), in some ways it's more discreet than what you're describing in churches where the culture allegedly sees discussing money as rude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The answer you're going for may or may not be, "Judaism is obsessed with money," but since that's almost definitely where this thread will end up, we may as well just put it there now.

OP here - that is not at all my preconception. Just that Judaism seems more at peace with money as a part of life than Protestantism does. I guess I find it refreshing. But I also could be 100% off base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's maybe more direct, in that they ask people for a specific amount, but since all of the giving is done privately by sending in a check (or negotiating for reduced dues with the synagogue), in some ways it's more discreet than what you're describing in churches where the culture allegedly sees discussing money as rude.

Well, in churches you usually put a check in an envelope so people don't see what you are contributing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's maybe more direct, in that they ask people for a specific amount, but since all of the giving is done privately by sending in a check (or negotiating for reduced dues with the synagogue), in some ways it's more discreet than what you're describing in churches where the culture allegedly sees discussing money as rude.

Well, in churches you usually put a check in an envelope so people don't see what you are contributing.

No one knows whether you're paying the full dues at synagogues or not, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's maybe more direct, in that they ask people for a specific amount, but since all of the giving is done privately by sending in a check (or negotiating for reduced dues with the synagogue), in some ways it's more discreet than what you're describing in churches where the culture allegedly sees discussing money as rude.

Well, in churches you usually put a check in an envelope so people don't see what you are contributing.

Matthew 6:3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's maybe more direct, in that they ask people for a specific amount, but since all of the giving is done privately by sending in a check (or negotiating for reduced dues with the synagogue), in some ways it's more discreet than what you're describing in churches where the culture allegedly sees discussing money as rude.

Well, in churches you usually put a check in an envelope so people don't see what you are contributing.

Matthew 6:3

But you're not giving to the poor. You are giving to your church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:S/o the synagogue dues thread - as a protestant Christian I am surprised by how much the synagogue dues are and how up front the temple is about collecting them and joining. At our church (Presbyterian) they ask for a pledge from members, but they don't require any specific amount. What you put into the hat on Sundays is then collected towards your pledge. But more than the fiscal issues, what surprised me is how up front the temple is about how much you should give. Which is to say - the temple seems much more comfortable dealing with money in a direct manner then my church is.

This reflects what I have experienced anecdotally, that my Jewish friends are much more comfortable talking about money then my Christian friends are. Would you say that 1) this generalization has merit and/or 2) there are cultural relationships with money which extend from our religions?

What do you think?

How does the church/priest/church director know what you put into the collection hat? Do you tell him or her later, "I put $20 in every week, so I'm up to date?"

[Anonymous]

I am a reform jew. There are many reasons why we use the dues approach.

First and foremost, we are nominally prohibited from conducting business on the sabbath. The collection plate is considered business. Even though most progressive jews will conduct business, the clergy does not feel that it is appropriate.

Second, many jews only go to services on the high holidays. But, the facilities need to run the rest of the year. Note that anyone can come except on the high holidays.

Finally, the synagogue is a business. In order to conduct business, there needs to be funds. My synagogue has 3 rabbis (one part time), two cantors, administrative staff, educational staff, and a facility. All of these cost money. In order to function, they need a spend and income plan -- income is from membership.

The cost is progressive: the wealthy members pay more than the poor members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:S/o the synagogue dues thread - as a protestant Christian I am surprised by how much the synagogue dues are and how up front the temple is about collecting them and joining. At our church (Presbyterian) they ask for a pledge from members, but they don't require any specific amount. What you put into the hat on Sundays is then collected towards your pledge. But more than the fiscal issues, what surprised me is how up front the temple is about how much you should give. Which is to say - the temple seems much more comfortable dealing with money in a direct manner then my church is.

This reflects what I have experienced anecdotally, that my Jewish friends are much more comfortable talking about money then my Christian friends are. Would you say that 1) this generalization has merit and/or 2) there are cultural relationships with money which extend from our religions?

What do you think?

How does the church/priest/church director know what you put into the collection hat? Do you tell him or her later, "I put $20 in every week, so I'm up to date?"

In my synagogue, the Rabbi may or may not know who pays what. Our set up is to provide services to all regardless of what people pay. For example, individuals do not pay the B'nai Mitzvah tutors. Rather, they synagogue pays it, and we pay the synagogue. This is because there are members that can not afford the tutors. But, we do not believe the spiritual value is tied to economic resources. (this is why most Reform and Conservative Jews trend liberal).

When I had my medical problems, the Rabbi did not see if we were up to date. Instead, she asked what our child was doing during the summer. As we had a big summer vacation which was canceled, she got our daughter into a camp, and used her discretionary fund to cover it. And we were not current in our dues.