Tithing for Tough Times
A Platform Address by Kate Lovelady, Leader
Delivered on February 1, 2009
PLATFORM TALK
Good Morning.
My thanks to Steve Harris for his Opening Words this morning; we are lucky to have such a careful, conscientious, and straight-talking treasurer. I think he clearly laid out where the Ethical Society is financially as an organization and where we need to go. But before I address that further, I want to step back and talk about where the country is and how we got here.
There's been a lot of talk about recessions in the news, but the talk tends to stay on the level of when exactly did this recession start and when will it end, and to roll off numbers and percentages. But what is a recession? Why does the economy periodically stop functioning?
As I've said about other broad topics here, there really is no such thing as "the economy," certainly not as a thing that acts on its own. Rather, there are lots and lots of people, us, making decisions. Recently, a whole lot of us have decided that we're going to spend less money, for some reasonable and not-so-reasonable reasons.
All good bubbles must come to an end, and when the housing bubble burst, home equity fell, and foreclosures rose; some people now have less money to spend, and many more feel like they have less, or believe that they're very likely to have less soon because other people will be buying less from them. Banks are afraid to make even good loans. Companies lay people off to keep from going under, so people either have less to spend or are more nervous about spending even if they still have jobs . . . and the economy goes into a downward spiral with more loss, more and more fear, and less and less buying and selling. The jargony phrase "failure of demand" we hear so often just means that many, many people are either unable or afraid to spend money.
As someone who's been saying for years that Americans buy too much stuff, I've been confused about how to feel about this. Most of us were appalled after 9-11 when former President Bush told us to go out and shop. But that seems to be what we're being told now again, by a different set of folks.
And even during recessions, even during the Great Depression, people do spend money, and not just on necessities. There are industries that tend to do okay in recessions, mainly entertainment and alcohol and other things that give short-term pleasant escapes from worries.
I appreciate a good short-term escape from worries. I spend a lot of time in Forest Park, and I try not to think about the economy while I'm there.
But ethics is about making more conscious choices about how we live our lives and use our resources. And the more ethical choice usually is the one that values the long-term over the short-term; that is, sacrificing what we want now, for the kind of community we want tomorrow, and for the next generations.
How do we reconcile the need to sacrifice for the greater good with the need to spend for the greater good? . . . Secretary of State Clinton has been talking about smart power lately. What we also need to think about and practice is smart spending.
Most simple-living advocates don't try to decrease spending just to have a pile of money to make money-pillow-top mattresses out of. We decrease spending to free ourselves from unmanageable debt and to decrease pollution, fossil-fuel energy use, and landfills. We spend less so we can work less if we want, see our families and friends more, volunteer for causes we care about, be creative.
Saving money is a tool to achieve long-term goals. And spending money is a tool to achieve long-term goals.
My family is not threatened with foreclosure or serious job loss right now, so I am spending more. Not merely to "boost the economy," but to ensure the survival and growth of those things that mean most to me. I am patronizing local businesses more, to support my neighbors and so that those businesses will still be there next year. I am giving more to charity, particularly UNICEF, because while hardship in the first world causes suffering, trickle-down hardship in the third world causes death. But I also joined Forest Park Forever, because it brings so much joy to my life and the life of the city.
I'm not going to go into debt to support my causes, because I don't want to end up needing support myself if I can help it. But like a lot of people, even when I'm "feeling poor" I'm not living hand-to-mouth; there is usually money there if I decide I really "need" to buy some little treat. So although like everyone I am worried about the economy and what the future will bring, I am choosing to increase my spending to contribute in my small way to the creation of a future that reflects my values: a future of a strong, vibrant, working St. Louis, of a rising standard of living for poor children, and of a growing and healthy Ethical Society.
When I was deciding whether to raise my giving this year, my first thought was "of course not," because of "the economy." It "made sense" to give less. Then I read in a congregational fundraising book that most people in middle-class, liberal religious groups could double their pledging without significantly feeling it. As someone squarely in that demographic, I had to ask myself if that was true. Since I've been a member here I've pledged over 3% of my gross income. That's a higher percentage than we ask for on our sliding scale of suggested pledging percentages, but I pledge more while I can because I know that some members have situations that make it impossible for them to pledge as much as they would like. I know that we have members who make real sacrifices to support this Society, sacrifices that humble me and inspire me to stretch my stiff, privileged giving muscles.
Or so I thought. Could that book be right? Could I really double my giving and not feel it? That is, even though I am meeting my obligation and even then some and feel pretty good about that, could I give more, without, of course, hurting my standard of living?
I mulled this over as I read on in the book, and the very next chapter said that the reason middle-class liberal congregations give less than other groups is because we prioritize a certain "standard of living." That is, people like me tend to treat giving to nonprofits as discretionary. We pay our bills and save for retirement and spend to keep up our standard of living for ourselves and our families, and whatever's left over we give to advance our values of peace, a clean environment, spiritual and ethical growth, advocacy for human rights, and so on.
I certainly have prioritized spending this way throughout my life. Yet other people, including some people in this room and a larger percentage of working-class and more conservative congregations, give a substantial percentage of their income to their religious and charitable causes first, along with other non-discretionary items. Whatever's left over they spend to support whatever standard of living it supports. These are two very different ways of looking at money, and I don't know that a person can jump from one culture to another. But I am fascinated by this second group. I aspire to join it. Because I am envious.
I used to assume that people who gave a lot to their congregations were somehow dupes: that they were trying to buy themselves salvation, or were browbeat or tricked into giving more than they "should." And that may be true in some cases. But for most people who "give till it hurts," as the saying goes, there is something else going on.
The idea behind traditional tithing is not taxation, but celebration. Those who believe that way say, God gives us everything and we get to keep 90%! How lucky we are!
Yet tithing isn't necessarily a supernatural concept. One way or another, everything we have comes from someone else, and from the constant flow of resources of the economy. What recessions teach is that when we all try to stockpile our resources, ironically we undermine the safety we're trying to create.
As a humanist, I can make a commitment to tithe to nonprofits and charities by saying, human community has given me everything, from food to education to the opportunity to work, and be overjoyed that ethically I get to keep 90%! (Peter Singer argues that ethically I get to keep a lot less, and he's probably right, but today I'm sticking with the tithing metaphor.)
Making sacrifices does not have to be a form of pious suffering; making sacrifices can be a path to spiritual and ethical growth. I've come to hate that term "give till it hurts," as if giving were an extreme sport or a form of masochism. Giving to support our highest values is smart spending.
I don't want to give till it hurts. I want to give until I notice it for real . . . until it makes an impact on my mind and heart. I want to give until my giving changes me . . . until it has meaning in my life and in the life of those people and organizations to which I'm giving.
I want to give until I know that I'm really doing all I can to help make a fairer, kinder world; to be a louder voice for those who are voiceless; to create a place for those like us who once thought we had no place, no community; and to grow that community for the coming generations.
So that's why I'm raising my pledge and my overall giving this year.
Now I'm going to talk about the Ethical Society budget very specifically for a couple minutes, because as members we need to know what changes are being proposed. Steve mentioned that we've been running deficits for years, which we've been able to do because of generous and forward-looking members and non-members who put the Society in their wills. Which is wonderful, and which reminded me to put the Society in my will. But we can't kick the can down the road any longer. Our investments have declined drastically alongside everyone else's, and the board has to cut the budget.
I sit on our board and I can tell you that our board members are thoughtful and responsible people, and that they have scrutinized every line item to see where savings could be found, from getting rid of the bottled water in the office to having the trash picked up less often. At the same time, we will not sacrifice our values, and we're going to continue splitting our collections with those in greater need and in other ways aiding the larger community and the environment.
Yet, like most congregations, our staff is a huge percentage of the budget, and there is no way to make up the shortfall that prudence demands we expect, save cutting the staff budget. So this week the board voted to take the following three specific actions: to close the Society for the month of July, effectively giving most of the staff one month of unpaid leave; to suspend retirement contributions to the staff; and to decrease the Program Director's position from full-time to part-time. These changes will shrink the Society personnel budget by $50,000.
It's the board's job is to draw up the budget, and it's the membership's job to understand and approve or amend the budget. There will be several opportunities as Steve mentioned for everyone to learn more about the Society's financial history and situation and why the board is recommending the budget it's recommending. Personally, I don't like the budget anymore than the board itself does, yet I agree that it is the best budget given our current circumstances, and I support it.
The pledge campaign committee this year doesn't believe it's reasonable or realistic to ask for or expect an overall increase in pledges this year. Some members have lost jobs or are living off of shrunken investment income and are in financial peril. Other members are able to increase our giving, even if we may be nervous about doing so in this economy. If those of us who can increase our giving do, the hope is that overall the Society will achieve the pledge committee's goal of raising the same amount of money as last year.
I understand the board and pledge committee's unwillingness to ask us all to give more this year. What kind of crazy person would stand up in the middle of the worst recession in decades and ask people to give more?
There is perhaps a fine line between Fearless Leader and Crazy Leader. But my goal today is simply to share why I want to give more: to the Ethical Society, to St. Louis, to people I will never see on the other side of the world. And I have to admit, it's selfish. I want to give because I want to feel better.
Author Gretchen Rubin wrote recently that as this recession further hurts the poor and pushes more people into poverty, it also makes all of us, no matter our objective situation, FEEL poorer, more anxious and powerless. I know I've been feeling anxious and powerless lately.
Rubin has a solution to those feelings; here are a few ideas of hers: [note—quotation has been substantially edited]
There is a way that you can both help others and help yourself feel happier: Give to other people. Although we assume that we act because of the way we feel, often we feel because of the way we act.
If you don't like the way you're feeling, take action in the opposite direction. If you're feeling poor, give something away. If you're feeling powerless, take control of something. Giving will remind you of how much you have to be grateful for.
It's easy to think about giving, and then to say, "Look, I'd like to help, but I can't afford to give right now." When we tell ourselves that we can't afford to give, we increase our feelings of panic and danger. When we find ways to give, we confirm that we have enough and more, that we can be generous, that we recognize that others have needs more pressing than our own, and that will make us feel better. This act doesn't have to be huge. I have a friend who puts all her loose change in a jar at the end of the day, and when the jar is full, she gives it to her church. You could go through your closets and give the coats you don't use anymore to a coat drive. You could go through your kids' old books to see if you could give some to a school or library in need. You could donate blood. You can register to become an organ donor.
Act the way you want to feel. Acting with generosity, with gratitude, with compassion, will change your perception of your own situation. And it will improve the lives of others.
Help others and thereby help ourselves. I think that's something we can get behind here, given that our motto is Act so as to elicit the best in others and in yourself. Ruben calls this kind of action and effect a "virtuous circle."
I'm tired of feeling like we're all trapped in a vicious downward cycle. I'm going to do everything I can, and then some more, to strive to live in a virtuous circle of mutual support and generosity. And the more of us who choose to do that, day by day, the bigger that circle will become.
We've heard a lot lately about FDR's inaugural address of 1933, when the country was in the deepest channel of the Great Depression. But we usually only hear that one line. Turns out the rest of his paragraph was pretty good too, so I'd like to close with FDR's words:
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself: nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. . . . These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men. . . . We now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other.
Thank you for all you have done, and thank you for all you will do.