Been wonderin’ about this since a actor director Zac Braff made a video on youtube asking people to donate money to allow him to make a movie, and he made several million dollars in a matter of days. This drew both praise and criticism.
But as a funding method it bears some issues for churches. What if we moved to a model based on the kickstarter website. Where we publish a target income for a years budget. If we do not reach that target within a thirty days, we stop the church for a year. The question is how could a change in primary (or sole) funding method grow and challenge what it means to be a church community.
The current model of church funding based on a mix of open offering plates, gift aid giving, direct debit giving, with income from weddings & funerals, other church enterprise or organisations. Has served us well, but my very uniformed perception is that most churches are struggling to cover their costs. (Both within CofS and outside.) perhaps i just don’t hang about in churches with money?
The advantages of a model where we spend 1 month on fund raising and talking openly about money to the congregations would i think give a bunch of possibilities to what it means to be in church? The disadvantages of this model is that if we don’t make a shed load of money (I assume it is a shedload.) Then church (as we know it) doesn’t happen for a year.
I am aware there are a lot of models which have merit which aren’t considered, and there maybe some reason for this which are obvious but i have missed. I wonder if a change would do the church good.
What model would work for you?
Is the current model the best model?
Why is change in this area perhaps harder/less important than change in issues around in the church?