I've always wondered about "passing the plate" vs. "box in the back." The argument I've heard against passing the plate is that it allows a person to give so that others can see, and therefore become a point of pride.
But can't the "box in the back" become just as much of a place where one can try to prove his devotion by showing off his generosity?
Then again, if a "box in the back" was good enough for Jesus....
I did NOT choose my church because of their collection boxes but I WOULD have if I'd known. :) I don't know that the plate or the box is the more biblical method--either can be abused. It's not so much a conviction for me as a pet peeve. Simply put, churches don't trust their congregations to give. They say "people will forget" but what they mean is that they won't meet budget unless a plate is shoved under people noses.
...and speaking of pet peeves, I have plenty others, which I'd be glad to share!
To list a few: (1) charging for tapes or CDs or INTERNET DOWNLOADS of sermons. I used to run the tape copier at my church in PA. I argued and argued over this. They told me that tapes cost money. So? So do microphones and speakers! I'd as well see a set of earphones and a slot for quarters in every seat.
(2) Praise choruses as a replacement for hymns. Ya'll knew this was coming, didn't you? The chuch I'm going to here in Lawton doesn't sing any hymns. I have to accept this, however, because no one else is singing them either. I have several problems with this: first, the wealth of theological knowledge being lost, and second, the lack of solemn music in general. I understand that modern songwriters are emphasizing Christo-centric themes and sometimes even theological truth, but none that I've heard suit the moodes of my heart. The Christian experience is not all happy-clappy and our songs shouldn't be either. (hope this doesn't sound bitter--I'm not mad, though I am ranting!)
6 Comments:
I'm hoping that is not the basis upon which you chose your church
*feigned condescension and disapproval*
I've always wondered about "passing the plate" vs. "box in the back." The argument I've heard against passing the plate is that it allows a person to give so that others can see, and therefore become a point of pride.
But can't the "box in the back" become just as much of a place where one can try to prove his devotion by showing off his generosity?
Then again, if a "box in the back" was good enough for Jesus....
As long as you tithe, who cares where the box is?
I did NOT choose my church because of their collection boxes but I WOULD have if I'd known. :) I don't know that the plate or the box is the more biblical method--either can be abused. It's not so much a conviction for me as a pet peeve. Simply put, churches don't trust their congregations to give. They say "people will forget" but what they mean is that they won't meet budget unless a plate is shoved under people noses.
...and speaking of pet peeves, I have plenty others, which I'd be glad to share!
To list a few: (1) charging for tapes or CDs or INTERNET DOWNLOADS of sermons. I used to run the tape copier at my church in PA. I argued and argued over this. They told me that tapes cost money. So? So do microphones and speakers! I'd as well see a set of earphones and a slot for quarters in every seat.
(2) Praise choruses as a replacement for hymns. Ya'll knew this was coming, didn't you? The chuch I'm going to here in Lawton doesn't sing any hymns. I have to accept this, however, because no one else is singing them either. I have several problems with this: first, the wealth of theological knowledge being lost, and second, the lack of solemn music in general. I understand that modern songwriters are emphasizing Christo-centric themes and sometimes even theological truth, but none that I've heard suit the moodes of my heart. The Christian experience is not all happy-clappy and our songs shouldn't be either.
(hope this doesn't sound bitter--I'm not mad, though I am ranting!)
Mine has no pastor! ha!
Derby wins.
Post a Comment
<< Home