Stewardship Season and the Presbytery

In an earlier post, we shared with you the findings of the Per Capital Task Force. One of the suggestions the Task Force made was for Teaching Elders to consider tithing in part to the Presbytery, as their membership is with the Presbytery. The CLT would like to echo the Task Force’s suggestion.

Some of the thoughts we have regarding this suggestion:

Teaching Elders are often among the top givers in a congregation. What will happen to some of our congregations if they lose a certain amount of revenue? Great question – one for each Teaching Elder to consider and for each financial committee to talk about.

Teaching Elders often feel uncomfortable knowing they are among the top givers in their congregations. Why? They worry about dependence on specific donors in order to balance budgets and how their level of giving affects the overall financial stability of their congregations.

With that said, we would like to encourage our Teaching Elders, those in congregational ministry and those in other validated ministries, to prayerfully consider assigning a portion of their tithe to go directly to the Presbytery as part of their personal stewardship.

Checks can be made out to the Presbytery of New Brunswick and sent to:

13 South Main St. Pennington, NJ 08534

2 Comments Add yours

  1. peter7368 says:

    It seems the Presbytery is expending an enormous amount of its limited times and energies trying to make relevant an assessment system that due to a host of factors, demography, culture, technology is going the way of the 18th concept of pew rentals and assessments. PNB continues to labor under two systemic flaws in its approach to Per Capita. One mechanical, the other philosophical.
    Per Capita is still based off reported membership roles of church X or Y any given year. As it was in the 1920s. Churches for a variety of reasons rarely clean or manage their roles constantly, so there is a fudge factor where most churches tend to over report their active membership by 10-20% most cases. So in essence Presbytery is trying to access people who are either dead, left, dropped out or off and cannot be assessed by any means. Under this view per capita compliance is likely 90, 95% of people available, vice the 20% non-collected as Presbytery reports. The other is trying to substitute a financial transaction, per capita collection, as the primary mark of denominational connectionalism, vice the inherent matters of trust and confidence, as it exists in the historic confessions and creeds of the church. Money flows out of a condition of trust and confidence in said institution, and cannot be made to a substitute for it.


  2. John Bruestle says:

    There does seem to be a bunch of ugliness in the Per Capita system. It is completely regressive, placing a greater hardship on our poorer members. It’s technically voluntary, but we’re told exactly how much is expected. Has the Presbytery considered something based on each congregations budgeted income?

    There are a hundred good reasons why pastors should be giving to their own congregations. Asking them to send their money to the Presbytery instead is tantamount to suggesting they bypass their congregation’s budgeting process and direct their gift explicitly. It’s a little presumptuous, and ignores the fundamental problem of our shrinking presbytery.


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s