![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Today I'm writing the bit in Exodus where the people donate to the building of the tabernacle. They bring gold and silver and miscellaneous rich and rare materials, and they keep on bringing, and eventually the tabernacle artisans plead with the people to stop bringing stuff because they're overwhelmed.
Comment from passer-by: Hah! That doesn't happen any more!
And she meant, hah, people these days aren't so generous, wouldn't it be nice if we were as generous as the Jews of old!
And whenever this story is brought up in sermons, that's the thrust. "Goodness, weren't those people a splendid example? They gave so much that the tabernacle fund couldn't cope! Give generously!"
Today this irritates me. Of course that doesn't happen any more. And it's not the people, it's the temples.*
Since when did a temple ever say "Thanks, we've got enough now," eh? I ask you. Whoever heard of a temple without bottomless coffers?
That is, people probably donate as generously as they ever did. It's not that people's ability to give is any different, it's the establishment's ability to take. The builders of the mishkan were able to stop taking when they had enough for their immediate needs.
Okay, the economics of a tabernacle in the mishkan and a contemporary synagogue are totally different things, and it makes sense for a synagogue to fill its coffers in anticipation of rainy days and leaky roofs. Totally.
But I resent the implication that people today are less generous than they used to be. Why not frame the sermon so that the implication is "Goodness, weren't the Tabernacle staff lucky! They knew that if they were running out of stuff, more would happen somehow!" Cast the comparison on the establishment rather than on the laity, why not?
* Solomon's Temple, Herod's Temple, the Great Synagogue of PreWarEuropeanCity, Temple BiblicalNoun-BiblicalName down the road, etc. Doesn't matter.
Comment from passer-by: Hah! That doesn't happen any more!
And she meant, hah, people these days aren't so generous, wouldn't it be nice if we were as generous as the Jews of old!
And whenever this story is brought up in sermons, that's the thrust. "Goodness, weren't those people a splendid example? They gave so much that the tabernacle fund couldn't cope! Give generously!"
Today this irritates me. Of course that doesn't happen any more. And it's not the people, it's the temples.*
Since when did a temple ever say "Thanks, we've got enough now," eh? I ask you. Whoever heard of a temple without bottomless coffers?
That is, people probably donate as generously as they ever did. It's not that people's ability to give is any different, it's the establishment's ability to take. The builders of the mishkan were able to stop taking when they had enough for their immediate needs.
Okay, the economics of a tabernacle in the mishkan and a contemporary synagogue are totally different things, and it makes sense for a synagogue to fill its coffers in anticipation of rainy days and leaky roofs. Totally.
But I resent the implication that people today are less generous than they used to be. Why not frame the sermon so that the implication is "Goodness, weren't the Tabernacle staff lucky! They knew that if they were running out of stuff, more would happen somehow!" Cast the comparison on the establishment rather than on the laity, why not?
* Solomon's Temple, Herod's Temple, the Great Synagogue of PreWarEuropeanCity, Temple BiblicalNoun-BiblicalName down the road, etc. Doesn't matter.