Okay, I have thought about this a bit more and would revise it slightly. (If journalism is the rough draft of history, Twitter is presumably Anne Lamott's, ahem, "crappy" rough draft.)
I regret the false precision of "50%." (The other numbers have more actual warrant in public-health practice.) Instead I should have said, "roughly half."
I also think "planning for" implies this is the only scenario worth engaging. That's not quite right. So—
I also think "planning for" implies this is the only scenario worth engaging. That's not quite right. So—
If I were a pastor of the modal US congregation I would be asking how we will accomplish our mission if
our budget is cut by roughly half over the next 12 months
no gatherings of >100 are allowed for at least a year
gatherings of 10-50 can resume this summer in most localities
our budget is cut by roughly half over the next 12 months
no gatherings of >100 are allowed for at least a year
gatherings of 10-50 can resume this summer in most localities
Why am I sticking with "roughly half"? Because I believe @ScottGottliebMD is probably right about an 80% economy—so even if charitable giving keeps pace with GDP that gives 20% decline as a lower bound. A very well-informed mentor thinks 60% is more likely for most nonprofits.
Churches are extra exposed in their disproportionate reliance on (1) older givers and (2) small-business owner givers, each of which are more vulnerable right now, epidemiologically and economically respectively.
And if you plan to end your scuba diving expedition with 50% oxygen remaining in your tank, but end up with 80%, you're fine. If you plan to end with 80% but end up with 50%, you're extinct. I'd be thinking about getting the expedition done assuming only 50%.
(Twitter is also the crappy rough draft of worthwhile metaphors.)
