Thread: Religious Taxes & Excommunication Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023898
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I just read this story on the BBC news site. It seems bizarre on so many levels - so firstly the government levies an additional tax on you if you are registered as a member of a particular religion - weird in itself, why would the state regulate your tithing ? Secondly, the German branch of the Roman Catholic church will excommunicate you if you don't pay it !
Is this a sane and reasonable thing to do ? And why does the church think that it will help fight the decline in the church membership ?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
No
German Catholics have a 500 year history of reacting badly to people trying to leave or even just reform the Roman Catholic Church. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Your concern seems to be Church Tax and the excommunication both. I don't think they consider it tithing. Rather the legitimate support of a state institution.
Societies and countries organize themselves in different ways. I've understood this as a matter of course and expected by my German relatives. In Canada, the idea of an established church like in the UK seems odd. But then here we have many Cdn provinces that have Roman Catholic (sometimes other denominations) schools which levy taxes on adherents to support the schools, and do so along side the public schools systems with full force of gov't tax enforcement.
I can't really speak to excommunication, except that it probably sounds fair to a German that you must pay or you don't get what you haven't paid for. Like the stories from the USA where people have not paid for fire extinguishing service and their house has burnt down.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I just read this story on the BBC news site. It seems bizarre on so many levels - so firstly the government levies an additional tax on you if you are registered as a member of a particular religion - weird in itself, why would the state regulate your tithing ? Secondly, the German branch of the Roman Catholic church will excommunicate you if you don't pay it !
Is this a sane and reasonable thing to do ? And why does the church think that it will help fight the decline in the church membership ?
I imagine those who do the excommunicating would themselves be horrified at the consequences, so they are doing this to deter others. The trouble is that deterrents only deter those who wouldn't contravene the regulation in the first place!
Still, if you have a daft thing like a religious tax collected by the state, this will happen.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Compulsory tithing to the established Church is and always has been a thing in much of Europe. It was a thing in England too until the 19th century. Most Germans pay their church tax without a second thought, even if they only visit church 3 times in their lives- to be hatched, matched, and dispatched.
[ 24. September 2012, 20:10: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It seems bizarre on so many levels - so firstly the government levies an additional tax on you if you are registered as a member of a particular religion - weird in itself, why would the state regulate your tithing ?
I think its to do with the particular history of established religion in the predeccesor states to united Germany. Most were Protestant, with established churches that were paid for out of state funds, so they were almost departments of state. Some were Catholic. When Germany was unified the Prussians had the upper hand, and they had deliberatly set up a unified Prussian Evangelical (i.e. Protestant) church, which the King was in charge of, and was paid for out of taxes (where else does the King get his money from?) Some other states (Saxony? Hannover? I can't remember) had similar setups. So this carried on into the newly unified Reich with government gradually disengaging from active participation in religion but continuing to act as a tax collector for it. But because there were now lots of state churches (at least until they knocked them together into one or two) your tax money got given to the one you were a member of. The Catholics weren't part of the system, I think (very much open to correction on that, its a long time since I read about it and I'm not sure I trust using Wikipedia to remind me)
IIRC that was the situation up to the "culture wars" of the late 19th century, when the German government attacked Roman Catholicism, closing religious houses, taking over Catholic (and Polish-language) schools (including seminaries) and generally trying to exclude them from political influence, as part of a campaign to forcibly unify German culture and society. They also attacked socialists, trade unionists, and Poles. German liberals tended to support the goverment (at least at first, something that I bet they regretted later)
But that backfired immensely. That sort of religious repression was out of touch with modern Europe, and even an authoritarian government needs some popular support. And in elections the government needed the Catholic Centre Party (one of the forerunners of the current Christian Democrats) So the Kaiser and the Catholics came to an agreement (or rather Bismarck and the Pope did) and the Catholics got to join in the system and sometime between about 1880 and 190-whatever they too were funded by tax. So you got a box to tick on your tax form saying where your church money was going.
And after the Great War, the Weimar Republic disestablished religion but continued the now optional tax system. And its still there.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
An interesting tidbit I just now learned because of this thread: the right to tax believers was ceded to the Churches themselves until the Nazis took over the Church tax. Since then, people are required to profess their religion to the State and their employers so that the proper church taxes can be deducted from their income.
Nonbelievers or members of Free Churches can declare so at their local court house and be exempt from this tax.
[ 24. September 2012, 20:23: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
I'm not so sure about all the Catholic-bashing in Germany, ken. Bavaria was famously Catholic and the largest state independent of Prussia. The Prussians made several concessions to the Bavarians during the negotiations in 1870.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
It seems odd:
quote:
All Germans who are officially registered as Catholics, Protestants or Jews pay a religious tax of 8-9% on their annual income tax bill.
Why just this selection of religions ? And how is that not discriminatory ?
But from a SoF point of view how does a church justify excommunicating on the grounds that you haven't paid it money ?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
It is justified by the fact that the faithful have a duty before God to support the Church, just like they have a duty to hear services on Sunday and to have their children instructed on the Scriptures and the doctrines of the Faith.
[ 24. September 2012, 20:37: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It seems odd:
quote:
All Germans who are officially registered as Catholics, Protestants or Jews pay a religious tax of 8-9% on their annual income tax bill.
Why just this selection of religions ? And how is that not discriminatory ?
The churches in Germany are an integral part of the country's welfare provision. Churches run most of the homes for the elderly, for example. Usually, you would have to be a member of that church - or at least a baptised Christian - both to work there and eventually to be a resident there. People pay the church tax quite happily because it is a kind of insurance for their old age, and don't resent it any more than most people in Britain resent their National Insurance contributions. I imagine that those who elect not to pay a church tax would make provision for their elder years in some other way, perhaps by paying for private insurance. And I presume that the State fills in the gaps.
However, the church has a presence in Germany quite beyond anything we are used to in the UK. I was informed at a recent church conference in Germany that two thirds of German teenagers are Confirmed. They may never come near a church again, but they are counted, and count themselves, as Christians. The Evangelische Kirche really is a Volks Kirche (People's Church) in a way that I as a Brit struggle to get my head round. But it is so.
Like I said, because the churches run most of the care homes, they can insist on employing only baptised Christians. This is of course a problem for the many German Muslims (among others) who might want to work there. I know a Lutheran pastor, who was asked by two Muslim women if she would baptise them. They had no intention of 'becoming' Christian, but if they were not baptised, then they would lose their jobs. And yes, she baptised them.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
The German government has the right to impede the activities of sects it considers dangerous, and it isn't very reluctant to use it.
While the established churches can make use of the Church tax, members of unrecognized religions and free Churches can exempt themselves from the tax.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Germany is very sensitive to control things that might lead back in the direction of National Socialism (Nazi). Thus, refusal to grant recognition of some sekten (sects), of which they are concerned that they will engage in antisocial mind control, i.e. "psychogroups". Hence the refusal, for e.g., to admit Scientology or the Unification Church (Moonies) as religions in Germany.
Page 31 of this very lengthy German government document (448 pp) states:
quote:
Final Report of the Enquete Commission on So-called Sects and Psychogroups
In other words, theirs are convictions which deviate substantially from the socio-culturally
widely accepted or at least tolerated world views and values, and life-styles which differ significantly from generally practised or at least tolerated life-styles.
The Germans want to ensure conformity with basic and generally shared components of their society. And to keep out aspects that will undermine it. The laws are not consistently enforced but remain available for situations considered risky. Hence also, as I mentioned before, making home schooling illegal.
I think there is an element of cultural relativism required. With their current laws, they would not accept some poltical parties or movements either, especially those set on undermining the basis or foundation of the country and society. I have thought there are possibly lessons for some of our countries.
[ 24. September 2012, 21:52: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
I seem to recall reading that one of the grounds on which some people claim that the LDS is a cult is that it bars members who are not in good standing (included reason, being not up-to-date with their tithing) from entering the inner temple - even if (say) their child is getting married therein. Would these reported sanctions be much different?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The Prussians made several concessions to the Bavarians during the negotiations in 1870.
Then went back on them two or three years later. Perhaps not so much in Bavaria where the local authorities were more protective of Roman Catholics, but certainly some. I think they fixed the disputes by about 1880, but it was bad for a while.
(I mean the "perhaps" - most of this comes from some books about Bismarck and the Kaiser I read years ago, or from the background chapters to books that are really about other things, with a quick wikipedia search to refresh my memory - so I am not sure of the details)
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Wiki, which agrees with what I remember from one history course at University, says that the Kulturkampf was a Prussian-only phenomenon. Prussia was by that time the largest state in Germany and had a majority of the territory and population, but the Kulturkampf used laws specific to Prussia, the Bavarian legislature or any of the other state legislatures had no truck with Bismark's policy.
Bismark was both Chancellor of Germany and Minister-President of Prussia at the same time and the Kulturkampf was done while wearing his Minister-President hat.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
If I understand correctly -- If you do not register as [Catholic/Protestant/Jew] you pay no church (synagogue) taxes and get no benefits from the church system. If you were registered and paying, and then publicly declare "no, I am not a [Catholic/Protestant/Jew] anymore, take me off the church tax rolls," haven't you publicly declared you are not part of the church, effectively separating yourself from the church, which is pretty much the definition of not being in communication anymore? Ex-communication merely points out what you yourself have publicly declared to get off the tax rolls?
I live in a culture where being "in" or "out" of church is usually much fuzzier. But it does have a strong internal consistency, yes? You are in (and pay church tax) or you are out (and pay no church tax), you just can't claim to be both at once (in for receiving services physical or spiritual, out for paying church taxes.)
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
It sure beats the current system of most American mainline denominations: begging their members for just enough cash to keep the lights on for another year.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Between 1870 and 1918, the states of southern Germany continued to exist within the Reich, Bavaria, etc. I don't know how much genuine internal freedom of action they had, probably less than the princely states of India. Regional self determination isn't relevant since most of them had been more or less absolute monarchies anyway. The Kaiser was King of Prussia and Emperor (i.e. king over other kings) of Germany. Prussia was much bigger than the others, since between 1814 and 1869 it had incrementally annexed large parts of North Germany and the Rhineland.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
We've had threads in the past about how terrible it is that some churches and cathedrals require an entrance fee for anyone who wants to go inside. People waxed lyrical about how people who want to worship God shouldn't be forced to pay for the privilege.
I fail to see how this is any different.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Bismark was both Chancellor of Germany and Minister-President of Prussia at the same time and the Kulturkampf was done while wearing his Minister-President hat.
That would still leave plenty of scope for Catholic-bashing. Apart from the three southern states of Bavaria, Wuerttemberg and Baden the main concentrations of Catholics within the Reich were in the Rhineland and the Polish areas, both of which were part of Prussia.
After 1870 the scope for local policy in the various states was very much case by case. Bavaria would have been at one end of the scale due to size, distance and sheer bloody-mindedness. On the other hand some of the surviving petty north German states like Waldeck-Pyrmont (population 60,000) had basically passed their civil administration over to Prussia.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
I'm totally with the Germans here; membership should mean something, and being on the tax roll is a clear indication that you are at least a bit committed to the church. As long as there is the freedom to drop off it if you don't want to pay the tax, there really isn't a problem in my mind. And it's not like they are going to check the tax records before allowing you to attend a service, is it?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
The BBC article, which while being typically useless, is at least not making the claim that the new developments mean "excommunication if not paying church tax".
The real deal is this: It used to be German practice to excommunicate people if they do not pay church tax. To be more precise, if you declared by a secular, legal act to the German state that you are not a member of a church anymore, and therefore that the state should not tax you for that church (as it does for all members), then that church would follow suite with an ecclesial, legal act declaring that you are not a member anymore, i.e., you would get excommunicated. The first point to note then is that as far as the state is concerned, one is not simply saying "I don't want to pay this tax anymore". Just as with any other tax, the state doesn't care about that. Rather, one is making to the state a declaration about one's church membership. And the churches were simply mirroring that.
Next, one needs to know that Rome was explicitly outlawing this procedure, particularly pointedly so in 2006. Rome insisted - contra the German bishops - on a separation of secular and ecclesial membership procedures. The German bishops did in response what all bishops do when Rome says inopportune things: politely ignore the demands for change, perhaps promising to do something about this ... some time before the 2nd coming. However, these are not the olden days. Now it is not only the bishops who know what Rome is up to, but also any number of informed laity. So in 2007 a church law expert, Prof. Hartmut Zapp, declared himself to be secularly out of the church (hence, no tax) but still a Catholic in good standing, and started fighting his way through the German courts against the diocese of Freiburg. This is a lot of fun, because it leaves the German church between the rock of German secular and the hard place of Roman ecclesial law.
What has happened now is that the German bishops have "settled" with Rome, insofar as they now get to do an "excommunication light" with most signs of an excommunication while formally not being one. This is in preparation for the latest iteration of the Zapp court case, which they are presumably scared about. Thus I expect now that the court will decide that the Church cannot simply excommunicate Zapp just because he has declared that he is no member anymore to the state, whereupon the Church will instead "all but excommunicate" him...
To what extent all this church tax business still makes sense at a conceptual level I do not know. However, if it was to be abandoned, then it wouldn't simply be the churches that would crumble - but a significant part of the German social and educational system. The only realistic alternative at this point in time would be to raise regular taxes for everyone, and then from that give the churches more or less what they get from church tax now. The question is whether Christians should pay for the essential and vital services of social and educational nature that Christian churches provide to everybody, or whether everybody should pay for that. The rationale for making only Christians pay is of course to some degree that the Church takes its cut for maintaining itself. However, the majority of the money is not going that way, but towards "charity" of one form or other.
All in all, I think it is a reasonable deal for all concerned, practically speaking, which is however highly questionable on a conceptual level. And the deal is now crumbling with members of churches "sneaking out", for various reasons. But "personal financial gain" is very much among those reasons. It's not like people leave just over matters of conscience...
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
...Prof. Hartmut Zapp...
Best name ever.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
IngoB that's most helpful. It's great to hear from someone who knows what he's talking about. Some factual queries:-
To what extent can one choose which church ones tax contribution goes to? If one is the German equivalent of Methodist rather than CofE, can one nominate it to them?
Is it collected by the German equivalent of the Inland Revenue through the equivalent of PAYE? Or does one have to pay it separately?
Do the large number of Turks now living in Germany pay church tax to their mosques?
Can a person convert from one church to another? If so does their tax transfer?
Does Germany have anything corresponding to the way here one can elect to make charitable donations before tax?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
As long as there is the freedom to drop off it if you don't want to pay the tax, there really isn't a problem in my mind. And it's not like they are going to check the tax records before allowing you to attend a service, is it?
The problem, as far as I can see, is that if you want to drop off the tax register the church will automatically drop you off its membership roll as well. Which, especially in the RCC, means no more sacraments for you.
You say it's evidence of being committed to the church. I see it as the church (through the state) saying you can't partake of the sacraments unless you pay for them.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
If one doesn't like it, one can always join a free church, which can levy its tithes any way it likes.
Instead of objecting to the idea that we owe the Church anything concrete, I object to the fact that one has to report his religion to his employer, and then the State has a system for favoring some religions over others.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Instead of objecting to the idea that we owe the Church anything concrete
That's not what I'm objecting to. I'm objecting to the notion that the church can demand something concrete from us in return for being able to receive the sacraments, and use the machinery of the state to force us to hand it over.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
That's not what I'm objecting to. I'm objecting to the notion that the church can demand something concrete from us in return for being able to receive the sacraments, and use the machinery of the state to force us to hand it over.
I feel rather strongly about tithing. 10% of our incomes belongs to God, and not paying is either charity from the Church (for the poor), or stealing from God's treasury.
As for the Church compelling tithes through the government, as an American I actually agree with you. But Church and State were not and continue to not be separate in Germany. It is viewed as a vital service the State provides its citizens like schools or hospitals. At any rate, there is no compelling anything. If you don't want to pay, then simply declare so at your local courthouse. It's completely optional, and the vast majority of people in Germany, even of non-believers, opt to pay.
Heck, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts funded churches until the mid 19th century. This is how the world used to work. The Church was the State at prayer.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Marvin - I agree. To me it does look very much like being charged to receive Holy Communion, which is a Very Bad Thing Indeed.
Now one can probably argue that that's not the intent, and quite possibly Prof. Zapp has manipulated events so it looks that way. But how things look is important. Zach will be the first to tell us about the importance of the outward form of the sacrament.
If one is not concerned with outward forms, then one should really go down the Salvationist route.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
That's not what I'm objecting to. I'm objecting to the notion that the church can demand something concrete from us in return for being able to receive the sacraments, and use the machinery of the state to force us to hand it over.
I feel rather strongly about tithing. 10% of our incomes belongs to God.
Bugger. There was me thinking that technically 100% of it does.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
10% of our incomes belongs to God.
I was under the impression that 100% of my income belongs to God.
As far as I am aware, the idea that 10% of one's income belongs to the church has no basis in Scripture.
[Cross-posted with Karl.]
[ 25. September 2012, 13:49: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Bugger. There was me thinking that technically 100% of it does.
Yeah, fair enough, but usually that is a pretense for giving less to the Church.
And before anyone says it, I am not saying giving one's time and treasure to the Church is enough. It is, indeed, all for nothing if one withholds his soul from God.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Bugger. There was me thinking that technically 100% of it does.
Yeah, fair enough, but usually that is a pretense for giving less to the Church.
I would suggest you have no idea how much either I or Karl give to the Church.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Bugger. There was me thinking that technically 100% of it does.
Yeah, fair enough, but usually that is a pretense for giving less to the Church.
And before anyone says it, I am not saying giving one's time and treasure to the Church is enough. It is, indeed, all for nothing if one withholds his soul from God.
Or possibly a pretext.
But then again, so can be the figure of 10% - there is an equal potential for the very well off to say they've handed over their 10%; they don't owe no-one nowt.
I don't go along with telling people that they're stealing from God if they don't give at least 10%, unless they're desperately poor, on the basis of no clear NT mandate.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Bugger. There was me thinking that technically 100% of it does.
Yeah, fair enough, but usually that is a pretense for giving less to the Church.
I would suggest you have no idea how much either I or Karl give to the Church.
More importantly, it's none of his business.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I would suggest you have no idea how much either I or Karl give to the Church.
I never commented on how much you give. I'll gladly answer to what I have actually said. But it's rather much to expect me to answer to what I never said, isn't it?
quote:
But then again, so can be the figure of 10% - there is an equal potential for the very well off to say they've handed over their 10%; they don't owe no-one nowt.
Yeah, I don't know why I bother typing out qualifications if people aren't going to bother reading them. I mean, you quoted the very passage where I said "merely handing over 10% isn't enough." For pete's sake!
quote:
I don't go along with telling people that they're stealing from God if they don't give at least 10%, unless they're desperately poor, on the basis of no clear NT mandate.
Ancient practice is good enough for me.
[ 25. September 2012, 14:37: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I would suggest you have no idea how much either I or Karl give to the Church.
I never commented on how much you give. I'll gladly answer to what I have actually said. But it's rather much to expect me to answer to what I never said, isn't it?
quote:
But then again, so can be the figure of 10% - there is an equal potential for the very well off to say they've handed over their 10%; they don't owe no-one nowt.
Yeah, I don't know why I bother typing out qualifications if people aren't going to bother reading them. I mean, you quoted the very passage where I said "merely handing over 10% isn't enough." For pete's sake!
I know what you said. I'm pointing out that that point can get lost when you throw out a number like 10%.
When I was little, a long time ago, the maths teacher set us the task of doing at least six problems from the textbook.
I did six, and put my pencil down. He wasn't pleased; he knew I could do more. But the implicit assumption in "at least six" that I should do more than six if I could was lost in the quoting of the number six, which gained the association of being an acceptable minimum.
quote:
quote:
I don't go along with telling people that they're stealing from God if they don't give at least 10%, unless they're desperately poor, on the basis of no clear NT mandate.
Ancient practice is good enough for me. [/QB]
Does "ancient practice" include the spiritual blackmail towards people who don't meet the standards so set?
Posted by GordonThePenguin (# 2106) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
IngoB that's most helpful. It's great to hear from someone who knows what he's talking about. Some factual queries:-
To what extent can one choose which church ones tax contribution goes to? If one is the German equivalent of Methodist rather than CofE, can one nominate it to them?
Is it collected by the German equivalent of the Inland Revenue through the equivalent of PAYE? Or does one have to pay it separately?
Do the large number of Turks now living in Germany pay church tax to their mosques?
Can a person convert from one church to another? If so does their tax transfer?
Does Germany have anything corresponding to the way here one can elect to make charitable donations before tax?
A church has to qualify to levy church tax by its legal status, but also to choose to levy it. For example, Baptists and Methodists are qualified bodies, but decline to levy church tax. I am not aware that any Islamic organisations qualify in the way that Christian Churches and Judaism do.
The tax is a payroll tax - it appears on my payslip each month. If you change denomination, you either change your church affiliation at the tax office, or decline to pay church tax any more (if you join a denomination that opts out).
Over and above that, donations to religious and charitable organisations are tax-deductable. Regular givers to a Baptist church, for example, will be given a statement of donations at the end of the year to be included with their tax return. This will certainly also cover donations to mosques, many of which are run by registered religious and cultural charities.
(ETA information regarding mosques)
[ 25. September 2012, 14:45: Message edited by: GordonThePenguin ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I know what you said. I'm pointing out that that point can get lost when you throw out a number like 10%.
Hypocrites will find an out no matter what. What's that to do with what the faithful owe their Church?
quote:
Does "ancient practice" include the spiritual blackmail towards people who don't meet the standards so set?
Funny how quickly you take it from "We have concrete obligations to the Church" to "spiritual black mail." ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I would suggest you have no idea how much either I or Karl give to the Church.
I never commented on how much you give.
You said that an argument I'd just advanced was 'usually' advanced in order to avoid giving enough to the Church.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I know what you said. I'm pointing out that that point can get lost when you throw out a number like 10%.
Hypocrites will find an out no matter what. What's that to do with what the faithful owe their Church?
quote:
Does "ancient practice" include the spiritual blackmail towards people who don't meet the standards so set?
Funny how quickly you take it from "We have concrete obligations to the Church" to "spiritual black mail."
That's because "if you don't you're stealing from God" is spiritual blackmail.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
A church tax is fairly common in Lutheran countries. It entitles you to a church wedding and to have your kids baptised, also it pays for the cleghy to teach catechism in schools.
Bonhoeffer thought it was 'cheap grace' to make sacraments available on demand, regardless of faith,to those who paid up.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
You said that an argument I'd just advanced was 'usually' advanced in order to avoid giving enough to the Church.
I also said "Fair enough," which means something along the lines of "You are right- you got me there" where I come from.
quote:
That's because "if you don't you're stealing from God" is spiritual blackmail.
In that case, saying any particular action or omission at all is a religious failure is spiritual blackmail. How is what I said any different than "If you sleep with another man's wife, you're offending God?"
What is the precise issue here? That it so turns out that "concrete contribution" actually involves handing over filthy money? It would help if we could get right to the core of the objection.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
The core of the objection is that I don't see what mandate you have for insisting on that 10% as a minimum. You do not know people's circumstances. You do not know what other giving they do; they may have perfectly valid reasons for channeling much of their giving other than through the church. Moreover, given the function of the tithe through history, and the changes in society, there are lots of questions that could be raised about its applicability today. There are a range of valid and defensible positions, so bringing in the heavy "you're stealing from GOD!!!" guns seems extremely inappropriate.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
The core of the objection is that I don't see what mandate you have for insisting on that 10% as a minimum. You do not know people's circumstances.
I already proposed an out for people who can't afford it. Again with the "Why bother typing qualifications no one is going to bother to read?"
quote:
You do not know what other giving they do; they may have perfectly valid reasons for channeling much of their giving other than through the church.
In the Old Testament, alms-giving was over and above what one owed to the Temple, and this practice was carried over into the Ancient Church.
quote:
Moreover, given the function of the tithe through history, and the changes in society, there are lots of questions that could be raised about its applicability today. There are a range of valid and defensible positions, so bringing in the heavy "you're stealing from GOD!!!" guns seems extremely inappropriate.
So, you're not objecting to the idea that we really do owe a concrete amount to the Church, but to me saying it in what you consider a mean way?
[ 25. September 2012, 15:24: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What is the precise issue here? That it so turns out that "concrete contribution" actually involves handing over filthy money? It would help if we could get right to the core of the objection.
The core of my objection is the fact that the contribution is compulsory rather than voluntary.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What is the precise issue here? That it so turns out that "concrete contribution" actually involves handing over filthy money? It would help if we could get right to the core of the objection.
The core of my objection is the fact that the contribution is compulsory rather than voluntary.
It's not compulsory. One can march right down to the registry office and say one isn't going to pay. Easy as that.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's not compulsory. One can march right down to the registry office and say one isn't going to pay. Easy as that.
OK then, "compulsory if one is to receive the sacraments".
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
The core of the objection is that I don't see what mandate you have for insisting on that 10% as a minimum. You do not know people's circumstances.
I already proposed an out for people who can't afford it. Again with the "Why bother typing qualifications no one is going to bother to read?"
I read it. However, I said "their circumstances". Not "whether they could afford it". They are not the same thing.
quote:
quote:
You do not know what other giving they do; they may have perfectly valid reasons for channeling much of their giving other than through the church.
In the Old Testament, alms-giving was over and above what one owed to the Temple, and this practice was carried over into the Ancient Church.
quote:
Moreover, given the function of the tithe through history, and the changes in society, there are lots of questions that could be raised about its applicability today. There are a range of valid and defensible positions, so bringing in the heavy "you're stealing from GOD!!!" guns seems extremely inappropriate.
So, you're not objecting to the idea that we really do owe a concrete amount to the Church, but to me saying it in what you consider a mean way?
I'm objecting to both.
[ 25. September 2012, 15:33: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
As we've established on this thread, far more than 10% belongs to God. And, if it makes you feel better, I rather doubt any priest would withhold the sacraments in extreme circumstances. Tithing is about one's ordinary, worldly obligations to the Church.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
The thing about "We owe the Church something concrete" is that it becomes a number sooner or later. And we furthermore have to owe the Church something concrete, because we ourselves are concrete.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
Gordon has already answered most of this, but let me elaborate...
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
To what extent can one choose which church ones tax contribution goes to? If one is the German equivalent of Methodist rather than CofE, can one nominate it to them?
Obviously. As long as that community is acknowledged as "Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechtes" (corporation of public law), and in fact does ask the state to collect such taxes for them. This currently includes (what follows now via the lists on the German Wikipedia): Lutherans (EKD), RCC, Old Catholics, Humanists (Free-Religious), Unitarians, and Jews. Furthermore, some groups in Hamburg are allowed by local law to tax their adherents themselves (Mennonites, Evangelicals, Danish Seafarers). Then there are those which would be allowed to collect church taxes, but choose not to: Evangelicals (two large groupings), Methodists, Salvation Army, Pentecostals, Seventh-Day-Adventists, Eastern Orthodox, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, New Apostolic Churches, Christian Community, Federation for Free Spirits, and three Humanist Federations.
Finally, the German constitution allows any religious or practical-philosophical organisation to apply for the same status. This is regulated by a paragraph which actually explicitly re-instates law of the Weimar Republic. The essential criterion is the durability of the organisation, which must be shown by number of adherents and its constitution / organisation.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is it collected by the German equivalent of the Inland Revenue through the equivalent of PAYE? Or does one have to pay it separately?
Yes. No.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Do the large number of Turks now living in Germany pay church tax to their mosques?
No. I'm guessing the problem might be that there simply is no "master organisation" for all these mosques. Or for reason of their own, they have not applied for the status. There's absolutely no reason to assume that they wouldn't be successful. There is no "religious filter" in place, just one that avoids sending taxes to organisations that pop into and out of existence...
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Can a person convert from one church to another? If so does their tax transfer?
Yes and yes.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Does Germany have anything corresponding to the way here one can elect to make charitable donations before tax?
Certainly. That's straightforward. One can subtract donations to juristic persons, public offices (e.g., universities) or registered charitable organisations from income tax. Germans give an estimated 4 billion Euro per year.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
And, if it makes you feel better, I rather doubt any priest would withhold the sacraments in extreme circumstances.
"Extreme circumstances" shouldn't come into it. My charitable giving (including to the church) is between me and God. Nobody else needs to know.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The thing about "We owe the Church something concrete" is that it becomes a number sooner or later. And we furthermore have to owe the Church something concrete, because we ourselves are concrete.
Strange logic. I'm also flesh, but it doesn't mean I owe the church something flesh.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
And, if it makes you feel better, I rather doubt any priest would withhold the sacraments in extreme circumstances.
"Extreme circumstances" shouldn't come into it. My charitable giving (including to the church) is between me and God. Nobody else needs to know.
You have obligations to your community too. That's what tithing is about- the community supplying the temporal needs of the Church.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The thing about "We owe the Church something concrete" is that it becomes a number sooner or later. And we furthermore have to owe the Church something concrete, because we ourselves are concrete.
Strange logic. I'm also flesh, but it doesn't mean I owe the church something flesh.
You do owe your presence on Sunday morning. Your flesh actually has to be there. The saints give their bones to the reverence of the Church too, but that's something else entirely.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You have obligations to your community too. That's what tithing is about- the community supplying the temporal needs of the Church.
Whether I have an obligation to my community is a different question. My point is that no church community should have the right to compel its members to pay up.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The thing about "We owe the Church something concrete" is that it becomes a number sooner or later. And we furthermore have to owe the Church something concrete, because we ourselves are concrete.
Strange logic. I'm also flesh, but it doesn't mean I owe the church something flesh.
You do owe your presence on Sunday morning. Your flesh actually has to be there. The saints give their bones to the reverence of the Church too, but that's something else entirely.
I quite often don't turn up on a Sunday morning. You're making assertions about what I "owe" but have offered little to prove those assertions.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
You said that an argument I'd just advanced was 'usually' advanced in order to avoid giving enough to the Church.
I also said "Fair enough," which means something along the lines of "You are right- you got me there" where I come from.
Ok. Then 'fair enough' from me too.
quote:
In the Old Testament, alms-giving was over and above what one owed to the Temple, and this practice was carried over into the Ancient Church.
As I understand Deuteronomy 14, you spent the tithe on food and drink which you ate in the Temple, not on the Temple itself.
Every three years there was an additional tithe, that went to support the Levites and poor people.
According to Numbers 18, the Levites gave a tithe of their tithe to the Aaronic priesthood at the Temple. Numbers 18 suggests the Levites' tithe happens every year and I am not sure how the two passages fit together, but the implication is that the Temple got either (1/10 * 1/10) or (1/30 * 1/10) of the Israelites' income.
Translating this directly onto the Church seems a fairly futile endeavour to me.
AIUI rabbinical Judaism takes the line that none of the tithing laws are operative, because a.) there are no Levites, b.) there is no Temple, c.) it only applies in Israel, and observant Jews therefore compromise by giving (at least) 10%, but this is intended as a replacement of the tithing laws in the Torah, not an implementation of them.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I quite often don't turn up on a Sunday morning. You're making assertions about what I "owe" but have offered little to prove those assertions.
If you aren't convinced that you owe God worship on the Lord's Day, then I can't possibly convince you that you owe Him a dime.
quote:
Translating this directly onto the Church seems a fairly futile endeavour to me.
It's been easy enough for the Church for centuries.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You have obligations to your community too. That's what tithing is about- the community supplying the temporal needs of the Church.
Whether I have an obligation to my community is a different question. My point is that no church community should have the right to compel its members to pay up.
In Christianity one's obligations to the Church and one's obligations to God are NOT different questions.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Translating this directly onto the Church seems a fairly futile endeavour to me.
It's been easy enough for the Church for centuries.
Really? Christians have for centuries spent 10% of their income on buying food and drink to have big feasts in a central church that is the only place where one is permitted to offer sacrifices to God? The church has Levites and Kohenim? The church demands 20% tithes every three years?
I think what you mean to say is 'the Church has for centuries asked for a 10% tithe as a nod to the Torah, but by a system that does not intend to reproduce the Mosaic pattern of tithing'.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I think what you mean to say is 'the Church has for centuries asked for a 10% tithe as a nod to the Torah, but by a system that does not intend to reproduce the Mosaic pattern of tithing'.
Pretty much.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
In Christianity one's obligations to the Church and one's obligations to God are NOT different questions.
Um, yes they are, unless you're saying we have no obligation before God to give to the poor outwith the Church.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
In Christianity one's obligations to the Church and one's obligations to God are NOT different questions.
Um, yes they are, unless you're saying we have no obligation before God to give to the poor outwith the Church.
I have no idea how you got from what I said to the inference that we have no obligation to the poor.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
In Christianity one's obligations to the Church and one's obligations to God are NOT different questions.
Um, yes they are, unless you're saying we have no obligation before God to give to the poor outwith the Church.
I have no idea how you got from what I said to the inference that we have no obligation to the poor.
Our obligation to God includes an obligation to the Church, and an obligation to the poor, and lots of other obligations.
Therefore, our obligation to the Church is not identical to our obligation to God. It is merely a subset of our obligations to God. It is a separate question.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I see. What I was saying was that our obligations to the Church are obligations to God. But I didn't mean to imply that our obligations to the Church exhaust our obligations to God.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Thank you IngoB.
I don't always agree with how things are done in other countries, as will have been evident from another post on a different thread. However, that actually sounds rather a good system. One can just imagine though what would be the reaction to such a scheme here.
Perhaps in stead of being let off their 8%, those who 'sign off', should be required to nominate it to some other worthy cause. Has this ever been suggested?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I see. What I was saying was that our obligations to the Church are obligations to God. But I didn't mean to imply that our obligations to the Church exhaust our obligations to God.
I think the point which we are slightly sliding round is that the role of the Church has changed since the Middle Ages. A lot of our obligations to the poor which used to be channelled through the Church are now chanelled through the welfare state via income tax. Saying that the Church gets to keep its traditionally mandated 10% levy anyway seems dubious to me.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I think the point which we are slightly sliding round is that the role of the Church has changed since the Middle Ages. A lot of our obligations to the poor which used to be channelled through the Church are now chanelled through the welfare state via income tax. Saying that the Church gets to keep its traditionally mandated 10% levy anyway seems dubious to me.
The poor are always with us. If there aren't enough poor people to support at home (which I doubt even in welfare states), there are poor people to support in other places.
Though it does have to be pointed out that tithing was specifically for the temporal needs of the Church. Alms giving was a separate matter. Both were required.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
For those who can read German, here's the press announcement of the decree, which includes the actual decree as PDF and the pastoral letter as PDF that all Germans will now get if they "secularly" exit the German RCC. All of these are in German, but you can try google translation...
The initial "Roman attack" on the German system is here (in English). The essential point is that Rome insisted that
quote:
2. The substance of the act of the will must be the rupture of those bonds of communion – faith, sacraments, and pastoral governance – that permit the Faithful to receive the life of grace within the Church. This means that the formal act of defection must have more than a juridical-administrative character (the removal of one’s name from a Church membership registry maintained by the government in order to produce certain civil consequences), but be configured as a true separation from the constitutive elements of the life of the Church: it supposes, therefore, an act of apostasy, heresy or schism.
3. The juridical-administrative act of abandoning the Church does not per se constitute a formal act of defection as understood in the Code, given that there could still be the will to remain in the communion of the faith.
...
5. It is required, moreover, that the act be manifested by the interested party in written form, before the competent authority of the Catholic Church: the Ordinary or proper pastor, who is uniquely qualified to make the judgment concerning the existence or non-existence of the act of the will as described above in n. 2.
Many people think that Pope BXVI made some heavy-handed hints to the German bishops concerning the future of church tax in his speech in Freiburg in 2011 (via the Archdiocese of Melbourne):
quote:
In order to accomplish her true task adequately, the Church must constantly renew the effort to detach herself from the "worldliness" of the world. In this she follows the words of Jesus: "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world" (Jn 17:16). One could almost say that history comes to the aid of the Church here through the various periods of secularization, which have contributed significantly to her purification and inner reform.
Secularizing trends – whether by expropriation of Church goods, or elimination of privileges or the like – have always meant a profound liberation of the Church from forms of worldliness, for in the process she has set aside her worldly wealth and has once again completely embraced her worldly poverty. In this the Church has shared the destiny of the tribe of Levi, which according to the Old Testament account was the only tribe in Israel with no ancestral land of its own, taking as its portion only God himself, his word and his signs. At those moments in history, the Church shared with that tribe the demands of a poverty that was open to the world, in order to be released from her material ties: and in this way her missionary activity regained credibility.
History has shown that, when the Church becomes less worldly, her missionary witness shines more brightly. Once liberated from her material and political burdens, the Church can reach out more effectively and in a truly Christian way to the whole world, she can be truly open to the world. She can live more freely her vocation to the ministry of divine worship and service of neighbour. The missionary task, which is linked to Christian worship and should determine its structure, becomes more clearly visible. The Church opens herself to the world not in order to win men for an institution with its own claims to power, but in order to lead them to themselves by leading them to him of whom each person can say with Saint Augustine: he is closer to me than I am to myself (cf. Confessions, III, 6, 11). He who is infinitely above me is yet so deeply within me that he is my true interiority. This form of openness to the world on the Church’s part also serves to indicate how the individual Christian can be open to the world in effective and appropriate ways.
It is not a question here of finding a new strategy to relaunch the Church. Rather, it is a question of setting aside mere strategy and seeking total transparency, not bracketing or ignoring anything from the truth of our present situation, but living the faith fully here and now in the utterly sober light of day, appropriating it completely, and stripping away from it anything that only seems to belong to faith, but in truth is mere convention or habit.
I expect a period of ecclesial trench warfare defending the church tax privilege is to follow, unless the German system is Zapped into oblivion by the ongoing court cases.
As for myself, I would be happy to see church tax eliminated. I would be very unhappy though to see eliminated what is being done with church taxes. I fear that unless cool - and church-friendly - heads prevail, this may well become one of the worst occasions of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, ever. You can't just rip 9 billion Euros per year out of social and educational services. And in fact, you can't just expect churches catering to millions of faithful to reorganise their entire national finance system at the drop of a judicial hat.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The core of the objection is that I don't see what mandate you have for insisting on that 10% as a minimum. You do not know people's circumstances. You do not know what other giving they do; they may have perfectly valid reasons for channeling much of their giving other than through the church. Moreover, given the function of the tithe through history, and the changes in society, there are lots of questions that could be raised about its applicability today. There are a range of valid and defensible positions, so bringing in the heavy "you're stealing from GOD!!!" guns seems extremely inappropriate.
We have income tax and value added taxes now - some of that money goes towards helping the poor, social work, medical care etc.
So that needs to be deducted from the 10%
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
If I were the German government, I would switch to charging everyone an additional 5% to be spent on these kind of services - and then commission from the churches those they are currently providing for at least the next three years. If this produces a surplus over and above, I would either a) spend it on extension of similar services b) reduce the base rate of the tax from 5% to whatever makes the figures balance.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As for myself, I would be happy to see church tax eliminated. I would be very unhappy though to see eliminated what is being done with church taxes.
As the author of How to be Secular notes, political secularity is not at all the same as institutionalized agnosticism or humanism. It is equal opportunity for all faiths. Among its best friends in the U.S. are religious minorities-- including, of course, the kookiest and most dubious. This is a mixed blessing.
I recall a claim to religious tax exemption on the part of an organization in Seattle called "The Monastery", occupying a former church. The owner/manager claimed that was still a church, that he was a pastor, that the members on the mailing list were parishioners, and the gatherings were worship. What was it? A gay discotheque! The last-mentioned claim was therefore true enough in a way. But the others were serious only as an attempt to save money. I don't think they convinced the relevant government agencies, but why the heck not? How does a strictly secular government granting any privileges to religious organizations distinguish between the legitimate claimants and the pretenders?
To complicate matters further, a few years ago, a Methodist congregation in Los Angeles which was in danger of disbanding got a new lease on life by introducing ballroom dancing in the middle of its services. So here's a major American denomination using a gimmick whereby it comes within a hair's breadth of "The Monastery" but no doubt dead serious about its continuing claim to church status. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
I'd argue that the German practice of recognizing some denominations (those well-established) and not others (the novelties and inventions) is just as valid as the American open-ended approach. And the money disbursed to churches is put to good use. (Although I am a little surprised at the high percentage, haveing thought it was more like 3-4%) But must Germans, like most Europeans, imagine themselves to have outgrown faithfulness. Christian practice is more robust in the U.S. Could it be that our political arrangements re church & state work better?
[ 25. September 2012, 18:12: Message edited by: Alogon ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
In the United States, Churches are more than welcome to solicit aid from the government for any number of charitable services, so long as religion is not a condition for obtaining those services. My last parish received literally tons of food from the agricultural administration for distribution to the poor at the food pantry.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I quite often don't turn up on a Sunday morning. You're making assertions about what I "owe" but have offered little to prove those assertions.
If you aren't convinced that you owe God worship on the Lord's Day, then I can't possibly convince you that you owe Him a dime.
Quite right. It's because I look for reason and evidence, not mere assertion or appeal to authority, be it tradition or a particular interpretation of Scripture.
We come from very different places.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
In Christianity one's obligations to the Church and one's obligations to God are NOT different questions.
You're still missing the point. If I have an obligation to God and/or the church, that is my obligation and it is my responsibility to fulfil it as my conscience dictates. It is not the church's responsibility to compel me to fulfil it.
If you're going to argue for the latter, then as far as I'm concerned you may as well put turnstiles on the church doors.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
To illustrate the point yet further:
You also say this about our obligations to God/the church...
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You do owe your presence on Sunday morning. Your flesh actually has to be there.
If your arguments in favour of church tax are to be extended to this obligation as well, then it means that every Sunday church officials should go to the houses of absent parishioners and physically drag them to the service. Is that what you're arguing?
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
To illustrate the point yet further:
You also say this about our obligations to God/the church...
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You do owe your presence on Sunday morning. Your flesh actually has to be there.
If your arguments in favour of church tax are to be extended to this obligation as well, then it means that every Sunday church officials should go to the houses of absent parishioners and physically drag them to the service. Is that what you're arguing?
This is a depressingly silly straw man that you are fighting;
a) you are suggesting that the state in Germany is empowering clergy to come and get people out of bed
b) you're totally failing to engage with the fact that the tax is VOLUNTARY; you can drop out of it at no cost.
The only question is whether churches have a right to expect their members to keep certain rules - to which the logical answer would be 'Yes'; to deny a church the right to have certain rules for its members is to deny its freedom of religion. You may not agree with those rules - but to reject the possibility is unreasonable.
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on
:
I believe that in Austria, as well as in Germany, tithing to the Catholic Church is effectively compulsory - I remember an Austrian I worked with having some diffulty in getting the payments stopped even though he was no longer working or living there (no, I don't know how that works - sorry!).
In the UK, or at least in England as I've never investigated the situation in Scotland, I think tithe in kind was abandoned in the 1830s and replaced with a set financial levy - 105% of its value in year X, IIRC. However the year set was a year of high prices, and was a regular cause of agricultural discontent until grain prces really collapsed in the 1930s, and effectively rebellion broke out about paying - especially as fewer and fewer farmers were churchgoers (my great grandfather was prosecuted, being (a) skint and (b) Sally army). As a result it was set in, I think 1937, on a self-extinguishing basis to expire in 1997. In practice, the payments became so silly that it ended as a lump sum payment in 1977, with the church being funded by othre means (I'm sure ken will give chapter and verse on that).
As for Lay Tithe...
AG
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
This is a depressingly silly straw man that you are fighting;
a) you are suggesting that the state in Germany is empowering clergy to come and get people out of bed
No, I'm suggesting that by making it a tax that is compulsory and binding on all church members it is morally equivalent to empowering clergy to come and get church members out of bed should they be absent from a service.
quote:
b) you're totally failing to engage with the fact that the tax is VOLUNTARY; you can drop out of it at no cost.
But only by also dropping out of the church. That's quite a cost, wouldn't you say?
quote:
The only question is whether churches have a right to expect their members to keep certain rules - to which the logical answer would be 'Yes'; to deny a church the right to have certain rules for its members is to deny its freedom of religion.
The difference is between "expectation" and "enforcement". The church can expect what it wants of me, it can teach and cajole me to its heart's content, but it can't (figuratively) dip its hand in my pocket and forcibly remove what it thinks I owe it.
quote:
You may not agree with those rules - but to reject the possibility is unreasonable.
I'd have thought the fact that it does happen is evidence enough that it's actually possible. Please read any "can't"s in my posts as referring to moral wrongs rather than physical/legal impossibilities.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Marvin, The Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant denominations assert that the believer has worldly obligations to the Church. Most Churches aren't as strict as collecting it in the US and the UK, but the obligation is still technically there. Saying that they are forcing you to pay is like saying Coca-Cola is forcing you to pay. Neither the Evangelical Church in Germany nor Coca-Cola are forcing you to do anything.
You may think a Church with temporal needs that imposes actual concrete actions on believers is disgusting, but most Germans don't seem to.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
The comparison with coca-cola makes it sound too much like Simony for my liking.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Technically, what this church would be doing is equivalent to charging entry to participate in the Eucharist. Of course, a football team does the same thing: they charge you when you want enter the stadium.
The problem I have with this is: it seems to be against the spirit in which I see the Eucharist: as a gift in which we can partake freely.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
You seem to want a heavenly Church with no temporal needs that imposes no concrete actions too, Karl. It's the implication of what you're arguing here.
That's not the Church in the Bible, not the Catholic Church, nor TEC, nor any other I've heard of, but keep looking.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You seem to want a heavenly Church with no temporal needs that imposes no concrete actions too, Karl. It's the implication of what you're arguing here.
That's not the Church in the Bible, not the Catholic Church, nor TEC, nor any other I've heard of, but keep looking.
I've found one, thanks. The CofE does not demand I give any particular sum or percentage. It leaves it completely up to me.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
You have to pay your Church? How disgusting?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
The problem I have with it doesn't have to do with whether or not we have financial obligations towards our Church (my Emergent Church group is quite relaxed with that), but with making the Eucharist dependent on our financial contributions.
When Jesus invited us to participate in the Eucharist, He didn't set the condition for us to fulfill our financial obligations towards the Church first. Establishing this as a condition would strongly devaluate the Eucharist in my view.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The problem I have with it doesn't have to do with whether or not we have financial obligations towards our Church (my Emergent Church group is quite relaxed with that), but with making the Eucharist dependent on our financial contributions.
When Jesus invited us to participate in the Eucharist, He didn't set the condition for us to fulfill our financial obligations towards the Church first. Establishing this as a condition would strongly devaluate the Eucharist in my view.
Technically, one has to pay the Church tax to be a member of the Church in good standing- then members are invited to the sacraments.
Does that put enough remove between one's obligations to support the Church and the sacraments?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You have to pay your Church? How disgusting?
No, I don't. What are you going on about?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Zach82: Technically, one has to pay the Church tax to be a member of the Church in good standing- then members are invited to the sacraments.
Does that put enough remove between one's obligations to support the Church and the sacraments?
I'm afraid not. In my church, all are invited to the Eucharist, not only members.
I have to say that I find the whole idea that when you're going forward to receive the Eucharist, that someone would be checking if you're up-to-date with your payments first, disgusting.
A couple of months ago, in our discussions about online Eucharist, some people (maybe it was you) asked me: "LeRoc, is there anything that would make Eucharist invalid to you?" At least, now I have an answer to that: making it dependent on your financial contributions.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The difference is between "expectation" and "enforcement". The church can expect what it wants of me, it can teach and cajole me to its heart's content, but it can't (figuratively) dip its hand in my pocket and forcibly remove what it thinks I owe it.
Sure. However, you seem to have the strange idea that you can force the church to fulfil your desires. The church however does not have a Divine mandate to satisfy your spiritual needs unconditionally. She can set standards for you to uphold, actions for you to perform, etc. And if you don't, then she is under no obligation to provide what you want. In Germany, this does include specific demands for financial support. If you don't like that, you are entirely free to seek out a less demanding church.
One should also note that tying these financial demands to the income tax automatically guarantees that the poor will not be disadvantaged. Those who really have no money pay no income tax, and hence no church tax. Those who are rich pay more than those who are not. Etc.
Finally, this is not direct Simony. Because one is not buying access rights to the sacraments as such. For example, a divorced and remarried Catholic will not receive the Eucharist, no matter whether they pay church tax or not. And a Hindu claiming to the German government to be Catholic, and hence paying church tax to the RCC, does not thereby gain any rights in the church. Rather this is essentially about paying a fee purely for membership as such. Under normal circumstances, one has to be a paid up member to receive the sacraments, because it costs money to provide the sacraments (and do other things churches do), and this money is obtained from the membership fee. However, this is merely fulfilling a qualifying condition, it is not taking out a contract on specific services to be rendered.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Marvin, The Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant denominations assert that the believer has worldly obligations to the Church. Most Churches aren't as strict as collecting it in the US and the UK, but the obligation is still technically there.
Fortunately I am a member of a civilised church (the CofE). One where, should I so desire, I can turn up every Sunday and not put one thin penny into the collection plate, and I will still be just as welcome to participate in the life of the church (including the sacraments) as someone who gives £100 every week.
quote:
You seem to want a heavenly Church with no temporal needs that imposes no concrete actions too, Karl. It's the implication of what you're arguing here.
I want a church that seeks to turn people, through preaching, teaching, good example and the work of the Holy Spirit, into Godly folk who will (among other things) cheerfully give their tithe of their own free will.
Not one that uses the machinery of the state to extract that tithe from unwilling pockets. Not one that insists on Christian Perfection as a prerequisite for membership, rather than the (hopeful) end result of membership that it is.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I bet you dollars to doughnuts that if you look in the canons of the CoE, the faithful DO have an obligation to support the Church.
quote:
Not one that uses the machinery of the state to extract that tithe from unwilling pockets. Not one that insists on Christian Perfection as a prerequisite for membership, rather than the (hopeful) end result of membership that it is.
Well, let me know when you actually want to talk about Germany. I have no idea what this "extraction from unwilling pockets" business is.
[ 26. September 2012, 14:03: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you don't like that, you are entirely free to seek out a less demanding church.
Found one, thanks.
quote:
Rather this is essentially about paying a fee purely for membership as such.
Yes, it is. And I'm saying that any church that requires payment of a membership fee before the worshipper can even have a chance of receiving the sacraments is just wrong.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I bet you dollars to doughnuts that if you look in the canons of the CoE, the faithful DO have an obligation to support the Church.
But that obligation is only enforceable (and/or punishable if not met) by God. It is no more the job of church leaders (never mind the government) to ensure that I meet it than it is their job to ensure that I turn up every Sunday.
quote:
I have no idea what this "extraction from unwilling pockets" business is.
It's a hyperbolic reference to a compulsory tax on church membership.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
It's a hyperbolic...
"False and absurd" isn't how I usually define hyperbolic.
quote:
But that obligation is only enforceable (and/or punishable if not met) by God. It is no more the job of church leaders (never mind the government) to ensure that I meet it than it is their job to ensure that I turn up every Sunday.
So you want a Church where you can be a hypocrite?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Though it does have to be pointed out that tithing was specifically for the temporal needs of the Church. Alms giving was a separate matter. Both were required.
Not according to Britannica.com:
quote:
tithe, (from Old English teogothian, “tenth”), a custom dating back to Old Testament times and adopted by the Christian church whereby lay people contributed a 10th of their income for religious purposes, often under ecclesiastical or legal obligation. The money (or its equivalent in crops, farm stock, etc.) was used to support the clergy, maintain churches, and assist the poor [my bold].
[ETA: I am disputing that tithes were only used to maintain churches. I am not disputing that there was a duty of almsgiving separate from the duty of tithing as well.]
[ 26. September 2012, 14:20: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
[ETA: I am disputing that tithes were only used to maintain churches. I am not disputing that there was a duty of almsgiving separate from the duty of tithing as well.]
Since I never said the Church didn't use tithes to support the poor, that's nothing to do with me. Saying that tithes were intended for doesn't preclude the Church using what is its own for other worthy means.
[ 26. September 2012, 14:23: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
[ETA: I am disputing that tithes were only used to maintain churches. I am not disputing that there was a duty of almsgiving separate from the duty of tithing as well.]
Since I never said the Church didn't use tithes to support the poor, that's nothing to do with me. Saying that tithes were intended for doesn't preclude the Church using what is its own for other worthy means.
Um, the post you're responding to quotes you as saying the tithes were used 'exclusively for the temporal needs of the church'. Which I interpreted as meaning running costs in contradistinction to almsgiving.
My point is that the Church can't expect 10th-century standards of giving if it isn't using that money the way it did in the 10th century.
AFAICT the Church today spends most of its income on expenses (clergy salaries, maintenance, heating). Which is fine. We have a moral obligation not to be freeloaders if we can help it.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
It's a hyperbolic...
"False and absurd" isn't how I usually define hyperbolic.
quote:
But that obligation is only enforceable (and/or punishable if not met) by God. It is no more the job of church leaders (never mind the government) to ensure that I meet it than it is their job to ensure that I turn up every Sunday.
So you want a Church where you can be a hypocrite?
Yes, because along with every other human being, that's what I am.
[ 26. September 2012, 14:39: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
But that obligation is only enforceable (and/or punishable if not met) by God. It is no more the job of church leaders (never mind the government) to ensure that I meet it than it is their job to ensure that I turn up every Sunday.
So you want a Church where you can be a hypocrite?
If you want to put it in such terms, then yes. Yes I would.
And why? Because the church exists not as a club for the saved, but as a mission to the lost. Pretty hard to minister to the lost and the hypocrites if you're refusing to let them enter until they become holy, isn't it?
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Technically, what this church would be doing is equivalent to charging entry to participate in the Eucharist.
Interesting little twist, though: what is charged varies according to your ability to pay.
If you're poor enough not to pay income tax, then it is free. This is highly unusual for price tags.
The principle goes back to the Old Testament, and a large part of the proceeds were to help the poor. When such laws were ignored, the prophets objected.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Found one, thanks. ... And I'm saying that any church that requires payment of a membership fee before the worshipper can even have a chance of receiving the sacraments is just wrong.
Really? The CofE gets about £750 million a year from its members, three-quarters of its total funds. If that stopped, then the CofE would collapse and you would not get your sacraments from her. You may cherish your liberty to not give anything. But this liberty in fact only exits as long as it is not exercised, by the majority of members. And this liberty furthermore consists essentially in other people footing the bill for you. It's not a miraculous multiplication of pounds.
The CofE also will need to make sure that her members give generously enough. I've never been to an Anglican service, but I would suspect that the topic of giving money to the church comes up more insistently than in a German Catholic church. Furthermore, I bet support for the CofE is in fact less "fair" in the sense of being less related to the actual money people have. Do people earning twice as much as you really contribute twice as much to the church, on average?
Well, anyway, my main point is that your perceived freedom is a bit of an illusion. I would be entirely unsurprised if it was understood that every member of the CofE has to pay their fair share for the church's upkeep. And I would be rather surprised if, shall we say, regulatory mechanisms of social nature did not swing into action if this understanding was being disrespected too much by too many.
It is not really, really the case that you can stop supporting the CofE tomorrow and remain an Anglican in good standing. The main difference is that you can secure some extra slack by imposing on other members, and that your eventual drop in standing isn't necessarily reflected in anything official.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Interesting little twist, though: what is charged varies according to your ability to pay.
And who decides what your "ability to pay" is, exactly?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The CofE gets about £750 million a year from its members, three-quarters of its total funds. If that stopped, then the CofE would collapse and you would not get your sacraments from her.
Correct. And some churches do indeed close down or have to share their resources - especially their priest - with other local parishes if they can't raise enough funds through donations.
quote:
The CofE also will need to make sure that her members give generously enough. I've never been to an Anglican service, but I would suspect that the topic of giving money to the church comes up more insistently than in a German Catholic church.
Possibly, though I've never been to a German Catholic church so I wouldn't know.
quote:
Furthermore, I bet support for the CofE is in fact less "fair" in the sense of being less related to the actual money people have. Do people earning twice as much as you really contribute twice as much to the church, on average?
I have no idea, because what other people give is none of my fucking business. Just like what I give is none of theirs.
quote:
It is not really, really the case that you can stop supporting the CofE tomorrow and remain an Anglican in good standing.
Yes it is, because nobody would know. That's one of the things I love about it.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Because the church exists not as a club for the saved, but as a mission to the lost. Pretty hard to minister to the lost and the hypocrites if you're refusing to let them enter until they become holy, isn't it?
Jesus Christ did not unconditionally hand out Divine freebies to the lost and the hypocrites. Rather, they were forgiven and healed if repentant and mending their ways. Where they did not do do that, Jesus spoke of the unquenchable fire of Gehenna and whitewashed tombs, a lot... Furthermore, who says that ministering to the lost and the hypocrites, even inside the church, primarily means providing sacraments to them? The Sacrament of Penance, OK, but the Eucharist? You will eat and drink judgement upon yourself with that.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And who decides what your "ability to pay" is, exactly?
In the case at hand, the tax office.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And some churches do indeed close down or have to share their resources - especially their priest - with other local parishes if they can't raise enough funds through donations.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is not really, really the case that you can stop supporting the CofE tomorrow and remain an Anglican in good standing.
Yes it is, because nobody would know. That's one of the things I love about it.
So, you will sit there listening to the pastor announcing to your congregation that the church will be closed, and feel great joy over the fact that nobody can know for sure that you didn't pull your weight? Or, in happier times, you will sit there listening to the pastor announcing to your congregation that thanks to generous giving the roof can finally be fixed, and feel great joy over the fact that nobody will know that you are going to worship dry for free?
Anyhow, nobody in a German Catholic church knows what the others are giving to the church either. Because people (at least in Germany) do not generally tell other people how much they earn. What they do know is that everybody gives at a minimum a set percentage of their earnings to the church. So when a church has to close or merge, and that of course happens in Germany as well, they know that it's not because their community is shot through with free riders.
I'm actually against the German church tax. But in a sense because it works too well. Like much of the money of fitness studios is made of people who never show up, so the German church relies for its finances mostly on the lukewarm to cold.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I have little to add to IngoB's very sound reasoning but to say that being able to get away without paying is not the same as not being obligated to pay. Members of the CoE are just as obliged to support their Church financially as German Christians. The CoE is merely reluctant to enforce its rightful claim to financial support from its members.
And, it should be added, the CoE's reluctance to press its claims to financial support is a rather new thing. Until recently one had to pay for his seat in church, and parishes were not shy about making better seats a paying proposition.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Um, the post you're responding to quotes you as saying the tithes were used 'exclusively for the temporal needs of the church'. Which I interpreted as meaning running costs in contradistinction to almsgiving.
My point is that the Church can't expect 10th-century standards of giving if it isn't using that money the way it did in the 10th century.
AFAICT the Church today spends most of its income on expenses (clergy salaries, maintenance, heating). Which is fine. We have a moral obligation not to be freeloaders if we can help it.
I said that was what tithing was specifically for, and that doesn't mean the Church couldn't or didn't dispose of it for other ends. 10% merely belonged to the Church- one was not doing a good work in handing it over. One was giving what one owed.
I am sure the Church would love to carry out more service to the poor, but presently only a small minority of believers in the US and UK actually tithe. The Church can barely keep the lights on these days.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Interesting little twist, though: what is charged varies according to your ability to pay.
And who decides what your "ability to pay" is, exactly?
The government in its tax policy. This is an income tax, right? If this is unfair, your gripe is with the entire policy, not just the religious-allocation part.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
An alternative perspective on the issue that Marvin raises is that it reflects the grossly individualistic nature of our modern culture, which then distorts our understanding of how our religion should work. Although Jesus does emphasis that 'the left hand should not know what the right hand is doing', in the practice of the Acts we see Annias and Sapphira (and Barnabus) publicly donating the money that they had made from selling property. It is therefore reasonable to see Jesus' teaching as another example of trying to correct an existing distortion, (cf if your eye causes you to sin, cut it off) rather than an absolute command for us to follow. This sort of exclusion is part of why our relationships in church are so limited; we should do better!
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Although the church tax system could have quite a lot to be said for it, I would have thought one quite serious unintended consequence is this. If, as sounds to be the case, lots of Germans pay their church tax but hardly ever attend church, yet alone get involved in it, do they give themselves the message that as they've paid their dues, they're OK? There's a nice warm seat waiting for them in heaven, and they've done all they need to do. It could be like contributing to their celestial pension fund.
Does it also give any people the notion that as they've paid their whack, in return they are entitled to have the sort of church they want?
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
I suspect many German Catholics, Lutherans and other officially recognised denominations in Germany may be quite happy to pay the Church tax because it ensures that the Church they belong to (they can opt out) is there to provide the essential services it should when they may need them. They don't have to be deeply involved with it at parish level to appreciate this. I suspect German mainstream Churches may not experience the sad litany of church closures and amalgamations which Australian Churches face.
German Churches even have chaplains at airports to help people. Someone I know had a psychotic episode in Germany and the Chaplain at the airport was the one who dealt with the matter and contacted the Australian Embassy on his behalf. Without the Chaplain I don't know what would have happened.
One of the good things the German system appears to be doing is that it takes the Church's focus away from financial worries.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
Good argument Enoch; the British have a belief that they are Christians (except among the chattering classes) and therefore have a claim on the parish church, as shows when it is proposed to change its furnishing, let alone close it. To have paid a tax as well would substantially increase that sense of entitlement.
SP - Manchester Airport has a chaplaincy paid for by the local denominations, I think. So that's not only possible by a German style tax.
Expanding the logic of the tax and transparency; in Scandinavia (certainly Finland and I think elsewhere) your tax return is open to be viewed by anybody. They also have a church tax; therefore it is a matter of public record whether, and how much, you are contributing to the church via the tax. I suspect Marvin would be very miserable there ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
In US churches, one is expected to make a pledge to the parish anyway, and they do keep track. There is usually a person appointed to encourage pledgers to increase their pledges and to encourage non-pledgers to contribute. Then, of course, someone tracks what is actually given for tax reasons.
It's not general knowledge or anything, but there are people about the parish who know what you give. It ain't between the man and God alone in TEC.
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
In US churches, one is expected to make a pledge to the parish anyway, and they do keep track. There is usually a person appointed to encourage pledgers to increase their pledges and to encourage non-pledgers to contribute. Then, of course, someone tracks what is actually given for tax reasons.
It's not general knowledge or anything, but there are people about the parish who know what you give. It ain't between the man and God alone in TEC.
Unless one is stubborn, in which one can simply drop a strategically-folded, unenveloped bill into that little nest in the collection plate that has been formed by all the envelopes and other loose cash. Not that I've ever done this... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
One can, but expect a call from the junior warden every pledge drive explaining why pledging is important.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Furthermore, who says that ministering to the lost and the hypocrites, even inside the church, primarily means providing sacraments to them? The Sacrament of Penance, OK, but the Eucharist? You will eat and drink judgement upon yourself with that.
We have very different views about the efficacy of the sacraments in terms of effecting spiritual healing.
Then again, I've always seen holiness as the end result of being a Christian, not the prerequisite. Something we're all working towards, not something we're all expected to have achieved before we can be full members.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And who decides what your "ability to pay" is, exactly?
In the case at hand, the tax office.[/qb][/quote]
The government has no business interfering in religious matters. I'm with the Americans on that.
quote:
So, you will sit there listening to the pastor announcing to your congregation that the church will be closed, and feel great joy over the fact that nobody can know for sure that you didn't pull your weight? Or, in happier times, you will sit there listening to the pastor announcing to your congregation that thanks to generous giving the roof can finally be fixed, and feel great joy over the fact that nobody will know that you are going to worship dry for free?
I don't know what gives you the impression that I don't donate anything to the church.
My joy is in the fact that my church leaves how much each member will donate up to their individual consciences. That is how it should be.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
If this is unfair, your gripe is with the entire policy, not just the religious-allocation part.
Yes, it is.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
In US churches, one is expected to make a pledge to the parish anyway, and they do keep track. There is usually a person appointed to encourage pledgers to increase their pledges and to encourage non-pledgers to contribute. Then, of course, someone tracks what is actually given for tax reasons.
It's not general knowledge or anything, but there are people about the parish who know what you give. It ain't between the man and God alone in TEC.
Unless they've found a way of extracting my DNA from bank notes they most certainly don't know whether or how much I give them.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
One can, but expect a call from the junior warden every pledge drive explaining why pledging is important.
Actually, I know for a fact that the Rector has a policy of specifically not preaching about giving. I can only assume that he inclines towards the view expressed by me and Marvin that it's nothing to do with anyone but the individual giver and God.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
We have very different views about the efficacy of the sacraments in terms of effecting spiritual healing.
Then again, I've always seen holiness as the end result of being a Christian, not the prerequisite. Something we're all working towards, not something we're all expected to have achieved before we can be full members.
Supplying the Church's temporal needs has got nothing to do with holiness. One might feel a rush of holiness when he hands over the Church's pittance, but vanity works that way.
quote:
Actually, I know for a fact that the Rector has a policy of specifically not preaching about giving. I can only assume that he inclines towards the view expressed by me and Marvin that it's nothing to do with anyone but the individual giver and God.
Why even have a Church if it's just between you and God?
[ 27. September 2012, 11:28: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
We have very different views about the efficacy of the sacraments in terms of effecting spiritual healing.
Then again, I've always seen holiness as the end result of being a Christian, not the prerequisite. Something we're all working towards, not something we're all expected to have achieved before we can be full members.
Supplying the Church's temporal needs has got nothing to do with holiness. One might feel a rush of holiness when he hands over the Church's pittance, but vanity works that way.
quote:
Actually, I know for a fact that the Rector has a policy of specifically not preaching about giving. I can only assume that he inclines towards the view expressed by me and Marvin that it's nothing to do with anyone but the individual giver and God.
Why even have a Church if it's just between you and God?
Church is a bit more than the handing over of money.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Church is a bit more than the handing over of money.
Yeah, and I have to wonder what the point of this statement is. Being a Christian believer is more than handing over money, but part of it is supplying the Church's needs. And that means handing over filthy lucre.
Maybe I've been in this Catholic graduate school too long, but I don't see it as terribly controversial that the Christian community can impose obligations on the individual believer, and that the individual is bound to obey. We swear to be faithful to our spouses in the congregation, and I personally consider that a much more personal matter than what I give to the Church. Our congregations charge us teach our children the Scriptures, and I consider one's child-rearing to me far more personal than one's tax return. So I don't see why individualism is suddenly such a do when it comes to supplying the Church's temporal needs.
Once again, supplying the needs of the Church is not a matter of personal holiness. This is not a matter of sounding trumpets. It's paying to the community what one owes.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
If a church member were to be guided by some Biblical principals in giving money to keep the Church (and other Christian ministries) the angle would be about a response in gratitude to God's love for us.
As in: he gives not because he is getting value for money for a product he values, but he gives because he worships God and wants to gratefully give of his best, and of his blessings, to a loving God. First fruits and all that: the first bull-calf to open the womb, the first tithes of the harvest etc.
The phrase in the Church of Ireland prayer book is giving should be done 'regularly, generously and proportionately'. Some do. Some - even many - don't, I presume.
However, we're only human and naturally we want to know what we're going to get out of 'our' expenditure. We're annoyed when some pay and others don't; when we apparently pay over the odds for our church experience and others swan in and almost take it for nothing. Both attitudes actually miss the point. But when the church council meets and talks about finance it's inevitable.
The unfairness of the worker who trundles along at the eleventh hour getting exactly the same benefits as the guy who started in the morning and worked through the heat of the day is always going to baulk us. And the examples of Christ healing Gentiles and presumably many other non-contributors to the temple tax - let alone not even fellow-religionists - doesn't help either. This God-being-merciful thing isn't really that popular when it comes to paying the clergy stipends and putting a roof on the building!
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Our congregations charge us teach our children the Scriptures, and I consider one's child-rearing to me far more personal than one's tax return.
Does your congregation send inspectors round to quiz your children on the scriptures, to make sure you're fulfilling that obligation? Or do they trust you to do the right thing in your own way?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
Church is a bit more than the handing over of money.
I know this discussion is about theology rather than about practicalities, but as a former Methodist church steward, I came to appreciate that without a regular flow of money, a church, in its institutional sense, soon ceases to exist. All the talk about how God doesn't care about money doesn't pay the bills.
Some (historically wealthy) denominations will subsidise a new church, or a struggling church in a strategic area. But in most cases, especially for independent and non-conformist churches, if a congregation can't pay its way, it has to close.
In the UK, the historical denominations rely heavily upon the investments they made in better times to keep their churches open. If their ministers can preach that money is of lesser importance than plenty of other things, that's mainly because they have a fairly reliable source of income other than their congregants' pockets. Perhaps the German RCC should've got into stocks and shares a few centuries ago??
What I'm saying is, there's no point exploring a theology of money without also considering how churches will exist if they don't pay serious attention to their need for money.
Actually, I think it would be better to do away with the overheads altogether - fancy buildings to maintain, paid clergy, etc., But that's another subject.
[ 27. September 2012, 12:42: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What I'm saying is, there's no point exploring a theology of money without also considering how churches will exist if they don't pay serious attention to their need for money.
Through the contributions of those whom God has led to donate? Those whom the Spirit prompts to give?
All that "lillies of the field" stuff can apply to churches as well, you know. Let go and let God take care of it ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What I'm saying is, there's no point exploring a theology of money without also considering how churches will exist if they don't pay serious attention to their need for money.
Through the contributions of those whom God has led to donate? Those whom the Spirit prompts to give?
All that "lillies of the field" stuff can apply to churches as well, you know. Let go and let God take care of it .
My church closed. Our minister's approach seemed to be that we should have a great vision and make grandiose plans and God would come up with the money. It didn't work out as he'd envisaged, and all those earnest discussions about God wanting us to be in the area were forgotten, and we switched to planning an upbeat closing ceremony instead.
I think it would've been better for us to cut our coat according to our cloth. In other words, churches need to be realistic.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Does your congregation send inspectors round to quiz your children on the scriptures, to make sure you're fulfilling that obligation? Or do they trust you to do the right thing in your own way?
In the TEC's baptism ceremony, the congregation does agree to help parents keep their promise. A priest has pastoral responsibility to oversee the morality of his or her congregation, and has the right (obligation even) to refuse communion to a "notorious and evil liver."
Anglicanism doesn't disbelieve in community-based faith- it is simply too timid to enforce it.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Through the contributions of those whom God has led to donate? Those whom the Spirit prompts to give?
All that "lillies of the field" stuff can apply to churches as well, you know. Let go and let God take care of it [Smile] .
Earlier IngoB asked what your reaction would be if your church was closed due to lack of funds. We have our answer now: you would blame God.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My church closed.
Maybe that was God's plan for it.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Anglicanism doesn't disbelieve in community-based faith- it is simply too timid to enforce it.
Indeed - and doesn't generally provide structures to enable it to happen either. This reflects the fact that in the past these things would happen naturally, so there was no need to enable a good community life. Now however our atomised society has deprived us of that, with the result that we are failing to live meaningfully as a community. I'm not sure what the answer is, but succumbing to Marvin's individualism clearly isn't it.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I would fall right out of my pew if a priest was willing to dispense with this lilies of the field business and said "We can't have a soup kitchen/have to close this church/can't fix the roof because the people of God can't be bothered to pay for it."
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
We have very different views about the efficacy of the sacraments in terms of effecting spiritual healing.
Possibly, though I expect our differences concern more the entire process of salvation rather than just this specific part. For example, I do believe that the Eucharist can provide spiritual healing. But I do not believe that this effect is independent of the state the receiver is in, and neither do I believe that this state is entirely unobservable.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Then again, I've always seen holiness as the end result of being a Christian, not the prerequisite. Something we're all working towards, not something we're all expected to have achieved before we can be full members.
We are not disagreeing on that. We are disagreeing on whether some standards must be met concerning the "working towards" bit.
We happen to both work at the UoB. The UoB is not requiring of new students that they have the knowledge of a finished MSc/PhD/... That would be absurd, what would the UoB then be for? But that does not mean that the UoB is just a place for people to hang out, with a vague notion of perhaps getting some degree some time in the future. Rather, the UoB exists to serve the needs of people who want to achieve a degree (well, among other things, but for argument's sake...), and to function properly it demands that students who join the UoB for this purpose live up to minimal standards. Standards that by the way do no just reflect the aspirations of the individual students, but also the "corporate aspirations" of the UoB.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The government has no business interfering in religious matters. I'm with the Americans on that.
I don't think that this qualifies as a problem of the separation of Church and state. That principle was never intended to mean that they must never have any interaction whatsoever. The state is here rendering a service to the Church, just as the Church is rendering services to the state in many ways (e.g., by running schools). Neither interferes with the governance of the other though. And I think it is positive that there is no additional institution that pries into people's earnings. That is to say, the alternative would be that the Church runs a "tax office" herself, which is looking deeply into the earnings of people to determine an appropriate amount for them to contribute. (Of course, you want as an alternative that the Church does not insist on any kind of contribution. Fine. But that's not the alternative we must consider when we look at whether this is an undue collaboration of Church and state. It is not. It is a very sensible and largely unproblematic solution if one wishes enforce regular giving according to income.)
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't know what gives you the impression that I don't donate anything to the church.
I have no idea, and do not care in the slightest, how much you give to the CofE. My point was that this:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My joy is in the fact that my church leaves how much each member will donate up to their individual consciences. That is how it should be.
is superficial, since such individual freedom is necessarily restricted by corporate goals (and be it only the corporate goal of existing). You are not a random assembly of people, you form a community, or at least you should be doing that. You are free to donate nothing if, and only if, you care not about the community. In which case you should not be a member of it. That you prefer that giving is enforced by peer pressure rather than law is not really changing the fact that giving is required of you by virtue of belonging.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
Prof. Zapp has now lost his case. Thus the current status quo will be maintained in Germany for the foreseeable future.
I hope that the German RCC, the richest Church on earth, will nevertheless change her ways. It is largely a "zombie church", supported not by faithful members but by membership fees that are often paid long after all faith is gone. In the long run, a Church cannot be glorious but empty.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Actually, I think it would be better to do away with the overheads altogether - fancy buildings to maintain, paid clergy, etc., But that's another subject.
What we call overhead figuratively does have some relationship to shelter literally over our heads when we gather. Without something like a roof and walls, we would be reduced to worshipping either in the open air or in private homes. Surely there is something to be said for both experiences. One of the highlights of our parish's life (the rector's, anyway) is a monthly service in downtown Philadelphia for the homeless, held in a small green area (it can't even be called a park) on Franklin Boulevard. It is wonderfully public. No one needs to be ashamed of not having bathed recently, or of a holeyer-than-thou jacket. But it's at least a mite uncomfortable. On really cold or rainy days, standing still outdoors for almost an hour just isn't done unless one is trying to emulate the stylites of yore. There are varieties of gifts... this one is not granted to all.
The alternative, meeting in homes, tends to be much more comfortable but not public.
Thus, neither alternative to a church building is completely ideal. Also, neither alternative demonstrates that consequence of belief in the Incarnation, that the material world can and should be dedicated to God's glory.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Are we suggesting we do away with a full time priesthood, or a well fed priesthood?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My church closed.
Maybe that was God's plan for it.
Maybe so. I wish we'd known sooner, though. It would've saved a whole lot of time, money and effort. There were other things I could've been doing.
Alogon and Zach82
In terms of buildings, some new church movements and congregations find it far more convenient to rent somewhere to worship than to own their own building. Others are much more radical and focus on small group worship. And there are many congregations that are unable to pay for full-time clergy, and they have to find a way to live with that, so it can be done. Often, church growth is much more rapid in environments where Christians have to meet in homes, and where developing lay leadership is more important than maintaining a class of paid clergy.
But this isn't the thread to discuss the general virtues or otherwise of these practices; the point here is that this way of doing things is obviously cheaper than the model we have at prsent. If we wish to maintain the current structures - and the RCC must, because for them, the structures are presumably integral not incidental - then money is a hugely important issue, because these structures swallow up a whole lot of money. It makes no sense for people who prefer the current models of church to talk about money as though it doesn't really matter. That strikes me as disingenuous. I bet that the clergy in the German RCC, with their tax-funded churches, wouldn't dream of preaching in this way!
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
I raised the Airport Chaplain, ES, because we in Australia have nothing like it and I felt, if funded by the German Church tax, it was a thoroughly good thing.
One of the things I like about the tax and I'm sure this will go down like a lead balloon with some is that I imagine it would go to the overall Church administrators rather than directly to St Mogg's et sim. That way it could be spent on projects that are essential but the funders of St Mogg's may think irrelevant. Discrete parishes have a way of being incredibly self-centred IMO and sometimes blithely uninterested in the wider Church. To my mind it's the wider Church and all that entails that's important. Discrete local offices (parishes) are just that. They serve the Church and world, not vice versa.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Don't Anglican churches owe a Parish Share?
My congregation has to pay Presbytery Dues (works out to $20/head/year for our Roll of Membership), Presbytery in turn has to pay Conference Dues.
We've talked about money before. We ran a Stewardship Campaign. We've had natural attrition in our donor base (members died or moved away) and we needed to address the issue.
As a former Steward and now as an Elder, regular giving is superior to large, irregular giving. Regular giving lets you plan.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Don't Anglican churches owe a Parish Share?
...
There is, indeed, a diocesan levy/contribution. Here it varies from parish to parish dependent on wealth or otherwise.
I don't think that overturns my previous contention.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
We have very different views about the efficacy of the sacraments in terms of effecting spiritual healing.
Possibly, though I expect our differences concern more the entire process of salvation rather than just this specific part.
Undoubtedly!
quote:
We are disagreeing on whether some standards must be met concerning the "working towards" bit.
I'm not sure that any such standards should be set. If you set any standard, even the most basic, you will inevitably be excluding some who would like to be "working towards" God but who do not meet that standard. And, to me, even one person who is lost because the church turned them away is too many.
quote:
Of course, you want as an alternative that the Church does not insist on any kind of contribution. Fine. But that's not the alternative we must consider when we look at whether this is an undue collaboration of Church and state. It is not. It is a very sensible and largely unproblematic solution if one wishes enforce regular giving according to income.
I'm happy to agree with that, since it is precisely the idea that a church should enforce regular giving that I'm objecting to.
quote:
You are free to donate nothing if, and only if, you care not about the community. In which case you should not be a member of it.
Oh, I don't know about that. If membership of a community (or any other group) confers benefits upon the member then those benefits are in and of themselves reason to be a member, whether one gives a shit about any other members or not.
quote:
That you prefer that giving is enforced by peer pressure rather than law is not really changing the fact that giving is required of you by virtue of belonging.
But there's a massive difference between "peer pressure" and "force of law"! And that difference is important regardless of any other factors.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm not sure that any such standards should be set. If you set any standard, even the most basic, you will inevitably be excluding some who would like to be "working towards" God but who do not meet that standard. And, to me, even one person who is lost because the church turned them away is too many.
I do not believe that the threshold of "turning to the Lord" is zero. A mild interest in vaguely religious things does not a Christian make. And we are not talking about throwing out timid inquirers or whatever. We are talking about who gets to participate in the fullness of Christian community life.
Furthermore, purely at the level of discussing the efficiency of fishing for souls, I contend that "free for all" increases the number of souls escaping the net. And significantly so. Because that is utterly bad "sales psychology". What is available to all and always, unconditionally and for free, will be seen as worthless by most. Turn one away, win two others.
And this is hardly all theory for me. After all, I am a convert, and not from another branch of Christianity. And due to geographical convenience and good taste in music and liturgy, I ended up joining the Church "old style" with the FSSP. This involved kneeling outside of Church doors quite a bit, asking to be admitted in - eventually. That didn't turn me away, and I don't think that it particularly diminished my zeal and religious stamina, would you say?
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If membership of a community (or any other group) confers benefits upon the member then those benefits are in and of themselves reason to be a member, whether one gives a shit about any other members or not.
Free-riders are a bug, not a feature, of communities.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But there's a massive difference between "peer pressure" and "force of law"! And that difference is important regardless of any other factors.
Interesting. I would have said that secular law is nothing but social peer pressure systematized, clarified, made coherent, openly stated, properly recorded and consistently enforced with due process.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I do not believe that the threshold of "turning to the Lord" is zero.
The threshold for "turning to the Lord" is "turning to the Lord".
You can be the worst damn Christian in the world - selfish, hateful, sinful - but you're still a Christian.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If membership of a community (or any other group) confers benefits upon the member then those benefits are in and of themselves reason to be a member, whether one gives a shit about any other members or not.
Free-riders are a bug, not a feature, of communities.
The way you phrased your previous statement made it sound as if it was an imperative placed upon the individual, namely "you should not be a member of a community if you don't care about it". To which I provided a reason why the individual might want to be part of a community even while not caring about it.
If your statement was intended to be more like "the community should not allow anyone who doesn't care about it to be a member" then that's a very different kettle of fish.
quote:
Interesting. I would have said that secular law is nothing but social peer pressure systematized, clarified, made coherent, openly stated, properly recorded and consistently enforced with due process.
It's the "enforced" part that makes it significantly different.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The threshold for "turning to the Lord" is "turning to the Lord".
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." says one Jesus Christ (Matt 7:21)
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You can be the worst damn Christian in the world - selfish, hateful, sinful - but you're still a Christian.
In some sense this is true. But that does not mean that everybody who is selfish, hateful, and sinful therefore is as a Christian.
Furthermore, there is more than one level of "being Christian". We are here not talking about the most basic levels, for example as provided by being validly baptised. After all, we are talking here about a threat to German RCs which is now somewhat less than excommunication, but in the same canon-legal sense an excommunicated Catholic is still more part of the RCC than you are.
What is being denied to German RCs who publicly declare that they are not members of the RCC is not the label "Christian" in its broadest sense. Rather, it is the label "RC in good enough standing to fully participate in the RC community". I don't think that that is so terribly unreasonable...
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If your statement was intended to be more like "the community should not allow anyone who doesn't care about it to be a member" then that's a very different kettle of fish.
Is it? As you wish. Anyway, that's the basic rationale here. The bone of contention is whether one can measure "care" by how much money one gives. That is admittedly a crude measure. But given that here this is tied to how much money one has in fact available, I don't think that it is an absurd measure.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's the "enforced" part that makes it significantly different.
Peer pressure is being "enforced". That's why it's called a pressure.
Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Good argument Enoch; the British have a belief that they are Christians (except among the chattering classes) and therefore have a claim on the parish church, as shows when it is proposed to change its furnishing, let alone close it. To have paid a tax as well would substantially increase that sense of entitlement.
Does this mean that if a church tax on the German model were introduced in Britain, people might attend church more often, if only to get some sort of value for their money?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...t the German RCC, the richest Church on earth....
And there I was thinking htat the richest church on earth is Trinity, Wall Street. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
who knows about history? Didn't some British churches institute an informal version of this with pew fees etc?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
who knows about history? Didn't some British churches institute an informal version of this with pew fees etc?
The priest visiting the homes of everyone in the parish to collect tithes was a thing in England until 18-somethingsomething. Pew rentals lasted into the 20th century.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
I'm with Marvin in absolutely opposing any taxation by the state on behalf of the church - any church. I'm also opposed to any church attempting to force members to pay tithes or withhold sacraments until receipt of payment. I've put this belief into action. I've always paid my tithe and more in cash as I don't give to God to get a tax deduction. One church I was a member of for years started yearly pledge drives, which I always avoided. Then one year I got a bill from the church for what they calculated someone in my profession would make and the tithe they would owe. I went to see the pastor and explained how I paid my offerings and that I resented the bill and expected an apology. He refused and said I still owed the money as I couldn't prove I'd paid. I had my membership dropped at that moment and found another church.
Having been a missionary in 2 separate organizations who never had guarantee or "pledged" income and had some rough patches, but always enough to keep the lights on and food on the table and sometimes enough to make renovations and additions to buildings. I've never understood why churches are so fixated on having to have coerced or forced income. I've been a member of churches that also operated by faith and also had their needs met. If needs aren't being met it doesn't show the need to have income forced from parishioners pockets...
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
So would you say your piety is more important than the practical the needs of your Christian community?
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So would you say your piety is more important than the practical the needs of your Christian community?
My piety or lack thereof has nothing to do with it. When church leadership is acting properly and in faith and the community is genuinely a community, not a population forced into simulated community, the church's needs are met. I find something wrong when the church feels the need to force it's members to pay - especially if they frame it in terms of pay up or we'll deny you sacraments.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
I will add to my post above that I see nothing wrong with sermons on giving or even mentioning upcoming or emergency needs of the church/community. What I do object vehemently to is the church's seeking forced payment by it's members and feel it's reprehensible when it gets the state to commit theft on it's behalf.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
... Then one year I got a bill from the church for what they calculated someone in my profession would make and the tithe they would owe. I went to see the pastor and explained how I paid my offerings and that I resented the bill and expected an apology. He refused and said I still owed the money as I couldn't prove I'd paid. I had my membership dropped at that moment and found another church. ...
Zach, I agree with Niteowl on this. This is a pastor who clearly regarded his flock as sheep to be fleeced. He also showed he wasn't prepared to trust his parishioner.
I'm sure he and his in-crowd regarded this as a legitimate way of separating the sheep from the goats, proof to them that Niteowl was chaff to be winnowed. But this is an approach to using religious authority that leads rapidly to abuse. The fact that someone who had experience of living by faith spotted the warning signs and walked - rightly IMHO - to me speaks for itself.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I'm not speaking for that pastor, I'm speaking for that vestry. The church can't run without a budget. The church can make a budget without knowing how much money is coming in. The church can't know how much money is coming in if people don't tell the vestry how much they intend to give. Pledging is more then ensuring everyone gives their fair share- it's the only way a parish can possibly operate.
So why does Niteowls's need to feel pious about giving anonymously outweigh that very practical and vital concern?
This is at the root of my perspective- real Christian piety is grounded in participation in the Christian community. It is not between the believer and God alone.
[ 29. September 2012, 12:44: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So why does Niteowls's need to feel pious about giving anonymously outweigh that very practical and vital concern?
This is at the root of my perspective- real Christian piety is grounded in participation in the Christian community. It is not between the believer and God alone.
Dispense with the personal judgments please. Churches and missions organizations all have fixed costs and these along with any emergency costs can be made public to the church community. Every church and missions organization I've been a part of has done this and hasn't required a pledge or requirement of a certain dollar amount from congregants and they have all not only survived, but prospered. The church is a faith based organization and it seems strange to me that faith is abandoned in some circles when it comes to finances. If church leadership is strong and proper and a genuine community is developed there is no need to force people to give - they do because they want the community to thrive and because God is the one who requires it. The obligation to community extends to individual members in the church's/organizations I've been involved in as well. I've been a gathering of nearly broke missionaries who gave every penny they had to ensure a fellow missionary got the medical treatment or supplies they needed. In the churches I've been a part of, both rich and poor, if an individual need is made known it's been met. THAT is Church/Community, not forced giving to satisfy a budget.
My reason for cash only is because I honor my obligation to God and the community and I have no desire for a tax deduction or recognition of my giving. My responsibility before God is fulfilled and it's his approval that matters.
[ 29. September 2012, 13:02: Message edited by: Niteowl ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
My responsibility before God is fulfilled and it's his approval that matters.
So, yes, your piety is more important than the practical needs of the community. Which is not how I understand real Christian piety, myself.
quote:
Dispense with the personal judgments please.
I am sure you have very many good qualities as a person. But I find your understanding of community to be profoundly misguided.
Furthermore, I've seen organizations with rubbish finances, and I think your expectations of magical accounting are ridiculous. "Have faith," fair enough, "But row away from the rocks."
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
My responsibility before God is fulfilled and it's his approval that matters.
So, yes, your piety is more important than the practical needs of the community. Which is not how I understand real Christian piety, myself.
No, my piety is not more important - I give over my tithe and if there is a need I give to that too. Why do you also discount the many churches and Missions organizations that have no need of pledges and not only survive, but thrive? It is because there is genuine community where giving is taken seriously and done cheerfully, having not been forced. The church leadership trusts the membership to honor their obligations before God and God to be faithful to meet needs. In my experience the practical needs and above are met. That is both piety and community.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82
I am sure you have very many good qualities as a person. But I find your understanding of community to be profoundly misguided.
Furthermore, I've seen organizations with rubbish finances, and I think your expectations of magical accounting are ridiculous. "Have faith," fair enough, "But row away from the rocks."
I don't believe in "magical accounting", I believe in community members honoring their obligations to God and community without being forced. If needs aren't being met there may be problems that need to be discerned in the community or problems with church leadership or the assigning of a volunteer to manage things who doesn't know what they're doing. It may be a time of testing. But I have never seen a church with an active, genuine community fail. I have seen just about every one prosper in the long run. Some unbelievably so, without the need of pledges or forcing members to pay a set amount or for the church to go whining to the government to force congregants to pay in the form of a tax. I'll go with faith based churches as the communities I've found there are priceless and they take their commitment to the church and their fellow church goers seriously. I don't need to be told the definition of community - I've seen it.
ETA: I realize "faith based" is somewhat taken as code for the name it and claim it crowd, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about churches that have proper leadership, good teaching on giving and faith that God will provide the needs of the church community.
[ 29. September 2012, 14:07: Message edited by: Niteowl ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
No, my piety is not more important - I give over my tithe and if there is a need I give to that too.
See, I was confused when you said you left a church community when its need to have you pledge seemed more important that your need to give anonymously.
quote:
I don't believe in "magical accounting"
I think "sound finances just happen if we believe" is pretty much the definition of "magical accounting."
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
No, my piety is not more important - I give over my tithe and if there is a need I give to that too.
See, I was confused when you said you left a church community when its need to have you pledge seemed more important that your need to give anonymously.
quote:
I don't believe in "magical accounting"
I think "sound finances just happen if we believe" is pretty much the definition of "magical accounting."
If I'm paying my tithe and above my obligation to the church and to God is complete. The church I left demanded I pay money they said I owed, despite not making a pledge and despite having paid my tithe in cash and apparently my word wasn't good enough. That is why I left. Interestingly, I have family that still go to that church. Under that pastor the church underwent years of financial hardship, despite pledge drives and multiple "sign on to give more" campaigns. They've had a different pastor for a few years now. No more pledge drives or bills to congregants and the church is now prospering. That's no magic accounting, that's Biblical community when everyone is honoring their obligations to God and one another as they should. I've seen too many churches and missions organizations that operate on faith for finances who prosper. It's God and community not fuzzy accounting. You continue to ignore the churches that are successful and thriving who don't require pledges or coercive giving.
Funny about fuzzy accounting, though. I did have a pastor of another church ask me to do the books for his church - 2 sets that is, a real one and a fake one for government review. Needless to say I refused.
It's likely you'll never get what I'm saying until you've experienced a church that operates by faith rather than force and the community that can thrive in that environment so with that I'm going to agree to disagree.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
No, my piety is not more important - I give over my tithe and if there is a need I give to that too.
See, I was confused when you said you left a church community when its need to have you pledge seemed more important that your need to give anonymously.
quote:
I don't believe in "magical accounting"
I think "sound finances just happen if we believe" is pretty much the definition of "magical accounting."
If I'm paying my tithe and above my obligation to the church and to God is complete. The church I left demanded I pay money they said I owed, despite not making a pledge and despite having paid my tithe in cash and apparently my word wasn't good enough. That is why I left. Interestingly, I have family that still go to that church. Under that pastor the church underwent years of financial hardship, despite pledge drives and multiple "sign on to give more" campaigns. They've had a different pastor for a few years now. No more pledge drives or bills to congregants and the church is now prospering. That's no magic accounting, that's Biblical community when everyone is honoring their obligations to God and one another as they should. I've seen too many churches and missions organizations that operate on faith for finances who prosper. It's God and community not fuzzy accounting. You continue to ignore the churches that are successful and thriving who don't require pledges or coercive giving.
Funny about fuzzy accounting, though. I did have a pastor of another church ask me to do the books for his church - 2 sets that is, a real one and a fake one for government review. Needless to say I refused.
It's likely you'll never get what I'm saying until you've experienced a church that operates by faith rather than force and the community that can thrive in that environment so with that I'm going to agree to disagree.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
If I'm paying my tithe and above my obligation to the church and to God is complete.
You might want to reconsider this statement.
quote:
It's likely you'll never get what I'm saying until you've experienced a church that operates by faith rather than force...
Faith and cooking the books, you mean?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
See, I was confused when you said you left a church community when its need to have you pledge seemed more important that your need to give anonymously.
No. He didn't say that. He said he left the church when the pastor in stead of asking him to contribute, assessed him as to what he thought he ought to give. He based this, not on knowledge but on a guess as to how much money he thought he ought to be earning. The church then sent him a bill. He then refused to credit him or believe him when he said he'd already given it.
Mind, even a very minimal knowledge of scripture makes it's difficult to argue against a preference for giving anonymously.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Mind, even a very minimal knowledge of scripture makes it's difficult to argue against a preference for giving anonymously.
I can see that a very minimal reading might lead one to the conclusion that one must always and everywhere give anonymously. A more thorough reading would encourage one to give for the sake of the other, and that expecting the other to conform to your impractical mode of giving is a failure of charity.
[ 29. September 2012, 14:54: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So why does Niteowls's need to feel pious about giving anonymously...
How does obeying a direct command of Jesus count as a "need to feel pious"?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I personally think Jesus was saying one shouldn't give in order to be seen by others, not that one must give anonymously even when it is impractical and interferes with the running of the community.
But that's just me.
[ 29. September 2012, 15:13: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I personally think Jesus was saying one shouldn't give in order to be seen by others, not that one must give anonymously even when it is impractical and interferes with the running of the community.
But that's just me.
And it doesn't interfere with any church I've been a part of it. The one church that had a problem shouldn't have had one as I was paying, I wasn't the problem. The rest of the churches I've attended it hasn't caused a problem nor the other people in the church who give like I do haven't caused a problem. That one is all in your imagination.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
It's this expectation that the community has to be run according to your sensibilities or you'll leave that is at the root of our disagreement. That is not whole-hearted participation in the community. You don't submit yourself to the community, you expect it to submit to you.
Well, that and the magical accounting.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's this expectation that the community has to be run according to your sensibilities or you'll leave that is at the root of our disagreement. That is not whole-hearted participation in the community. You don't submit yourself to the community, you expect it to submit to you.
Well, that and the magical accounting.
Your thoughts are nowhere near reality. Since your reading comprehension of my prior posts is lacking I'll reiterate. I left because although I had not submitted a pledge, which were voluntary when the pledge drive started, the church calculated what it thought I made per year and sent me a bill for the tithe. I explained I'd paid my tithe in cash and I was offended by the bill. I was told I still had to pay as I had no proof. So, in addition to being told I owed something I had not pledged to pay, I was basically accused of lying as I could not prove I'd paid. Sorry, that is blatant abuse by a pastor. I've been around too many solid ministries to be inclined to stay in an abusive church, especially one that wants money and will resort to unethical means to get it. If that doesn't seem rational to you you might take a few days and ponder it. And nowhere have I said the community has to be run according to my sensibilities. I've been happy in the churches I've been a member of and have been a member in good standing. Those churches rely on faith, not pledges and they've prospered because members take their obligations to the church and each other seriously. It's no sin to strongly disagree with churches who feel the need to strong arm the congregants into paying. I don't believe that's community. Deal with it. Your mileage apparently varies and I'll let you keep you beliefs.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Your thoughts are nowhere near reality. Since your reading comprehension of my prior posts is lacking I'll reiterate.
You're the one saying that any community that tries to make a sound budget is faithless, so how about a little less of the indignation?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Here's a question that might make or break my characterization of you: If your faith-accounting community came the the decision to institute pledging after careful and fair deliberation, would you leave in disgust to find a community of real faith, or say "This is the consensus of my community, and because I am part of this community I will comply."
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Here's a question that might make or break my characterization of you: If your faith-accounting community came the the decision to institute pledging after careful and fair deliberation, would you leave in disgust to find a community of real faith, or say "This is the consensus of my community, and because I am part of this community I will comply."
Zach82, I'm beginning to get really intrigued. Niteowl has said things that seem entirely reasonable. Why is what he says riling you so much that you've now even started to refer to your guesses as to the nature of his character?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I am merely assuming that Niteowl's views (which I don't actually find to be terribly reasonable) reflect his perspective on the relationship between the individual and community (which I find to be rather self centered).
And, be fair here, there is plenty of implicit characterization of me and "my sort of community" in Niteowl's posts.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am merely assuming that Niteowl's views (which I don't actually find to be terribly reasonable) reflect his perspective on the relationship between the individual and community (which I find to be rather self centered).
And, be fair here, there is plenty of implicit characterization of me and "my sort of community" in Niteowl's posts.
Frankly, your posts say more about your character than mine. And as my standing before God and community is fine, that I give of myself and my finances to without being forced, you might want to ask yourself why you need to cast dispersions on others' character in order to defend your own views.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I'm glad your conscience is so clear. Are you going to answer my question or not?
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm glad your conscience is so clear. Are you going to answer my question or not?
I've made myself clear in prior posts as I've made myself clear to the communities I belong to: I am a committed member who will give above and beyond scriptural requirements and to the needs of the community without being forced. I have only been a member of one congregation where pledging was in play and it started out voluntarily and without notice or update was suddenly mandatory. I left not because it was mandatory, but because I had honored my obligations and was told because I couldn't prove it, I had to pay the bill they gave me. That was abuse for financial gain. I'd say the church's condition of near bankruptcy that followed a few years later until the pastor and the policies were replaced at which time the church prospered speaks for itself. If a church asks for a voluntary pledge I will stand on my history of giving (and every other church I've been a member of knows me, that I give and give again when there is a need) and may or may not state a sum but they know they can count on me. As I consider forced giving wrong coercion (pay up by tax/check/etc or be denied sacraments/leave) would be a sign that I should consider leaving, but not before a sincere conversation with leadership, which I did with the one church I left. I have said nothing here that isn't plain from my posts above. As to the matter of faith, I don't consider it a character flaw or sin that you seem to discount faith when it comes to the financial needs of the church, I ask the same courtesy for my views without casting dispersions on my character.
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
An interesting consequence of the German church tax system is that the German Lutheran church is rich enough to be one of the main supporters of ecumenism and regional ecumenical bodies all over the world. Our local regional ecumenical body would be in even more financial strife than it currently is without them, the regional theological college would have none of its current (excellent) German lecturers, and Pacific Christianity would be much the poorer. I think that German Catholicism is also involved in world wide initiatives.
So long live the German church tax system !
Mind you, I'm not sure what German Christians think of the situation.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Good grief, Zach.
Because Niteowl has explained her thinking is different than yours, based on how she thinks about her relationship to God and her fellow congregants, you accuse her of "piety" (Piety?! OMG! Oh Noes!!) Or else you accuse her of valuing "her piety" above your eminently sensible views.
She explained that she had left her former church because they billed her for a certain pledge ammount that they suddenly decided she was obligated to pay, accused her of lying when she had said she had already paid it, and the pastor became rude and arrogant. You ignored all that and decided that she left because they had asked her to pledge. Period.
When she described how functional were the churches which approached finances in the way she felt was a good model, you ridiculed her. You, as well as her former pastor, call her a liar or at very least, an idiot. Because when you said, "Faith and cooking the books, you mean?" I understood you to mean that there was no way the communities that she had been part of could have really been successful without being dishonest about money. Niteowl's own mention of "cooked books" was to illustrate that having books doesn't necessarily guarantee the ethics of a church's finances.
Zach82: quote:
It's this expectation that the community has to be run according to your sensibilities or you'll leave that is at the root of our disagreement. That is not whole-hearted participation in the community. You don't submit yourself to the community, you expect it to submit to you.
Zach, have you ever left a church because one or more of their practices or beliefs were deal breakers? Have you ever joined a church that had certain shortcomings but because it held to certain values and beliefs that you do, you stayed? If yes, why don't you extend the courtesy of not judging Niteowl's choice in this matter?
She thinks her way of church financing is better than pledging. She thinks a church that demands a tithe of a certain ammount and hauls in their members on the carpet when they think the member won't pay is abusive. Unless this is the practice of your church and you agree with the whole package (church tithe assessment, billing, verbal abuse) she is in no way attacking you personally because you hold to different standards.
The volume was raised between you on this thread at this point: quote:
So why does Niteowls's need to feel pious about giving anonymously outweigh that very practical and vital concern?
A very nice example of the ad hominem fallacy.
This was much more apropos on your part: quote:
The church can't run without a budget. The church can make a budget without knowing how much money is coming in. The church can't know how much money is coming in if people don't tell the vestry how much they intend to give. Pledging is more then ensuring everyone gives their fair share- it's the only way a parish can possibly operate.
My church does pledging. It is not demanded but encouraged. Probably about 20% don't pledge. Nobody jumps their case about it. In fact the priest is not informed of who pledges and what they pledge. The treasurer has that info in a confidential computer file. Only the parish totals are released in the annual report.
I tend to agree with your argument above. But I wouldn't for a moment get hot and bothered that Niteowl disagrees with me. What is the point? If you believe that you are right, and you've stated why in objective terms, getting in a lather about it will persuade no one. People will probably forget your persuasions and just remember that you seemed quite touchy.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
This is probably a tangent, sorry. I'd be grateful if someone could describe what 'pledging' is - I've been in churches in the UK for 40 years and have only ever heard the word on the Ship (used in this context).
Is it that you agree with the church at the beginning of the financial year that you will give a certain amount of money? And you would then be held to that?
Or is it just a different word for, say, giving by standing order, so in effect the treasurer knows at the beginning of each financial year how much you are likely to give?
Grateful for any help, thanks.
M.
[ 30. September 2012, 07:39: Message edited by: M. ]
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
In my experience, pledging is deciding how much you plan to give to your church in a year and informing the church by filling out a form around November so the vestry to form a budget for the coming yeat. At our church you get a quarterly notice on where you are at in your pledge. If you don't manage to give it all by the end of the year, your last quarterly letter looks rather sad, and your conscience might bite yout butt, but that is the extent of it. Nobody calls you in for A Little Talk. And you certainly aren't denied any sacraments.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
This was much more apropos on your part: quote:
The church can't run without a budget. The church can make a budget without knowing how much money is coming in. The church can't know how much money is coming in if people don't tell the vestry how much they intend to give. Pledging is more then ensuring everyone gives their fair share- it's the only way a parish can possibly operate.
My church does pledging. It is not demanded but encouraged. Probably about 20% don't pledge. Nobody jumps their case about it. In fact the priest is not informed of who pledges and what they pledge. The treasurer has that info in a confidential computer file. Only the parish totals are released in the annual report.
I tend to agree with your argument above. But I wouldn't for a moment get hot and bothered that Niteowl disagrees with me. What is the point? If you believe that you are right, and you've stated why in objective terms, getting in a lather about it will persuade no one. People will probably forget your persuasions and just remember that you seemed quite touchy.
Thanks Lyda*Rose. I don't think you and I are that far off, just that I disagree with Zach when it comes to forced giving. I've been a part of churches and at least one missionary organization where voluntary pledging was practiced, where those who didn't pledge weren't harassed and I have no problem with that. And almost every church/organization has also publicized what the monthly bills are, if there are balloon payments coming up or if there is an emergency need that needs to be met. This recognizes the fact that every church has a budget and needs to not only meet it, but be able to pay for emergency items and other ministry expenses. I also believe every member of the community has an obligation to do their part to meet the needs not only of the church, but of their fellow members who find themselves in need. My only disagreement comes in when members are forced to pay, especially through the State. It doesn't mean I think believers are under no obligation to give financially according to their means, only that the responsibility is theirs to fulfill before God, not have it done for them by the State or via a bill from the church. I might have stayed at the one church even after having been sent a bill had they not accused me of lying about my giving and been jerkish about the situation and a discussion had been had about any payment amount committed to and not assumed by them that I should pay
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
An interesting consequence of the German church tax system is that the German Lutheran church is rich enough to be one of the main supporters of ecumenism and regional ecumenical bodies all over the world. Our local regional ecumenical body would be in even more financial strife than it currently is without them, the regional theological college would have none of its current (excellent) German lecturers, and Pacific Christianity would be much the poorer. I think that German Catholicism is also involved in world wide initiatives.
So long live the German church tax system !
Mind you, I'm not sure what German Christians think of the situation.
You point to an important aspect,Tukai. The (church tax financed) German Catholic and Lutheran churches run hospitals, schools, charitable institutions, old age care centres etc within the country and abroad. This important infrastructure would break away if the church tax was abolished.
What do German Christians think? Increasing numbers have opted out of the church for tax reasons over the past ten years. The ones who keep paying, however, are in their great majority appalled at the Bishops' stance on excommunication ('light' or otherwise) for non-payment of church tax. But then again, German Catholicism has a long and distinguished history of the Bishops (or some Bishops, for they rarely agree among each other) saying one thing and the local faithful and their parish priests doing another (witness the issue of admitting divorced people or Lutherans to Communion...this is handled much more charitably 'on the ground' than on paper!).
I'm not worried about the Bishops' unfortunate stand. They are Grand Masters in putting their feet in. What worries me more is the decrease in income for two churches (RC & Lutherans) that have used this income to contribute significantly to the social fabric in our country.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
Lyda*Rose, Niteowl, thank you.
M.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
A very nice example of the ad hominem fallacy.
No it's not. Unless Niteowl's views are actions are above critical examination, that is. Which I am getting the feeling they are.
For all of Niteowl's apprehension that she is being personally attacked, I've actually never really cared whether she is a good OR bad person. It's her understanding of the relationship between the individual and his community that I am arguing about.
Now, she feels she is being personally attacked. But she has accused anyone that doesn't see things her way of faithlessness. She's pretending that's not a value judgement, but gimme a break.
[ 30. September 2012, 12:24: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
A very nice example of the ad hominem fallacy.
No it's not. Unless Niteowl's views are actions are above critical examination, that is. Which I am getting the feeling they are.
For all of Niteowl's apprehension that she is being personally attacked, I've actually never really cared whether she is a good OR bad person. It's her understanding of the relationship between the individual and his community that I am arguing about.
Now, she feels she is being personally attacked. But she has accused anyone that doesn't see things her way of faithlessness. She's pretending that's not a value judgement, but gimme a break.
Oh BS. If I felt my actions were above critical examination I wouldn't have gone to such lengths to explain my views, what happened with the one church and given some of my history. I never claimed those who disagreed with me were faithless, just that I am puzzled with the rejection of anything other than forced payment or cutting people off from sacraments for lack of payment in a faith based institution. I don't accuse you of lack of faith, just stated that you refuse to acknowledge institutions that do rely on faith and on their members to provide for needs and not only do they survive, but thrive. According to you that's only due to "magical accounting". You've basically accused me of a lack of commitment to community, arrogance of insisting my way in the church or else and have come way too close to an accusation of lying and all of that combined is a personal attack any way you cut it. You've ignored the details of what I post. Others seem to understand what I've written and, even if they don't agree completely with my beliefs they respect them and me as an individual. I've been perfectly happy and committed to any church or missions organization I've been a part of over several decades and while a few have had voluntary pledge systems, many have had absolutely none and done quite well. My history with those communities speaks for itself. You and I don't agree on whether being in community means a forced payment system. I understand very well what true community means as I've been privileged to see it in action. I accept you are a part of a community, just see it from a different vantage point. Our life experiences are obviously different. We can agree to disagree as I doubt you'll ever accept anything I say as credible because it doesn't line up with your view. I genuinely don't care as it's not you I'm accountable to.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
As to the topic of the thread, I live in a country where taxes aren't collected for the church and haven't been for most of our history. Churches of every denomination and those that are non-denominational do quite well without a government collection system. I will add that those churches that operate hospitals or health care systems don't receive taxes because they are church based, but they do collect the tax funds that every other hospital does - profit or non profit - which is Medicare for seniors, Medicaid for the destitute and a small reimbursement for treating others who are unable to pay their bills. I used to work for a major 7th Day Adventist medical center and while they ended up writing off huge amounts of money each year incurred by those who couldn't pay and didn't qualify for any government assistance, they made enough money through insurance contracts, research grants and other revenue producing programs to stay in business and still keep their policy of treating those in need.
ETA: For those on the other side of the pond how are religious hospitals paid differently than any other hospital in the national health system?
[ 30. September 2012, 13:28: Message edited by: Niteowl ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I understand your views, though I disagree with them, NO. I am sure you are an absolute saint otherwise.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I understand your views, though I disagree with them, NO. I am sure you are an absolute saint otherwise.
None of us are absolute saints, definitely including me. T'would be nice if salvation made that happen instantly.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
What religious hospitals? You're asking UK aren't you? It's all NHS or private and the patient pays for private either as bills or through insurance
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
What religious hospitals? You're asking UK aren't you? It's all NHS or private and the patient pays for private either as bills or through insurance
That's what I thought and the way things were when I was last in Europe, including Germany, several years ago, but Desert Daughter's post made me wonder if there was a difference now in how things were handled:
quote:
The (church tax financed) German Catholic and Lutheran churches run hospitals, schools, charitable institutions, old age care centres etc within the country and abroad.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Germany is run completely differently from the UK, or France or any other European country ... They're all autonomous countries and run their health systems how they like.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
This might be a tangent but... quote:
Zach, have you ever left a church because one or more of their practices or beliefs were deal breakers? Have you ever joined a church that had certain shortcomings but because it held to certain values and beliefs that you do, you stayed? If yes, why don't you extend the courtesy of not judging Niteowl's choice in this matter?
I'm still curious about this, if you'd like to answer. Are there any corporate actions of a church -other than the illegal, of course- that you would balk at, Zach, and how would that figure in your insistance that members must "submit" to the community?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I would break communion with a church if it ceased to have the marks of the Church founded by Jesus. That would include, I suppose, requiring me to do something contrary to my conscience informed by the Holy Scriptures.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Thanks.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Zach, it was you who talked about Niteowl's "characterisation". So you can hardly claim:-
quote:
"I've actually never really cared whether she is a good OR bad person"
Niteowl, could I please apologise for getting your sex wrong in earlier posts?
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Niteowl, could I please apologise for getting your sex wrong in earlier posts?
Not a problem. I know just how easy that is to do.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0