Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Religious Taxes & Excommunication
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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 ]
-------------------- Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
 Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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?
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
 Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
 Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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?
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
 Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
 Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
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!
-------------------- Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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?
-------------------- Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
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)
-------------------- Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
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...
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
One can, but expect a call from the junior warden every pledge drive explaining why pledging is important.
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
 Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
 Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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 ]
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
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!
-------------------- Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
 Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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?
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
 Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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 .
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
 Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by SvitlanaV2: My church closed.
Maybe that was God's plan for it.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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."
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
 Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
 Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Are we suggesting we do away with a full time priesthood, or a well fed priesthood?
-------------------- Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
 Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
 Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
 Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
 Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
 Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John D. Ward
Shipmate
# 1378
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 208 | From: Swansea, Wales, U.K. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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)
-------------------- Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
who knows about history? Didn't some British churches institute an informal version of this with pew fees etc?
-------------------- "..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?” "..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|