Churches and tithing

[Indio]

Wasn't sure if this was the right category to post this under....

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/14/us/sunday-stickup/index.html

[lizzzi]

I'm a churchgoer, but decide in advance what I'm going to put in the collection…have the amount set up in my weekly church envelopes at the beginning of the month..and that is all they're going to get. It's budgeted in YNAB, and that's that. I am oblivious to any pleas for more, to "second" collections, to capital campaigns, to all the extra giving envelopes they send me. No, no, and no. I think that it's the right thing to do…to support your faith-based institution (if you can), whatever that institution may be. But charity begins at home.

And I think one of the best ways to support society is by not having to have society support us. Put the oxygen mask on your own face first.

I would never belong to any church that puts that kind of financial pressure on its members, or to one that gives higher status or better seating to the biggest contributors. Bleahh.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

That tithe concept developed back in an age where there was no such thing as government support for the poor or the sick. Churches (or, if you look back long enough, The Church) provided 100% of what would now be considered assisted living centers for the elderly, food/clothing/firewood banks for the poor, hospitals, care for orphans, care for the differently abled, and a form of public education. Got an incurable disease? The Church would set you up in a convent or abbey, where you could live out the rest of your days in as much comfort as could be arranged.

At that time, people gave 10% of their income or what they produced (either in cash or in goods) and frequently left large bequests for the Church, whether they believed in it or not. It was a simple matter of funding the services they, or their family members, fully expected to use at some point in their lives.

As a system, it worked for the vast majority of the people who participated. Definitely there was corruption and inefficiency, but the Church lasted as a social institution for longer than most nations, chiefly because it provided so much, to so many.

Nowadays, most of the social services previously provided by the Church have been taken over either by federal or state governments, or by private charities. Although some churches do have a homeless shelter or soup kitchen as part of their ministry, the focus of the churches has shifted toward promotion of religion as being the primary (and, in some cases, the only) goal. Not everybody believes that's worth 10% of a person's gross income, especially when about 30% of that income is also being taken by the government to provide all the services the Church used to be on the hook for.

[Indexer]

...

+1!

This reminds me when Bill Maher interviewed Jeremiah Cummings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bYLDAc9BuM

Religion aside it is pretty funny to watch "Dr" Cummings trying to justify how Jesus encourages him to be rich.

[ms]

We just got a mailer from my old church trying to raise money. They gave sample plans to pledge. The first plan has the statement of "weekly amount is typical what you would pay for your monthly cable package" in order to try to normalize the pledge amount. This first plan was $96 weekly with the full pledge of 25k over five years. Ha! Unfortunately, I do not belong in this first group. The plans went down to a $3.28 a day which worked out to 6k over the five years, if I remember correctly. This one had the statement of "daily typical transit fare". There was one plan somewhere in the middle that had $125 per month with the statement of "typical dinner and a movie outing for two".

So basically if you can afford a dinner and a movie, why can't you afford to give to this great cause kind of marketing/guilt trip.

[southern granny]

I give the ten percent to our church.  We have gone to this church for more than 2 years and have never heard a solicitation for money.  They pass the plate on sunday morning, but on Sunday night and Wednesday night they just announce that if you were wanting to make a donation there is a plate in the back you can place it in.  They announce special offerings for Easter and Christmas but they are usually in the form of "if you want to make a $5 donation in honor or memory of a loved one, a flower will be placed on a garland for them".  I am happy to give the money.  Pastors and staff have to be paid and the utilities have to stay on and the building has to be maintained.  I can't begin to explain(to those who have never experienced it )  the sense of community and support you get from a church family.

[College Stash]

Lol.

[UnleashHell]

And I think one of the best ways to support society is by not having to have society support us. Put the oxygen mask on your own face first.

So churches should lose their tax exempt status then...

[GuitarStv]

And I think one of the best ways to support society is by not having to have society support us. Put the oxygen mask on your own face first.

So churches should lose their tax exempt status then...

Absolutely they should.

[gimp]

Oooh ooh, if it's gonna be a shitshow, let me help with my opinions.

One, churches lose tax-exempt status. They don't need the welfare. Now, if they're using money for actual good deeds, sure, that's a charity. Preaching ain't that.

Two, anyone who tithes but needs the money gets no sympathy from me. Boo hoo I'm so broke but I voluntarily give away 10% of my income.

[MgoSam]

Two, anyone who tithes but needs the money gets no sympathy from me. Boo hoo I'm so broke but I voluntarily give away 10% of my income.

I do have some sympathy for them.

Many preachers are incredibly irresponsible and terrible stewards of people's money. All too often many of them harp on the "prosperity gospel," basically promising that the more you give the more you receive, and essentially conning good people out of money.

That said, "a fool and his money are soon departed," and people should become wiser about such scams. And yes, I do believe that the 'prosperity gospel,' is a complete scam.

Churches do need donations to pay for utilities, preachers, and other things, but my church is very transparent about its finances. They want to be good stewards of our trust and be open about how contributions are spent. If a chuch isn't and they aren't willing to show their books, then I would be very wary about this.

In 2007, the senate tried to investigate a few megachurches, but they were extremely reluctant to provide documentation and stonewalled the entire effort.

[jdoolin]

Ugh... a local church recently started a tithing campaign.  They basically advertised it like an infomercial.

"Tithe 10% for 3 months.  If you aren't happier and satisfied with the results, we'll give you your money back!"

That disgusted me.

[HoneyBadger]

Ugh... a local church recently started a tithing campaign.  They basically advertised it like an infomercial.

"Tithe 10% for 3 months.  If you aren't happier and satisfied with the results, we'll give you your money back!"

That disgusted me.

One of my local mega churches did that also!  I'm sure they're counting on no one having the nerve to ask for their money back, and if they do, they'll probably get the old "You didn't have FAITH and truly BELIEVE" pitch until they back down.   

I stopped going to church when the pastor requested a special offering so he could buy a new Lexus.  Not a $65 million private jet, but still. . .

[4alpacas]

Ugh... a local church recently started a tithing campaign.  They basically advertised it like an infomercial.

"Tithe 10% for 3 months.  If you aren't happier and satisfied with the results, we'll give you your money back!"

That disgusted me.

One of my local mega churches did that also!  I'm sure they're counting on no one having the nerve to ask for their money back, and if they do, they'll probably get the old "You didn't have FAITH and truly BELIEVE" pitch until they back down.   

I stopped going to church when the pastor requested a special offering so he could buy a new Lexus.  Not a $65 million private jet, but still. . .

WHAT?!?!?!  Are you kidding?  Did I miss the sarcasm font?!

[Sid Hoffman]

Is this thread about the actual article?  Because the article makes a big deal to point out lots of Christian churches do NOT support tithing!

Lee and other pastors have a message for you:

You are getting played.

These rituals, they say, violate New Testament teachings about how and why people should give.

Quibbling over how churches collect money may seem trivial. But the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century was sparked, in part, by outrage over how the Roman Catholic Church collected money.

...

No wonder the Apostle Paul, who built the first Christian churches, refused to take money from his followers, one pastor noted. Paul declared in 1 Corinthians 9:15-18 that he would only "present the gospel free of charge." He supported himself as a tent maker.

The article actually looks like they interviewed someone who really seems to take the bible seriously instead of just sticking to religious traditions as a way to gather up money by making people feel obligated to give, instead of free to give or not give.

As a Christian myself, I really enjoyed the article!  I hope it reaches far and changes a few minds, and maybe even bankrupts a few religions that need to go bankrupt!  :)

[Elderwood17]

OK, personal feelings aside - we do give over 10% of our income away, mostly to our church - I have never considered CNN to be my source for parsing Biblical truths!  It was pretty well written and I agree with the major premise though.

[forummm]

I'm kind of against the charitable deduction. I think it definitely should not exist for things like church services that benefit the giver. Then it's not really a gift. It's a payment for services received. Same thing for naming rights for a giver.

But I'd be more OK with it if it only went to things that were really helping disinterested parties. Homeless shelters, medical care, scientific research. I get that it's a hard line to draw (some giver might benefit from a cure for cancer or from a better environment due to cleaner energy).

[MrsPete]

Don't assume that churches are all alike.

If you find one that seems to focus on money too much, search out another one. 

[Sid Hoffman]

I'm kind of against the charitable deduction. I think it definitely should not exist for things like church services that benefit the giver. Then it's not really a gift. It's a payment for services received. Same thing for naming rights for a giver.

But I'd be more OK with it if it only went to things that were really helping disinterested parties. Homeless shelters, medical care, scientific research. I get that it's a hard line to draw (some giver might benefit from a cure for cancer or from a better environment due to cleaner energy).

For the record, you already cannot deduct any "gift" for which you receive anything in return.  For example, a few years ago when I was married, my wife gave money to a charity that would send you an MP3 player with like 200 sermons on it.  I think she gave $200 and because the MP3 player was valued at $40 at the time, they send a receipt showing that only $160 can be claimed on your taxes.  The reputable churches take this stuff seriously and really do respect tax laws.

As for things like naming rights, I've never heard of a church in this area doing it, but I know the local humane society, the local zoo, and lots of other non-church non-profits all have donor lists showing which "circle" you're in and letting you buy bricks with your name on them, or certain places on their property named after yourself.  Universities are famous for having buildings named after their wealthy donors, again, in exchange for that tax deductible donation.  I particularly dislike that practice.

[forummm]

I'm kind of against the charitable deduction. I think it definitely should not exist for things like church services that benefit the giver. Then it's not really a gift. It's a payment for services received. Same thing for naming rights for a giver.

But I'd be more OK with it if it only went to things that were really helping disinterested parties. Homeless shelters, medical care, scientific research. I get that it's a hard line to draw (some giver might benefit from a cure for cancer or from a better environment due to cleaner energy).

For the record, you already cannot deduct any "gift" for which you receive anything in return.  For example, a few years ago when I was married, my wife gave money to a charity that would send you an MP3 player with like 200 sermons on it.  I think she gave $200 and because the MP3 player was valued at $40 at the time, they send a receipt showing that only $160 can be claimed on your taxes.  The reputable churches take this stuff seriously and really do respect tax laws.

As for things like naming rights, I've never heard of a church in this area doing it, but I know the local humane society, the local zoo, and lots of other non-church non-profits all have donor lists showing which "circle" you're in and letting you buy bricks with your name on them, or certain places on their property named after yourself.  Universities are famous for having buildings named after their wealthy donors, again, in exchange for that tax deductible donation.  I particularly dislike that practice.

Yes, theoretically you can't deduct a donation you get something for. And that does bear out for things like dinners or MP3 players. But the reality is that lots of people do actually get something for their donations, like naming rights, from the charitable institutions, and those contributions are allowed as fully deductible by the IRS. I was speaking broadly about charitable institutions. But in specificity about churches, the donor does benefit from services their donations are funding (buildings, pastors, A/C, parking lots, etc). Sometimes churches have trips that people go on that are funded by donations. If you write the check yourself to the church to fund your own trip you get a deduction for it. You can do the same thing for your kid or brother. I've seen it happen probably over 100 times.

[Wilson Hall]

Don't assume that churches are all alike.

If you find one that seems to focus on money too much, search out another one.

+1

[Sid Hoffman]

I was speaking broadly about charitable institutions. But in specificity about churches, the donor does benefit from services their donations are funding (buildings, pastors, A/C, parking lots, etc). Sometimes churches have trips that people go on that are funded by donations. If you write the check yourself to the church to fund your own trip you get a deduction for it. You can do the same thing for your kid or brother. I've seen it happen probably over 100 times.

I think I see what you're saying, but the same applies to all political non-profits, boys & girls club, YMCA, VFDs, symphonies, food banks, donation centers, animal shelters and so many other non-profits.  What you're saying is nothing unique to churches.  If you think any non-profit is not following the rules just file a complaint with the IRS and/or write your congressman.  I can't count how many times I've seen people rail on United Way because they pay a million dollars to the CEO and spend a huge portion of the donated funds on advertising.  If you want to argue that charities are bad, then I guess you could sent up a non-profit to lobby for the elimination of non-profits.  :P

[forummm]

I was speaking broadly about charitable institutions. But in specificity about churches, the donor does benefit from services their donations are funding (buildings, pastors, A/C, parking lots, etc). Sometimes churches have trips that people go on that are funded by donations. If you write the check yourself to the church to fund your own trip you get a deduction for it. You can do the same thing for your kid or brother. I've seen it happen probably over 100 times.

I think I see what you're saying, but the same applies to all political non-profits, boys & girls club, YMCA, VFDs, symphonies, food banks, donation centers, animal shelters and so many other non-profits.  What you're saying is nothing unique to churches.  If you think any non-profit is not following the rules just file a complaint with the IRS and/or write your congressman.  I can't count how many times I've seen people rail on United Way because they pay a million dollars to the CEO and spend a huge portion of the donated funds on advertising.  If you want to argue that charities are bad, then I guess you could sent up a non-profit to lobby for the elimination of non-profits.  :P

Yes, I was clear in my original post that I'm "kind of" generally against the charitable deduction (not just for churches), but I do see its value. And have mixed feelings about the policy. I am a big fan of charity. But why should you have to pay more taxes (since I'm not paying them) because I give money to a particular charity that benefits me? I do see that having the institutions doing good (hopefully) is a benefit to many (hopefully).

If a tax deduction is all that's leading people to give--is the cause really that important to them? I get that it does help encourage more giving. Like I said--mixed feelings about it.

I think the rules are written to permit the self-interested activity I've mentioned.

[zephyr911]

I'm kind of against the charitable deduction. I think it definitely should not exist for things like church services that benefit the giver. Then it's not really a gift. It's a payment for services received. Same thing for naming rights for a giver.

But I'd be more OK with it if it only went to things that were really helping disinterested parties. Homeless shelters, medical care, scientific research. I get that it's a hard line to draw (some giver might benefit from a cure for cancer or from a better environment due to cleaner energy).

There's been murmuring from a few corners in recent years about making the IRS enforce the existing rules about political activity by nonprofits, as churches have become increasingly more active in politics. Many are blatantly violating the intent of the rules and could easily be denied nonprofit status as their leaders openly instruct members who to vote for, which way to vote on referendums, which party is God's party, etc.
No actual change would be required to revoke that status for violators - merely a commitment to enforcing the law.
Side note: all those Tea Party groups that got denied 501(c)4 status? Same basic reason, only the IRS actually did its job in those cases. It also denied many left-leaning groups the same status for the same reason, and continues to do so.
I strongly support nonprofit status for churches and other nonprofits who meet the purpose and intent of the law - to do good for people and not seek power and profit. All others can pay the man.

[MoneyCat]

My church does so much to help the needy that I have absolutely no qualms about tithing.  The church helped me when I went through hard times and makes me feel good to know that I am paying that forward.

[forummm]

I strongly support nonprofit status for churches and other nonprofits who meet the purpose and intent of the law - to do good for people and not seek power and profit. All others can pay the man.

Nonprofit status for sure. It was just the tax deduction for donations that I'm unsure about--but mostly for giving that's self-interested.

[Sid Hoffman]

Yes, I was clear in my original post that I'm "kind of" generally against the charitable deduction (not just for churches), but I do see its value. And have mixed feelings about the policy. I am a big fan of charity. But why should you have to pay more taxes (since I'm not paying them) because I give money to a particular charity that benefits me? I do see that having the institutions doing good (hopefully) is a benefit to many (hopefully).

If a tax deduction is all that's leading people to give--is the cause really that important to them? I get that it does help encourage more giving. Like I said--mixed feelings about it.

I think the rules are written to permit the self-interested activity I've mentioned.

As it stands today, there's only a limited number of people who gain any value from donating money to charity.  At the low end of the income scale, people don't even donate enough money to exceed the standard deduction, thus they get no benefit.  In the middle are people who get some benefit from the ability to itemize, but of course only by the amount that their itemized deductions exceed the standard deduction.

The prime area is couples making around $250,000 or so.  They have enough income that they can probably afford a mortgage where the interest gets them up over the standard deduction and thus all remaining donations would have taxable value.  That's cool.  Above that income however and you quickly run into the phase-out of itemized deductions where again you get less value from itemized deductions.

I could see a possible future where the government eliminates the standard deduction and ability for anyone to itemize and simply raises the personal exemption enough to meet what the old standard deduction used to be.  For example, today a married couple gets $4000 each in personal exemptions and a $12,600 standard deduction for a total of $20,600.  If you do away with itemization and the standard deduction and raise the personal exemption to $10,300 per person, you achieve the same base tax rate while slightly raising overall taxes through eliminating tax deductions of all kinds: mortgage interest, charity, etc.

I'm guessing that mortgage deduction also rubs you the wrong way: if you have a paid off home, you have to pay more income tax to pay for people who have a huge mortgage and thus lots of mortgage interest to deduct from their income.  Right or wrong, that's today's tax code, but the fact that there's an itemization phase-out does suggest a possible future where we do away with itemization and by extension do away with deductions, period.  I'm not someone who believes we can run increasing deficit budgets forever.  Greece and Japan seem to be prime examples of possible negative effects by running a national budget out of control with low inflation, and Zimbabwe would be a great example of running out of control with inflation.  None of those area really appealing to me.  I do recognize there's a good chance that having donations being tax deductible could be gone in the future.  If that's what it takes to keep the nation functional, then so be it.  Same for mortgage interest, I suppose.

[forummm]

Yes, I also don't like the mortgage interest deduction. I am definitely against it, as opposed to my ambivalent feelings about the charitable contribution deduction. Why should we favor home buyers versus home renters? Or subsidize people to buy more expensive houses? Or subsidize people for holding debt? It is also a deduction that benefits the higher income earners more than the lower income earners.

[Noodle]

I went back and reread the article and there is not a lot of detail as to what churches exactly practice this kind of behavior. I have been a member/guest at a lot of Catholic and mainline Protestant churches over the years and have never seen that kind of pressure toward giving. In fact during our last stewardship sermon the pastor specifically said you should only give what you can joyfully without putting your family at risk. Is this more common in the independent evangelical churches?

People think the mainline denominations are a bit fuddy-duddy but most have been around for a couple hundred years and have seen every kind of bad behavior possible in a church setting so have checks and balances in place to deal with them. If our senior pastor tried this kind of pressure, the Chair of the Pastor-Parish Relations Committee would be dialing the District Superintendent so fast his cell phone would catch fire. Maybe the pastor has more freedom in an Indy church?

[zephyr911]

I strongly support nonprofit status for churches and other nonprofits who meet the purpose and intent of the law - to do good for people and not seek power and profit. All others can pay the man.

Nonprofit status for sure. It was just the tax deduction for donations that I'm unsure about--but mostly for giving that's self-interested.

It's pretty hard to separate the two. The ability to have a nonprofit status is driven by the same idea as the tax deduction for donations.

The tax break isn't for the taxpayer's benefit, and we'd be silly to think it is - the actual savings are only a fraction of the donation (net loss). Rather, it's to encourage generosity toward these organizations that ostensibly act for the greater good. And that it does, generally.

[ABC123]

   I am a Christian and I absolutely believe in supporting my local church.  I have been a member of quite a few different churches throughout my life, due to living in different areas.  I can honestly say that no church I have ever been in has made strong requests for money.  At Christmas and Easter time, most have done special offering that specifically benefited different groups, and during those times each week they generally make an announcement to remind people what that is for.  But other than that, they pass the offering plates and that is about it.
   For any church leader that would make people feel guilty for not giving, or would push people to give so they can buy a Lexus as someone said upthread, that is completely reprehensible.  And those people will one day be held responsible for that before God.  But to use that as a reason to say no one should ever give to churches, well, that seems pretty short sighted.  There are some charities that misuse money, and sadly, there are some churches that misuse money.  No matter where you are giving, you should know what it is being used for.  The church I attend is very forthright with the budget.  And any charity I give to, I try to do as much research as I can ahead of time to try to make sure it won't be wasted.  If you try to find out what your church is doing with the money it receives, and you can't get any answers, then that might be a red flag that you should find another church.

[Scandium]

Even if I was religious, I never understood the idea of regular people giving their money to people who live like this.


To quote Cartman: "God has enough money"

[bacchi]

My childhood mainline Protestant church definitely glorified the givers. My dad would write checks every week (and write more for the occasional "building fund"), to the tune of about $10k* per year. No other involvement and no interaction, yet he was asked to be an Elder. I'm sure that they thought elevating him would encourage him to give more money. (To his credit, he refused unless they allowed women to be Elders.)

The church was transparent about its finances. The pastor made $110k* and also had church paid housing and educational funds. Not a bad gig.


*2015 dollars

[dramaman]

I tithe more than 10%, but only a portion of that goes to our church, the rest going directly to other organizations and missionaries whom we help support. What drives me nuts is that our church practices what I call faith-based budgeting. Rather than budget based on normal giving, they always budget based on how 'the spirit leads them', which is always significantly more, thus that throughout the year they are digging a deeper and deeper hole (often around a couple hundred thousand) and then at the end of the year announce a special cause they want to support but only if the congregation gives enough to dig them out of the hole. Every year I just shake my head at the obvious manipulation to get more money to cover their poor planning.

Our last capitol campaign, they wanted people to write their names and giving pledges on pieces of paper decorated as bricks and put them on the hallway wall emulating the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls in the Old Testament. Once again obvious manipulation and peer pressure to boot. Our family did give money to the campaign, but I absolutely refused to advertise what we were giving by adding a 'brick' to their wall.

Finally, our church tries to program weekly giving by mailing out these envelopes, whether you want them or not. I always tear them up as our giving is done electronically once a month.

[Sibley]

Recently, I've attended two churches to try them out.

Church #1: Very small in every way except one - they did more to help the needy than any other church I've seen. They had a clothes closet, food pantry, and various other things. There were 20 people at the service I attended, and it wasn't a weird Sunday. I very happily put cash in their offering plate.

Church #2: Megachurch. They do various things, but they are overly focused on money. I don't have a problem if I attend a lunch or something and put in a few dollars to pay my way. But once I got a sense of their overall culture, I don't do general donation.

Churches/pastors who are abusing their position need to be severely punished. Since I doubt the government can/will do anything, then the religious organizations need to do it. There's someone - a bishop, etc who has the power to squash them, and they should.

[Hunny156]

While I was raised Catholic by mostly A&P (ashes & palms, they come for the free stuff) Catholics, I eventually saw enough hypocrisy to make me question my faith.  I consider myself non-practicing.  Hubby came to the same conclusion, and as far as we knew, his brother was not very religious at all.

When my BIL & SIL moved to TX, my SIL had a very hard time adjusting until she discovered church.  She has made it a huge part of her life, and over time, she got the kids and my BIL involved in it.  We have always suspected that he goes along mostly to keep her happy, but we were shocked to find out that she also convinced him to tithe 10% of his gross income.  She doesn't work, and his work requires travel 90% of the time, so this seemed like a huge amount from their budget for charity.  But whatever, to each their own.

I think we finally realized the rationale.  If the toilet overflowed, they called the plumber in their congregation, who would refuse to take money for the repair.  Construction work?  Very reasonably done by a member of the congregation.  Insurance?  Church agent.  Doctors/specialists?  If the church has one, that's who they use.  Even their vacations are in the form of church retreats, they attend bible classes, they visit church 2-3 nights/week in addition to Sunday mass.  My BIL is extremely frugal, he would put most of us to shame.  And that's when it all clicked.  For him, the tithe covers all excess spending in one flat amount.  It's like a Costco membership as far as he's concerned!

I was amused by this realization, I hope you are as well.  A different way of looking at it, I guess...

[music lover]

Churches/pastors who are abusing their position need to be severely punished. Since I doubt the government can/will do anything, then the religious organizations need to do it. There's someone - a bishop, etc who has the power to squash them, and they should.

I don't know how the government can regulate how much people give to their churches...people have a right to spend it as they see fit even if many people see it as a waste.

The Vatican has an estimated $10 to $15 billion dollars. So, it should be obvious that they have no desire to turn off the funding tap.

[enigmaT120]

Tithing predates Christianity by a long time.  The first reference I can remember is when Abraham got in that little war and took a bunch of loot, and gave a tenth to Melkizedek (sorry, not going to look up the spelling) King of Salem who was a priest of the most high God.  Later it was formalized in Leviticus, for among other things, the support of the priesthood.  It looks like there were different tithes for different purposes but that was one.

[jinga nation]

While I was raised Catholic by mostly A&P (ashes & palms, they come for the free stuff) Catholics, I eventually saw enough hypocrisy to make me question my faith.  I consider myself non-practicing.  Hubby came to the same conclusion, and as far as we knew, his brother was not very religious at all.

When my BIL & SIL moved to TX, my SIL had a very hard time adjusting until she discovered church.  She has made it a huge part of her life, and over time, she got the kids and my BIL involved in it.  We have always suspected that he goes along mostly to keep her happy, but we were shocked to find out that she also convinced him to tithe 10% of his gross income.  She doesn't work, and his work requires travel 90% of the time, so this seemed like a huge amount from their budget for charity.  But whatever, to each their own.

I think we finally realized the rationale.  If the toilet overflowed, they called the plumber in their congregation, who would refuse to take money for the repair.  Construction work?  Very reasonably done by a member of the congregation.  Insurance?  Church agent.  Doctors/specialists?  If the church has one, that's who they use.  Even their vacations are in the form of church retreats, they attend bible classes, they visit church 2-3 nights/week in addition to Sunday mass.  My BIL is extremely frugal, he would put most of us to shame.  And that's when it all clicked.  For him, the tithe covers all excess spending in one flat amount.  It's like a Costco membership as far as he's concerned!

I was amused by this realization, I hope you are as well.  A different way of looking at it, I guess...

That is a very interesting viewpoint. However, I see that as removing money from the local economy by putting it into the church. Now that your in-laws pay nothing or reduced amounts to their congregation members, they in turn receive less, thus less spending power or less to save. It is a net lose-lose situation. How much of that tithing actually returns to the local economy and how much goes up the chain to leadership, parish, diocese, etc.?

[ABC123]

Tithing predates Christianity by a long time.  The first reference I can remember is when Abraham got in that little war and took a bunch of loot, and gave a tenth to Melkizedek (sorry, not going to look up the spelling) King of Salem who was a priest of the most high God.  Later it was formalized in Leviticus, for among other things, the support of the priesthood.  It looks like there were different tithes for different purposes but that was one.

You are correct, this is the origin of tithing.  But to say that this predates Christianity is not exactly correct, since most Christians do consider the Old Testament to be part of the Christian Bible.  For myself, I believe "tithing" (as in 1/10 of someone's income) to not apply to Christians, as it was given as part of the Law (under Moses) and the law was fulfilled in Christ.  We are no longer under the Law, but under Grace.  However, that doesn't mean we don't have to give - Jesus taught pretty clearly that we are to give.  And not just 10%, but as much as we can.  When he was at the temple, he saw people giving a bunch of money and then he saw a widow giving one small coin - it was the last one that she had, and he praised her saying she gave more than all the others.  We should not be giving because we HAVE to (which is what the Old Testament Law was), but because we WANT to.  Christians should have the attitude that God has blessed us with so much, we want to give as much as we can to help others.  I realize not all churches teach it that way.  But any church that tries to teach that giving money will get you into heaven or find favor with God or anything like that, they are seriously misleading/lying to people.

[MoneyCat]

Even if I was religious, I never understood the idea of regular people giving their money to people who live like this.


To quote Cartman: "God has enough money"

Those are historic religious sites, usually designed by some of the great artists of world history.  Should they just let it all go to ruin?

[forummm]

Even if I was religious, I never understood the idea of regular people giving their money to people who live like this.


To quote Cartman: "God has enough money"

Those are historic religious sites, usually designed by some of the great artists of world history.  Should they just let it all go to ruin?

I agree these old churches are amazingly beautiful works of architecture, accomplished in an age before diesel powered construction equipment. Truly magnificent achievements. But every time I see one of those places, especially in small poor villages in 3rd world countries, and I think about how those poor people gave so much of their resources to a building when they had so little to live on, it makes me a little sick. Maybe the church could have done with a bit less opulence and a bit more feeding the hungry.

[Scandium]

Even if I was religious, I never understood the idea of regular people giving their money to people who live like this.


To quote Cartman: "God has enough money"

Those are historic religious sites, usually designed by some of the great artists of world history.  Should they just let it all go to ruin?

So you're saying they bought more house than they could afford? Maybe time to downsize..

[music lover]

I think we finally realized the rationale.  If the toilet overflowed, they called the plumber in their congregation, who would refuse to take money for the repair.  Construction work?  Very reasonably done by a member of the congregation.  Insurance?  Church agent.  Doctors/specialists?  If the church has one, that's who they use.  Even their vacations are in the form of church retreats, they attend bible classes, they visit church 2-3 nights/week in addition to Sunday mass.  My BIL is extremely frugal, he would put most of us to shame.  And that's when it all clicked.  For him, the tithe covers all excess spending in one flat amount.  It's like a Costco membership as far as he's concerned!

I was amused by this realization, I hope you are as well.  A different way of looking at it, I guess...

I am handy and have friends and family who are in trades and who are handy. We all enjoy the benefits of each other's expertise without the 10% penalty...

[chouchouu]

While I was raised Catholic by mostly A&P (ashes & palms, they come for the free stuff) Catholics, I eventually saw enough hypocrisy to make me question my faith.  I consider myself non-practicing.  Hubby came to the same conclusion, and as far as we knew, his brother was not very religious at all.

When my BIL & SIL moved to TX, my SIL had a very hard time adjusting until she discovered church.  She has made it a huge part of her life, and over time, she got the kids and my BIL involved in it.  We have always suspected that he goes along mostly to keep her happy, but we were shocked to find out that she also convinced him to tithe 10% of his gross income.  She doesn't work, and his work requires travel 90% of the time, so this seemed like a huge amount from their budget for charity.  But whatever, to each their own.

I think we finally realized the rationale.  If the toilet overflowed, they called the plumber in their congregation, who would refuse to take money for the repair.  Construction work?  Very reasonably done by a member of the congregation.  Insurance?  Church agent.  Doctors/specialists?  If the church has one, that's who they use.  Even their vacations are in the form of church retreats, they attend bible classes, they visit church 2-3 nights/week in addition to Sunday mass.  My BIL is extremely frugal, he would put most of us to shame.  And that's when it all clicked.  For him, the tithe covers all excess spending in one flat amount.  It's like a Costco membership as far as he's concerned!

I was amused by this realization, I hope you are as well.  A different way of looking at it, I guess...

I remember reading some stuff about the Mormon church where they tithe more than 10%, I think 15%? Anyway it's definitely a form of social security, apparently if you're financially stretched they pay your bills and rent for you. One woman described how her single mother was helped out with living costs long term as she grew up. On the other hand they were over involved with parishioners lives but I was pretty impressed with how they help out the less fortunate in their community.

[This_Is_My_Username]

tithing is a giant scam.

There are organisations that are 100% charitable, and many times more effective than a church/mosque/temple.

http://www.givewell.org/

[dramaman]

I remember reading some stuff about the Mormon church where they tithe more than 10%, I think 15%? Anyway it's definitely a form of social security, apparently if you're financially stretched they pay your bills and rent for you. One woman described how her single mother was helped out with living costs long term as she grew up. On the other hand they were over involved with parishioners lives but I was pretty impressed with how they help out the less fortunate in their community.

Benevolence (the church providing material assistance) is a way for the church (not just the Mormon church) to have influence in the community and greater control over members' lives. First there is the motivation of gratefulness that encourages a willingness to give the church (and those who lead it) the benefit of the doubt. On the flip side, there is the motivation of fear for members receiving aid that any benefits provided by the church can be withdrawn if one does not stay in the good grace of the leadership and/or congregation.

[MoneyCat]

I remember reading some stuff about the Mormon church where they tithe more than 10%, I think 15%? Anyway it's definitely a form of social security, apparently if you're financially stretched they pay your bills and rent for you. One woman described how her single mother was helped out with living costs long term as she grew up. On the other hand they were over involved with parishioners lives but I was pretty impressed with how they help out the less fortunate in their community.

Benevolence (the church providing material assistance) is a way for the church (not just the Mormon church) to have influence in the community and greater control over members' lives. First there is the motivation of gratefulness that encourages a willingness to give the church (and those who lead it) the benefit of the doubt. On the flip side, there is the motivation of fear for members receiving aid that any benefits provided by the church can be withdrawn if one does not stay in the good grace of the leadership and/or congregation.

That's a pretty cynical way to look at it.  When I was growing up in poverty, my church was very good about helping us put food on the table, get presents at Christmas when we couldn't afford anything, and help with heating oil in the winter.  They didn't ask for anything back at all.  If Christians have received the Grace of God, then they should naturally want to extend that grace to others by helping the needy.  If Christians aren't doing that, then you have to question whether they are really Christians or if they are just charlatans.

[dramaman]

I remember reading some stuff about the Mormon church where they tithe more than 10%, I think 15%? Anyway it's definitely a form of social security, apparently if you're financially stretched they pay your bills and rent for you. One woman described how her single mother was helped out with living costs long term as she grew up. On the other hand they were over involved with parishioners lives but I was pretty impressed with how they help out the less fortunate in their community.

Benevolence (the church providing material assistance) is a way for the church (not just the Mormon church) to have influence in the community and greater control over members' lives. First there is the motivation of gratefulness that encourages a willingness to give the church (and those who lead it) the benefit of the doubt. On the flip side, there is the motivation of fear for members receiving aid that any benefits provided by the church can be withdrawn if one does not stay in the good grace of the leadership and/or congregation.

That's a pretty cynical way to look at it.  When I was growing up in poverty, my church was very good about helping us put food on the table, get presents at Christmas when we couldn't afford anything, and help with heating oil in the winter.  They didn't ask for anything back at all.

All very commendable. That doesn't change the fact that by providing this support, your church had additional influence over your parents that they would not have had otherwise.

If Christians have received the Grace of God, then they should naturally want to extend that grace to others by helping the needy.  If Christians aren't doing that, then you have to question whether they are really Christians or if they are just charlatans.

No disagreement, but the purity of motives does not mean that the church providing the benevolence is not creating a situation in which they have power of those they assist, particularly for members who one would expect to receive more support (and be more expected to conform) than nonmembers. That is why some conservative churches are against government welfare. When people can get help from the government and not from the church, the church loses influence.

[3okirb]

Here's how I look at it.  Give because you want to give.  Personally, I wouldn't give to a church that I felt misused funds.  Our church never talks about money and we're in the black every year.  We don't go in to debt for stuff and there's no guilt to tithe or give.  Debt really screws a church in the ways this article describes.

My personal belief is that giving makes you more like Christ who was a giver.  Clearly, a God that created everything doesn't need the money, so it seems reasonable to me that there's another reason the Bible talks about giving, and that's for happiness in helping and to make us more "others centered" like Jesus was.