I think any responsible church should adopt a “no conflict of interest” rule. If they’re going to have a policy on tithing, the church itself should stay out the charity business. Tell your congregation to tithe to worthwhile charity organizations that have no connection to the church. That way the church wouldn’t have a financial stake in how it makes its moral proclamations.
Moved MPSIMS to GD, with the reminder that even there y’all shouldn’t be calling each other douchebags, petty or otherwise.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
They can if you’d like them to be.
Who called who a douchebag or petty? I was reffering to the people monstro was talking about in her post I quoted.
Who called whom a… oh um never mind. 
Or, at the very least, an organization soliciting substantial charitable contributions should agree to have their financial statements audited and publicly reported. As a matter of ethics. Legally, tax deductible charities in the US have such reporting requirements, but there is an IRS exemption for churches. Furthermore, those donating large sums have due diligence moral obligations IMHO.
How do you pay the pastor or the janitor or the mortgage?
And are you suggesting this for all non-profit organizations, or just churches? So that all charities would suggest that donors give to someone else. And thus, to avoid conflict of interest for every charity.
Regards,
Shodan
I think there is a difference between, we would like you to help us out and give generously, vs we have determined that the bible says to give less than X amount is a sin and puts your soul in peril. The first is charitable fund raising, the second has whiffs of extortion.
The operational costs of the church should be paid by the members. But it should be presented that way - as a cost for services used not as a charity. No different than any other voluntary organization.
Most non-profit organizations don’t have members. The Red Cross, to use one example, doesn’t have a congregation. It’s dependent on contributions from people who are outside of the organization.
A church should not be able to carry out this dual function. It should be able to tell its members that as a moral issue they should be donate to charity. Or it should be able to act as a charity organization. But a church should not be able to tell its members that they have a moral obligation to donate to charity and then tell those same people that they’ll accept those charity donations. That’s the conflict of interest I oppose.
Where does it say that?
Everything the church does is charity. They have buildings to have services in. Those services minister to the spiritual needs of those who attend. They use the buildings for outreach and for the worship of God.
Churches need to tell people what the bible says. Tithing is one of the things the bible says to do. Any church that fails to tell its adherents not to tithe is not doing its job.
At the very least, churches should report how much of their tithes and offerings go to overheard costs. Which I’m guessing is information that is typically available to church members who are assertive and intelligent enough to ask, but it probably is not printed on the program.
The problem is that churches’s soliciit money from everyone who walks in their door, not just church members. I never belonged to my parents’ church, but I still tithed like a good little minimum-wage earning Christian. And paid offerings on top of that. Did the church do “good works” in the community? Sure. But the pastor also liked his bling, and so did First Lady. Perhaps if I had known enough to ask the right questions, I would have reconsidered how much of a “good Christian” I was being by handing over all that money every Sunday.
I coordinate charitable donations for my office. Every organization that receives charitable donations from state employees is required to have overhead costs less than 30%, That may be an unrealistic goal for a storefront church with an impoverished congregation. But most churches are not tiny storefronts.
(Another key difference between churches and other non-profits is that the value of the latter can be measured quantitatively. How many quarts of blood did they collect. How many natural disaster victims did they rescue. How many meals did they serve. But a church convinces people that it serves them just by existing. Its value is 100% intangible. You can’t measure how many souls have been saved, not in any meaningful way. Which means that a church can argue there is no difference from “overheard” and “charitable expenses”. Which is pretty :rolleyes: IMHO, but that’s reiigion for you.)
It is presented that way. I have never met anyone who contributed to a church who was not aware that part of the donation goes to upkeep and salaries. And a church is a charity, and not an agency that provides services and charges a fee.
I don’t see any conflict of interest, any more than when I donate to any organization in whose ideals I believe.
I donate blood to the Red Cross. They don’t say it’s my moral obligation to donate blood, but neither does my church say I am morally obligated to tithe. Yet the Red Cross sends me lots more materials implying that I am a good person for donating blood than my church does because I tithe. And the Red Cross shows no reluctance to accept my donations of blood - how is that not a conflict of interest for them? The Red Cross certainly can’t continue to provide blood services if no one donates. Likewise my church couldn’t continue their ministry if nobody contributes. (Nor could they run the subsidized daycare center, domestic abuse support group, or food shelf).
But I believe in those charitable activities just like I believe in the religious services they render, and the blood services the Red Cross renders. It isn’t a conflict of interest for them to say, in essense, “Do you believe in blood donation/Lutheranism/whatever? If so, that’s what we do, so feel free to donate”.
Regards,
Shodan
I agree that this is an important distinction. Believers are often encouraged to see tithing as a way to stay on God’s good side, in much the same way that animal sacrifices did. You pay your 10%, then you get your blessings. If you don’t pay your 10%, you lose the right to complain if you fall into misfortunate.
Simple charitable giving doesn’t come with this kind of cause-and-effect expectation. It does make you wonder, though. Why don’t we see more pastors urging their congregants to be pay up to keep the utilities on? It’s almost as if they believe they’d get less money by citing the difficulties of keeping a church financially solvent, as opposed to making it all about avoiding God’s disfavor and earning heavenly blessings.
You would guess wrong, at least for my church. It is printed out and posted on the wall in the narthex.
Regards,
Shodan
Huh. I’ve scored perhaps 2 t shirts, as well as some orange juice and cookies from my approx 1 gallon+ of blood donations. I can’t recall receiving any junk mail.
So are you saying that when a church collects tithes from its members, it’s spending all that money on the church itself? If so, that’s a church I would quit. No church should need that much money for basic operations. If it’s keeping all the tithes, it’s overspending on itself.
I feel the church should be like any other voluntary organization, It has expenses to stay in operation and provide its services to its members. That’s fine. It should tell its membership how much the operation costs and let the membership pay for it. They can divide it up equally among the membership or figure out whatever other method they want. And they can decide if the expenses are justified.
But tithing should remain a separate issue. It’s giving money to those in need. It’s a worthwhile moral act. But as I stated, it should be kept clear of any conflict on interest.
So a believer should be able to go to his spiritual adviser and ask for moral guidance. “Reverend, I’m having a difficult time in my life. My roof is getting old and will needs repairs sometime in the next couple of years. I currently have a thousand dollars put aside. I normally donate money to the local school every year. But this year, I’m thinking maybe I should use the money I put aside to repair my roof instead. Am I being selfish or practical here? Please give me guidance.”
Now in this case, the minister can discuss the situation with the man and offer unbiased advice. He has no financial stake in the decision.
But suppose the same man went to his spiritual adviser and said, “Reverend, I’m having a difficult time in my life. My roof is getting old and will needs repairs sometime in the next couple of years. I currently have a thousand dollars put aside. I normally donate money to your church every year. But this year, I’m thinking maybe I should use the money I put aside to repair my roof instead. Am I being selfish or practical here? Please give me guidance.”
Now the minister is facing his own moral conflict. He’s being asked to advise the man to either keep his money or give it to him. He has to face the same question over what his motives are that the man is facing. If he tells the man to give the money to the church, was he doing it because it was the right moral decision or because it was the decision that benefited him?
My experience has been the same as Shodan’s on this. Once you’ve given blood, they put you on their list and keep mailing you and phoning you. You have to be very blunt with them in order to get off their list. I sometimes wish I could just donate blood anonymously so they didn’t pester me afterwards.
That’s really weird. I give blood all the time. In the last 12 months I’ve given 4 double red cell donations and two blood donations, and I’ve given in three different regions, and I don’t remember ever getting a piece of paper mail. Lately I’ve been getting the occasional email 10 days or so after I donate with a nice story about someone whose life was saved by a blood donation, but never any nagging. What am I going to do, get angry when I hear about Madison, who has anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis? They do email me reminders three days before my appointments, but I may have asked them to, I don’t really remember.
I never get telephone calls, but to be honest the window between when I become eligible to donate and when I donate is so short a well designed nag system wouldn’t have a chance to operate. It’s usually a week or less.
Of course they like you to donate blood. You, give them your blood for free, then they go and sell it for I think $100 a pint. Its part of the reason I quit giving blood at the Community Blood Bank nearby. I looked around and everyone there was getting paid except me and I was providing their product.
Dont ever think Red Cross services are for free.
The Salvation Army OTOH, does great work for free.
Again, your blood is there money. Even more if you have a rare blood type.
I have been in churches where every member got a detailed and audited financial statement every year. I’ve been in others where they only gave out a general statement to where the money goes. I quit the 2nd church.