Debate for all Forum Members

[Ancalagon]

A simple enough question;

Should a Church be wealthy?

[Gothmog]

Depends on how you define "Wealth". If you mean by number of belivers then if it helps people yes. However, I feel that you are talking about "Wealth" as refering to Money in which case I say definitely not.

A church should only accept the money needed for the work it does. If there is more money coming into a church than is being used for the aid of its members or such causes as the members wish to support then there is a serious problem with the beliefs of the leaders. The whole point of a church should be the spiritual enrichment of the membership, not their monetary impoverishment.

[Thorin]

I don't see a problem with a church being wealthy, provided that they are using that wealth for the good of the community and the spreading of the gospel.

God doesn't bless us for us to just sit on our treasure. If a church (organization) is involved in global missions and disaster/ poverty relief (both in their community and in foreign lands) and uses those funds for those purposes, I don't see what the problem is. I know from my own church's experience, those funds are hard to come by in the first place and any extra can only help those it is intended for.

If however, a church hoards it's wealth to only better their own organization, then I think that there are moral issues and poor stewardship areas that should be concern.

[gate7ole]

Originally posted by Thorin
I don't see a problem with a church being wealthy, provided that they are using that wealth for the good of the community and the spreading of the gospel.
If something (organisation or person) is wealthy, then it means that whatever it spends (e.g. in fund raisers), it still posseses a great amount of money that could (and should) be spent too. Many famous and rich people act the same way with church: they donate money. Does it make them saints? No. Then why should the (any) church be considered so? To me the only correct attitude of the church would be to spent the great majority of its funds to donations and possible expansions. The few money left should be only for protection of a future ecomonic crisis. This situation I described cannot be considered as wealthy, but rather ecomonically independent, which should be the attitude of all the churches of the planet.

[Valinorean]

Wow, Anc. That's sure to start a brawl, if we all think hard enough!

Do you mean wealthy, as in: hidden warehouses full of priceless art and artifacts plundered from all over Europe and the Middle East over centuries, real estate in every part of the world, and ancient manuscripts from Egypt and Greece deemed heretical;

Or, do you mean wealthy, as in: bank accounts full of money amassed from the small donations of poor, little old ladies who send in $10 rather than buy their high blood pressure medicine that month, because someone on TV told them to.

???

It all depends. What is the wealth used for? For good causes? For the comforts of church leaders? Is there a such thing as a socialist religion? Can we truly spread the wealth? Or is it like Cheerios - gravitating to other wealth?

You have truly asked a loaded question. I like it!

But I can't answer it. Can anyone?

[Ancalagon]

Valinorean, I feel you have covered both aspects of wealth entirely along the lines of my own interpretation. Particularly as one relates to the greatest criminal of them all and the other corresponds with virtually every other who wishes to amass their own fortunes 'for the betterment of the flock' whom they profess to serve!

I find wealth in the Church entirely distasteful. I can understand a need for a some of money to maintain its CHurch grounds, pay for its own upkeep and be able to provide services to its congregation. Then again, did Jesus not tell his apostles to venture out with nothing more than the clothes on their pack and the word of God and depend on the charity of those people they visited? I supoose in this day and age that is highly unlikely, but the prinicple should still be applied to the way a Church conducts itself.

I am beleive a Church should not be allowed to profit. It should show clearly what its outgoings are, what is incoming and be allowed to retain between 5-10% of its taking to hold in savings 'for a rainy day.' This is the same way charities are expected to operate, then again, what they give to the cause they represent is swallowed up by administration costs of up to 90% of what the had donated! They are a whole other can of worms that I will lump in with Churches.

So, there you go, a few of my thoughts to get this debate going;)

[gate7ole]

Originally posted by Ancalagon
So, there you go, a few of my thoughts to get this debate going;) [/B]
I don't think you left much room for debate. Your thoughts are pretty much what every sensible person has: that the (any) church should have as much money as is needed for a difficult period. The challenge would be to debate with the leaders of the churches. But they are busy with the extention of their power over the public life:rolleyes:

[Ancalagon]

So, if we are agreed on these basics, then let us take a step further and discuss why a Church should need wealth and ulimately power?

[Celebthôl]

I don't think it should coz (no offence to religious people) but i don't believe what the church says and i think they just run the lives of people, i believe more in what Ghandi said (i'm not goin into it right now)
Also they shouldn't have ultimate power coz they won't use it correctly and it's just a popularity thing when they give away money (no offence). I mean the pope is voted in for crying out loud that isn't religious more like a government!

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Ancalagon
I am beleive a Church should not be allowed to profit. It should show clearly what its outgoings are, what is incoming and be allowed to retain between 5-10% of its taking to hold in savings 'for a rainy day.' This is the same way charities are expected to operate, then again, what they give to the cause they represent is swallowed up by administration costs of up to 90% of what the had donated! They are a whole other can of worms that I will lump in with Churches.

But keep in mind as well, Anc, that churches should always be expanding their ministry and taking on new ways to help spread the word and minister to the community. To do these things costs money and there is only so much a church can fundraise (and lets be honest, the only reason there is such a thing as fundraising is because of the lack of monetary resources in the first place). Hence, if a church was just breaking even or using the money for upkeep, you would have a church with a stagnant ministry. You don't think that the charities wished they could have more money to use?

A church NEEDs money to survive in this day and age. The issue is not should they have wealth, the issue is what happens to that wealth and is their hoarding and abuse?

[Gothmog]

Thorin.

If the church was spending 90 - 95% of its income then It would have an emergency fund and still be able to attend to their Minsistry. For a church to be seen as wealthy would show that not enough of the money is being used for that purpose.

[Khamul]

The wealthier a church is, the more obedient the members of the congregation are.(Not in all cases, for some churches the sacrifices of all, is not enough to be considered wealthy financially.) In the OT, it is said that 1/10th of your income must be given to the church. That is not meant to be an offering, but a debt to God. You have been blessed with the ability to make money, and the money, ynd 1/10th of your income is enough for a loss to be felt, yet it is still possible to live. Christianity is about faith, and stepping out into the will of God includes sacrifice. An offering is extra, a tithe is necessary for obedience to God. This is commonly confused, and it is a weakness in the Church.

I have never been part of a church that had been necessarily wealthy, yet in some eye's, they would be. They may have a big budget, but it is rarely met, unless a church is consistently faithful in the giving of their tithe. In the present economy, it is practical for churches to save money, for the future is not clear for any, wealthy or poor.

[Ancalagon]

Let's face it, the CHurch looks after number one first and foremost. Make sure we are comfortable, then we will worry about the congregation and starving babies later! How do they help? Send a missionary out to convert the ignorant by guilt, blaming their sin for causing their afflictions!

What role should the church play in the world? Is its current role what God, Jesus, Mohammed et al originally envisaged?

The way forward for the Church should be in the hands of God, if it has no money, it should not matter, for it should trust in God if it is commited to God! Do you think God plays the stock markets in order to spread the truth of the Gospels.

Although I refer mainly to Christianity, this should be relevant to all faiths.

[Khamul]

Wow, you must have some pretty dead churches in your area, Anc. The church I attend is probably one of the most alive churches I have seen in my short life-time, and it's mission is to reach the poor and homeless, and it accomplishes this goal very well. The church is over-flowing quickly, and needs money to build a new building, and even in this, their goal is still on the community. Yes, there are many people who use scriptures and distort them, and sadly it has become engrained in our culture. The true Christianity is almost unknown now of days. The corruption of preachers is almost as documented as celebrities. Face it, people are never perfect, and some mistakes are innocent, but others are costing the Christian perspective to become something it is not, and it drives people away.

[Ancalagon]

I am glad that your Church is active in distributing its proceeds and putting it into the community it serves.

I think what I am getting at (as we discussed) is the use of wealth within a church to establish power. Of course, one must always question whether a church ought to have 'priceless treasures' within its coffers and to what end they would need huge resources, both in material wealth or in land ownership. However, my concern lies in political influence, which ranges from small towns to entire nations.

For a church to power, it must have wealth and it must have political influence. Should a church have any of these ambitions?

[7doubles]

if churchs use tresury notes, then they should pay federal income tax. if they own propertys then they should pay property tax.
otherwise they are no different then a souvern nation. and i dont understand how charitable contributions can be an income tax deduction if the curch dont pay taxes, who makes up for this defisit, we do! so dont even get me started on the Vadican or the entire country of Isreal for that matter. its all shady pollatics.

[Húrin Thalion]

I am as a non religious person maybe not quite the right person to make a statement in this debate but maybe I am for the same reason. I find churches as a profit interested organization as disgusting. There should only be money to keep the church going (new purchases included) and that is it. I have been living all my life in a protestant country, however an extremely secularized one, I am not even baptized. To me the very idea that the church should own makes my stomach turn, the worst was when the Swedish protestant church (that now owns stock and such) had advertisements!!! It was a chocolate bar but the brand was replaced by the phrase "Comfort?" Should a church make advertisemnt for any other reason than information? I don't see money as something that is in the way to reach God, Nirvana or what you will call it but I certainly not think that the someone that has an interest in peoples souls should also have an interest in their money. Also the christian church in the west was perverted by the money that flowed in and we see the Avlatsletters (you pay for the forgiving of a sin) as something linked to this. The catholic church was saved and brought up by the Holy Ignatius (not Igantius O. Reilly) and his jesuits but we should all beware.

Sorry this was a little messy Húrin Thalion

[omnipotent_elf]

I am as a non religious person maybe not quite the right person to make a statement in this debate but maybe I am for the same reason. I find churches as a profit interested organization as disgusting.

Húrin Thalion, ur a legend
i agree
its true
allthoug i'm not religiuos, i find greed disgusting, most of all in a place that is supposed to be against greed, I define greed as taking more than you need
this is why i'm not religiuos myself, due to the contradictory nature of the church

[Elfarmari]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
I mean the pope is voted in for crying out loud that isn't religious more like a government!
just a nit-pick note:
Yes, the pope is elected, and yes in the past (when the Catholic church DID have political power and it's own country, Vatican City today doesn't really count) this election was often political. The purpose of the election is to allow the Holy Spirit to act through the cardinals (the ones who do the voting) in selecting the man whom God wants to be the next Pope. The Church is not a government today, the Pope is the figurehead, the representative of Jesus on Earth, and is expected to lead by example as well as by words. Through the efforts of many reformers, the Catholic Church no longer tries to obtain political or economic power. I did a major research project last year about Galileo and his trial by the Church, and found out how much the Church was corrupted by its political power. I believe that this will happen wherever any theocracy exists, or anywhere religious leaders use money and status to contrl the government.

[Celebthôl]

Originally posted by Ancalagon


Should a Church be wealthy?

simple question, simple answer (i havent read the entire thread, but i dont care)! No church should not be wealthy, its wrong, but who will speek up against it? Nobody can, as its "against god", but i dont agree with it....damn im ranting...i tend to when i talk about curches and their wealth!

Thôl

[Bethelarien]

I would have to say it depends on what they use their wealth for. (I think someone already mentioned this, but oh well.)

For example, my church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) is actually very wealthy, if you look at the amount of property owned and the amount of tithes and offerings it gets from its members. However, the church uses that money for many relief organizations, the church welfare program, disaster aid, etc., as well as new meetinghouses/temples, etc.

If a church is just rolling in the dough but doesn't do anything with it, I think that's wrong. Those who are wealthy, including churches, should help the less fortunate. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."