RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Aug 13, 2019 20:13:20 GMT -8
Understood, but how many more soup kitchens could there have been if the renovation money was used for that. You can’t really do that. If somebody comes to you and donates money for an agreed-upon purpose you can’t do a bait and switch and use it for something else, at least not ethically.............Luca I agree, I wasn't trying to imply bait & switch. Rather that the person(s) soliciting donations could (in theory) have gotten the donation from the same person and not had it tied to an agreed upon purpose. Probably not as easy to do, but still doable. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Aug 13, 2019 20:24:41 GMT -8
...those who are not involved in donating their money to the church shouldn’t sit on the outside criticizing the church for how they use the money that is donated by those who do... I call B.S. on that. Outsiders are usually the only ones with the freedom to criticize, many on the inside have their proverbial hands tied when it comes to the politics of a church. Further, being a business that is free from taxation basically means they are being subsidized (not having to pay costs that other business's do), so like any non-profit, they should be more of an open book than a privately held, taxed company. Bottom line is hypocrisy is hypocrisy, no matter who points it out. I have never donated to Saddleback Church here in South County and never will based on the way they choose to spend the monies donated to them and what they believe a churches job to be. I see Rick Warren as a con man and his organization as the wrong way to spirituality. But since I am not paying his mortgage, auto loan or vacation bills, he is free to ignore my criticism. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Aug 13, 2019 22:06:53 GMT -8
|
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,901
|
Religion
Aug 14, 2019 5:23:17 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by Bick on Aug 14, 2019 5:23:17 GMT -8
Good stuff Credo. If anyone would have a good argument, backed by scripture, it would be you.
But doesn't it seem the passage in Matthew and what you posed, are in conflict with each other?
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Aug 14, 2019 5:48:12 GMT -8
...those who are not involved in donating their money to the church shouldn’t sit on the outside criticizing the church for how they use the money that is donated by those who do... I call B.S. on that. Outsiders are usually the only ones with the freedom to criticize, many on the inside have their proverbial hands tied when it comes to the politics of a church. Further, being a business that is free from taxation basically means they are being subsidized (not having to pay costs that other business's do), so like any non-profit, they should be more of an open book than a privately held, taxed company. Bottom line is hypocrisy is hypocrisy, no matter who points it out. I have never donated to Saddleback Church here in South County and never will based on the way they choose to spend the monies donated to them and what they believe a churches job to be. I see Rick Warren as a con man and his organization as the wrong way to spirituality. But since I am not paying his mortgage, auto loan or vacation bills, he is free to ignore my criticism. Call B.S. all you want. As a leader in my local church, it is exactly as you say: I pay no regard to criticism from anyone on the outside looking in. im sorry you feel those on the inside have no voice. That must be terribly frustrating. But, in fact, those on the inside are the ones who see and understand how the church... and not just the Catholic Church... is using the funds that come in. As you also point out, each person is free to contribute or not contribute as they choose. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Aug 14, 2019 5:54:38 GMT -8
Good stuff Credo. If anyone would have a good argument, backed by scripture, it would be you. But doesn't it seem the passage in Matthew and what you posed, are in conflict with each other? I do not believe the two passages are in conflict with each other. In the passage from Matthew 23 you cited, Jesus was admonishing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, themselves, referring to their lives as the “temples.” Matthew 26 is referring to the woman worshipping (the one true) Christ, as He admonished the Disciples about their complaint over how she spends her money. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Aug 14, 2019 6:44:51 GMT -8
Good stuff Credo. If anyone would have a good argument, backed by scripture, it would be you. But doesn't it seem the passage in Matthew and what you posed, are in conflict with each other? I do not believe the two passages are in conflict with each other. In the passage from Matthew 23 you cited, Jesus was admonishing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, themselves, referring to their lives as the “temples.” Matthew 26 is referring to the woman worshipping (the one true) Christ, as He admonished the Disciples about their complaint over how she spends her money. With apologies for being a dimestore theologian, doesn't Matthew 23:5 'Everything they do is for show', also criticize grandeur? At the end of the day, I realize it's all about intent, as you've mentioned in Matthew 26, and I don't know what's in anyone's heart. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
|
Post by MDDad on Aug 14, 2019 7:57:42 GMT -8
I pay no regard to criticism from anyone on the outside looking in. I'm not sure that's a very healthy position to take. It's the same rationale used by Democrats to ignore input from conservatives, and Republicans to ignore what liberals say. If we only listen to our own "insiders" we miss a lot of input for growth. Sometimes we need the opinions of unjaded eyes from outside the circle. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Aug 14, 2019 8:15:33 GMT -8
I do not believe the two passages are in conflict with each other. In the passage from Matthew 23 you cited, Jesus was admonishing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, themselves, referring to their lives as the “temples.” Matthew 26 is referring to the woman worshipping (the one true) Christ, as He admonished the Disciples about their complaint over how she spends her money. With apologies for being a dimestore theologian, doesn't Matthew 23:5 'Everything they do is for show', also criticize grandeur? At the end of the day, I realize it's all about intent, as you've mentioned in Matthew 26, and I don't know what's in anyone's heart. Let me first stipulate that there are only a dozen or so passages in Scripture on which we must agree if we are to call ourselves Christian (meaning one committed to following Christ, not just someone who is not some other religion). Passages such as the Virgin Birth, Jesus’ substitutionary death on the cross, and the like. In my never-to-be-considered humble opinion, the rest of Scripture will mean different things to different people and even different to me from one reading to another. With that said, criticism if grandeur (again in my opinion) is not a general statement, but a specific criticism of the behavior of the hypocrites to whom he was speaking. However, with an admonition against using partial texts (from Scripture) to support or reject a given position, if that is what it says to you, then who am I to argue. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Aug 14, 2019 8:24:19 GMT -8
I pay no regard to criticism from anyone on the outside looking in. I'm not sure that's a very healthy position to take. It's the same rationale used by Democrats to ignore input from conservatives, and Republicans to ignore what liberals say. If we only listen to our own "insiders" we miss a lot of input for growth. Sometimes we need the opinions of unjaded eyes from outside the circle. To me, that is an apples to oranges comparison. as a leader in the local church I have a responsibility to listen to those in the congregation and, while I believe it would be wise for democrats and liberals to listen to republicans and conservatives, there is no obligation there to compel them to do so. one might also think I would be wise to listen to those outside this congregation and there are times I do, just not about their criticisms about how our church is run (which includes how we spend the money given us). In point of fact, we even have a rule in our church that we do not accept gifts that the giver mandates what it should be used for (called “directed giving”), so in terms of the use of funds we are given, we tell the congregation how we intend to spend the money and, when special circumstances come up, we put it to a vote of the membership, but our church bylaws do not give anyone any authority over individual expenses. FTR, we have our office staff audit all expenses monthly, and an external auditing firm audit our practices and our expenses and income annually. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
|
Post by MDDad on Aug 14, 2019 10:43:27 GMT -8
I guess we disagree, because I think it's apples and apples. There is value to any community or organization to listen to honest opinions and criticisms from outside itself and accept or reject those opinions based on their relevance, intent and honesty. Shutting off from outside opinion is usually not in the best interests of any group.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Aug 14, 2019 13:29:52 GMT -8
I guess we disagree, because I think it's apples and apples. There is value to any community or organization to listen to honest opinions and criticisms from outside itself and accept or reject those opinions based on their relevance, intent and honesty. Shutting off from outside opinion is usually not in the best interests of any group. Yes, we disagree... but not completely. you are characterizing those outside the church as having good ideas and input, but that has not been my experience over the course of the last 20 or so years in various positions of leadership. Almost without exception, people outside of this congregation come to visit, probably attend one service and, then, want to tell us how we should be doing it. Or someone from outside the church wants something (usually money) from us and if we turn them towards local social services, they want to criticize. of course, as I said above, we DO bring in outside auditors to review our financial status and practices and we DO receive and act on that feedback. but someone who just wants to criticize (or “give feedback”) without any skin in the game is in no position to understand what we do or how we do it. on that part, yes, we disagree. |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,317
|
Post by Luca on Aug 14, 2019 13:32:58 GMT -8
RSM
"I agree, I wasn't trying to imply bait & switch. Rather that the person(s) soliciting donations could (in theory) have gotten the donation from the same person and not had it tied to an agreed upon purpose. Probably not as easy to do, but still doable."
I don’t think that’s a justified assumption. Most people who are regular attendees at a church give a fixed amount per month or per year. But sometimes there are unique occasions that come up, such as a visitor from Africa asking for money for his congregation. Or may be funds to help with a new building. You might give additional money for that but it does not at all follow that you would have made that contribution in any event. I tend to doubt that Mr. Busch would have under written a $70 million bond for that proverbial soup kitchen. There are big ticket items that tend to attract major donors. They have the money and they are willing to give it for specific purposes that they are personally enthusiastic about.
RSM
".......Further, being a business that is free from taxation basically means they are being subsidized (not having to pay costs that other business's do), so like any non-profit, they should be more of an open book than a privately held, taxed company."
I don’t follow the logic here. In fact the converse makes more sense to me. If an institution is not subject to taxes then it would seem less imperative to require them to be an "open book" than a company that is being taxed on its income and therefore has an incentive to deceive the tax man..
At any rate, a legitimate religious institution is not a business, hence I think the analogy is flawed from the outset. Religious institutions are a different animal and it is an important enough point that it was emphasized in the Constitution……………………………..Luca
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
|
Post by MDDad on Aug 14, 2019 13:43:19 GMT -8
you are characterizing those outside the church as having good ideas and input, but that has not been my experience over the course of the last 20 or so years in various positions of leadership. Almost without exception, people outside of this congregation come to visit, probably attend one service and, then, want to tell us how we should be doing it. Sometimes you have to dig through a lot of horseshit to find the pony, but there's one in there more often than we think. It's important to keep listening and not turn your back on the pile. That's why I still listen to what the Democratic candidates and AOC have to say. There may be only a pony embryo in all their crap, but I try to remain optimistic. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Aug 14, 2019 14:16:02 GMT -8
I will point out, my understanding (however flawed it might be) of the Holy Spirit is, “He” runs things a lot differently than our government, a political party, or even most businesses I know.
|
|
