"Charity: Not Just a Stripper Name"--Larry the Preacher Guy

Larry makes the claim that the Church is the greatest charitable organization in the world. Ahem. Bullshit. Christians may be among the most charitable people in the world: Compassion Int'l, World Vision, Habitat for Humanity, Catholic Charities, etc. All run by people trying to do something redemptive in the world. Now, had Larry said the Church was the most charitable group of people in the world, I probably would have been forced to agree by the sheer weight of numbers. (I think that corporate and individual giving has probably surpassed the Church by now, but I have no numbers.) However, to say it's charitable as an organization is just false.

Charities are regularly rated for the amount of money given to the organization that goes to direct aid. Any charity that scores below 70% ought to give you great pause. Samaritan's Purse regularly heads the list of responsible religious charities because Graham used to make sure that 85% or more went to direct aid. The rest obviously goes to advertising, salaries, facilities, administration, etc. So, what do you say about an organization that routinely gives less than 15% of its total receipts to direct aid? Most of us wouldn't give a dime to a charity with that sort of rating. Most churches barely give 10%. The Nazarene Church, of which I used to be a part, rewards their churches/pastors who consistently give 10%. What a charitable organization! The best the world has ever seen!

Here's the rhetorical game they play. Churches collect money via tithes and offerings. That money is designated charity by virtue of the church's 501(c) 3 status. Voila! Christians are crazy charitable! They give billions to churches every year...of which 10-15% routinely goes to genuine benevolence. So, we call it charity, but it's really just upkeep for an organization that manages to squander billions while patting itself on the back for being truly charitable.

I proposed this solution a while back, but since Larry has just wandered onto the blog and started blathering, he missed it. Stop giving to churches! Find legitimate charities, religious or secular, who use money responsibly and give to them. There you go, Larry. Now I've moved from cynic to sage. God bless me. I'm off to catch a 90 gozillion dollar production of Muhammad's (peace be upon him) ascension to heaven featuring a real flying horse.

Comments

[Larry]

I will gladly ammend my initial comment to exactly what Greg said...

"...had Larry said the Church was the most charitable group of people in the world, I probably would have been forced to agree by the sheer weight of numbers."

The church does nothing except that it MEMBERS do it first. It's the members that give. Many give not only to their local congregation but then also (as Greg mentioned) give to local, national and world causes.

So instead of me defending the building of 1st Lauderdale, I'll resort to defending it's members and what they do as individuals who make up the larger group. As for the pageant, they church has held it for years. The members like it or they wouldn't support it. I don't care if you criticize the committee, the pastor, the individual members, whatever. My argument is the same. The church (any church) does what it's members do. The church IS it's members. To ridicule the pageant is really to ridicule the entire body who has stood behind it for so long. If you have any details on their collective giving (both to the church and also to other charitable causes) please fill us in so we can applaud their efforts while you ignore them and criticize their celebration of Jesus' birth.

[Larry]

BTW - I am not a pastor and I am not in any form of paid ministry whatsoever.

[sepherim]

I ran across this quote in a study on charitable giving.

"Religious giving is assumed to be directly related to after-life consumption, while nonreligious giving is not related to after-life consumption."

Does this mean religious givers have figured out a way to take it with them?

[Dallas Tim]

All these years of arguing with you, Greg and never once did my name appear in a new thread title.

If I agree with Larryboy, will you re-do this one and throw my name in?

Please?

[greg]

Tim,

In all those years you've never been half as annoying as Larry, nor one tenth as condescending.

[greg]

larry,

so if the bible doesn't authorize a particular amount, you're okay with any amount? I love sheeple.

[greg]

and by the way, you missed the larger point...again. If they're giving to a church that routinely gives 10% to benevolence, it can only be called charity by a rhetorical gimmick.

[Alex]

I'm in the banking industry up here in Tulsa, and I had to do some underwriting for Church on the Move (largest church in OK). And no...I don't know where they're going.

Their current CASH position is over $20 million...cash. Yes, I said cash. Total assets total over $45 mil. And that was in 2004. They have a collection of metal buildings that are paid off so almost all the "offering" funds they collect every week basically go to their savings/investment portfolio...or go to purchases of new flatscreen televisions to put up everywhere in the building, or new smoke machines, or new laser light show equipment.

So...30,000 children across the world die everyday from curable disease or hunger, and we've got a "church" sitting on $20 million cash.

Fucked up.

[Larry]

I have no problem looking at each Chruch on a case by case basis. My criteria (and I'm not the judge, but you said I should comment) would have to be taken as such and it would always start with "How much have they given?" Then we look at how much they spend. This production is obviously supported by the congregation and if you don't have totals for how much each, or most, of the individual members give collectively to the church and then how much individually they give to other non-church causes, then it become difficult to make the blanket statement that what they are doing is sinful (you may not have used that term, but if a church is doing something it knows to be wrong then they would have to use that term themselves).

I think, in this case, that because Scripture doesn't set monetary limits, but instead offers guidelines for the overall thrust of the Church universal, that each body has the right to decide what they can do. As I mentioned earlier, if Greg had said, "Hey, this church spent $75,000 on their pageant but their memebers only gave $784.51 towards other ministries that reach out to the less-fortunate" then I would have agreed that maybe they need to re-prioritize their spending.

If anything, the individual members are the ones financing the whole thing, because the $35 ticket price will likely go back to pay for the cost so, in effect, the church breaks even on the expenditure. If no one showed up or if attendance was minimal, I'll guarantee you that they wouldn't be doing it again... ever! So, the people shelling out $35 per person to see the shindig are the most culpable because it's their money that fund the pageant and I don't think that we have the right to tell them that they can't use their own earned money to go support the Church's production and celebration of Christ's birth (especially when $35 as opposed to what they might spend for a nice family outing to dinner and a local theatre production of that quality is not that much.)

I guess you might say that instead of the pageant, the church should declare, "Ok everyone who WOULD have gone to see the show, donate $35 and then well take that (approx. $1 million) and donate it to the local Salvation Army."

The only problem is that even though that's not a bad idea, and no doubt the church already donates lots of time, resources and money to various such charities, it DOES NOT (Biblically) preclude them from then also going ahead and doing the pageant anyway.

[Steve Kimes]

I completely agree with your post, Greg, but for one thing. There are still a few churches who actually focus on benevolence, instead of self-support. I am the pastor of a church of the homeless, and my income is between 250 and 500 dollars a month because that's how much my church can pay me. My parsonage for myself and my family is also shared with six formerly homeless folks. with every service (four a week), we also serve a meal and in some we give away clothes and showers. While not a large church (about a hundred) easily the majority of the donations we receive does not go to administration (e.g. my salary and bills), but to those who desperately need help. And we aren't the only church like that-- as few and far between as they may be.

Steve K
anawim.or.us.mennonite.net

[greg]

Steve,

Welcome, and thanks. It's nice to hear there are some who are trying to live the way.

[Leighton]

Steve,

That reminds me of the part in Carrying the Banner from Newsies where everyone falls silent for the nuns' segment when all they do is stand there and sing, but when it comes to the lady who actually brings them stew in the mornings, the kids are chattering all over her lines. It seems to be a general rule that the people who do the most good get the least attention. I'm wondering whether this might be related to trust--we tend to talk most about the people whose decisions we're worried about (which is why I think having a PR department says "You can't trust us completely"), whereas we tend to take for granted that the people and groups we really trust will have our backs.

Whatever the reason, it's good to have reminders.

[Steve Kimes]

Larry, I'd like to make a comment on the "pagent v. charity" debate. The purpose of the pagent, presumably, is to give people the gospel so that more people can know the Truth of Christ. But let's say that instead of taking the hundred thousand dollars for the pagant, the church uses that money to operate a ministry for the mentally ill instead and uses the time and resources of the church for that ministry instead of an annual drama. Rather than providing another entertainment opportuity laced with a shallow presentation of some facts about Jesus, the church would be providing a display of the gospel in their community. People would still be hearing the gospel, but it would be through example instead of showmanship, through sacrifical action instead of cheap words. And if this was done, it could be that some folks like Greg wouldn't be ex-Christians anymore, because they wouldn't be so let down by an artificial, hypocritical church, which is supposed to represent Jesus on earth instead of constatly trying to beat the world at their own game. The only thing the church could lose by doing this is new members-- because more people love showmanship than a commitment to compassion. So really, if Jesus was leading the church, what would he do?

[Larry]

Steve,

Nice idea. If the church chose to do that, it would certainly seem more genuine. I'm all for good ideas and for churches doing Christianity. I just don't like all the criticsm without any humbly supplied alternatives. It seems like most just get a kick out of tearing down instead of encouraging more ideas for improvement (like you just did).

Not sure I agree with your comments about there not being any more "ex-christians." Anyone who says they've seen too many "Christians" to try it themselves are just making excuses. True Christianity may not be easy, but it is rewarding (don't you agree?)

I think from what I've read in Greg's past comments, that he doesn't claim to be Christian any more because he doesn't believe the Bible to be what it claims to be and that (logically) leads to the feeling that you can't be sure about anything.

What are your thoughts on the Bible?

[PhofReoke]

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits.
-- Robert Louis Stevenson

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://xanga.com/boydatkinsnt