Church sign: Give God what's right, not what's left

Subtle...

They're trying it again?

and called the church about it and they said they "Didn't know what I meant". Bullshit, that is Jesus speak and I know it. The fundies know what that is suggesting, but I do too.

INVADING! RAPING! TORTURING! MURDERING! SLAUGHTERING! DESTROYING!

After all, it's what Jesus would do.

who do not want to think for them selves.

"It's not that simplistic, because I'm a thoughtful person" (recalling quote from memory)

Unless there was more to the sign. This is about church donations not about politics.

A play on words, sure. Political? Probably not.

As if we haven't been reading church signs all our lives and suddenly this left-right stuff pops up but it's not political. :eyes:

it sure isn't a whole lot of basis for doing so.

I read it as....give what is proper or correct or what is best rather than only giving what you have left after your own material needs are fulfilled.

It's probably a stewardship appeal. Churches do fundraising at this time of year, to be able to write budgets to be presented at annual meetings, which are usually held soon after the first of the year. Stewardship campaigns often use clever slogans to get people thinking about how much they should be giving to the church. I would read this as meaning that one should give the right, that is, the appropriate, amount to God by supporting the church and charities....not what's left, that is, what's leftover after other expenditures.

I don't see anything sinister in it at all. Sheesh!

care of the family?

This is one of the biggest things I've always had against any and all religions. At least the ones who go around with their hands out continually. They sit on immense wealth and then try to tell everyone that they're sinners, unworthy and going to hell, if they don't give to the church first. Titheing is one of the biggest rackets man ever came up with.

It's okay for those that are comfortable but what gripes my ass is that the 'church' (anyone's church not just Catholic) doesn't cut any slack for anyone.

"immense wealth". Could you point me to one, please?

control the purse strings and make the rules and regs for all the big churches that have a national directorship.

There are some ministers who tend to small and impoverished flocks, certainly. I've seen that too. But don't tell me that the Lutherans and the Baptists don't have a national directorship that dictates how and where money goes as well as making sure that they have a nice big bank account that all the churches under their 'purview' (for lack of a better word) have to account to and fork over big bucks. Just like the Catholics.

Sorry if I've touched a nerve. I don't know what kind of minister you are. But there's an old saying that if you want a way to ensure you strike it rich, start a church.

We do give to the national church, but we do it of our own free will--can't be ordered to do anything. The American Baptists work the same way. It's called "congregational autonomy" and it's the bedrock of both my tradition and many Baptist ones. No national dictatorship. In fact, my church's national staff are probably going to be cut back again in a year or two for financial reasons.

The congregation I serve now has some investment--mostly farmland--but not much. Every other congregation I've served lived from month to month. At one, I often had to wait for a paycheck until there were enough funds in the bank--sometimes a few weeks.

As to where national church money goes--it goes to disaster relief, curriculum development, and grants to churches in need (in my denom, most such grants go to Native American churches). I don't mind my money being spent on such things. Again, not a dictatorship.

Lutherans, Baptists and my church (the United Church of Christ) national staff are accountable to elected boards made up of clergy and laypeople who approve their spending. Just like a democracy!

I don't know what you're so angry about, but we in the churches are not as stupid as you want to believe.

point that in 'your denomination' you are not compelled to give to the national whatever. And I believe you. Some churches are really into a mission of glorifying the Lord and ministering to their congregation.

BUT NOT ALL OF THEM. And stupid they most certainly are not. That's how they got to be as big and powerful as they are.

Let me tell you a story about a church that asked an architectural firm I once worked for to design a campus for them. Here in Omaha no less. They wanted (the final design went to another firm) a fully self-sufficient campus. In fact, when it was done there was to be no need for them to have to associate with anyone else except the people in their own church. They wanted a huge, fully equipped, top of the line kitchen, a movie theatre, swimming pool, basketball court, meeting rooms for the kids, the ladies, and the men, game rooms, computer lab, and a gym area. It was to be a fully equipped, enclosed, self-sufficient campus. One of the guys who was working on the project said that it was more like a cult compound than a religious establishment.

I don't know how the final project turned out because, as I said, the firm I worked for didn't get chosen to design the final project. But one thing I do know is that these people had the money for all this stuff. They were a very West O bunch who obviously didn't feel like they should have to associate with the plebs even during their time with God.


I'm also old enough to have seen Oral Roberts obscene edifice in its glory day. You know, the one he had gold leafed, or however it was done, on his campus. The one where when the sun came up the building lit up in a glow like nothing I've ever seen since then.

Pat Robertson is not doing too shabbily either. He's a national leader of a big church. How much do you think he pays for his suits? I've always thought that it was pretty shakey to get you advice on how to live and what God wants you do (behaviour wise and money wise) from some clown in a suit that would pay my mortgage for a quarter of a year.

I would NEVER call these people stupid.

lest he start hitting me up for bigger donations.

fundamentalists, who have all that glitzy stuff not only for their own enrichment but also to provide a total information environment for their parishioners.

Mainstream parishes, as mycritters2 said, usually struggle from month to month. Being a mainstream clergy person is no way to get rich, and it's only recently that denominations have mandated paying clergy a salary comparable to that of the communities they serve.

Here are some of the things that my church does with its "wealth": maintains a large, 90-year-old building and keeps it in repair, which includes things like updating it for environmental soundness, pays three priests and a deacon, each of whom has an area of responsibility; pays a support staff including clerical workers, janitors, and music director; feeds the hungry, sponsors immigrants (without proselytizing them). sends out Habitat for Humanity teams, provides clothing for women on welfare who are transitioning into jobs, provides free space for AA meetings and other support groups, sends work teams to disaster areas such as the Misssissippi Gulf Coast, tutors immigrant children in English and math, provides free gallery space for artists, takes youth on annual "mission trips" to work in disaster relief or anti-poverty programs, works on inter-faith programs and activities not only with other Christians but also with Jews and Muslims, sponsors study groups on religious and ethical issues, runs a drop-in center for street people, and helped renovate an unused hospital to be housing for former street youth. And I'm sure I've left out several activities.

Not all parishes are as large as mine, but if you look at churches other than the fundies megachurch types, you'll see that more, even the Catholics,* fit the "serving" mode rather than the exploitative mold.

I've been there on a field trip with my kid-not really my choice of a way to spend the day.

It's a "camp" that's part of the baptist church across the street. They have a fabulous pool, miniature golf, horseback riding, go carts, basketball court, camping cabins, playground, game room with ping pong etc., a cafeteria, and other stuff I didn't have time to see. Across the street is the new church complex complete with 2 large wings. Is all that stuff necessary? I think not.

BTW-I've seen the crystal cathedral in Southern Cal. Ostentatious and not necessary. :(

Don't confuse the sanctimonious Robert Schuler with the average clergy person.

The definition of who an average clergy person is, has been rapidly changing over the last 20 years. Mega churches led by sanctimonious clergy, (your term), have been multiplying rapidly, taking members from mainline religious denominations.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/17/cz_lk_0917megachurch.html

Mainline religious denominations are dying on the vine, while the new mega churches turn into right-wing political profit centers.

Jesus who? These arms of the RNC are almost always led by ego-maniacal characters who worship money, pure and simple. And most of these churches are not hurting for money, not by a LONG shot.

their dirty little secret is they have a lot of attrition in their membership. The burned out members either become secularized or come over to the mainline denominations. We get lots of ex-fundies.

Not all mainstream parishes are "dying on the vine." However, as a whole, the mainstream denominations are friendlier to singles and GLBT people, so they don't have the kind of natural increase that the fundies with their family-family-family-and-more-family (defined as mom and dad and lots of kids) emphasis enjoy.

have built huge garish buildings or even complexes. With the exception of the Methodists (who split into two groups over this issue) and Lutherans, every one of the traditional mainstream Protestant churches (Presbyterian, Baptist, Nazerene, Church of Christ, Christian Church) has left (and usually razed) its relatively modest downtown facilities and moved to more luxurious sites, invariably in the wealthier side of town. And while the Catholic Church has been in its same location for years, it is busily creating its own mega-complex.

to be mainstream. Southern Presbyterians are a different creature than northern Presbyterians, likewise Baptists, and the Nazarenes, Church of Christ (not to be confused with the UCCs) and Christian Church (aka Disciples of Christ) are all on the evangelical to fundamentalist end of the spectrum.

by Northerners (mostly from Chicago and Iowa) who basically came in and told the local congregation to like it or lump it while they razed the old building that had been such a wonderful place for the "old timers". My history teacher, who was a member, was fond of saying "The Yankees have destroyed our church".

congregation to like it or lump it, they were only able to because they WERE the congregation. In a democracy, unless the church used Diebold machines, the people make decisions. Those who are in the minority often like to bitch about the outcome, but it was a majority decision.

and built some huge complex on the outskirts of town far from your house, just because a few more members voted to raze the old building than to preserve it?

The vote was 51% to 49%. They should have been able to work out a solution like the Methodists did.

I'm only hearing one side of the story. I also know the problems of keeping up an old building--basic upkeep, accessibility issues, heating and cooling inefficiencies. And again, the majority of a congregation can hardly be called "outsiders". With such an unwelcoming attitude from the "insiders" it's a wonder the church has survived at all.

lost the Civil War.

The only large garish building my town of 18,000 is a Nazarene church. We couldn't afford such a facility if we wanted one. I know of few churches in my denom with those kinds of structures.

and is still used for services. However, it is very much an exception. There is a lot of money floating around the area thanks to Wal-Mart, Tyson's, and retirees, and the moneyed class like to have their garish churches.

but it isn't--it's usually tied to annual tithing campaigns. It's about giving to God the "firstfruits" of all your finances, i.e. 10% off the gross rather than after taxes come out, the mortgage is paid, the food is bought and before you buy your kids the $150 shoes they have been begging for. That is what's right. If you wait until all your wants and needs are taken care of, you will be giving Him what is left (over). The thinking is if you give from what is left it will be considerably less than 10% of your income.

their giving is before or after taxes, since they have no say in how much their taxes will be. Can't tighten their belt, practice careful stewardship, when it comes to taxes (not when you're helping pay for a $400 billion dollar war!). I also encourage 5% to the church, 5% to other non-profits. That's how I give, too.

this way allows giving to the United Way--my 1 salary hour/per week always goes to a local AIDS hospice ran by a group of nuns

the church does and far too many of em in this country are sitting way too pretty because of it. Meanwhile families do without! And 10% of GROSS PAY?! C'mon now! :mad:

(St. Theresa of Avila)

And churches are some of the prime helpers for families that do without.

Few churches actually require tithing (the Mormons are one). In most churches that I know of, we are told that we are the best judge of how much we can afford to give. But it's sort of like pledge drive on PBS: if you value the services offered, you give. If you can afford it, you give more. I know from being a preacher's kid and overhearing discussions that some people attend for years and never give a penny, and that's not really okay, but they won't get kicked out of the parish for it. As mycritters2 said, some people interpret the tithing mandate as including giving to secular charities.

One of the bishops of my denomination (Episcopal) said, "Your check register is the best indication of your real values."

I've got a problem with that. There are so many instances when the money donated or tithed is not going for the purpose it was intended. If people really want to do gods work they wouldn't have to set up a church in the first place because it's not necessary to have a church to worship god. Nor is it necessary to have to have a church to help the poor or needy. But it you are going to have a church, it should be a simple meeting place for the faithful who give what they can as an offering on Sunday. Not some sort of percentage of gross pay deal! Wonder what Jesus would think of that? Probably not good thoughts! Furthermore, churches should not be some kind of megaplex complete with gym, coffee shop, bookstore and ATM in the lobby for instant tithing. :eyes:

There have been so many church scams across this country that it ain't funny. Here's a recent one in California complete with mercedes etc.

"Some church members suspected misuse of funds for years, noting the deluxe lifestyle of the two pastors, each earning less than $100,000 a year on the books. Together they owned six homes and two time shares, and drove cars including a Cadillac, a Mercedes-Benz and a Toyota Avalon."

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/atoz/article_1169086.php

Read the posts above before you react based on your incomplete knowledge and prejudices.

Actual mainstream congregations--including those in the UCC, which is where that sign came from--have very strict rules on the use of funds and are governed by a board elected from among the laypeople. The minister can't spend a thing beyond his/her own salary and small discretionary fund (usually less than $100) for helping troubled individuals without board approval. Doing so will get him/her into big trouble with the congregation and in even more trouble with their local church leadership (however that is structured--it varies from denomination to denomination).

I'm a preacher's kid (Lutheran) who grew up living below the income level of most of my high school classmates and who has served on the vestry (governing board) of an Episcopal parish and an Episcopal college chaplaincy.

I don't know any mainstream clergy who drive Mercedes or live in McMansions.

So please stop the broad brush smears.

One of the reasons this country is in the mess it's in is because of fundie christians. They vote based on abortion and gay marriage which are PERSONAL choice issues for other people and none of their damn business! They are control freaks who should instead be worrying about the things that affect them personally like the economy, jobs, schools, social programs. The damage they have wrought on this country CANNOT be calculated! By electing * and his cabal this country, the constitution and the people are now on a complete collision course! Yet you and others like you, come on DU whenever this topic is being discussed and try and control (control freak?!) the discussion about the impact they, the fundie christians have had on this country-THEY WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MESS-by flinging around the prejudice label! NO-I don't think so!

That they have turned their churches into a disneyfied version of church is the height of hypocrisy and blatantly shows their crass and empty values. That they are guilt tripping people into tithing is wrong since obviously the money is being used for selfish purposes. That I'm pointing that out is not wrong because it's the truth. But, according to you I'm not allowed to say a word about them because criticism of them because they are "christians" is prejudice. NO-I don't think so!

Have you ever read the Jan Karon books about Father Tim? That's what the christian faith should be about. Not what we are seeing happening all over this country. Because Jesus would NOT approve.

and you don't have to preach to me about how bad the fundies are. Not only are they deceiving people, but they are making it difficult for the rest of us.

Yet there are an awful lot of people, especially on DU, including in this thread, it seems, who believe that all churches are like the most visible fundamentalists.

They believe that clergy salaries are not taxed. (Not true. Even the fundies pay taxes, unless they're not reporting income.)

They believe that clergy have absolute control over church financies. (Perhaps in the free-lance fundie churches, but in the mainstream denominations, they are paid a fixed salary and are accountable to both a board elected by the lay people of the parish and to their larger denomination.)

They believe that members are told what they must believe. (Not in the mainstream churches.)

They believe that members are taught to despise people who believe in other religions or no religion. (Not in the mainstream churches.)

They believe that all churches are sitting on vast amounts of wealth and should be taxed. (Not the average mainstream parish, many of which do amazing things on almost no money. If churches are taxed, what about other non-profits, like your local animal shelter or halfway house for people getting off the streets?)

That's what I'm referring to. The fundies drive me up the wall, and no, we mainstream Christians have about as much chance of "controlling" the fundamentalists as the Democratic party has of controlling the Revolutionary Communist Party. They consider us heretics.

in which I just discovered another new leak today. I am not allowed to touch church money directly
and wouldn't if I could. More clergy live like me than these wealthy people you write about.

Instead of fiddling around the IRS has got to go after them people stealing our money. Yes stealing our money, if they are allowed to be tax free they should campaign for the republicans.

We're certainly a paranoid bunch!

And Permanently Set O8)

and I used to be UCC, so I know that the individual churches can be anywhere on the left to right meter.

I am Quaker now, and while I am working on a Democratic congressional campaign, most of my Quaker friends (in liberal Madison) are out working against Wisconsin's marriage amendment. So weird to think that so many religious groups are on the other side of this.

Well, maybe I interpret everything politically.

Madison. Which one was it? I know them, and can tell you how liberal it is.

If it's a UCC church in Madison, it isn't supporting RW politics. You misread it by way of your own biases.

I am a democratic missionary to the 5th congressional district, though I live in Madison.

Edit: I have wonderful representatives, so I am working to get rid of Sensenbrenner by doing lit drops for his challenger, although I don't live in that district.

but most of the churches in Waukesha county are left of center--in fact, all of the ones I'm familiar with. The most conservative UCC in that area is in West Bend, and a lot of people think it'll end up leaving the denomination. But the churches in Waukesha county are all pretty good.

Oh, and my experience with Quakers--and other peace church types--is that they're just awful on gay issues.

I've only been to one Quaker meeting and they're very accepting of everyone.

If it's the church I think it is, the pastor is an active Democrat.



And the Quakers I know are really split on glbt issues. I've been really disappointed in them.

Yeah, they look like a pretty right-wing, scary bunch. Where would we be if every church encouraged "faith, diversity, love, and community"? Or "embraced diverse minds and kindred spirits"? Thanks for warning us about these religious crazies. :eyes:

I am always fascinated that in some people's minds, there is a single law from the Hebrew scriptures that reigns above all the others: more than abstaining from mixing fibers or eating pork, more than condemning homosexuality, the supreme law that will never change is the tithe! I tend to think that God is a Democrat myself, and would favor income based giving! As a matter of fact, I seem to remember Jesus saying something about a widow's mite....

that religion's first priority is to get money, nothing more and nothing less.

I'm not wealthy, neither is my church (congregation nor denomination). I do offer services people seem to want, and it doesn't seem inappropriate to ask them to support me and the institution in doing so. Those services--pastoral care, community, etc--are the priorities of my congregation, and myself. BUt I gotta eat.

as was originally designed. Back when these ideas were first written, and hidden from the masses, only to be interpreted by someone else of self proclaimed divinity.

Everything evolves, even the church.

:dilemma:

get through the day. "The masses" created "religion" not the other way around.

No wonder people think Dems are hostile to religion. Many are!

Though hostility does seam to be the registered trademark of religion and government.

I think I can count number of wars started in the last few thousand years by atheists against other atheists on one hand, smoke my cig with the same hand and finish my response here without undue difficulty.

Bandwidth would probably not allow a full list and description of hostility in the name of religion.

go to One.com and then tell me that all religious people have money as a first priority. I get mad at my Church when I see how some of the money is spent, but only a fool would deny that the Catholic Church also does a lot of good world wide. We are taught that the Church is both divine and human, and that only two humnas have ever been free of sin.

by perpetuating a myth of biblical proportions, or distributing goods and services to the needy?

If the good you speak of falls mainly in the goods and services column, then money was the beginning of that as well.

As far as the Catholic church doing a lot of good worldwide, I think I will probably fail to see the equity of it as long as their churches go bankrupt instead of paying the civil suit awards to molested children, and the pope still sits on his throne in the vatican with gold abounding.

edit: call me a fool, call me a damned fool, but don't call me naive.

from where we live there was a church who had a sign "God wants what's right not left" and than there was a Christian Church just across the street that had "Blessed are the peace makers for they shall be called the sons of God." I noticed about a week or two later after the Christian Church had their sign up the other church took their's down and changed it to something else. I haven't seen it since. :shrug:

and if you were a member of a church, you'd know it's stewardship season. You can read it any way you want, but you'd be wrong. Especially knowing the OP has said it was a UCC church, not exactly a bunch of raving fundies.

especially in an era where faith-based religion funding is endorsed by the 'right'.

especially when they (the UCC) are among the most liberal of denominations.

Nobody is required to change a sign simply because you (who are not even connected with their church) might misunderstand it.

Why should anyone else care?

It's saying to give to the church what is correct to give, not just what you have left over.

and understand the culture of church governance have explained it half a dozen times on the thread above?

no.

There are only individual churches with their own strengths and weaknesses.

Lefty

Catholic Church in Vandalia, OH. Definately an attention-getter.

- as it is tithing season for many churches. We turn in our annual financial "pledge cards" tomorrow at my church. Sounds like a pitch for tithing to me.

Universalist Church would have a sign that said, "God gives to all, left, right and straight down the middle.".

:evilgrin:

NOT.

:shrug:

Translation: Churches who are doing the GOPs work and not the Lords should lose the non-profit status and start ponying up to Caesar in the form of taxes.

This sounds like a prime example.

His work can be done better without a bureaucracy. God doesn't need money. and the churches generally help themselves first.

but I agree completely. I have many discussions with religious people who tell me I'm not going to heaven because I don't attend church. I tell them their not going to heaven because they don't help the less fortunate.

I then mention the parable about the atheist who helped the hurt man after all the religious people walked past him. The atheist was the one who would get into heaven.

the discussion usually changes subjects at that point. :)

He was a Samaritan. Samaritans were then, and are now monotheists.

http://www.the-samaritans.com/

Nice try, though.