What next, they send someone to break her kneecaps?

[Scooter]

When I was a church goer, I believed in tithing, now I practice it with secular charities, but this is fucked up:

A Florida church sent a delinquency notice to a new member reminding her that worshipers were expected to pay $1,000 in required fees or face possible removal.

Candace Petterson said she started attending the Greater Mount Moriah Primitive Baptist Church about six months ago after moving to a new home in the Tampa area, but she received a troubling letter last week from the church, reported WFTS-TV.

The single mother said she received what amounted to a delinquency notice from her new church asking her to contribute $50 a month, along with other assorted fees, to remain a member in good standing and vote on church matters.

The predominantly black church, which has operated for more than a century, asked her to pay a yearly $250 anniversary fee and another $150 for Mount Moriah Day – amounting to $1,000, some of which would be set aside to pay off church debt.

“What church charges you to help pay off what they’re going through?” Petterson said. “I’m not there for that.”

The letter, from assistant administrator Ladreda Spencer and Pastor B.R. Fulton Jr., also reminded Petterson that children – including her 11-year-old daughter – were expected to pay $5 a month to the church in addition to two annual $15 fees.

The letter notified Petterson, who said she had been unaware of the required contributions, that members fell into delinquency if they failed to make payments for three months or more, reported the Christian Post.

“In order to not be removed from the church roll, your attention to this matter [is] greatly appreciated,” the letter warned, but offered to grant her a 90-day “hardship” exemption.

[rubato]

Denominations which emphasize tithing use varying forms and levels of inducement to keep the flock on a regular schedule for the shearing. A dunning letter is a little crude.


yrs,
rubato

[BoSoxGal]

A little crude???

A church or charity should never solicit funds in this manner. Of course members should tithe according to their means, and a quarterly letter reminding folks of the good works of the parish and the parish's need for support is to be expected. Kick her off the rolls??? Find a new church, friend!

[TPFKA@W]

The last church I attended I recall we had a member who was 105 year old man. Every Sunday when they passed the plate he proudly placed $5 on top. Since he likely only got social security it probably represented a good bit of his monthly income when totaled up. The church in turn, as a collective, watched out for the old man who had no family left. I believe no one would have thought less of him had he needed to forgo his offering. I doubt there would have been a humiliating letter sent.

I find this letter really horrible but I also look at this woman and see her lip stud, her makeup and clothes don't appear to be cheap. If she was tithing nothing, not offering support to the church then, I could get some irritation on the part of other members who do contribute. I could see someone having a word with her, if her means are reasonable. This though is beyond the pale.

[Long Run]

“It’s like you say to me, if you want to be a member of this church, you need to pay this,” she said. “If you want to find God, it don’t say anything like that in the Bible.”

I guess she needs to go to more Bible study meetings.

The letter from the church was in poor form, but it is also in poor taste for her to make this public, says a lot about her.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I suppose each organization can run with its own rules but I wouldn't countenance such behavior from a church claiming to be Christian. I also don't see a reason why it shouldn't be made public - who knows? Perhaps it might shame them into following Jesus rather than Mammon

[rubato]

Really? How different is this from a minister 'couseling' a church member about their moral requirement to support the church? Do you think he says it is optional? Or an obligation? The use of a letter is due to social cowardice and is abysmally clumsy but all communities have their own methods of enforcing conformity to the rules which sustain them. And human beings are human; they have a genetically coded need for 'fairness' and resent it when someone else can get away with giving nothing or even less than they do. It is harmful to social cohesion not to address the issue and de-motivates everyone who is already ponying up.



The LDS church, by reputation, uses a knowledge of their members incomes to ensure that they tithe closer to the mark. My parents church, the Seventh-Day-Adventists, keeps detailed records of church giving (and practice both tithes and offerings which are in addition to 10%) because their members are often audited for exceptionally high deductions for charitable donations.


BTW, most christians (the above two excepted) are cheap bastards who hardly give anything; 1.5% for Roman Catholics and 2.3% for Protestants.

In this group Mormons are the most Christian Christians and gave 6.0% of income (they don't say if it is pre-tax or post tax) about three times as moral as the rest. (the data is not very current but the comparison is apt).

https://www.purdue.edu/crcs/wp-content/ ... e-Yang.pdf


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

In order to not be removed from the church roll, your attention to this matter [is] greatly appreciated,” the letter warned, but offered to grant her a 90-day “hardship” exemption.

I have never heard of a requirement to pay specific amounts in order to belong to a church. It is antithetical to Christ. The solution is to leave that church which, based upon its misunderstandings over money, is probably not preaching the gospel accurately in other ways.

There is no issue of "morality" in church giving, other than boasting of giving more than one does (or boasting about giving at all, actually).

I have preached on tithing. I believe it should be the goal (not a requirement) of church members to give 10% of what God has blessed them with to the church and separately give charitably. Like all goals, we tend to fall short but strive to achieve them anyway.

[Big RR]

I agree with you Meade, a church has no business demanding donations; but some do. And some institute a variety of "fees" (like payment for Sunday school or confirmation classes). I have always counseled against such fees when on the trustees, lest such fees be seen by the IRS as payment for services rendered and not be tax exempt (or accountant has usually backed me up). But I have seen churches that do the opposite, one RC church by us has published a list of what everyone gives each year (which I think is a travesty), and the Greek Orthodox churches in our area have an annual membership fee and deny any services (including weddings, baptisms, and funerals) unless the back dues of a person are paid. I question whether those dues are tax exempt payments, but I think tax exempt social organizations may be able to require dues and retain the status so I'm not sure.

Having been on the trustees many times, I understand the desire to pressure those who attend to give, but I do not the with the choir every ink it is the place of a church to demand this. When I had some financial troubles setting up my practice a while back I couldn't afford to give money for a while, but we still served in other ways and I still sang with choir every weeks and performed solos as needed. During that time, if someone had tried to pressure me about my monetary contributions I likely would have walked away and not returned (but no one did, just like no one did to anyone else). We welcome and encourage support among our members and friends, but leave it up to each what he or she can give. We have occasionally had professional fundraisers come in and tell us they could raise more than we did, but we have voted it down over and over again.

[rubato]

They're just Repuglicans; they have a flat tax fetish and a love of heavy-handed enforcement.

Or, like I said, they're clumsy socially like a car dealer that tells people " buy something or get out".




Yrs,
Rubato

[Lord Jim]

[Scooter]

Really? How different is this from a minister 'couseling' a church member about their moral requirement to support the church? Do you think he says it is optional? Or an obligation?

Tithing is a spiritual discipline just like any other - prayer, meditation, worship, study of scripture and devotional works, fasting, retreats, pilgrimages, etc. and serves the same purposes, including to acknowledge and deepen one's relationship with God, and to strengthen one's faith and discern how to live it out.

Just as prayer rests on the principle that God is the source of all that is good, and therefore should begin with expressions of praise and thanksgiving, so too tithing stems from the recognition that all one is and has comes from God, and so to honour that requires returning a portion of time, talent and treasure* back to God FIRST, and only then using the remainder for our own needs and desires. And just as prayer rests on faith that God will answer, tithing is an expression of faith that God will always provide what is needed.

Tithing is not about helping a church to meet its budget. The pastor of the church I attended for most of my adult life would say that we should direct our tithes to wherever we saw the work of God being done. If that was the church, fine. If it was a rape crisis centre or an AIDS service organization, great. If a church sees its members donating a lot to a food bank, then that is a message that the church needs to be doing more to heed biblical admonitions to feed the hungry. If a church's ministries are seen to be God's hands at work in the world, the budget will take care of itself; there will be no need to be pleading for money to support them.

And it is easy for an atheist to adapt that philosophy to a life without God - if you are grateful for what you have, you will want to pay it forward, and what you get back will always feel like more than what you give.



*Churches and their congregants often emphasize the third at the expense of the first two; all are equally important.

[rubato]

For those sects which emphasize it tithing is taught as an obligation a requirement, not as an optional practice for when you're feeling large. And that is true no matter if the church budget is met thereby or not.


The world is full of loosey-goosey religious cults of one sort or another who don't require much and have congregations of which little can be expected. The world is changed more by their choosing to retail at Macy's or
TJ Maxx, or by the Nike swoosh on their clothes than it is by their religious affiliations.


I get religious freedom better than most here because I am equally supportive of a church which demands something from its congregants, or does not. I am not a member of that church, and neither are any of you. If I joined the Mickey Mouse club I'd expect to wear the ears. I wouldn't expect to complain that it was part of the deal.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

From my sermon in South Africa:

Two men shipwrecked on a desert island. One is in total panic. The other is relaxed. First man: "how do you take this disaster so calmly?”
Second man: " Well bru - I make 10K rands a week and I always tithe ten percent”.
First man: “So you think giving money means God will take special care of you?”
Second man: “Nie, nie. But I’m confident my pastor will find me just now.”

[Big RR]

rubato--

I get religious freedom better than most here because I am equally supportive of a church which demands something from its congregants, or does not. I am not a member of that church, and neither are any of you. If I joined the Mickey Mouse club I'd expect to wear the ears. I wouldn't expect to complain that it was part of the deal.

Agreed; but if someone else chooses to criticize the requirement as stupid and not based on any religious principles (or based on a flawed understanding of religious principles), religious freedom covers that as well, whether the critics are a member of a particular church/denomination/sect I question or not. Freedom not only protects each "club" to set its own requirements (within reason), but also opens those requirements up to public scrutiny and debate.

[dgs49]

In my opinion, "tithing" has no logical basis in our culture, for two reasons. Fortunately or un, we have delegated many of our obligations to the poor, sick, and handicapped to GOVERNMENT (in Biblical times, done by the temple), so the obligation to "feed the hungry," and so forth are at least partly met by faithfully paying our Federal, state, county, municipal, and school district taxes. Also, donating one tenth of one's "profits" to the temple has no counterpart for a wage-based household. What are the profits? What's left after all the bills are paid?

But if you want to be a practicing member of a congregation, you have a MORAL obligation to support that ministry in ways, and to an extent, consistent with your resources. Most churches that I've gone to (Catholic) request that you enroll, but you could go there for a lifetime and never enroll or be formally known to the parish. Nothing "sinful" about it. You can put money in the collection basket or not, and no one will deny you Communion or absolution. The only time it comes up is when you want your daughter married in that church or a kid baptized, and they look for some tangible indication that you actually go there. But the amount contributed is never brought up.

In a delightful twist of sophistry, my brother does not actually go to "his" neighborhood church because he doesn't like the Mass schedule; he goes to another one that has a 4PM on Saturday. He doesn't donate anything to "his" parish because he doesn't go to church there, and he doesn't donate to the church that he attends because it's not "his" church. But I digress.

All churches that I have attended occasionally talk about what an appropriate amount of Sunday donation is, and the number that one usually hears is 5% of gross. Obviously, not many people contribute that much, and the Church has no way of knowing what one's gross income is. Recently, the Church has started the practice of asking for an "extra" contribution for one thing or another. My parish asked for monthly payments to pay off the new church (just paid off last week, as a mattery fact), and the Bishop is asking for an extra donation to a superfund. In both cases, we are cautioned not to let the extra donations affect the basic "parish" donation that we are making as a matter of course.

If this lady went to her Pastor and told her that she did not have the resources to make the "demanded" donations, I'm sure something could be worked out. I'm not sure whether I'm more appalled at the boorish letter or the fact that she went public with it.

[Scooter]

For those sects which emphasize it tithing is taught as an obligation a requirement, not as an optional practice for when you're feeling large.

Tithing is an obligation like any other command purported to be of God. Even among sects that insist a tithe must be 10%, none attempt to tie tithing to membership because one has nothing to do with the other.

There are some religious bodies, like the one at issue here, that collect dues or fees as a condition of membership. They are called that because even those that charge them distinguish them from tithes. The practice is common in Judaism but it is more common in Christian churches to assess fees as services are used (e.g. marriages, funerals, educational programs, etc.) rather than as an all-inclusive amount. Yes, religious bodies have the same rights as any other membership-based organization to charge membership or any other sorts of fees. And others are free to criticize how those fees are structured or how collection is enforced if people will feel unwelcome or if the approach is counterproductive.

A church is not a business; this should have been approached as a pastoral issue and not by sending a collection notice complete with warnings for failure to pay up. The very first rule every pastor/rabbi/iman should learn about shepherding a congregation is that money is always a proxy for a deeper issue. For a member of six months to have not begun making any financial contribution to the church, whether obligatory or not, should have been a red flag. Either he/she was unaware of the expectation, or he/she does not understand or accept the rationale behind it, or he/she still doesn't feel connected to the church and hasn't decided whether he/she will be sticking around. Any of these should have been seen as requiring a pastoral intervention; instead they sent a collection notice.

The world is full of loosey-goosey religious cults of one sort or another who don't require much and have congregations of which little can be expected.

And what can be expected from a congregation that sees its church leadership acting like just another bill collector? One unintended consequence is that for many people the nominal fees that were clearly intended to be a floor for their offerings have now become a ceiling.

If instead there had been a more consistent effort to teach them a more holistic approach to giving, they would have seen several times more additional money in the collection plate than what those fees bring in.

I get religious freedom better than most here because I am equally supportive of a church which demands something from its congregants, or does not. I am not a member of that church, and neither are any of you.

Oh fuck off. The idea that you, of all people, are claiming that religious freedom means immunity to criticism from outsiders is laughable in the extreme. Just because I am now an atheist does not mean I forgot everything I ever knew about how churches attract and keep members and get them feeling invested in the life and work of the church. This clearly was not it, so I chose to comment on it.

[Scooter]

In my opinion, "tithing" has no logical basis in our culture, for two reasons. Fortunately or un, we have delegated many of our obligations to the poor, sick, and handicapped to GOVERNMENT (in Biblical times, done by the temple), so the obligation to "feed the hungry," and so forth are at least partly met by faithfully paying our Federal, state, county, municipal, and school district taxes. Also, donating one tenth of one's "profits" to the temple has no counterpart for a wage-based household. What are the profits? What's left after all the bills are paid?

Every year they were required to give one-tenth of their produce - oil, wine, grain, etc. to the Levites (none designated for the poor), who served both priestly and political responsibilities. In an agricultural society, this was, in effect, one-tenth of their revenue. In every third year they had to tithe on the increase in their land (profits) which in addition to the Levites were also for the use of widows, orphans, etc. (the care of whom was NOT a priestly function).

So no, the evolution of government has not undercut the biblical requirement for an annual tithe of 10% of revenue. Orthodox Jews believe that 10% of one annual income should go charity to fulfill this requirement. I would suggest that they are a far more authoritative voice on their own scriptures than you.

If this lady went to her Pastor and told her that she did not have the resources to make the "demanded" donations, I'm sure something could be worked out.

The letter she received did not provide that option. Again, it was the wrong way to do it in so many ways.

And "she" didn't go public with it. The church has a Facebook page, and members were discussing it there. Perhaps if they had been provided with a more constructive channel of communication they would not have had the need to complain about it at all.

[RayThom]

What price salvation?

Won't ol' Candace be surprised when she dies and she's rejected entrance into the Magic Kingdom because her dues were in arrears.

The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away -- and also works in strange and wondrous ways.

Hallelujah!

(OK, this threads done. On to a new one.)