How wealth relates.....
 

I have to say I'm thoroughly enjoying the other thread in this particular forum :)

Today's topic for discussion....when wealth relates to politics and religion, do you personally find it more difficult to accept a rich career politician, or a rich representative of God? Or both? At what level of sustainance do you draw the line for credibility?

With me it's not how much they have... it's how they got it.

Amen brother.

And see with me its also how they use it.

You mean that there's something out of kilter when a man who lives on the contributions from his "flock" wears custom tailored designer suits and rides around in a Bently? Or has gold plated plumbing fixtures? Or attends "prayer conferences" in Tahiti?

Regards,

D-Ray

Wealthy politicians don't bother me, provided that they are not ill-gotten gains. As for religious figures, I don't like religious figures who get their wealth from their flocks. It just seems far too manipulative, even predatory, to me.

It's always nice to learn some perspective to understand Bible verses. The phrase we have often heard - that's it is harder for a rich man to go to heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle - does not describe an impossible task. Apparently, the ranchers of the day used a gate to the pens that was very low and narrow, called the eye of the needle. The Camels had to get to their knees to pass through it. It was a matter of some difficulty, but with the right effort and focus on the task, it was done.

Similarly, the rich person, with all of the doors that are opened by money, faces untold temptations in life. Such person also faces the risk that the wealth takes precedence over everything else in life. When the desire for greater wealth overcomes a person, it is difficult to follow the golden rule. I sincerely doubt that there are many people who reached positions of wealth or influence without giving themselves a boost on the back of other people, and probably stepping on a few faces along the way. The focus on obtaining wealth interferes with the focus on other things that might be expected of an adherent to a particular religion (beyond keeping one's pants zipped).

EDIT: OK, looking back at the question, it looks like I didn't answer it. I believe the level of compensation paid to a pastor should reflect the level of training required to hold the position (a Doctor of Divinity, roughly equal to a PHD); the responsibility for managing an organization that serves from 25 to 2500 individuals; and the visitation and counseling demands placed on the schedule. A pastor should make what a CEO of a similar size organization SHOULD make (which, for most, is considerably less than they actually make).

Regards,

D-Ray

Have to think about this for a while.

Dave

In a market economy, there's nothing other than supply and demand of particular skills/abilities that should dictate what one makes. I just don't buy the pastor/CEO analogy. If the guy can walk on water (literally) or mass produce loaves and fishes, OK. But talking about walking on water and loaves and fishes is another thing altogether.

Finn, you just contradicted yourself. You indicated that you have a problem with a religious leader whose exorbitant lifestyle is drawn from contributions by his congregation. (So do I.) But to be consistent with the market-based analysis you set forth above, if the religious leader puts on a show and presents a message that results in contributions at a high level, isn't the market for that particular service at that level?

If the salary of a CEO is based on a market manipulated by cronyism, which artificially inflates executive compensation, it that really permitting market forces to limit executive salaries?

My point with respect to pastors was not to suggest that they should be getting million dollar bonuses and huge salaries. I was merely suggesting that when a salary approaching six figures fits within the budget of the organization, the educational background, duties, and skills justify it (in my example, the pastor did much more than preaching) I was also suggesting that the actual contribution by the CEO of a similarly sized commercial enterprise should be valued in the same ballpark.

Regards,

D-Ray

Perhaps so. But what I was first referring to was the type of tele-evangelist (or radio-based) that sells salvation. To me, that reeks of hucksterism/Elmer Gantry. Despite the appeal of the free market system, financial success derived from marketing snake oil isn't a laudable enterprise, IMHO.

they both got it by asking others for it

I'd be more weary of a rich representative of God because from the get go I know he does not make decisions based on fact or reasoning.

I was at Church one day, and we were addressed by Bishop David Huskins, of the Assemblies of God. He brought this up, and with a definition that I'm *sort of* at an understanding with, but it's a bit vague.

He said that God doesn't mind people having nice things, but the bishop said that God doesn't see favor in a man of God having six cars, while his brother can't even afford a bicycle. That a man of God can have a closet full of expensive clothes when his brother doesn't have a pair of shoes. That it's not right that we give to those only our leftovers and our hand-me-downs, but to offer up our first fruits towards the happiness of others.

This has always been kind of a connundrum for me, and I think it has in part to do with my Catholic upbringing, I'm glad to see the responses here because I think that some of you may be trying to grasp at a truth here. Christianity, or religion as a whole, deals in absolute truths, and in this question, there really isn't one.

The problem with the religious versus secular mindsets from the very start, in fact, IS that mindset. Religious minds will only speak in absolute truth, while the secular mind will speak in perceived truth and thus will result in an endless argument because they are diametrically opposed from the start. But what's the absolute truth here?

Much emphasis in Christian faith reflects on tithing, the giving of the "first fruits" to His service, with the thought that the Lord will multiply what is offered, as in sowing seed. But does that justify evangelists in riches? I honestly don't know.

I know (hand in air)!

It does not. :D

next question?

The argument starts when rich people make wealth their number one priority instead of God. They spend most of their time making wealth, spending it, and increasing it. But if you're rich and your number one priority IS God?

Quite the disparity....

No, I mean that when a man is prosperous, and forgets to help those less fortunate.

I also feel that no clergy should ever live in a mansion. That includes the pope and all his bishops.

The problem started when religion became the business of saving souls

qft . . .

I think that's what draws people away from organized religion in the first place....the perception of hypocrisy.

But honestly I think that most minds get it totally wrong. The Earth and everything on it was put here for people to enjoy. Sure, excesses financially would be wrong while our brethren go without, but I do not believe that a religious figure has to live in abject poverty for their words to hold currency.

I think to get to the root of faith, you have to give more regard to the message than the messenger. Contributions to any ministry are by choice.

Do you know what kind of people give to televangelism? I do, I volunteered to work the phones for a TCT Praise-A-Thon back in the spring, as an outreach project with my Church. It's not the blue haired spinster who is giving away her fortune to God while she holds a pomeranian on her lap. It's the unemployed, it's the retiree struggling to live, it's the person on their last dime and can barely afford food. I swear that as the people gave me their credit card information, that I wanted to transpose a digit just so that they wouldn't end up doing it. I prayed with these people, and the experience was very moving, one that I will never forget.

And I will say, the last thing that I will say about these people is that they were fools. That night, I saw pure faith in Christ.....which glaringly pointed out severe gaps in my own. I left after my shift, much different than when I started.

One can ruminate over whether that poor man's money went to golden cufflinks or a bottle of Dom Perrignon for a slick haired preacher, but the people that called were the true believers. If the preacher goes on a bender, I think he'll get it worse from the man upstairs than any of us ever could.

Perhaps you don't agree. But can you at least see my point?

Dave

I don't think we really disagree here. Whether one purports to be preaching the Gospel, or a get rich quick scheme, a huckster is a thief. I was suggesting that it is not wrong for a pastor to be paid a comfortable living, when what he earns is probably below the market value for one in private industry who has similar training and similar responsibilities. Look at how much motivational speakers make - unless they live in a van down by the river.

Regards,

D-Ray

Totally see your point. In fact, it's only because the Church that I go to, wanted to pick me up at the lowest point in my life and has never asked for once cent in return that led me to be an active member there. Other denominations could learn a lot from them.

Sorry if anyone feels that I was suggesting that a true christian must live in abject poverty, far from it, just don't get your comfortable lifestyle at someone else's expense. If life gives you a few roses it does not hurt to share them either.

Your point is not even apples to pineapples. No I am not suggesting they not get paid, but having ones own country, bank and religion is ludicrous.

You are a very lucky person to find a house of worship like that.

My experience with the catholic church does not even come close to that. They not only wanted 25% of my ex wife and I income, they also wanted our children's souls, so badly in fact that they made me sign papers that my children would not be raised in my own faith.

I stole every nickel I got.

Chas

Your state still has nickels ? Your better off then us here.

My post was referring to Finn. When I said that what a pastor of a large church makes should compare to what a CEO should make, I was suggesting that, for the value many CEOs bring to the world, their salaries should shrink to something closer to what a minister makes.

I agree with you that churches should not be like businesses. I assume that you're referring in your post to the Vatican and it's various arms and branches. During the time of the Holy Roman Empire, the church had become a very political institution and political power. The institution was rife with corruption. I have observed that the more a church is run like a business (or a government), the more it moves away form its spiritual purpose. My wife worked in an administrative position in a church for awhile, but left very disappointed. Apparently you don't want to see the business operations of a church any more than you want to see sausage being made.

When a church is really fulfilling its purpose you see more stories like Kam's. My experience in the church I grew up in was that it was more like an extended family than a separate organization. People do watch out for each other and help each other. That is my experience in the church I attend now, as well, but it would more so if I stayed as involved as I would like to be.

To go back to the point of my earlier post, I have always appreciated having a church leader who has had doctoral level training. That allows him or her to bring a much deeper meaning to things we might have learned in church before. I have mentioned before how much I got out of attending a Sunday school class taught by a pastor who had previously been a Greek instructor in the seminary. IMHO, pastors' compensation should reflect the level of expertise they bring to the position. However, because I don't see a pastor's job as a salesman, like the others here, I consider most televangelists to be snake oil salesmen.

Regards,

D-ray

Right on.:)

Dave

Now that is truly sickening. I would have told them where to shove those papers. But, then, I'm not known for my restraint and subtlety.

Bill Maher had a similar story. His mother was Jewish and his father Catholic.
He said he grew up horrified by the way the church and other Catholics treated his father, who remained a devoted Catholic despite the abuse, and literally demanded his mother renounce her faith. He said he would never forgive them for that.

Dave

That was the case with my brother as well, but Quebec had always been priest ridden.:p

Know how I got around giving them my kids ?

I wouldn't have any with her. And she wondered why..

Hell yeah we still got nickels.

But we took to callin' 'em dollars, makes everybody feel rich!!!

Chas

excellent point

I do feel very fortunate. In fact, my official water baptism is this Sunday.

I sat down with one of the pastors about a year ago, who took me out to dinner. He said that churches make the mistake of subscribing to the theory of "more noses more nickels", which has never been the calling of my Church. The mission statement of my Church is "One people one call.....to heal the broken". I am happy to count myself among them.

If there were more houses like this, the world would be a much better place !

Indeed, sadly there is too much at stake in the business of religion and too many layabouts with their sinecure at stake.:rolleyes:

The greatest propensity we have as a species is to screw up anything in the name of money, and one could call this the bottom line, and our legacy. For those that are religious, when is the last time you picked up your respective text and did a good reading, or is your knowledge of your religion based on what has been told to you? There is really no excuse, in this day and age you can read roughly anything you like in any language you like.

Do you want to hear a truth about human nature? People always make time for what they want to do. So why don't you figure it out?

While reading your respective text it might be a good time to reflect that it was written by humans and not fax'd down by the respective dieties.:rolleyes:

Perhaps, but it is uncanny how most of them say roughly the same thing. You could make the argument that it is in the best interest of social order, so make that argument, and lets see the response. The atheist's argument awaits, sorry that one takes quite a few more words: science is my real strong point, and making cookies, sugar cookies tonight.

I always did like Rabbi Hilllel's take on it;

"That which is distastefull to you do not do unto others, that is all the law, the rest is mere commentary."