Real life MMD: Should I stop my 10% charity payment?

lincroft1710

bcu67 wrote: »

Just to get a few facts correct:

They actually have to pay council tax just like everyone else

Although the rector/pastor/vicar/minister/father pays council tax on his/her home, any building which is registered as a place of public religious worship is exempt from paying non domestic rates.

dave2

bcu67 wrote: »

Just to get a few facts correct:

Churches don't receive any money from council/government. They actually have to pay council tax just like everyone else - and VAT on all they purchase including heating. The only money they receive from the government is gift aid returns - like all charities.

There's 80% mandatory relief for charities with discretion for the other 20% - of the few local authorities I'm familiar with I'm not aware of any that does not relieve 100%. If you also run a business or have private residence from the same premises there can be complications.

A charity can also get a VAT at the reduced 5% rate for heat and power (and advertising, and a few other things) though not for the proportion of areas used by offices etc. In practice this is often a nuisance for a small charity to arrange with the supplier however, consider sending a formal letter together with a copy of HMRC's recognition certificate.

catnicex

leetabix wrote: »

I think this thread has the potential to turn into a religious debate instead of a money debate [...]
[...] Therefore, when people are making comments against the church (where it isn't asked for), please refrain. In the same vein, people using quotes out of the bible as the basis of an argument are drawing on flawed logic (in terms of the context of this thread) - in terms of evidence supporting an opinion, please avoid the religious element of the thread entirely. This thread was started as a 'money moral dilemma' and not a 'religious moral dilemma'.
[...]
The only counter-point I imagine someone could bring up would be a religious-based one of having to give your money to the church as it could be implied as such in some passages in the bible. I am quite confident of being able to refute this notion totally in the context of a religious-based discussion of morals, however the counter-point (and my argument against it) would be invalid when taken in terms of the context of this thread (the same goes for everyone else posting on here).
[...]
James

May I kindly disagree on a couple of things since you are referring to my post?

1) The thread, purposefully or not, was started as a "money moral dilemma" in the context of religious practices/behaviors.

We can discuss (in a different thread perhaps) on the meaning of the word morality, but I find its definition as 'a code of conduct put forward by a society or [...] a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons' (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), a satisfactory one.

So both the meaning of the word morality and context of giving to a "church - like many worshippers" shaped the debate not my post, that I believe was quite in context.
Of course the word morality in itself is not only related to religious matters, yet coupled with the way the dilemma was framed I fail to see why my post should be considered out of context.

2) Surely, they could have posed the dilemma in terms of "I usually give 10% to charities, now due to several reasons I cannot afford it anymore, shall I stop?", yet they didn't.
In that case I would have fully agreed that using quotes from the Bible could have been a way of pushing the debate too much out of its original boundaries.
Also, if they did, as many others (mainly those who refrained to engage with the religious component of the dilemma) pointed out, the dilemma would have been a simple one, if existing at all.

3) As I wrote, the church in the post was broadly defined and this, in my opinion, was interesting as an occasion not to debate about religion but to compare and share different moral practices, including religious ones, on a specific matter, "giving".
In this sense, different faiths and religious traditions are perfectly in line with the topic because, despite a strong historical, cultural and linguistic characterization of the word "church" in a Christian sense, a generic definition of the same word is often and pragmatically used (rightly or not is a different problem) to embrace religion as a practice, by extension.
And, I am sure because of some friends, even many non believers don't necessarily reduce "giving" to a simple financial matter.
It is indeed often a way of participating to the construction of a better world/society (or other profound reasons) that goes beyond a balance sheet; it is something that relates not to their wallets but to the very construction of their self.
In this sense believers and non believers may share the same dilemma and contributions in this sense are certainly beneficial for all.
Otherwise, repeating the end of point 2, the post could have been resolved in few "stop, stop, stop" unless somebody wrote "continue to give to charities even if you are in debt because they, not you, need it", and morality would have lost the rational component of its definition.

Now, going back to my post, I thought (as I explained in a subsequent contribution in response to somebody who thought this was a nice place for harsh comments on religion) that the core of the dilemma was whether religious (or self-fulfilling in the sense above) practices force one to make contributions despite unexpected financial constraints.
And my answer was to say, from one single perspective/translation, the Catholic one: this is far away from what you are expected to do, it is more about giving freely and truly with the heart what you can do. If you can't anymore no problem, even 1 pence, or a true prayer from the heart would have the same eternal value.
This despite of what some Catholic priests could say... even though in my experience I know none of this kind.
My quote, being related to a judgment on a behavior from a religious perspective was therefore perfectly aligned to the formulation of the dilemma.

Whether others agree on the answer, on the translation, on the tradition, etc is obviously not for granted but I thought it is one of the interesting strengths of this dilemma because it allows sharing perspectives that can enrich, if not necessarily our self, at least our common understanding of social practices and behaviors (i.e. tithing, etc).

I conclude by repeating that my mistake was to think that the point in my post was self-explanatory when indeed it wasn't. I apologize for this.

regards

PS: regarding the suggestion that some believers could come up with the idea that one is obliged by its church to give X% of his/her salary and your kind willingness to and confidence in rationally refuting it, I am happy to communicate you that, as shown by the reading of the majority of posts and a basic knowledge of religion at least in the Christian context, such an endeavor is not necessary. The majority of believers, including myself, agree with you that compulsory giving to the church is not required nor welcome and indeed inconsistent with the Bible itself and its mainstream interpretation (in any major confessions). If a priest says the opposite probably he needs a refreshment of the basics of the relation between morality and money; yet so do many people who are not in the church when talking about and managing money. They tend to sit in parliaments and banks.

sbas70

Depends on how much you believe in a real God! The answer is in Malachi.
You say there is not much leftover at the end of the month, that means you can manage it. We all need faith.
Mal 3:10 Bring all the tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house. And test Me now with this, says Jehovah of Hosts, to see if I will not open the windows of Heaven for you, and pour out a blessing for you, until there is not enough room.

EdinPheonix

I have a similar dilema so i understand where you are coming from, but without being selfish you have to make sure that your own finances are in order and that you are not suffering as a result of donating money, otherwise you will be the one to end up suffering.

Dont beat yourself up about this, in time your finances will be better and then you will be able to donate once again.

acebinbabe

Im sorry if this is a repeat, I havent read all the posts as it seems to have become a debate about religion. I am not religious but I believe everyone should follow their hearts. I also think that the proverb "Charity begins at home" is very true and so my advice would be to look after your monetery needs first and foremost and when you are in a better position financially, reconsider whether you can afford to start giving again. Best wishes to you.

lolly-i-pop

Yes, give up the charity donation for what I see are the following resons -
a) (if there is a god) he will forgive you
b) it is not compulsory, and at present you can not afford it.

If you do feel guilty, maybe do a rough calculation of how much you have donated in the past. If its 10% of your earnings then that must be a lot of money you have given to charity!

I personally feel that sometimes, our time is much more valuable to charities than our money. Speak to your community, and see if there is something particular within the community, or just close to your heart that you could donate your time to. If you volunteer one day per fortnight, this is the equivalent of donating 10% of your salary, as its 10% of your working hours, but volunteering can be done in evenings or weekends when you are not at work.

Failing that, go and donate blood at the local blood donation center or litter pick around your area and give back to society in that way.

sstteeww

Why are we using 10% as the amount of our earnings we give to charity? Why not 20%, 30%, 40% ... 100%? Does the bible stipulate 10%? Instead of thinking "I am giving 10% to charity", why not re-frame that to say "I am not giving 90% of my income to charity"? At some point charitable giving has to stop, or you'd give 100% of your income to charity, leaving you in debt and destitute. By previously "keeping 90% of your income" for yourself it is only a small step to change that to "keeping 99% of your income for yourself". By increasing the amount of money that you keep for yourself by10%, you should be able to get through this tricky financial time whilst still giving to the church. Its just a matter of perspective in my opinion.

guiriman

sstteeww wrote: »

Why are we using 10% as the amount of our earnings we give to charity? Why not 20%, 30%, 40% ... 100%? Does the bible stipulate 10%?

The 10% comes from the concept of tithing in the Old Testament that was including in the law of the nation of Israel (see here http://bibleanswer.com/tithes.htm for a more detailed answer with references). As stated by several people this is superceded by New Testament teaching on giving so is not prescriptive for Christians.

With regard to other points suggesting giving time instead of money, I agree that giving of your time is certainly very worthwhile but as the dilemma is about giving to church (as opposed to charity in general) you may well find that if the individual is committed they are already giving a significant amount of time and increasing this may not be practical.

mcnash

Each year I encourage my congregation to review their giving: to consider whether they could increase it - or whether in the light of changed circumstances, they should decrease it.

Giving to the church is important - as a Church of England vicar I can assure you that the CofE is NOT rich - most dioceses are far closer to bankruptcy than anyone realises, and most parish churches are struggling to make ends meet. We have enormously expensive listed buildings to maintain, which are expensive to heat, which we cannot sell, adapt or get rid of, and which we have to keep in good condition with no funding beyond what our congregations give. We pay a large amount to the diocese, which pays the (modest) stipends and pensions which clergy receive. We also provide practical and financial support for those in need in the community - Christian or not - and give to charity.

Experience shows that counter-intuitively, the more generous you are in giving, the more possible it becomes to give. Most churches know this and (despite one other comment on this thread) aim to tithe too - certainly all the churches I have been involved with have tithed.

But there is no compulsion about it: tithing is an Old Testament concept, and the New Testament approach is to recognize that everything we have is held in trust from God, so we are to use it responsibly in that light. 10% is a useful starting-point for our thinking/praying, but not a strait-jacket.

The CofE recommends giving 5% to the church and 5% to mission agencies; personally I aim to give 5% to the church, 2.5% to mission agencies and 2.5% to other charities - God works through many different bodies, Christian or not. But there have occasionally been times when that has not been possible (for instance, I have been spending a lot helping individuals in need), and times when I have been able to give more than 10%.

My advice would be: pray about it; review your financial priorities; be as generous in giving as you reasonably can; and don't feel guilty about what you can't give.