3 ms·

Is your argument that we give to a charity that we see the results in, that informs us where the money goes, we agree with the philosophy of the charity, and pa

Is your argument that we give to a charity that we see the results in, that informs us where the money goes, we agree with the philosophy of the charity, and part of our beliefs might include mandatory giving, then that charity is invalid? "but that for others they are used more for publicity/promotional/snowballing purposes" You need proof of that. I would also point out https://philanthropy.com/specialreport/how-america-gives-2014/1 https://philanthropy.com/specialreport/how-america-gives-201... - please note the areas that vote Republican versus Democrat. It is a nice counterpoint to the MIT study.

FireBeyond 11y ago
The challenge with that is that many churches, especially the "megachurches", actively resist revealing that information. A survey revealed a breakdown of 'senior pastor' versus other personnel relative salaries, without divulging any specifics: http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/september/how-727-megachurches-spend-their-money-leadership-network.html http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/september/ho... But it did say that most large churches spend "slightly less than half their givings on staffing costs". "The most strategic churches we work with are realizing that a premier children’s pastor/leader can become one of, if not the largest growth engines for the church. And such churches are paying accordingly. We are seeing an increasing trend of churches who pay the top person over children’s ministry more and more. In some cases, the children’s pastor is one of the top paid people on staff, higher than the student pastor, worship pastor or small groups pastor." This is from a site that is specifically pro-Christianity, and goes directly to that - whilst I might not believe in a religious organization, spending money on growing the church is in no way something I'd consider 'charitable giving'. "Elevation Church does post some financial records on its website, reporting that the church took in $33.5 million in offerings last year and gave away about $3.8 million in outreach, spent $9 million on personnel and reported $13.9 million in cash assets." (this after their pastor purchased a 'not that great' 16,000 sq ft home on 19 acres, and said that would be 'against Christ's teachings' to disclose what he was paid) - http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/megamansion-building-megachurch-pastor-says-revealing-his-salary-would-violate-christs-teachings/ http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/megamansion-building-megachu... A study by ECCU (http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.org/resources/advisorypanel/2013/surveyreports20 http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.o...) stated that churches use 3 percent of their budget for children’s and youth programs, and 2 percent for adult programs. Local and national benevolence receives 1 percent of the typical church budget. So I -do- place some skepticism on the idea of blanketing 'religious giving' as 'charitable contribution'.
- protomyth 11y ago
  > So I -do- place some skepticism on the idea of blanketing 'religious giving' as 'charitable contribution'. So, you cherry picked the megachurches without showing how much of the Church going population they make up. I could throw in an equal list[1] of all the charities (some well known) that have horrible giving records . Also, yes, staffing costs are big at churches because these people do actual pastoral work. Of course a church tries to spread the word. That is not much different than a lot of secular charities. 1) http://www.charitynavigator.org http://www.charitynavigator.org
  - FireBeyond 11y ago
    I can't help but feel like you're engaging in goalpost moving. Me: "much money is used for publicity purposes" You: "you need to prove that" Me: here's some links talking about both megachurches AND a cross section of churches and how much they spend on publicity. You: "well of course they have to spread the word, that's no different to secular charities!" Charity Navigator is awesome. I was 'glad' to see that the Wounded Warrior Project finally ousted their leadership, who were happier spending money on parties to pat themselves on the back than they were to help soldiers. Here's the thing. The initial discussion is about charity giving as it related to party affiliation, and how the conservative side was "ahead", only if you factored in religious giving. Yes, there are many, many valid religious charities (and by this I mean organizations, as well as that component of church giving that factors into benevolence). But by studies performed by religious organizations themselves (who if anything are likely to skew the numbers more positively), across the board, "Local and national benevolence receives 1 percent of the typical church budget", and an additional 5% goes to "church run programs" (be it after school care, social or group activities). If a secular charity - and lets go back to Charity Navigator here - Top Ten Inefficient Fundraisers (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=10#.VuiSS8dZb8s http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&...) we see some of the worst charities spending 15% of their donations on "program expenses" (i.e. doing what they are being given money to do). I'm not familiar with the monitoring of 501(c)3 groups, but I suspect if charities were to regularly spend only one per cent of their givings on what they got to enjoy tax exemption to do, they'd likely have such a status revoked. And, if you factor in this average percentage (even the six per cent combined, which is generous, as as much fun as social and youth activities are, they're not necessarily serving a critical need), and start to question 'how much money is being spent on 'spreading the word', patting themselves on the back, competitions in Texas to see who can built the world's biggest cross just down the road from where the world's previously biggest cross was built at costs of millions, there comes more and more skepticism of just how highly you can value "giving to your church" on the scale of charitable contributions.

FireBeyond 11y ago

The challenge with that is that many churches, especially the "megachurches", actively resist revealing that information. A survey revealed a breakdown of 'senior pastor' versus other personnel relative salaries, without divulging any specifics: http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/september/how-727-megachurches-spend-their-money-leadership-network.html http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/september/ho... But it did say that most large churches spend "slightly less than half their givings on staffing costs". "The most strategic churches we work with are realizing that a premier children’s pastor/leader can become one of, if not the largest growth engines for the church. And such churches are paying accordingly. We are seeing an increasing trend of churches who pay the top person over children’s ministry more and more. In some cases, the children’s pastor is one of the top paid people on staff, higher than the student pastor, worship pastor or small groups pastor." This is from a site that is specifically pro-Christianity, and goes directly to that - whilst I might not believe in a religious organization, spending money on growing the church is in no way something I'd consider 'charitable giving'. "Elevation Church does post some financial records on its website, reporting that the church took in $33.5 million in offerings last year and gave away about $3.8 million in outreach, spent $9 million on personnel and reported $13.9 million in cash assets." (this after their pastor purchased a 'not that great' 16,000 sq ft home on 19 acres, and said that would be 'against Christ's teachings' to disclose what he was paid) - http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/megamansion-building-megachurch-pastor-says-revealing-his-salary-would-violate-christs-teachings/ http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/megamansion-building-megachu... A study by ECCU (http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.org/resources/advisorypanel/2013/surveyreports20 http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.o...) stated that churches use 3 percent of their budget for children’s and youth programs, and 2 percent for adult programs. Local and national benevolence receives 1 percent of the typical church budget. So I -do- place some skepticism on the idea of blanketing 'religious giving' as 'charitable contribution'.

protomyth 11y ago
> So I -do- place some skepticism on the idea of blanketing 'religious giving' as 'charitable contribution'. So, you cherry picked the megachurches without showing how much of the Church going population they make up. I could throw in an equal list[1] of all the charities (some well known) that have horrible giving records . Also, yes, staffing costs are big at churches because these people do actual pastoral work. Of course a church tries to spread the word. That is not much different than a lot of secular charities. 1) http://www.charitynavigator.org http://www.charitynavigator.org
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  I can't help but feel like you're engaging in goalpost moving. Me: "much money is used for publicity purposes" You: "you need to prove that" Me: here's some links talking about both megachurches AND a cross section of churches and how much they spend on publicity. You: "well of course they have to spread the word, that's no different to secular charities!" Charity Navigator is awesome. I was 'glad' to see that the Wounded Warrior Project finally ousted their leadership, who were happier spending money on parties to pat themselves on the back than they were to help soldiers. Here's the thing. The initial discussion is about charity giving as it related to party affiliation, and how the conservative side was "ahead", only if you factored in religious giving. Yes, there are many, many valid religious charities (and by this I mean organizations, as well as that component of church giving that factors into benevolence). But by studies performed by religious organizations themselves (who if anything are likely to skew the numbers more positively), across the board, "Local and national benevolence receives 1 percent of the typical church budget", and an additional 5% goes to "church run programs" (be it after school care, social or group activities). If a secular charity - and lets go back to Charity Navigator here - Top Ten Inefficient Fundraisers (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=10#.VuiSS8dZb8s http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&...) we see some of the worst charities spending 15% of their donations on "program expenses" (i.e. doing what they are being given money to do). I'm not familiar with the monitoring of 501(c)3 groups, but I suspect if charities were to regularly spend only one per cent of their givings on what they got to enjoy tax exemption to do, they'd likely have such a status revoked. And, if you factor in this average percentage (even the six per cent combined, which is generous, as as much fun as social and youth activities are, they're not necessarily serving a critical need), and start to question 'how much money is being spent on 'spreading the word', patting themselves on the back, competitions in Texas to see who can built the world's biggest cross just down the road from where the world's previously biggest cross was built at costs of millions, there comes more and more skepticism of just how highly you can value "giving to your church" on the scale of charitable contributions.