Amos, Prosperity and America

[ALAYMAN]

I appreciate that honest evaluation. However, I have no authority by which I should impose my own opinions on anyone else. If your pastor wants to come to the pulpit each week via a zipline from the balcony, go for it. The point I am trying to make is that God did not originate the chuch practice as the American church practices worship. It is much deeper than being entertained by an energetic speaker, rock out with "godly" tunes, chant in a humming tone, speak in some gobbledygook, be enriched by a robed choir, etc. The church should be about people and meeting their needs, spiritually, materially, emotionally, socially and physically in a community setting, and in that setting, seek to meet the needs outside the assembly the same way.

Would the first church in Jerusalem have padded pews when there were those among them in need?

And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people.

In essence, I am pointing out that worship in today's American culture (in general) is NOT the worship that Jesus had in mind nor does this culture replicate the NT church. The cultural practices of American Christian worship are rooted in paganism so it is no wonder we (myself included) don't properly follow the teachings of Jesus. Too much religious tradition, IMHO.

Well, to assert that padded pews equates to opulence and lack of care for those in the congregation and community seems to impose an arbitrary standard and false dichotomy.  Maybe Joseph of Arimathea shouldn't have had the tomb to offer Jesus, but should've already given it to some nameless pauper.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I appreciate that honest evaluation. However, I have no authority by which I should impose my own opinions on anyone else. If your pastor wants to come to the pulpit each week via a zipline from the balcony, go for it. The point I am trying to make is that God did not originate the chuch practice as the American church practices worship. It is much deeper than being entertained by an energetic speaker, rock out with "godly" tunes, chant in a humming tone, speak in some gobbledygook, be enriched by a robed choir, etc. The church should be about people and meeting their needs, spiritually, materially, emotionally, socially and physically in a community setting, and in that setting, seek to meet the needs outside the assembly the same way.

Would the first church in Jerusalem have padded pews when there were those among them in need?

And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people.

In essence, I am pointing out that worship in today's American culture (in general) is NOT the worship that Jesus had in mind nor does this culture replicate the NT church. The cultural practices of American Christian worship are rooted in paganism so it is no wonder we (myself included) don't properly follow the teachings of Jesus. Too much religious tradition, IMHO.

Well, to assert that padded pews equates to opulence and lack of care for those in the congregation and community seems to impose an arbitrary standard and false dichotomy.  Maybe Joseph of Arimathea shouldn't have had the tomb to offer Jesus, but should've already given it to some nameless pauper.

I didn't realize that Joseph was collecting funds from church members to provide his luxury.  ???

James mentions people who were wealth coming into the assembly. He said nothing about their wealth other than they were not to display or use their influence of wealth on the church community. So I don't believe personal wealth is prohibited by Jesus unless it has become a controlling substance.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Since you used the word "ordained" (apparently in some interpretive sense analogous to our reformed brethren's understanding of the regulative principle), do you have a verse where Jesus "ordained" that when people gather to worship him they don't do so via any form of comfort or padded pew?  The reductio ad absurdum logic is not meant condescendingly towards you, but rather to point out that you appear to be using your own subjective judgment to impose your moral value(s) for worship on others.

Are you really arguing that it would be more reflective of our Savior to make sure the church could afford the extra soft, plush cushioning in blood red for their pews than it would be to feed a family that is unable to provide for themselves?
[/quote]

Only those with reading comprehension could come away with that conclusion when I've specifically stated that a false dichotomy has been presented.  Both the feeding and the maintenance can be done.  But let's take you and SC logic to its necessary conclusion.  If any form of spending for "extravagant" things such as padded pews is verboten so long as there's suffering in the world, why do you have a church building at all?  As SC is arguing essentially, take the money for such unnecessary buildings and give it to the poor.  Of course we need not stop there.  Why do you have a home?  Shouldn't you live in the most bare essentials that will allow you to survive, say, oh, a tent or lean-to?

 

[ALAYMAN]

I didn't realize that Joseph was collecting funds from church members to provide his luxury.  ???

James mentions people who were wealth coming into the assembly. He said nothing about their wealth other than they were not to display or use their influence of wealth on the church community. So I don't believe personal wealth is prohibited by Jesus unless it has become a controlling substance.

So you're okay with how we spend our money personally, ignoring the poor, so long as we don't spend money on anything that makes folk in the assembly more comfortable?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Since you used the word "ordained" (apparently in some interpretive sense analogous to our reformed brethren's understanding of the regulative principle), do you have a verse where Jesus "ordained" that when people gather to worship him they don't do so via any form of comfort or padded pew?  The reductio ad absurdum logic is not meant condescendingly towards you, but rather to point out that you appear to be using your own subjective judgment to impose your moral value(s) for worship on others.

Are you really arguing that it would be more reflective of our Savior to make sure the church could afford the extra soft, plush cushioning in blood red for their pews than it would be to feed a family that is unable to provide for themselves?

Only those with reading comprehension could come away with that conclusion when I've specifically stated that a false dichotomy has been presented.  Both the feeding and the maintenance can be done.  But let's take you and SC logic to its necessary conclusion.  If any form of spending for "extravagant" things such as padded pews is verboten so long as there's suffering in the world, why do you have a church building at all?  As SC is arguing essentially, take the money for such unnecessary buildings and give it to the poor.  Of course we need not stop there.  Why do you have a home?  Shouldn't you live in the most bare essentials that will allow you to survive, say, oh, a tent or lean-to?
[/quote]

FYI, there are things at the church I currently attend with which I strongly disagree. However, there is one main point with which I do: they meet weekly in a YMCA because it is cheaper to rent the gym once per week than it is to maintain a campus. They choose to take 50% of the tithes and give it away to support charitable organizations and people, both secular and Christian. Expenses still exist but are minimal.

Nothing wrong with being rich. I have a friend who bought a home with 4 floors and 7 bedrooms (he has 3 kids). Top floor is for housing people in the church who are in need (currently a single mom who got laid off lives there rent free) and he opens his pantry to this lady's family. He donates his basement to regular youth meetings where kids get to meet in Christian community. He said God called him to buy the big house and use it for the helping of others and he does just that.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]FYI, there are things at the church I currently attend with which I strongly disagree. However, there is one main point with which I do: they meet weekly in a YMCA because it is cheaper to rent the gym once per week than it is to maintain a campus. They choose to take 50% of the tithes and give it away to support charitable organizations and people, both secular and Christian. Expenses still exist but are minimal.[/quote]

And the church I previously attended...

Where they purchased $5 handmade Christmas/birthday cards for the members, had four or five paid staff for a group of >200, and thought "the least of these" was the all the folks "struggling in the neighborhood"...the neighborhood with 500k homes. And when you mentioned the inner city not 15 minutes away, all you got was puzzled stares and told that those neighborhoods have their own churches. Oh yeah...and the tithe was taught, and you were told you shouldn't question what the church did with it after you gave because that's for God's ordained leaders of the church to decide...along with their closed books.

There is a reason that it's my former church. It is astounding to me how many of those inner city churches meet in community centers, elementary schools, and storefronts, how many of those churches are involved in tutoring programs, food banks, job assistance, etc... especially when the wealthy church in the 'burbs apparently seems to think they are doing all they can.

To say its a false dichotomy that one cannot support the building (notice I did not say church) and other giving is true, but resources are limited and some causes are more reflective of our Savior than others. I'd buy groceries for my neighbor all day long over financing a church's ability to buy an even more gourmet coffee for their Sunday morning service. And, as to what kind of house I own: as SC alluded to, you have no idea what I do or do not do with my home in regards to my family's charitable giving.

Nothing wrong with being rich. I have a friend who bought a home with 4 floors and 7 bedrooms (he has 3 kids). Top floor is for housing people in the church who are in need (currently a single mom who got laid off lives there rent free) and he opens his pantry to this lady's family. He donates his basement to regular youth meetings where kids get to meet in Christian community. He said God called him to buy the big house and use it for the helping of others and he does just that.
[/quote]

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Since you used the word "ordained" (apparently in some interpretive sense analogous to our reformed brethren's understanding of the regulative principle), do you have a verse where Jesus "ordained" that when people gather to worship him they don't do so via any form of comfort or padded pew?  The reductio ad absurdum logic is not meant condescendingly towards you, but rather to point out that you appear to be using your own subjective judgment to impose your moral value(s) for worship on others.

Are you really arguing that it would be more reflective of our Savior to make sure the church could afford the extra soft, plush cushioning in blood red for their pews than it would be to feed a family that is unable to provide for themselves?

Only those with reading comprehension could come away with that conclusion when I've specifically stated that a false dichotomy has been presented.  Both the feeding and the maintenance can be done.  But let's take you and SC logic to its necessary conclusion.  If any form of spending for "extravagant" things such as padded pews is verboten so long as there's suffering in the world, why do you have a church building at all?  As SC is arguing essentially, take the money for such unnecessary buildings and give it to the poor.  Of course we need not stop there.  Why do you have a home?  Shouldn't you live in the most bare essentials that will allow you to survive, say, oh, a tent or lean-to?
[/quote]

I think some here have the 'why was that not sold and given to the poor' mentality.
I say that, more often than not, the churches with the biggest overhead give the most to the poor...because they have it. Our church gives exponentially more today...with building payment and upkeep in our budget....than we did in the old days when we rented an old furniture store.

IF the amount given to the poor is their main concern, they should celebrate that fact...

 

[Smellin Coffee]

...you have no idea what I do or do not do with my home in regards to my family's charitable giving.


And this is why it would be wrong for me or anybody else to judge or criticize another because of their "wealth".

About 6 years ago, the couple who lived across the street at the time (not Christians) was struggling financially. They were having marital problems (he was what people would consider a deadbeat) and they were getting ready to foreclose on their house. Their car broke down and the next day, there was a brand new Highlander with new tags in their driveway. I mentioned it to my wife wondering how they could be struggling so much that they could afford a new car like that. A week later I had to eat crow when I found out that the car was given to them by one of their relatives. And my wife reminded me of a time when we went out to eat and a movie when I was unemployed because someone gave us gift cards to those particular businesses. If someone had seen us and thought we were spending our own money foolishly, that would be a reasonable assumption though not true.

God taught me a valuable lesson that day that things might not be what they appear to be so although I am by no means even good at it, I try to be open and more tolerant of things like that.

 

[ALAYMAN]

...you have no idea what I do or do not do with my home in regards to my family's charitable giving.


And this is why it would be wrong for me or anybody else to judge or criticize another because of their "wealth".

Doesn't some irony strike you when you typed those words?  I never claimed to know what either of you give, and frankly don't care.  But unless you are living in some austere circumstances by choice, it seems rather subjective of both of you to single out the manner in which people ought to forego their considerations as to the upkeep of the place they gather to worship.  It's merely a matter of degree as to what you personally find acceptable in your spending.  If you are in less than a tent, your money is needlessly being spent (at least by some other people's standard of acceptable living quarters).

 

[ddgently]

Well, considering how pervasive anti-poor sentiments are in Christian and conservative (and especially conservative Christian) circles, I don't think it's that funny.

Could you cite some examples of what you mean by "Christian conservatives with anti-poor sentiments"?

Most of it is implicit (although some is explicit) as seen here:

http://www.daveramsey.com/blog/20-things-the-rich-do-every-day

The implicit message being if the poor would just get it together, they wouldn't be poor anymore. This is not to excuse every individual's personal obligation to live as responsibly as possible. But poverty is a multi-faceted issue, and it's certainly more complex than "make better choices and you'll stop being poor."

This is a good response to the Ramsey article, which explains the problems better than I can:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/30/what-dave-ramsey-gets-wrong-about-poverty/

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I didn't realize that Joseph was collecting funds from church members to provide his luxury.  ???

James mentions people who were wealth coming into the assembly. He said nothing about their wealth other than they were not to display or use their influence of wealth on the church community. So I don't believe personal wealth is prohibited by Jesus unless it has become a controlling substance.

So you're okay with how we spend our money personally, ignoring the poor, so long as we don't spend money on anything that makes folk in the assembly more comfortable?

What I am saying is that I don't know what anyone does with their finances and am responsible only for myself. My issue with the church is the attitude of being entertained over the helping of others. If a widow was going to foreclose on her house and become homeless, would the church be willing to sell their piano to take care of her? Not saying they would HAVE to but would they be willing to if that is what it took?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

...you have no idea what I do or do not do with my home in regards to my family's charitable giving.


And this is why it would be wrong for me or anybody else to judge or criticize another because of their "wealth".

Doesn't some irony strike you when you typed those words?  I never claimed to know what either of you give, and frankly don't care.  But unless you are living in some austere circumstances by choice, it seems rather subjective of both of you to single out the manner in which people ought to forego their considerations as to the upkeep of the place they gather to worship.  It's merely a matter of degree as to what you personally find acceptable in your spending.  If you are in less than a tent, your money is needlessly being spent (at least by some other people's standard of acceptable living quarters).

Of course it is relative. But what is necessity and what is luxury? A leaky roof, a clogged sewage system and even to some extent electricity, probably necessary . Stained glass? Baptistry? Choir robes? Not sure if these are necessary to the health and well-being of others. But then again, every circumstance is different.

Perhaps the issue isn't what part of the church building is necessary for worship vs. luxury for the participants; perhaps the issue is whether we should be having church buildings at all. Church has crept away from being a community of love to becoming a social club/corportate business. Again, IMHO.

Would Jesus pastor a church with a congregation in a building? Would he accrue debt in an effort to maintain comfort of those who would listen to him? In my perspective, no. He was a carpenter by trade and could have probably constructed himself for his ministry but did not do it. Perhaps worship IS about denying oneself. What that looks like will be different for each individual, I'm sure but I don't think it means we make worship an entertainment experience.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Perhaps true worship is performed outside the walls of a church.

Hallelujah.

 

[ALAYMAN]

What I am saying is that I don't know what anyone does with their finances and am responsible only for myself. My issue with the church is the attitude of being entertained over the helping of others. If a widow was going to foreclose on her house and become homeless, would the church be willing to sell their piano to take care of her? Not saying they would HAVE to but would they be willing to if that is what it took?

Another false dichotomy.  "Being entertained" is a definition you've created due to your subjective interpretation regarding "padded pews".  I will grant your point that many people "play church" rather than getting their hands dirty with ministry.  Matter of fact, to that notion I give a hearty amen, and it steps on my toes just thinking about it.  But to say that a church building and some of the things that go along with its upkeep and functionality are wrong, well, is oversimplification taken from the pages of Pagan Christianity.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Of course it is relative. But what is necessity and what is luxury? A leaky roof, a clogged sewage system and even to some extent electricity, probably necessary . Glass windows? Carpet? Air conditioning? Not sure if these are necessary to the health and well-being of others. But then again, every circumstance is different.

Seems to me you need to have a little more angst over your wasted finances for that dwelling which will end up becoming wood, hay, and stubble.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

What I am saying is that I don't know what anyone does with their finances and am responsible only for myself. My issue with the church is the attitude of being entertained over the helping of others. If a widow was going to foreclose on her house and become homeless, would the church be willing to sell their piano to take care of her? Not saying they would HAVE to but would they be willing to if that is what it took?

Another false dichotomy.  "Being entertained" is a definition you've created due to your subjective interpretation regarding "padded pews".  I will grant your point that many people "play church" rather than getting their hands dirty with ministry.  Matter of fact, to that notion I give a hearty amen, and it steps on my toes just thinking about it.  But to say that a church building and some of the things that go along with its upkeep and functionality are wrong, well, is oversimplification taken from the pages of Pagan Christianity.

Being entertained was meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek yet with a tad of truth in many cases. I do believe people can be edified and encouraged from the pulpit. I have many times. Regardless, the church is not simply an assembly of people with a specific time and place (though it can include that scenario) but rather a community that loves and cares for each other and that spreads God's love throughout the world together. Or at least it should be that, IMHO.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Being entertained was meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek yet with a tad of truth in many cases. I do believe people can be edified and encouraged from the pulpit. I have many times. Regardless, the church is not simply an assembly of people with a specific time and place (though it can include that scenario) but rather a community that loves and cares for each other and that spreads God's love throughout the world together. Or at least it should be that, IMHO.

No disagreement with what is written here, but I'd say that the carrying the gospel to the world doesn't preclude a few padded pews.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Most of it is implicit (although some is explicit) as seen here:

http://www.daveramsey.com/blog/20-things-the-rich-do-every-day

The implicit message being if the poor would just get it together, they wouldn't be poor anymore. This is not to excuse every individual's personal obligation to live as responsibly as possible. But poverty is a multi-faceted issue, and it's certainly more complex than "make better choices and you'll stop being poor."

This is a good response to the Ramsey article, which explains the problems better than I can:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/30/what-dave-ramsey-gets-wrong-about-poverty/

In that link, did you read Ramsey's response to the allegation you seem to purport, where he defended himself from the false allegation that he was "anti-poor"?

 

[ddgently]

Most of it is implicit (although some is explicit) as seen here:

http://www.daveramsey.com/blog/20-things-the-rich-do-every-day

The implicit message being if the poor would just get it together, they wouldn't be poor anymore. This is not to excuse every individual's personal obligation to live as responsibly as possible. But poverty is a multi-faceted issue, and it's certainly more complex than "make better choices and you'll stop being poor."

This is a good response to the Ramsey article, which explains the problems better than I can:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/30/what-dave-ramsey-gets-wrong-about-poverty/

In that link, did you read Ramsey's response to the allegation you seem to purport, where he defended himself from the false allegation that he was "anti-poor"?

I have read his response. I think the CNN piece deals with it quite well, and undercuts some of his assumptions/conclusions.

 

[subllibrm]

Most of it is implicit (although some is explicit) as seen here:

http://www.daveramsey.com/blog/20-things-the-rich-do-every-day

The implicit message being if the poor would just get it together, they wouldn't be poor anymore. This is not to excuse every individual's personal obligation to live as responsibly as possible. But poverty is a multi-faceted issue, and it's certainly more complex than "make better choices and you'll stop being poor."

This is a good response to the Ramsey article, which explains the problems better than I can:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/30/what-dave-ramsey-gets-wrong-about-poverty/

In that link, did you read Ramsey's response to the allegation you seem to purport, where he defended himself from the false allegation that he was "anti-poor"?

I have read his response. I think the CNN piece deals with it quite well, and undercuts some of his assumptions/conclusions.

I think her response was a hack job. Since it wasn't his writing, she is aiming at the wrong target. The list was a classic argument to work harder and smarter. I fail to see how that is bad advice or betrays any ill will in the man's heart towards poor people. I agree with you that there is a bad attitude within the american church toward the poor. I disagree that Dave Ramsey is guilty of such let alone the poster child.

Not everyone will/can get "rich" but almost anyone can amass wealth. I hope you understand the difference.