- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Ghandi, in his book “My Experiments with Truth” made the comment that organizations which claim to exist for the good of their people should only have as much money as they need to keep their organizations going. They should not invest donations in for-profit concerns to fund their organizations because “they lose all accountability to their members”. Apparently, with revenue streams that are independent of the membership, the organization is free of the need to act in ways that keep their membership committed and making donations. As a result, implies Ghandi, these organizations stop acting in ways that are consistent with their original mandate, or that benefit their members. Do you think this philosophy applies to the Church? Why or why not?
I had a stake president back in the 60s that had been a cpa in the PBO’s office. He said that even with the for profit income at the time, estimated by Esquire magazine to be about $365 million that year, the church would stay solvent for only a month without tithing. I would guess that that still applies given growth. Managing the for profit stuff is a trick as capitlism is usually pretty amoral but I think that income is still pretty small given tithing. I don’t know. I don’t like the current financial situation of the church — but I am also not going to give more money to say a “building fund.”
Perhaps if the church would just be transparent with it’s income and expenses, many of my concerns would be eased — unless there is something they don’t want folk like me to know about in regards to where that money is being spent?
There are a number of tracks to run on with this quote. One his Ghandi’s implication that organizations in the service of humankind should be accountable to their members. Do you think this is true? Or does a divine commission relieve organizations of this constraint? SilentDawning wrote:There are a number of tracks to run on with this quote. One his Ghandi’s implication that organizations in the service of humankind should be accountable to their members. Do you think this is true? Or does a divine commission relieve organizations of this constraint?
YES. NO. Capital letters.
SilentDawning wrote:There are a number of tracks to run on with this quote. One his Ghandi’s implication that organizations in the service of humankind should be accountable to their members. Do you think this is true? Or does a divine commission relieve organizations of this constraint?
I think this is the same difficulty with sustaining church actions/callings etc. with the uplifted hand. In theory this is an exercise in agency, but if the church action/calling etc. is understood as a directive from God then voting against it would be about as popular as pledging membership with the sons of perdition. Should God be held accountable to some human standard, or is the very intimation telling more about yourself than it is about God? It depends on your perspective, if the church is an “organization in the service of humankind” then yes – when you start talking about a “divine commission” it gets murkier depending on what you mean by divine commission.
Quote:I think this is the same difficulty with sustaining church actions/callings etc. with the uplifted hand. In theory this is an exercise in agency, but if the church action/calling etc. is understood as a directive from God then voting against it would be about as popular as pledging membership with the sons of perdition. Should God be held accountable to some human standard, or is the very intimation telling more about yourself than it is about God? It depends on your perspective, if the church is an “organization in the service of humankind” then yes – when you start talking about a “divine commission” it gets murkier depending on what you mean by divine commission.
Good point — this is another paradox. If leaders are truly inspired, then why do we raise our hand signifying we are “in favor”? Does it truly matter? Except in the case of gross sin on the part of the person being sustained, and even then, shouldn’t the inspired leader know about this through discnerment if s/he is truly inspired?
(By a divine commission, I think it means divine authorization to act on behalf of God, in short, to act as the only true organization and instrument of God on this earth.)
Quote:cwald wrote…
Perhaps if the church would just be transparent with it’s income and expenses, many of my concerns would be eased — unless there is something they don’t want folk like me to know about in regards to where that money is being spent?
If your wife asks if a dress makes her look fat you should probably consider the validity vrs utility of your answer, however, what harm would come from complete financial disclosure by the church? I feel the good that would result would by far outweight the any bad.
.
SilentDawning wrote:(By a divine commission, I think it means divine authorization to act on behalf of God, in short, to act as the only true organization and instrument of God on this earth.)
If this divine commission is understood in the context you have described (as an extension of God), then No the organization would not hypothetically be accountable to manmade standards. It would be heretical or blasphemous or some other word that would be appropriate to describe a situation where man’s wisdom is thought to be needed to correct God’s plan.
If however, you mean “divine commission” to signify a God supported/encouraged process wherein an organization stretches towards divine ideals both individually and institutionally – that may be another story altogether.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.