- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Ghandi wrote a book called “My Experiments with Truth” (I think that is the source of this paraphrased quote). He said that certain organizations should not have revenue sources beyond donations from its membership. Otherwise, he claimed, the organization loses all accountability to its members. His logic appears to be that if an organization has revenue streams it can rely upon to fund its existence, it therefore stops being wholly dependent on its membership for such funds, and therefore, takes on a life of its own — potentially, ignoring the needs and desires of it members it claims to serve.
Does this statement apply to our Church? Should the Church own independent businesses which generate cashflow that provides the Church with such financial resources and dependence they have less pressing needs to listen to and serve its members?
Quote:He said that certain organizations should not have revenue sources beyond donations from its membership. Otherwise, he claimed, the organization loses all accountability to its members.
Typical Gandhi, a bit too idealistic. The truth is that many charities are exactly like this, but are still corrupt, or wasting money.
Or doing stuff like having ridiculous $500 a head banquets to raise money to feed African babies.
In theory, sure, he was right – and it’s good to keep an ideal in mind. However, it also is totally unrealistic – and it’s interesting that it came from someone who refused to organize and enter the world where cashflow becomes a real issue. Applying it personally, it’s all the effort to find a proper balance, imo. I don’t want to be horading millions of dollars for my own family, but I don’t want to live check-to-check any longer than I have to do so. I don’t want my kids to miss meals just because I dont’ want to keep a surplus of any kind.
“Moderation in all things,” says it pretty well for me.
Investing for increasing talents was taught as prudent and wise stewards by Jesus in his parables. There are benefits by the church’s prosperity, and of course, along with that comes temptations to deal with it. And the church will not be perfect in decisions all the time, that is for sure. Like Ray said, moderation in all things is the way.
SamBee wrote:
Typical Gandhi, a bit too idealistic. …Yep… And this site is just full of idealist – I’ve been telling you that for two years now. Good for you guys! Gandhi should be are idol.
SilentDawning wrote:Ghandi wrote a book called “My Experiments with Truth” (I think that is the source of this paraphrased quote). He said that certain organizations should not have revenue sources beyond donations from its membership. Otherwise, he claimed, the organization loses all accountability to its members.
His logic appears to be that if an organization has revenue streams it can rely upon to fund its existence, it therefore stops being wholly dependent on its membership for such funds, and therefore, takes on a life of its own — potentially, ignoring the needs and desires of it members it claims to serve.
Does this statement apply to our Church? Should the Church own independent businesses which generate cashflow that provides the Church with such financial resources and dependence they have less pressing needs to listen to and serve its members?
hmmm. gandhi lived in an artificial poverty due to the largesse of some very rich and powerful friends who exploited the poor to get rich. while i revere gandhi-ji as a prophet and great soul (maha-atma), he was distinctly human, flawed, impractical, and often wrong. i dont get a lot out of the quote you mention.I prefer Nehru to be honest. Bhimrao Ambedkar is even better. Unlike Gandhi who was a Brahmin, Ambedkar was an untouchable and led a rebellion of his oppressed class by converting to Buddhism. He also wrote the Indian Constitution. I believe MLK and Gandhi are held up as “heroes” by officialdom because they didn’t carry guns. It’s easier to shoot/trample/run over “non-violent” protestors. The British Empire was on its last legs in India, mainly due to the collapse of the cotton industry and WWII.
Not to digress, but Saul Alinsky, the civil disobedience activist asked “Why did Ghandi use non-violence?”. Answer – “Because he didn’t have any guns”. I think he was being facetious, but that amused me a bit…just like Napoleon saying “God favors the side that has the heaviest artillery”. Perfectly true. Everyone remembers the man who stood in front of the tank in Tianamen Square with his shopping bag. No one actually remembers what happened to him.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.