> I think I've heard of churches charging nominal fees for church membership, but not requiring tithing
Requiring tithing is not particularly common, but I'm also not surprised when I hear of churches where it happens. A lot of this probably depends on your tradition and geography. Requiring tithing is entirely unheard of in the mainline and very uncommon in the northeast generally, for example, but seems to be slightly more common among the particularly "charismatic"/"corporate"-style evangelical churches in the suburban and exurban midwest.
In any case, I think social pressure on members to tithe is MUCH more common than formal requirements. This might be the source of virulent disagreement. Just because there isn't a formal requirement doesn't mean that there isn't intense social pressure that creates a de facto requirement.
IMO both sides of this argument are correct -- formal tithing requirements are rare, but de facto requirements for members to tithe, enforced via social pressure, is probably quite a bit more common than folks who depend on that tithing for their salaries are willing to admit/realize.
> the only church...
The following rant is specific to the USA.
This irritates me beyond words. Christian churches avoid BILLIONS in taxes via laws such as the Parsonage Exemption, whose original de jure justification was "to spread the gospel" -- about as clear a violation of 1A as you can get (to say nothing of the role that "spreading the gospel" played in the cultural and sometimes actual genocide of native populations).
Judges uphold these incredibly generous tax laws because, they reason, words like "church" and even "gospel" aren't specific to one religion and ought to be interpreted broadly. Excessively broadly, in the case of "gospel". This review does a good job at explaining the case history and legal reasoning: https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/51/3/Articles/51-3_...
Without that reasoning, laws like the one that establishes the parsonage exemption would be prime facie and blatantly unconstitutional. Most churches would lose substantial special tax treatment for many parts of their physical plant and fall into financial hardship.
That's all fine. Really. But don't try to have it both ways. In the USA, either (a) don't insist on using "church" in a religion/tradition-specific specific way, or (b) start paying a lot more taxes.
Anyways, that's all a bit off-topic. The actual point was that I think these folks should accept donations with large nominal "recommended donation" amounts, since I think what they're doing offers way more value than the typical church pastor.
I've heard rumors that a local "kilochurch" (not quite a megachurch, but still a pretty honkin' big church) actually expects to see a copy of the church member's income tax return. I won't name the church because, again, it's just a rumor, but I'll bet if you related this story to anyone in my town, they'd immediately guess which church it is.
As far as "having only one church" goes, I intentionally tried to get as broad a base as I could for the practice. There are many, many other examples, of all religions, and all branches of the Christian religion, as anyone who cares to do his or her own web search can soon determine.
> In any case, I think social pressure on members to tithe is MUCH more common than formal requirements.
Definitely. Even if there is no formal requirement, everyone knows who finances the church, and a wise minister goes out of his or her way to avoid antagonizing those people.
A non-finance related anecdote: several of the elders of a church some of my family members attended years ago decided to attend (Important Sportsball Game) in (Distant City) one weekend, rather than attending church.
The next Sunday the minister's sermon emphasized why attending church on Sunday should outweigh any worldly activity (such as attending Important Sportsball Games).
The next Sunday after that, there was a new minister.
> Just because there isn't a formal requirement doesn't mean that there isn't intense social pressure that creates a de facto requirement.
That may be the case at some churches, but I would assert that that kind of social pressure is wrong and unbiblical.
"Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." - 2 Corinthians 9:7
So for a church where this social pressure exists, that is the fault of that particular church (it's leadership and/or people), not churches or Christianity in general. Anecdotally, I've never experienced this kind of pressure at any church I've attended or been a member of.
> To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual
> The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion...
> So why is using "church" in the traditional Christian religious sense and being exempt from taxes bad?
It's not, per se. Although I do think the Parsonage exemption is wrong and should be repealed, and I do think "religion" as a criteria for non-profit status should also be removed from tax code. Just treat Churches like any other 501(c)3. What's the problem with that? (Answer: many churches spend untaxed money on things that would lose them their 501(c)3 status if they weren't religious organizations... which is almost always also unbiblical stewardship of church finances, so it's perplexing to me that any practicing Christian would oppose at least the latter change to tax law).
But, again, that's not what I was saying. What I critiquing was your characterization of Buddhist temples and Synagogues as "in the traditional sense of the word" (your owrds).
That traditional sense has no meaning in the USA. Go read court opinions. "Church" does not imply Christian. "Gospel" doesn't even imply Christian. Because, if those things did imply Christian, most of the tax benefits that are unique to churches would be struck down as state establishment of religion (protestant Christianity, to be precise). These aren't my opinions. They're the law. "Church" and "Gospel" are interpreted to mean, roughly, any group that meets regularly and has some sort of spiritual tenets.
Anyways, again, this is all far off-topic from my original post, which in fact characterized tithing in a positive light.
Requiring tithing is not particularly common, but I'm also not surprised when I hear of churches where it happens. A lot of this probably depends on your tradition and geography. Requiring tithing is entirely unheard of in the mainline and very uncommon in the northeast generally, for example, but seems to be slightly more common among the particularly "charismatic"/"corporate"-style evangelical churches in the suburban and exurban midwest.
In any case, I think social pressure on members to tithe is MUCH more common than formal requirements. This might be the source of virulent disagreement. Just because there isn't a formal requirement doesn't mean that there isn't intense social pressure that creates a de facto requirement.
IMO both sides of this argument are correct -- formal tithing requirements are rare, but de facto requirements for members to tithe, enforced via social pressure, is probably quite a bit more common than folks who depend on that tithing for their salaries are willing to admit/realize.
> the only church...
The following rant is specific to the USA.
This irritates me beyond words. Christian churches avoid BILLIONS in taxes via laws such as the Parsonage Exemption, whose original de jure justification was "to spread the gospel" -- about as clear a violation of 1A as you can get (to say nothing of the role that "spreading the gospel" played in the cultural and sometimes actual genocide of native populations).
Judges uphold these incredibly generous tax laws because, they reason, words like "church" and even "gospel" aren't specific to one religion and ought to be interpreted broadly. Excessively broadly, in the case of "gospel". This review does a good job at explaining the case history and legal reasoning: https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/51/3/Articles/51-3_...
Without that reasoning, laws like the one that establishes the parsonage exemption would be prime facie and blatantly unconstitutional. Most churches would lose substantial special tax treatment for many parts of their physical plant and fall into financial hardship.
That's all fine. Really. But don't try to have it both ways. In the USA, either (a) don't insist on using "church" in a religion/tradition-specific specific way, or (b) start paying a lot more taxes.
Anyways, that's all a bit off-topic. The actual point was that I think these folks should accept donations with large nominal "recommended donation" amounts, since I think what they're doing offers way more value than the typical church pastor.