Summary
Churches across the U.S. are grappling with dwindling attendance and financial instability, forcing many to close or sell properties.
The Diocese of Buffalo has shut down 100 parishes since the 2000s and plans to close 70 more. Nationwide, church membership has dropped from 80% in the 1940s to 45% today.
Some churches repurpose their land to survive, like Atlanta’s First United Methodist Church, which is building affordable housing.
Others, like Calcium Church in New York, make cutbacks to stay open. Leaders warn of the long-term risks of declining community and support for churches.
Membership is not the same as attendance, and it’s WAY less than the number of people giving financially.
I was a preacher at a 1200-member church that had weekly attendance around 150-200.
And based on the demographics of the area, we received less than 1% of the annual income for those who did attend regularly.
The thing about churches is that they don’t require payment of any kind, and kind people will dedicate time and effort in a very loving way that is inefficient, when what we really need is cash.
My go-to example is the quilting ladies who spend 40 hours each on handmade quilts using expensive materials to give to the poor. It’s extremely kind and their work is exquisite, but with the money spent making those quilts for 20 people, we could buy blankets, a couple weeks of food, and new clothing for 50 full families.
The thing about giving money, though, is that it feels impersonal to the person giving the gift. This is also why the poor should be taken care of through taxation. Taking care of people’s basic needs shouldn’t need to feel intimate and spiritual - it should be routine and boring.
Yeah but those ladies feel better about themselves, which is what religion is about not helping people.
Those ladies justifiably feel good for sharing their time and resources to help others. Fuck anyone who thinks kindness isn’t laudable.
The tragedy of it is that their kindness on its own isn’t enough because of greater societal issues that shouldn’t have to be addressed by private charities, including the church. The church shouldn’t have to be a food bank and disaster relief organization. It shouldn’t have to weigh the value of gifts based on how they’ll address the basic human needs of the community.
But in so much of the country, the church makes up the entirety of local social services. In small towns, you have a police department to handle crime and the church to handle everything else.
And the other side of that token is that people shouldn’t have to rely on churches for survival. I’m sure you do good work, and I generally have no grief with (f/ex) the unitarians who also do good community work, but churches (and secular aid orgs, etc.) do not make society on their own and should not take the fall or bear responsibility for the failings of capitalism.
That’s the exact point I’m trying to make.
Our government fails to take care of its citizens, so private institutions, including religious organizations, food banks, and more are relied upon to provide those services.
So when that kind church lady spends $200 and 40 hours making a custom quilt for a poor person, it’s viewed as a waste of resources when so many more important needs for that person aren’t being addressed.
Instead, the government should be providing those services, the kind old lady can just be kind with her gifts Instead of wasteful, and the churches can responsibly spend money inwardly to sustain themselves without doing a disservice to society.
You make the comment “the poor should be taken care of through taxation”. How do you feel about churches being taxed?
I am not religious at all, but I do know a pastor who is very kind, and have talked with him quite a bit. While he believes in God and the Bible etc, he is also respectful and understanding of the times. He believes in abortion, and takes criticism in stride without trying to make stuff up when responding. If he doesn’t know, he will admit as much.
I called out his entire church group in front of him for being hypocrites (I had/have some minimal involvement with them due to my relationship) when they openly criticized another religion and started trash talking them because an extremist did a suicide bombing. They immediately started trying to backpedal and make excuses for what they were saying. There were several other very shitty things a few of them did over a period of several months so I started pointing everything out. They all got silent and the pastor stepped in to appreciate in a manner of words what I said, and told them that kind of response to an event no matter how bad it was, was inappropriate and not representative of an entire group of people.
Ok, so sorry for the back story but there is a reason. Pretty much every church I have been a part of (I grew up in the Bible belt and had religion shoved down my throat growing up) I have seen nothing but hypocrites. One single pastor that I have met, in my entire life, I feel would not complain if churches started getting taxed.
So what is your take on churches getting taxed?
I think churches should be treated no differently than any other non-profit organization. For most churches, that includes tax exemption.
But I also think churches should be audited more aggressively, and that the tax-exempt status be revoked when appropriate. I’ve only seen one church get its tax-exempt status revoked, and it was because the preacher told the congregation to vote for Obama. Strictly speaking, that was absolutely appropriate, but I’d like to have seen it applied equally to all the churches who openly back the other side.
As much as I feel churches should be taxed regardless, I could go along with stricter enforcement of the non-taxable status if it were unbiased and actually enforced regularly. I wholeheartedly agree with you on having that enforcement applied to all sides.
We often see how rules and regulations are easily abused, and the amount of money to buy someone has been shown to be relatively low so actual enforcement is questionable at best. Were it not though, and we were seeing verifiable (transparent) progress on actual enforcement, I would be ok with that status being maintained.
Not that my single opinion matters, but things can work when done correctly and I believe in the right of individual people to practice their own religion as long as those beliefs stay contained within their circles and do not have any influence in policies, politics, communities outside of their own personal choices. Though that is an extremely difficult task to accomplish. People have jobs, and lives, some of which happen to be in influential positions and their choices can and likely are influenced by their personal beliefs related to their religion.
We end up in this conundrum where someone else’s beliefs are imposed upon the masses. To that point, you could also say, well non-religious voices also influence choices that are imposed on people as well, but generally these choices are more about being less restrictive to access to things like medical care or abortions or whatever other myriad of things there are that get voted on. So it’s kind of a double edged sword, but the religious choices are often more restrictive to people’s rights.
The end result often being, we don’t like this thing so we are going to take away your ability to do it, read about it, etc. So no progress is made. This also coupled with rampant corruption and the use of religion by corrupt individuals to reduce education and control the masses keeps leading us down the road we are on, and until we have another revolution or the government is expelled en masse and rebuilt with a younger, educated, less corrupt (hopeful wishing) generation, then we will never make any strong and lasting changes that would serve to help everyone rather than restrict their rights.
It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where people could have their beliefs but mind their own business when it came to other people’s choices.
Thanks for responding and have a great day!