Could Atheism be the End of Charity? (Hint: No)

[rug]

February 22, 2014
By Kelley Freeman

While not the focus of a recent article in the Columbus Dispatch, the Columbus Coalition of Reason and quite a few of its member organizations are mentioned favorably because of their awesome tradition of doing community service. For example, the Humanist Community of Central Ohio has regular blood drives every eight weeks and Mid Ohio Atheists sponsors collections for the Harmony House shelter in Mansfield, Ohio. This is not necessarily news (but it is still great to hear).

However, despite all of the great work that non-religious groups can do, researchers are still concerned that charitable giving will decline along with the decline of church attendance. Some are concerned that soup kitchens and medical facilities (most often funded and run by religious organizations) will close because they won’t have the support they used to.

Recent research has found that nearly 20 percent of U.S. adults say they aren’t affiliated with a religious organization, which means fewer people in the pews and fewer donations to support religion-based services.

“We’re facing a great loss, and I don’t think we’ve come to terms with that,” said Linda Mercadante, a theology professor and researcher at Methodist Theological School in Ohio. “I think we should wake up and figure out how we are going to handle it.”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/02/22/could-atheism-be-the-end-of-charity-hint-no/

[exboyfil]

1. Most of the money given to local churches

is to continue what is effectively a social club (keep the building lights on, pay the staff, purchase religious instructional materials). A large part of the remaining portion goes for proselytizing (missionary activity, radio and television, Gideon Bibles, etc). Only a small part goes to meeting the immediate physical needs of the poor. Comparing what that number is to other directed charitable giving is what is important in evaluating the impact of declining church enrollments.

[No Vested Interest]

2. Giving or supporting one's church is not the same as charitable giving.

If one belongs (has membership) in a given church, one accepts the obligation to support the ongoing needs - salaries, utilities, etc.
Charitable giving is a more free act, where one donates money or goods, without the obligation that membership in a church brings.

[exboyfil]

3. I agree and I don't like when the two are lumped

together either. I guess that was the point I was making. Often candidates point to their church tithing activities as being charitable giving (or giving to their foundations like Gates who is trying to link synergies with his business). A portion of the money given to local churches does make its way to true charity, but it is a very small part of the whole.

[No Vested Interest]

4. Giving to one's church is considered "charitable giving" for tax purposes,

which candidates (or some people in general) equate with true charity,
But, you're correct, we do agree that there is a difference between giving from obligation and true charity.

As for foundations, this is a type of giving where the donor not only has a strong interest but also a certain control over the manner in which the funds are spent.
To the subject at hand, atheists can, and hopefully will, recognize the needs of people and society and step up to the task of providing assistance where needed.
As a Christian, I'm conscious of a certain smugness re "having it right" that can envelope Christians, religious or non-religious people, especially in regard to their charitable giving.

[cbayer]

5. Do you have data to back that up or is it just conjecture on your part?

Since many churches provide services to the community using their buildings, staff, lighting and supplies, do you count this as giving back to the community in a charitable fashion?

These are some pretty broad statements you are making.

[exboyfil]

7. My own church

which I plan to leave as soon as I work out the details with my wife. Go through the budget for many churches, and you will find this. Salaries of staff take up a huge part of the budget, and, while the space offers community services in some areas (in particular scouting and voting), the infrastructure is built and maintained for the churches primary functions - worship and fellowship. Here is one article I find in a quick search

http://holysoup.com/2013/08/06/the-shocking-truth-of-church-budgets/

Here is another.

http://thereformedmind.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/church-budgets-shame-on-american-evangelicals/

[cbayer]

8. I'm not sure what the issue would be with paying staff.

Do you think people should work for free just because they work for a church?

Your link says that 82% of funds go to personnel, buildings and administration expenses. So what? That includes expenses that may be completely necessary for running the day care center or the soup kitchen or the battered women's shelter that is associated with that church.

And even if they didn't, what's wrong with a church supporting it's primary functions of worship and fellowship?

There are churches out there that I would agree don't truly meet the standards for a non-profit, but the vast majority do.

[exboyfil]

9. Nothing wrong with it

You are right that a portion of the time would be dedicated to mission work, but most of the staff time is used addressing the needs of the congregation. While you don't have to give to receive these services, the fact that you are a member of the church means you are receiving some benefit from your contribution. So instead of paying for counseling services you go to the minister instead.

This is not to say that churches don't do good work, but the funds that are expended in worship and fellowship look a lot like a social club. There is nothing wrong with it, but I would not put it in the same bucket as building houses for the homeless or feeding the hungry. It is arguable whether a particular brand of spirituality offered as a comfort should be considered as a form of charity.

How many suburban churches run meaningful soup kitchens. Our kitchens are used to serve fellowship suppers to our members. We also provide suppers to college students, most of whom have the resources to pay for their own food. We operate a day care center mostly for our members, and, while the full cost of the facility is not amortized into the cost, I can assure you that the staff salaries come from what I paid at the time (not that I am complaining - it was a wonderful experience for my girls and made me appreciate how important a program like Head Start is to those without the financial resources to pay for preschool).

In general the typical suburban church exists to meet the immediate needs of their members. The second primary function is to convert souls to Christ. Neither are what I consider charity in its strictest sense. Note I would group contributions to culture in this same category (receiving a material benefit from your contribution). Contributions to your university especially to acquire preferential consideration for your children or to have a building named after you should not be considered charity either.

[cbayer]

6. While I am very glad to see the growth of more secular volunteer agencies and an expansion of causes

I'm not sure how this author gets to the point where she thinks the focus will change.

It won't, nor should it, imo.

Religious charitable organizations have traditionally focussed on serving the needs of the more marginalized and neediest in a community.

She also tries to make the point that more of the funds will go directly into providing charitable programs and that the money religious organizations use to proselytize will go directly into those programs when non-religious groups start to get more involved.

But as long as some of the organizations are using rather massive amounts of funds to proselytize via such things as billboards in Times Square, she really doesn't have a case in that area.