The Fort Worth Star-Telegram posted my LTTE

[Ezlivin]

This gentleman wrote a large column as a guest columnist extolling the good work that churches do. This is my response which was published unedited(!).

Blynn Stewart lauds the church for meeting needs and reducing dependence upon the government yet overlooks its own dependence upon federal help. Would the church be so quick to help if it received no federal tax exemptions (which the Supreme Court has noted is a form of subsidy) and had to pay its fair share of property taxes? Government aid works so well that the church would apparently be lost without it. Many churches sit on acres of prime real estate, build multimillion dollar facilities for their members' use and give back a mere fraction of receipts in the form of charity. They utilize fire and police services, roads and public utilities without ever paying taxes for any of them.

All charitable activities done by evangelical churches are a pretext for the real goal: The conversion of those who believe differently. And once converted and brought into the fold, they are expected to conform and provide a continuous revenue stream, typically ten percent of their income.

Even if the "Government is…inefficient at allocating resources" at least it does not require recipients to change their lifestyles, beliefs or principles to receive aid. And, unlike the church, it is accountable to the people.

[monmouth]

1. Great letter. Would be curious as to the responses you get...n/t

[Ezlivin]

2. None. Not one.

This ran two weeks ago and I thought that there'd be at least one defender of the faith.

Much to my surprise (my wife would say chagrin) no one bothered to challenge any of the statements.

[Scuba]

3. Sounds like you shamed them. Good for you. n/t

[Angry Dragon]

4. Hard to challendge the truth as you have laid out.

[Ezlivin]

5. I thought I might have overlooked something

Although I researched the topic before responding and I had a semester of finances in seminary, I thought that perhaps there was something I might have overlooked.

Before I graduated seminary I had to take a class on finances. Basically the class was geared toward the notion that you should reduce your salary as much as possible by having the church directly pay for things like your mortgage, car payment, etc. It made very good business sense. You could truthfully say that you received a low salary.

But in the end, a hell of a lot more money comes into the church than ever goes out in the form of charity.

[wookie72]

6. Pretty broad brush there

The Mennonite Brethren I believe consider themselves evangelicals and go into other countries with a strict no-prolesthetyzing (sp?) policy. The Catholic Worker movement is run by people who live by very simple means themselves in the communities they help.
Not all religious groups fit your stereotype.

[cleanhippie]

7. Ahh, the old "no true scotsman" fallacy.

[wookie72]

8. Not at all, in fact, just the opposite

Nowhere did I say these others were not "true Christians." I simply pointed out that *some* Christian charities are not about converting people.

I'm sorry we don't all your stereotype of "true Christians."

[cleanhippie]

9. No, exactly right.

and its not my stereotype

[wookie72]

11. How so?

I said that there were some Christians who did not fit the OP's stereotype in that they help people without prolesthetizing or hope of conversion. I never said that those who do help with an aim to convert are "not true Christians." How does No True Scotsman apply?

[DeSwiss]

10. Fantastic!

Wonderful!

- K&R!!!