Rich Preachers

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Perhaps the long tradition of absurd opulence found in the Catholic Church has something to do with it.

Agreed.  I'd rather see my wife's priest in a McLaren than some of the sublimely jewel-encrusted robes he wears.  At least the car has resale value.  Maybe the robe does, is the Liberace estate allowed to acquire new garments?  

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4979]

9 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

 

Jesus was a poor man who preached about helping others. He had nothing of monetary value so I feel pretty certain he would be shunned completely by most denominations. 

 

Yeah, but who needs money when you can turn water into wine and just continually tear a piece of bread off the loaf without ever running out?

 

Another part of the equation with rich preachers is that many of them take or get very little salary from their churches. They write books and stuff that provide them an exorbitant income. Still, living like that even when it is money made seperately from the church really isn't consistent with what a pastor is supposed to be.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

10 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

And while we are at it, can any republican explain why Osteen deserves tax breaks?

What tax breaks are you talking about?

I am no fan of Osteen's theology, but my understanding is that he makes his money off of book sales.  I have no problem with that.  And he has to pay taxes on those earnings.

I don't think churches are treated differently than other non-profits as far as taxes go.  Mainly, it is a huge break on property taxes.  I don't see how you could treat a church differently than a secular non-profit and pass constitutional muster.

 

 

[DDD Dad 14352]

I like to think there's a special place in hell for these people.

[52-80 19270]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

What tax breaks are you talking about?

I am no fan of Osteen's theology, but my understanding is that he makes his money off of book sales.  I have no problem with that.  And he has to pay taxes on those earnings.

I don't think churches are treated differently than other non-profits as far as taxes go.  Mainly, it is a huge break on property taxes.  I don't see how you could treat a church differently than a secular non-profit and pass constitutional muster.

 

 

My understanding is that lots of his consumption and assets are tax-sheltered through the church --  housing, vehicles, jets

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

My understanding is that lots of his consumption and assets are tax-sheltered through the church --  housing, vehicles, jets

That should be looked at.  So long as all non profits are treated the same.  

I’m more offended by the property tax breaks my country club gets than I am about church and other charitable non profits property tax breaks.  

[David Dennison 18951]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

That should be looked at.  So long as all non profits are treated the same.  

I’m more offended by the property tax breaks my country club gets than I am about church and other charitable non profits property tax breaks.  

What else offends you about your country club?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Rich pastors ?  Goes against everything I grew up believing about religion and faith (Catholic school and faith, 6 early years).

[fattyflattie 4638]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

What tax breaks are you talking about?

I am no fan of Osteen's theology, but my understanding is that he makes his money off of book sales.  I have no problem with that.  And he has to pay taxes on those earnings  

Trying to recall, I believe it was in the Harvey thread, but someone posted his river oaks address tax info.  It’s a church owned property.  That’s a pretty penny saved there. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Trying to recall, I believe it was in the Harvey thread, but someone posted his river oaks address tax info.  It’s a church owned property.  That’s a pretty penny saved there. 

Yeah he's maximizing his tax breaks, just like everybody does though.

[CO Horn 167]

11 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah he's maximizing his tax breaks, just like everybody does though.

He's definitely not doing anything illegal under the law, but the clergy housing rules need to be looked at.

[relapse98 634]

I don't think his house in River Oaks is owned by the church - it's registered owner's address is PO BOX 22540 HOUSTON TX 77227-2540 which is where the Osteen's seem to have a number of their companies registered.

[Llano Estacado 1257]

My home’s registered owner’s address is my permanent address and the physical location of my home.

I’m a stupid tax paying chump.

[TwiceHorn 31573]

3 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Yeah, but who needs money when you can turn water into wine and just continually tear a piece of bread off the loaf without ever running out?

 

Another part of the equation with rich preachers is that many of them take or get very little salary from their churches. They write books and stuff that provide them an exorbitant income. Still, living like that even when it is money made seperately from the church really isn't consistent with what a pastor is supposed to be.

Yeah, I looked up Ed Young and he has written and sold a ton of books.  So opulence may not lie at the feet of his congregation/church, but rather at book sales.

However, the case can certainly be made that book revenue should be turned back to the church. 

[staboner 4988]

15 minutes ago, Llano Estacado said:

My home’s registered owner’s address is my permanent address and the physical location of my home.

I’m a stupid tax paying chump.

try making up a fun story or something. get some people to help you, so forth. i know, its the long game there but who knows, maybe you get lucky

[deadshank 24653]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

What else offends you about your country club?

Probably the sand trap that always gathers up his hooded 2 iron off the tee on the long 6th hole par 4.  It infuriates everyone else, too.

[horn4life 3784]

You want to solve the school funding crisis in Texas? Simply tax two groups, Religions, but tax them at a very, very low rate, but some sort of contribution.  Secondly tax the second homes that are pretend farms and ranches for the wealthy.  Now if you are wealthy and you actually are a farmer or rancher you deserve the full exemption.  I you have a large Farm in Hempstead just outside of Houston and you receive an agricultural exemption because you buy some pregnant cows for $6K to avoid paying $40K in taxes... not so much.

Why should non-religious taxpayers offset the lack of collection from religious entities?  Why should ANY of us pay additional property taxes so that pretend farms and ranches of millionaires pay nothing towards education?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, horn4life said:

You want to solve the school funding crisis in Texas? Simply tax two groups, Religions, but tax them at a very, very low rate, but some sort of contribution.  Secondly tax the second homes that are pretend farms and ranches for the wealthy.  Now if you are wealthy and you actually are a farmer or rancher you deserve the full exemption.  I you have a large Farm in Hempstead just outside of Houston and you receive an agricultural exemption because you buy some pregnant cows for $6K to avoid paying $40K in taxes... not so much.

Why should non-religious taxpayers offset the lack of collection from religious entities?  Why should ANY of us pay additional property taxes so that pretend farms and ranches of millionaires pay nothing towards education? 

Why would you target religious non-profits and not secular non-profits?

[Horn Dog 9952]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Trying to recall, I believe it was in the Harvey thread, but someone posted his river oaks address tax info.  It’s a church owned property.  That’s a pretty penny saved there. 

 

1 hour ago, relapse98 said:

I don't think his house in River Oaks is owned by the church - it's registered owner's address is PO BOX 22540 HOUSTON TX 77227-2540 which is where the Osteen's seem to have a number of their companies registered.

Many years ago a famous Houston minister bought a lot in Hunters Creek from my uncle in order to build a very large mansion.  All the paperwork was in the church’s name.

IMO there should be a hard cap on tax free fringe benefits allowed for church personnel.  In addition NO church, or ANY tax exempt entity, should have a private jet or other aircraft.  If your organization has enough cash to buy that, then it needs to do it as a tax paying entity.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Horn Dog

[Mole 4333]

I spent several years as part of a house church of about 20-30 people. It’s not perfect, but I think it’s the best way to have a church when it’s done right. We tried to model ourselves off of the New Testament church.

There was no pastor, so whoever had something to share or preach was free to do so. We’d meet to sing, pray, and listen to whoever wanted to share. By the way, this is the New Testament model for a church meeting.

The preaching was diverse as were the doctrines, although we would have been vaguely categorized as evangelical. On any specific issue, there’d be quite a bit of diversity of thought, although we all tended towards holding the Bible as the authority, to the best of each of our understanding. 

While there was no pastor, there a few that operated in a leadership role, although there was nothing very formal about the arrangement. It was more of a mutual understanding based on character. Think of it as New Testament church elders.

If someone in the church was in need, we’d help in an appropriate way (sometimes money or a meal or a place to stay, sometimes a job, sometimes a kick in the pants). We took up a regular offering and would use our money to help others outside the church as well. It was all normal church stuff without someone taking advantage of you. We also all developed much stronger relationships with our fellow church members and a greater sense of personal agency about our faith. It wasn’t an environment conducive to passivity.

It isn’t a perfect system. You need enough people thinking critically to keep it from going off the rails or turning into a cult. In certain environments, the most fundamentalist person wins over as having the most faith. You need people pushing against that kind of thinking. You also need enough people who aren’t interested in giving over authority to a single person. Also since the preaching time was an open forum, some meetings went pretty long, but since we were all good friends it wasn’t that big of a deal. 

It’s been years since our house church fizzled out as everyone moved all over the world. I still haven’t found that sense of community in a church since then.

[deadshank 24653]

45 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

In addition NO church, or ANY tax exempt entity, should have a private jet or other aircraft.  If your organization has enough cash to buy that, then it needs to do it as a tax paying entity.

Greenpeace says "thanks a lot, dude."

[DDD Dad 14352]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Why would you target religious non-profits and not secular non-profits?

You know how you turn a highly profitable entity into a non-profit?  Run up huge expenses (private jets, etc.).

[elfenix 34339]

1 hour ago, Mole said:

I spent several years as part of a house church of about 20-30 people. It’s not perfect, but I think it’s the best way to have a church when it’s done right. We tried to model ourselves off of the New Testament church.

There was no pastor, so whoever had something to share or preach was free to do so. We’d meet to sing, pray, and listen to whoever wanted to share. By the way, this is the New Testament model for a church meeting.

The preaching was diverse as were the doctrines, although we would have been vaguely categorized as evangelical. On any specific issue, there’d be quite a bit of diversity of thought, although we all tended towards holding the Bible as the authority, to the best of each of our understanding. 

While there was no pastor, there a few that operated in a leadership role, although there was nothing very formal about the arrangement. It was more of a mutual understanding based on character. Think of it as New Testament church elders.

If someone in the church was in need, we’d help in an appropriate way (sometimes money or a meal or a place to stay, sometimes a job, sometimes a kick in the pants). We took up a regular offering and would use our money to help others outside the church as well. It was all normal church stuff without someone taking advantage of you. We also all developed much stronger relationships with our fellow church members and a greater sense of personal agency about our faith. It wasn’t an environment conducive to passivity.

It isn’t a perfect system. You need enough people thinking critically to keep it from going off the rails or turning into a cult. In certain environments, the most fundamentalist person wins over as having the most faith. You need people pushing against that kind of thinking. You also need enough people who aren’t interested in giving over authority to a single person. Also since the preaching time was an open forum, some meetings went pretty long, but since we were all good friends it wasn’t that big of a deal. 

It’s been years since our house church fizzled out as everyone moved all over the world. I still haven’t found that sense of community in a church since then.

[Horn Dog 9952]

34 minutes ago, deadshank said:

Greenpeace says "thanks a lot, dude."

You’re welcome Greenpeace.  No private jet for you.  You hairy armpit, patchouli smelling motherfuckers can fly commercial like the rest of us...wait....I think I see your point.  We may need to make an exception for Greenpeace.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5131]

3 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

That should be looked at.  So long as all non profits are treated the same.  

I’m more offended by the property tax breaks my country club gets than I am about church and other charitable non profits property tax breaks.  

if it makes you feel better, I'm equally offended by both.

[deadshank 24653]

19 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

You know how you turn a highly profitable entity into a non-profit?  Run up huge expenses (private jets, etc.).

Or get married

[Dnaguy 12106]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Why would you target religious non-profits and not secular non-profits?

Real questions here that I don’t know the answers to:

Can non-profits buy houses for their ceo’s To live in, cars for them to drive, and jets for them to fly in without ever paying taxes on those?

Do non-profits have to serve some sort of public good? Do they have to prove it / do they get vetted? Do churches get the same treatment?

Do non-profits offer eternal salvation if you give it money?... or ask you for your last penny even when you’re poor, send you fake holy water packets, and promise you miracles But only if you keep sending $? [i actually know the answer to this one]

 

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

7 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

if it makes you feel better, I'm equally offended by both.

What about tax treatment of secular charitable non-profits?  That cool with you?  Or do you just want to hammer churches you don't like?

[deadshank 24653]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

What about tax treatment of secular charitable non-profits?  That cool with you?  Or do you just want to hammer churches you don't like?

You're a good attorney.  Only asking questions  you already know the answer to.

[ndawg 1242]

This is pure conjecture, but I suspect that polarization of American Christianity over the last half century correlates strongly with our best and brightest minds gradually realizing more and more that they don't have much use for religion altogether. As American Christianity devolved into a cult-like decentralized federation of evangelical churches, it led a lot of people who might have stuck around church for Christmas and Easter to ultimately detach altogether.

I'm not religious, so I consider this to be a positive trend, but it also explains why the Evangelicals operate out of fear. I think they're desperately scared of the realization that the secular world has ultimately proved both smarter and more moral than the Church. If the fundamentalists don't take over this country, they face certain extinction.

[F250 28826]

9 minutes ago, ndawg said:

This is pure conjecture, but I suspect that polarization of American Christianity over the last half century correlates strongly with our best and brightest minds gradually realizing more and more that they don't have much use for religion altogether. As American Christianity devolved into a cult-like decentralized federation of evangelical churches, it led a lot of people who might have stuck around church for Christmas and Easter to ultimately detach altogether.

I'm not religious, so I consider this to be a positive trend, but it also explains why the Evangelicals operate out of fear. I think they're desperately scared of the realization that the secular world has ultimately proved both smarter and more moral than the Church. If the fundamentalists don't take over this country, they face certain extinction.

This doesn't sound very accurate.

For a better understanding of the subject try reading White Protestant Nation by Allan Lichtman. I would also suggest reading Christianity's Dangerous Idea by Alister McGrath first as it is a good primer on the history of protestantism.

 

[formermav43 4606]

If anyone has any clear legal rules on separating the Osteens of the world from your average minister, I’d be interested. But in general, there’s a lot of misunderstanding here about church finances and clergy taxes.

As an example, even if the church provides a parsonage (which means you don’t own a home, btw), you still have to personally pay SECA on it’s fair rental value. The tax man giveth, and the tax man taketh away. It’s not all advantageous.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5131]

10 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

What about tax treatment of secular charitable non-profits?  That cool with you?  Or do you just want to hammer churches you don't like?

I wasn't aware your country club qualified as a church.  It must, because that's the only way I can conceive of you responding the way you did.

To be perfectly clear, I'm not a fan of non-profits in general, because there is way too much leeway for secular and religious non-profits to take advantage of the taxpayers.  Maybe with better oversight and better rules, I might be on board, but now?  Not so much.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

8 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

I wasn't aware your country club qualified as a church.  It must, because that's the only way I can conceive of you responding the way you did.

To be perfectly clear, I'm not a fan of non-profits in general, because there is way too much leeway for secular and religious non-profits to take advantage of the taxpayers.  Maybe with better oversight and better rules, I might be on board, but now?  Not so much.

Country clubs are not charitable organizations.  You opined on clubs and churches.  Was curious about your position on secular non-profit charities.  Are you cool with planned parenthood donations being tax deductible but not church donations?

[Lagunamadre 1975]

For what it's worth, here is a picture of Osteen's house in River Oaks (nicest and most expensive neighborhood in Houston). Camel through the eye of the needle and all that. 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5131]

29 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Country clubs are not charitable organizations.  You opined on clubs and churches.  Was curious about your position on secular non-profit charities.  Are you cool with planned parenthood donations being tax deductible but not church donations?

Nope. And sorry, I missed the word charitable.  

It is way too easy for a charity to set itself up for the enrichment of the charity runners. I don't like that. Until there is a way to solve that problem, I don't want to be scammed as a taxpayer by being forced to cover the increased tax load because Osteen figured out how to avoid paying property taxes, or because the Clinton Foundation is only giving 2% of their donations out as charity.  Why should Osteen or the Clintons* be allowed to have a pile of tax free money/goods to access just because the Southern Baptists* and Bill Gates both do lots of good works with their donations? 

* - all examples are made up, I really don't know if the Clinton Foundation or the SBC** actually do good works with their donations

** - and that's my religious dig for the day, my experience growing up in a FBC affiliated with the SBC is that they used the money to build new buildings and spread the gospel in South America.

[ndawg 1242]

50 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

If anyone has any clear legal rules on separating the Osteens of the world from your average minister, I’d be interested. But in general, there’s a lot of misunderstanding here about church finances and clergy taxes.

As an example, even if the church provides a parsonage (which means you don’t own a home, btw), you still have to personally pay SECA on it’s fair rental value. The tax man giveth, and the tax man taketh away. It’s not all advantageous.

Don't a lot of these megachurch pastors also make tons of money off book royalties, which are *not* tax exempt? Because I believe that the IRS does not allow tax-exempt status for, say, a religiously-affiliated book publishing company.

[TwiceHorn 31573]

8 minutes ago, ndawg said:

Don't a lot of these megachurch pastors also make tons of money off book royalties, which are *not* tax exempt? Because I believe that the IRS does not allow tax-exempt status for, say, a religiously-affiliated book publishing company.

Income from book sales would be taxed to the minister as ordinary income.  There are a few special rules concerning imputed income from housing allowances or parsonages, but clergy taxation is not a super-sweet deal for the minister. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417

Taxation of the church organization, or lack thereof, is not that big a deal as it's pretty easy for such orgs to avoid taxes at the organization level.

Where it gets beneficial is the lack of propety taxation for church properties, which in most cases are pretty valuable and would result in fairly substantial taxes.  That means it's really a local and state tax issue rather than a federal issue.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Income from book sales would be taxed to the minister as ordinary income.  There are a few special rules concerning imputed income from housing allowances or parsonages, but clergy taxation is not a super-sweet deal for the minister. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417 

Taxation of the church organization, or lack thereof, is not that big a deal as it's pretty easy for such orgs to avoid taxes at the organization level.

Where it gets beneficial is the lack of propety taxation for church properties, which in most cases are pretty valuable and would result in fairly substantial taxes.  That means it's really a local and state tax issue rather than a federal issue. 

My church could not afford the property taxes if it did not have an exemption.  We are an older church and school with the facilities that have been paid for.  I suspect the real estate would be worth a couple hundred million due to the location.  The property tax bill alone would be quadruple of what our current budget.  And the same would be true for many secular non-profits.  I don't know how many museums, hospitals, women's shelters, homeless shelters, little league fields, etc. would survive if they had to pay property taxes.

[TwiceHorn 31573]

3 hours ago, Mole said:

I spent several years as part of a house church of about 20-30 people. It’s not perfect, but I think it’s the best way to have a church when it’s done right. We tried to model ourselves off of the New Testament church.

There was no pastor, so whoever had something to share or preach was free to do so. We’d meet to sing, pray, and listen to whoever wanted to share. By the way, this is the New Testament model for a church meeting.

The preaching was diverse as were the doctrines, although we would have been vaguely categorized as evangelical. On any specific issue, there’d be quite a bit of diversity of thought, although we all tended towards holding the Bible as the authority, to the best of each of our understanding. 

While there was no pastor, there a few that operated in a leadership role, although there was nothing very formal about the arrangement. It was more of a mutual understanding based on character. Think of it as New Testament church elders.

If someone in the church was in need, we’d help in an appropriate way (sometimes money or a meal or a place to stay, sometimes a job, sometimes a kick in the pants). We took up a regular offering and would use our money to help others outside the church as well. It was all normal church stuff without someone taking advantage of you. We also all developed much stronger relationships with our fellow church members and a greater sense of personal agency about our faith. It wasn’t an environment conducive to passivity.

It isn’t a perfect system. You need enough people thinking critically to keep it from going off the rails or turning into a cult. In certain environments, the most fundamentalist person wins over as having the most faith. You need people pushing against that kind of thinking. You also need enough people who aren’t interested in giving over authority to a single person. Also since the preaching time was an open forum, some meetings went pretty long, but since we were all good friends it wasn’t that big of a deal. 

It’s been years since our house church fizzled out as everyone moved all over the world. I still haven’t found that sense of community in a church since then.

I like the idea of these type congregations very much as I don't find it necessary often in my religious/spiritual life to answer "political" questions or make broad pronouncement to others about such political questions or how they should live their lives.  Most adult "Sunday Schools" are like this.  But I think I would want a professionally trained pastor involved at some level.  A real pastor, ordained by some form of organization, with a DD or similar degree and some training in psychology really brings a lot to the table in my experience.

[David Dennison 18951]

36 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

For what it's worth, here is a picture of Osteen's house in River Oaks (nicest and most expensive neighborhood in Houston). Camel through the eye of the needle and all that. 

Holy shit. I thought it was unseemly when he lived in that tacky McMansion in Tanglewood. 

[TwiceHorn 31573]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

My church could not afford the property taxes if it did not have an exemption.  We are an older church and school with the facilities that have been paid for.  I suspect the real estate would be worth a couple hundred million due to the location.  The property tax bill alone would be quadruple of what our current budget.  And the same would be true for many secular non-profits.  I don't know how many museums, hospitals, women's shelters, homeless shelters, little league fields, etc. would survive if they had to pay property taxes.

If not completely crippling, it would make a serious dent in the budget of almost all eleemosynary institutions.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 hours ago, Mole said:

I spent several years as part of a house church of about 20-30 people. It’s not perfect, but I think it’s the best way to have a church when it’s done right. We tried to model ourselves off of the New Testament church.

There was no pastor, so whoever had something to share or preach was free to do so. We’d meet to sing, pray, and listen to whoever wanted to share. By the way, this is the New Testament model for a church meeting.

The preaching was diverse as were the doctrines, although we would have been vaguely categorized as evangelical. On any specific issue, there’d be quite a bit of diversity of thought, although we all tended towards holding the Bible as the authority, to the best of each of our understanding. 

While there was no pastor, there a few that operated in a leadership role, although there was nothing very formal about the arrangement. It was more of a mutual understanding based on character. Think of it as New Testament church elders.

If someone in the church was in need, we’d help in an appropriate way (sometimes money or a meal or a place to stay, sometimes a job, sometimes a kick in the pants). We took up a regular offering and would use our money to help others outside the church as well. It was all normal church stuff without someone taking advantage of you. We also all developed much stronger relationships with our fellow church members and a greater sense of personal agency about our faith. It wasn’t an environment conducive to passivity.

It isn’t a perfect system. You need enough people thinking critically to keep it from going off the rails or turning into a cult. In certain environments, the most fundamentalist person wins over as having the most faith. You need people pushing against that kind of thinking. You also need enough people who aren’t interested in giving over authority to a single person. Also since the preaching time was an open forum, some meetings went pretty long, but since we were all good friends it wasn’t that big of a deal. 

It’s been years since our house church fizzled out as everyone moved all over the world. I still haven’t found that sense of community in a church since then.

Sounds a bit like the Christadelphian denomination.

[52-80 19270]

44 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

For what it's worth, here is a picture of Osteen's house in River Oaks (nicest and most expensive neighborhood in Houston). Camel through the eye of the needle and all that. 

To be fair, if needs to have room to house him, his family, Jesus, God, AND the holy spirit

[elfenix 34339]

11 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

My church could not afford the property taxes if it did not have an exemption.  We are an older church and school with the facilities that have been paid for.  I suspect the real estate would be worth a couple hundred million due to the location.  The property tax bill alone would be quadruple of what our current budget.  And the same would be true for many secular non-profits.  I don't know how many museums, hospitals, women's shelters, homeless shelters, little league fields, etc. would survive if they had to pay property taxes.

sounds like we should move to an income tax system and get rid of property taxes. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

18 minutes ago, elfenix said:

sounds like we should move to an income tax system and get rid of property taxes. 

I’d prefer that.  Just seems like states that do income taxes also pop you with property taxes.  Like Cali.  Their property tax rate is about 40 percent of ours in Texas.  But their property values are so high you still pay a ton.  

My house is paid off.  I can afford to move to a bigger house. And would but for the property tax nut.  

[Guest Lobo]

It’s fucking awesome to me that such a high percentage of Osteen’s book buyers and parishioners are upper income folks themselves.  It helps verify the narrative that many rich people in this country are as stupid as the people they prey upon. 

Edited February 12, 2019 by Lobo

[Johnny Sack 8397]

8 minutes ago, Lobo said:

It’s fucking awesome to me that such a high percentage of Osteen’s book buyers and parishioners are upper income folks themselves.  It helps verify the narrative that many rich people in this country are as stupid as the people they prey upon. 

Yeah.  That is the opposite of the truth.  His church members are largely poor to middle class.  I live close by have for over a decade.  I get stuck in Lakewood pedestrian and automobile traffic often on Sundays.  It is a lower income demographic and a lot of minorities.  Lakewood’s membership is 2/3 black and Hispanic.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.chron.com/believeitornot/2010/02/five-facts-about-race-and-faith-houstons-struggle-for-church-diversity/amp/

 

[Larry T. Spider 1747]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

I’d prefer that.  Just seems like states that do income taxes also pop you with property taxes.  Like Cali.  Their property tax rate is about 40 percent of ours in Texas.  But their property values are so high you still pay a ton.  

My house is paid off.  I can afford to move to a bigger house. And would but for the property tax nut.  

I’ve read a theory that if we got rid of property taxes, home values would quickly float up to where people’s payments would be roughtly the same. The example would be a person goes to a mortgage calculator and sees what they could afford and buys a house in that price range. It could be a 300k house without property taxes or a 220k house with property taxes. Monthly payment ends up the same. Of course, if you already own a home, it works out great for you because your house is worth more and you don’t have to pay taxes anymore.

[Mole 4333]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I like the idea of these type congregations very much as I don't find it necessary often in my religious/spiritual life to answer "political" questions or make broad pronouncement to others about such political questions or how they should live their lives.  Most adult "Sunday Schools" are like this.  But I think I would want a professionally trained pastor involved at some level.  A real pastor, ordained by some form of organization, with a DD or similar degree and some training in psychology really brings a lot to the table in my experience.

Regarding the trained pastor, there were absolutely moments where someone with more formal pastoral training would have helped. There were hurt feelings from time to time, but we worked through it. Of course more formal churches have their share of hurt feelings as well. Even the New Testament churches had their share of problems including sexing up stepmoms. 

On some level these groups are glorified Sunday schools or small groups, but there’s a different kind of ownership when that’s all you have. You aren’t relying on the teaching pastor for real church. You can’t be a spectator.

It takes the performance element out of it and focuses instead on the community. Instead of choosing your church because of the best music or best speaker - an entertainment mindset, you choose it because they’ll take stranger in need into their homes or just help you move; and you’ll do the same. The leaders of the group might not be great speakers but they know how to live out the Gospel.

I’d add that where the church is in some ways at its best - the underground church in China for example - they often operate like this. A (maybe) trained leader plants the church and the lay people largely have to run it on their own, meeting in homes. 

I’d also add that while my experience was positive, I’ve heard of other groups like this that go off the rails. A Methodist church won’t lose its collective mind like these groups can. And of course these groups can be attractive to those looking to lose their minds.