Tithe - A Divine Insurance Payment

I am so excited. At work today I found a tithe envelope! Now, I have explained at length on this blog about how I wasn't raised in a religious atmosphere, so there's a lot of things about religion that I know next to nothing about. When I found out that tithe was supposed to be 10% of your income I was truly flabbergasted. 10% toward an imaginary friend? Cheese-sauce, that seems a bit steep. Now that I've been to a few churches and I see the expensive cars a lot of pastors have and the nice tailored suits, I understand why (the word of god doesn't come cheap, evidently) but I still didn't understand why someone would actually fork over 10% of their income to a church as if that's what Jesus wanted. Didn't he bust up a church at some point, calling the leaders out for being crooks and telling people they didn't have to go to any specific place to worship? Yeah yeah, I know, I just don't 'get' it, whatever.

I found this tithe envelope for Seventh-day Adventists. The image on the front of the envelope is thoroughly christian, it's two hand overlapped holding with bloody nails out as if in offering. Hello, would you like these bloody nails? Why no thank you, sir. The writing on the front of the envelope says "Tithe Love Offerings" in pretty quasi-cursive font. I appreciate when being swindled out of my money to have it done via nice fonts. No Comic Sans BS, that's for sure.

On the inside flap of the envelope there is quite a bit of writing. First in bold and prominent lettering you see a truncated bible verse. It reads:

A tenth...is holy to God. Lev. 27:32

The actual bible verse reads:

And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD. Lev. 27:32 (KJV)

Ok, so that adds up. The text under the heading is bit more clear and references another bible verse to back up their logic:

Tithe, the first 10% of our income, serves as evidence of our covenant relationship with God and our desire to place Him first in our lives (Matt 6:33). Tithe is used for the benefit of the ministry of the church and support of gospel workers.

To give this verse a bit of context, Matt 6:31-33 reads:

(6:31)Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
(6:32)(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
(6:33)But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

So basically, they're referencing a part of the bible where people are being told not to worry about food or clothing - basic needs - as long as you believe in god, you'll be provided for. This pamphlet seems to indicate that belief in god is good, but you have to put your money where your mouth is and keep up with tithe. What if you need the tithe money to buy food and clothes for yourself?

It seems to me like tithe is the equivalent of an insurance payment. God is on your side, watching over you and caring for you as long as you believe in him with all your heart - and pay your bill. God takes 10% off the top. You know, like the mafia.

The envelope is not done! The envelope is asking if you can't afford just a little more. The next bold heading reads:

Responding to God's goodness. Ps. 116:12

Ps. 116:12 reads:

What shall I render unto the LORD for all his benefits toward me? Ps. 116:12 (KJV)

Wait, didn't I just give 10% of my paycheck to god? I'd say I already did my rendering. No, the envelope insists, you should give a bit more.

In response to God's blessings, He asks us to give an offering out of our heart as an extra measure of supporting church ministry in our community and around the world.

The percentage recommendation is: 4-7% for local church expenses; 2% for conference ministries - evangelism, Christain Education and Sunset Lake; and 2-3% for world missions such as television and radio ministry, disaster and famine relief, and higher education.

There are no biblical verses attached to justify this secondary request for funds. I have to wonder, if the additional 4-7% is for local church expenses, what the hell does the first 10% go to? In 2005 the average salary in the US was 31,410 and according to the website (see link) inflation hasn't affected that amount. 10% of 31,410 is 3,141. Divide that by 52 and you're supposed to give 60.40 to the church every Sunday? God is billing you three Jacksons a week for salvation insurance. 241.60 cents a month 'offering', even though offerings were no longer needed with the whole Jesus thing, but whatever. That seems like a lot to me. I know, I know, there is no price too high to pay for salvation, but has it ever occured to the religious people who go in for this scam that they might be getting one put over on them? It seems suspect, I guess that's my point.

They include a very handy and considerate recap of of all of the offerings requested - tithe and local church budget which includes evangelism and conference ministries including evangelism and world budget which...you get it. It looks pretty obviously similar to a bank deposit slip which strikes me as ballsy. This is a pull no punches request for cash.

On the back of the envelope there is a thank you in advance a bit about stewardship:

Stewardship is the personal acknowledgment on our part that God is owner and provider of all the basic goods of life - spiritual, physical and material. As Christians, we are called to be faithfully responsible with the resources entrusted to us by God. We are to manage God-given gifts of time, talents, money and the use of our spiritual strengths.

This entire paragraph is just a reminder that you've done nothing - the only thing that has brought you happiness or prosperity is your belief in god. This is the part where they remind you how comprehensive the God insurance that you're purchasing is. That's how it sounds to me. What's interesting is while a believer might find that kind of message to be uplifting and hopeful, I see it as entirely insulting and condescending. It's difficult for me not to see it as simple manipulation. Maybe I feel that way because they follow it up with this:

Planning for the Future. One practice of stewardship is arranging your estate plan and will. This allows biblical principles of stewardship to continue beyond your life. To talk with professionals and arrange your estate plan and other documents, call xxx.xxx.xxxx

Also...when you die we want your shit.

Gays And The Fundies Who "Love" Them (But Not Like That)

It seems like whenever any institution shows the smallest amount of positive or protective response toward gays, the religious kooks go into a tizzy. As far back as 1999, a decade ago, the APA had this to say regarding 'reparative', 'conversion' or 're-orientation' therapy:

“The potential risks of ‘reparative therapy’ are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients... were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed... the APA opposes any treatment, such as ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy which is based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual orientation.”

Just last week the APA finally adopted a resolution in regard to this position:

The American Psychological Association (APA) adopted a resolution Wednesday urging mental health professionals to avoid telling clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments. The decision rejects the hundred years' worth of research indicating the effectiveness and benefits of sexual reorientation therapy due to "serious design flaws."

The resolution also advises that parents, guardians, young people and their families avoid sexual orientation treatments that portray homosexuality as a mental illness and rather seek treatments "that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth."

The approval was made at the APA's annual convention with a 125-4 vote.

What exactly is the driving force behind the dissenting and consequently religious response to this? Religion wasn't taken into account as if it were a fact. Specifically religious doctrines which are mostly fundamental in nature which say that homosexuality is wrong and can be reversed or cured. Please keep in mind that the bible certainly says NOTHING about the nature of homosexuality - there is no book of butch which outlines if it's a choice or a characteristic or pre-determined in some way.

This is the issue for them:

The task force examined the 83 studies conducted in English between 1960 and 2007 regarding SOCE, but concluded that the vast majority of the studies were unacceptable because of poor methodology. "Unfortunately, much of the research in the area of sexual orientation change contains serious design flaws," task force chair Dr. Judith M. Glassgold said. "Few studies could be considered methodologically sound and none systematically evaluated potential harms."

A good chunk of those rejected 'studies' were conducted by religious institutions and constitutes psychological pseudoscience. One asshole who makes a living peddling this 'you just have to WANT to change' garbage is...the guy who is complaining about the APA's resolution of course!

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, founder and director of the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic - a biblical de-gaying office - disagrees with the APA, stating:

the organization did not give sufficient weight to the years of clinical research that shows that in some cases sexual orientation is changeable through therapy. "The APA is really failing to not only represent science, which is its primary responsibility," he said, "but it's also failing to inform people."

The APA isn't failing to inform anyone of anything. In fact, these people have something to be happy about given that the APA didn't vote the practice of re-orientation therapy to be specifically unethical, they just refuse back it which means Nicolosi can still torment confused homosexual or bisexual people all he wants without risking the loss of his liscense.

I feel like Nicolosi's greatest fear is one of my strongest hopes - that people will abandon these types of therapy and instead learn to love themselves for who they are, whether they're theists or otherwise.

Official Religious Opinions On Gay Marriage - A Few Surprises

I was wondering the other day about christianity in all its forms and other religions and how each sect reacts to gay marriage. Not many surprises here

American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A.

In 2005, the governing body of the American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. affirmed that "God's design for sexual intimacy places it within the context of marriage between one man and one woman" and that "homosexuality is incompatible with Biblical teaching." In 2006, the church's southwestern regional board (which includes churches in California, Hawaii, Nevada and Arizona) split from the national church in reaction to its failure to penalize congregations that welcomed openly gay members.

Buddhism

There is no universal Buddhist position on same-sex marriage. According to some interpretations of the Buddha's teachings, one of the 10 non-virtuous deeds that lead to suffering is "sexual misconduct." The term is primarily understood to refer to adultery. However, some Buddhists interpret this term to include homosexuality, largely due to different cultural attitudes toward the practice in certain Buddhist countries.

Catholicism

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposes gay marriage on the ground that "marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman." In 2003, the conference stated that "what are called ‘homosexual unions' [cannot be given the status of marriage] because they do not express full human complementarity and because they are inherently nonprocreative."

Episcopal Church

Although the Episcopal Church has not explicitly established a position in favor of gay marriage, in 2006 the church stated its "support of gay and lesbian persons and [opposition to] any state or federal constitutional amendment" prohibiting gay marriages or civil unions. Furthermore, in 2009, the church’s national convention voted to give bishops the option to bless same-sex unions.

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

The ELCA currently defines marriage as a "lifelong and committed relationship between a man and a woman." In August 2009, however, the church's legislative body will vote to decide whether to adopt a new social statement on human sexuality. Specifically, the proposal at issue asks the church to "commit itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships."

Hinduism

There is no official Hindu position on the issue of same-sex marriage. Depending on different cultural attitudes toward homosexuality, some Hindus do not support the practice of homosexuality. But others may choose to follow ancient Hindu texts, such as the Kama Sutra, that allow for homosexual behavior.

Islam

Islamic law explicitly denounces homosexuality, and the practice of homosexuality is a crime in many Islamic countries, including Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Judaism

While the Reform and Reconstructionist Jewish movements are ardent supporters of gay and lesbian rights, including the right of same-sex couples to wed, they do not require rabbis to officiate at the weddings of gay couples. The Conservative movement, which does not sanctify gay marriage, grants autonomy to individual rabbis to choose whether or not to recognize same-sex unions. The leadership of Orthodox Judaism has defined marriage as an institution between a man and a woman and therefore does not accept same-sex marriage.

Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

In 2006, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod reaffirmed its position that same-sex marriage is "contrary to the will of the Creator."

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Mormon theology stipulates that "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God." As a result, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not endorse same-sex marriage.

National Association of Evangelicals

In 2004, the National Association of Evangelicals reaffirmed its 1985 resolution that homosexuality is not sanctioned by the Bible. Thus the group does not support gay marriage or civil unions.

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

Although the Presbyterian Church's governing body has not explicitly addressed the issue of gay marriage, the church issued a ruling in 1997 prohibiting the ordination of homosexuals. Regional bodies and clergy, however, have challenged this ruling, causing a major rift among Presbyterians.

Southern Baptist Convention

In 2003, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a statement confirming its opposition to gay marriage. It called on "Southern Baptists not only to stand against same-sex unions but to demonstrate our love for those practicing homosexuality by sharing with them the forgiving and transforming power of the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)."

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

In 1996, the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations passed a resolution in support of same-sex marriage.

United Church of Christ

In 2005, the United Church of Christ voted to legally recognize and advocate in favor of same-sex marriage.

United Methodist Church

In 2008, the United Methodist Church's top policymaking body reaffirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman. The church does not sanction civil unions, despite recent objections from some regional congregations and clergy.

***

I was suprised that some buddhists are opposed to homosexual lifestyles. However, this sounds more like a personal belief and not a religiously mandated stance. I was also confused about the methodist position for personal reasons as I have a friend who attends a methodist church who is gay and his particular church seems very accepting of him and his partner, their lifestyle and commitment to one another.

It's important to point out that official doctrines do not nessecarily dictate how specific churches operate, but if a church is willing to ignore the rules of it's own sect, then why do they maintain afffiliation with these institutions at all? Somehow I think standing up for equal civil rights might easily enough take a backseat to pre-determined tax exemption and other sect-specific perks - but pointing that out would be so very atheist of me, wouldn't it?