Why do people really start a church? Why do they have missions in other countries?

Is it really about spreading the word of God? Can anyone share their experiences. Is there a lot of money in the church business if you're on the board?

I just don't understand why so many friends from the Baptist church commit to going to South America to help out in their missions, yet when you ask them about helping out the poor in their own community, they say there aren't any poor people in their community.

I just don't get it.

are also lots of rich people who don't care about anything but keeping their money.

something that is changing rapidly as the dollar falls.

It's why I do Doctors without Borders contributions and make Kiva loans. While the dollar is still reasonably strong, a few of them will change lives dramatically overseas, while they'd just catch up a month's bills here.

We have the means in this country to distribute wealth more fairly among the producers and the capitalists. We just lack the will.

Overseas, they lack everything but the desire to make their lives better. I can help with that.

they don't have to get a real day job. they can make money off the parishoners. many little churches, store front churches, etc around my area, usually promoted as mr and mrs so and so's something or other church. once you get a church you get lots of tax benefits, live of the money given to the church and try not to claim it as personal income, etc.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

as much as i disagree with them, there are good reasons (and a few not so good) for what they do.
1. their religion asks for the spreading of the word of God (some take this literally, others figuratively)
2. they want to help people for humanitarian purposes
3. it makes them feel good
4. it makes them feel superior to other christians
5. they're shouldering "the white man's burden" concept of the 1800's

Missionaries make jack shit, at least the vast majority of them. I don't like them particularly, but they're not trying to con anyone

edit: this is in reference to missionaries, not those who start churches

I just think it's so odd that there are so many missionaries out there, and still, you don't find many who are as big on being proponents for the poor as the Catholic Church. I mean, where the government feels threatened by their insistence that the rich should take care of the poor.

it's not to say the noone is making money. Look at mother theresa's group, who has hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank. I'm just talking about the ground troops, if you will.

A large proportion of the "ignoring homeless people here" syndrome may be the fact that they are americans, too. The people in africa are poor savages, so they need the gallant americans to come save them. The american homeless are just "lazy," etc.

I just don't know why we haven't succeeded in turning it around by showing examples of homeless people that contradict their stereotypes.

the sheeple don't get any money, but the hierarchy do. the missionary's are just costing peanuts to be there.

and make it sound like it's their duty to do it?

Now, what that was for each individual . . . There are as many stories of how someone was called, which is a deeply personal religious experience, as there are missionaries. No one's drafted, and people can't just volunteer.

In some evangelical churches, you have to have a master's degree to go abroad as a missionary. Almost all groups make you be debt-free and then undergo a massive training program. Granted, it's not as good as real-life experience, but there's still that.

the churches make quite a bit, but the individual missionaries don't

that people do.

Redstone

mega church or somehow gain the popularity of a Fallwell, Robertson, Baker etc. Some people start Churches because they honestly want to do good and help people. Some are taught by their particular faith that it is their job to spread the word of God far and wide. And then there are some who simply try to exploit people for their own gain. It's really quite sad that it's usually the exploiters who get the publicity and turn a lot of people against all religion because of their actions.

A mega church was built here years ago and, I guess, the priests in charge borrow the money to start construction, thinking that the parish will donate money to pay it back. Well, let's just say that the donations were really slow in coming and you could see the strain on the priest's face to understand.

I stopped going when they kept bringing in visiting Irish priests and some of the things that came out of their mouths, I thought I had been transported back in time. How do they get away with using God and the bible to instill fear in people? I mean, it was a Catholic church! I thought all that stuff was long gone.

down in Louisiana, who had a broadcast every Friday evening when my prof was driving to his little country church from the New Orleans Baptist Seminary: "Welcome brothers and sisters and remember ... ain't nobody got the truth BUT ME!"

Imagined monopoly on the truth ... that's ONE reason. Money is another. Power and control are two more reasons.

Bake

I think I know why I'm having trouble with this. I see American Catholics as "evolved," people who have seen so much exploitation by bad leaders, that they've found a balance between religion and science. So, we can still say a rosary, but mostly, church is just a ritual.

it wasn't at first but I think a lot of it is about money now.

Happened with American Indians. Christianize, civilize, and then steal their resources. It happened time and again in the American Southeast.

Also used as a vanguard for total domination: missionaries made way for trading posts, which made way military forts, which made way for total domination of American Indians.

way, but I'm having trouble envisioning who would be the master-mind behind such an effort to bring Christianity to tame the natives.

Maybe it's something to do with the church's autocratic methods that are still a dark secret?

Like Mohamed or Joseph Smith.

Some believe that an arcane, possibly non-existent individual was indeed God. Paul of Tarsus did.

Is it really about spreading the word of Socrates and Jefferson? Is there a lot of money in the education business if you've got connections to grants?

Same answer.

My grandparents trained foreign missionaries for a major national Christian organization for over 20 years. I disagree with almost everything they teach/stand for, but I do know they (and the missionaries they trained) did it because they have a religious conviction that it must done. It's something evangelicals call "The Great Commission." They believe they are commanded to spread their faith to all nations. I can't speak to the financial end of missions scene, though, and I certainly wouldn't vouch for the trustworthiness of anyone in the church hierarchy. All I can say is that from what I've seen, for better or worse, the individuals on the ground who are actually doing the missionary work, are doing it because they believe it's right.

First, the missionaries go in and make the natives pliable -- all with good intentions, then the business sector comes in to exploit them?

I've done mission work, and I haven't seen anything from the business sector involved. I did know of a missionary who bilked his parishoners out of valuable items he then sold back in the States, but he was fired by his organization and then went into business for himself. People were still furious about it when they told me the story.

There is nothing noble about missionary work. It's done for different reasons but NONE of them are altruistic.
Why the hell would an omnipotent deity need travelling salesmen? Barging into an alien culture with the message that they're heathens and will go to an imaginary hell unless they accept your message is the absolute epitome of arrogance.

As a musician for a United Methodist church, I took it upon myself to read up on their history. The church been around in the US, in various forms, since the 18th century (around 1760). In their case, the Wesley brothers wanted an alternative to the Anglican Church; it was for religious reasons, and certainly not for money.

U. Methodist churches are supposed to help out in their own communities first. The one I play for has all sorts of programs, including: a thrift shop, AA meetings, Kids Kount (a children's program for kids of the AA parents), and a food pantry. At one time, the church had missionaries going to foreign countries, but now the folks they send are mostly working on peace efforts.

1. Money
2. Greed
3. Money
4. Avarice
5. Money
6. Covetousness, and finally the most important,
7. Money

Yes, there's a lot of money in seeing the light.

I know many, and I have yet to run into a rich one.

Starting churches--that I could maybe see except that most independent non-denominationals are small and quite poor.

Their reason:

They want the community-oriented, family-strengthening stuff that comes with a church, but they don't want any religion they've ever heard about.


I can't wait to see what kind of principles they come up with.

They want to share that message of love and beauty that comes from knowing the lord to others. They also want to do good deeds and help others.

Generally, they are good, decent people with beauty in their hearts and the desire to spread good will, in their own way and beliefs. They are not all (by a long shot) fundamentalist wackos who should be looked at with a negative lens.

Although I am an atheist, I would say that churches are made up of people and so are like people--some are good some are bad, all imperfect. It's pretty easy to set up the strawman of the mega churches as an example of all churches. There are many churches, small organizations, who are laboring in quiet anonymity helping not only the poor and the needy in their own area (ever hear of the Salvation Army?), but who also send and support missionaries in foreign countries. They send out missionaries because it is part of their religion. It is easy to cherry pick all of the bad examples of churches and their missions as representing all of them. Kind of like how Bush cherry picked the intelligence to get us into a war in Iraq. I'd rather not use his kind of methods. There is good and bad in everyone. Churches are no different.

Commission in Southern Brazil. They sold their every worldly possession and paid their own way to Brazil. They are working with homeless and orphaned kids, trying to help them find their way down ther.

If it's for the money, I can't figure out how.

http://www.imb.org/main/go/default.asp

I went to school with both of them, and while they were raised Baptist, it wasn't SBC. They were raised in a large urban Baptist Church that was pastored by the Dean of the Wake Forest University Divinity School for a while.

They've never come across as bible thumpers to me but they have been convicted about this and contemplating it for a long time. We are all in our 30s now, and they've talked about it for the last 7-8 years or so.

They chose the IMB (which is an SBC related organization I believe) because it offered a long-term support structure, and they wouldn't have to constantly come back and go from church to church begging for money to keep doing the work they want to do.

I don't think all religious folks are in it for money by no stretch, but you must look at the money trail when you look at any huge corporation.And some of these churches are just huge corporations that don't have to pay taxes.

but we fundraise for UNESCO, have sister churches (our congregation has sister churches in Transylvania and India, linking back to our "homeland" and at their request).

congregations form to unite people with similar commitments to justice and equality, to improve this life. No orthodoxy, no belief in heaven, hell, or afterlife or even God required or desired.

We just recently changed to the more accurate designation of "congregation" instead of church.

UU is more like the un-church.

to go to Africa and walked 1000 miles inland to convert the natives sure as heck didn't do it for money. When I was in college I spent a summer with 3rd generation missionaries in Central African Republic who lived off the land, learned 6 tribal languages, 2 trade languages and fluent French. They ran a church, a medical dispensary, and a school in the middle of the jungle forest in the middle of the poorest country in africa. This was in 1978 and people had been dying of AIDS for 20 years, but they didn't have a name for it yet- and yes, there are people whose death is even less important to the world than gay men. Babies were dying and no one knew why.

But anyway, these people were the real deal. They also had to deal with a very difficult political situation, isolation, the danger from wild animals and snakes, travel by Cessna onto an airstrip, dictators like Idi Amin, knowing how to live off the land, dealing with tropical diseases. Later on I disagreed with their theology, but I can't think of anyone I respect more as human beings, because they truly practiced what they preached, and they truly loved other people, and they lived as humbly as the people they came to preach to. If their words didn't persuade anyone, their way of life did because everyone knew them for hundreds of miles around: these are people that can be trusted - people full of God.

I'm not saying that about all fundamentalist missionaries, believe me. But the family I lived with in the summer of 1978 was the real deal. Their grandparents walked into the interior of Africa to spread the gospel in the 1800s, at a time when half the missionaries died of tropical diseases.

That isn't counting anything that isn't listed, or any kind of temple or mosque.

Tallahassee has an area of roughly 98 square miles and, as of 2004, the entire Tallahassee metropolitan area had an estimated population of 255,500.

Every other strip mall has some kind of fly-by-night church set up in it, and you are more likely to be able to walk to a church from anywhere in town than you are to shopping.

Other facts:
There are 711 restaurants listed in the Tallahassee area.
There are 648 listings for "school," which includes things like Real Estate Schools and Massage Schools.

My wife (nurse) and both of my daughters have been to Peru, Romania, Micronesia, and Costa Rica on mission trips. All of the missions were to the poorest parts of those regions. The church paid a portion, through the sponsorship of members, and my family paid the rest.

The reasons were both personal and corporate.

On the corporate level:

1. Our church is heavily committed to "The Great Commission" of spreading the Gospel

and

2. Our church has a strong commitment to relieve the conditions of poverty, especially through medical missions, believing that suffering should be assuaged wherever possible. The church members give heavily for this through voluntarism, tithes, offerings, and yes, corporate investment.

Within the US, our church has a strong commitment to working with the poor, through education sponsorship, medical and humanitarian aid, and through disaster relief. We were and are involved in work with the victims of Katrina. We have also developed schools and medical facilities on Native American Reservations, with a strong presence in the Southwest.

Some of our medical facilities in the cities are state-of-the-art, and provide much needed hospital and teaching institutions.

Do these activities involve spreading the Gospel; yes, but a focus on nutrition, education, and health care are a primary emphasis simply because everyone needs the tools for a shot at a decent life.

Also on a corporate level: Our church has a very strong commitment to the founding principle of the separation of Church and State. Bill Maher even made a joking reference to us recently. We, as an institution, believe that the right of conscience is fundamental to a free society. It is the basis of how we believe our picture of God relates to individuals. We have a corporate arm which deals only with defending the rights of individuals to believe or not believe, or to believe whatever they want to believe, according to the dictates of conscience (based on the generally accepted strictures, ie, not harming others).

One of the major roles of our Religious Liberty department is in attempting to keep the electorate informed on matters of freedom of conscience currently appearing before state or national congresses, and to try to educate lawmakers on the importance of safeguarding the First Amendment.

On a personal level: the people I know who go on missions, including my family, do so for a variety of reasons:

1. Spreading the Gospel, as we believe this to be important. I am sure there are many here who disagree. I support your freedom of conscience, and with my money; just as you support our church through tax-exemption. I know that would be a huge subject for discussion. As far as I am concerned, tax-exemption could be done away with, and we would still continue our mission.

2. The personal desire to help others; I think this is a motivation for many, many who put themselves out to aid others, whether "religious" or not.

3. I don't know of missionaries padding their pockets on these trips, or on long-term assignments in these places. Most live at the same general level as those they are working with; although, they do bring the benefits of medical and food relief.

4. On a personal level: my wife and I wanted our daughters to grow up understanding that we have a responsibility toward others, both in safeguarding the freedoms of others to remain true to the dictates of conscience, and to help those in need of our assistance
wherever they might be found. In America there is a great need, the same is true overseas. The presentations of what "Life" means as presented by the corporate media and advertisers, are an influence we have chosen to fight with our own kids.


Have any of these things ever been abused in our corporate church? Yes; unequivocally so. Human greed, power tripping, and deceit are common to humanity, and the church has it's share. Hopefully, when discovered, they are dealt with. But still, the whole movement suffers as a result; the hard and self-sacrificing efforts of the majority are ill-represented by the minority.

Want the two ends of the spectrum which come immediately to mind?

During the Rwandan Genocide one of our Hutu pastors, and his son, were guilty of failing to protect the people under their care from the murder of the Hutus; they also had complicity beyond that. Both were tried at the Hague and found guilty. The title of the book "We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families" by Gourevitch, is DIRECTLY related to the actions of these two men.

On the other end of the spectrum: when the international aid organizations pulled out of Rwanda (including the corporate representatives of our church) because of the deteriorating situation, one of our young men remained behind voluntarily and exposed himself to great danger to save as many Tutsis as possible. He was spotlighted on the FRONTLINE special on Rwanda.

Not all churches are the same, not all people are the same.