At Church, an 'ATM for Jesus'

[deadparrot]

AUGUSTA, Ga. — Pastor Marty Baker preaches that the Bible is the eternal and inviolate word of God. On other church matters, he's willing to change with the times.

Jeans are welcome at Stevens Creek Community Church, the 1,100-member evangelical congregation Baker founded 19 years ago. Sermons are available as podcasts, and the electric house band has been known to cover Aerosmith's "Dream On." A recent men's fellowship breakfast was devoted to discussing the spiritual wages of lunching at Hooters.

It is a bid for relevance in a nation charmed by pop culture and consumerism, and it is not an uncommon one. But Baker has waded further into the 21st century than most fishers of American souls, as evidenced one Wednesday night when churchgoer Josh Marshall stepped up to a curious machine in the church lobby.

It was one of Stevens Creek's three "Giving Kiosks": a sleek black pedestal topped with a computer screen, numeric keypad and magnetic-strip reader. Prompted by the on-screen instructions, Marshall performed a ritual more common in quickie marts than a house of God: He pulled out a bank card, swiped it and punched in some numbers.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-holyatm28sep28,0,7916395.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[Sequoia]

1. But wait...didn't Jesus ....

[Duer 157099]

8. That was the "other" Jesus n/t

[myrna minx]

36. 9-11 changed EVERYTHING! And they mean *everything*.

Even the message of Jesus. :hi:

[Dem2theMax]

46. Ah yep. He did.

My first thought as well.

[FooFootheSnoo]

2. I don't understand

The congregants get to take money out of Jesus's personal account? How did they get his PIN? LOL.

[Fuzz]

34. The Bible code thing - They figured it out

[Shakespeare]

3. It's not about filling the sits for Christ....

....it's about consolidating political power.

Go. See. Jesus Camp.

And wake the fuck up, because as much as you THINK you know about the fundies, you have no clue how serious they are and how close they are to permanently seizing power in this country. Just get ready to pledge allegiance to the "christian flag."

[ProdigalJunkMail]

6. is this pastor a fundy nut like the lady in Jesus Camp?

Or is his position on many things more liberal? Sounds to me like the guy is trying to get his church in synch with the times. Why is this particular post sinister to you?

sP

[Shakespeare]

10. "1,100 member EVANGELICAL church"

Yes, he's a fundy nut. That's HOW they're pulling in the numbers--they build the mega churches with McDonalds and Starbucks in the lobby, nice gyms to use, and now, apparently, ATM machines.

Let's just say I'm rather personally close to the whole movement (friends and family), and have been watching this evolve for the last several years. You're certainly free to consider them harmless. I don't.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

13. Well, I actually am a "fundy nut" so I am a little closer to the movement

but the mega church that I attend is about the love of Christ and how to find it and express it in your life. Granted I don't do the best job at it, but that is another conversation. Our church band rocks. We have more members than this church and we don't even have a cross on display. I don't know this guy's church...but do you? I will look into and concede the point on THIS church if it turns out he is, but you can't lump them all together and be correct 'cause it just isn't like that.

sP

[Shakespeare]

15. Have you looked at the church's website?

They're affiliated with Focus on the Family; check out other links on their site, as well. The pastor is a graduate (and the church appears to be affiliated with) Lee University, which is an extremely conservative Christian college. They're also a big supporter of a local "pregnancy center" (read, anti abortion). Yes, from what I've looked at, they absolutely are part of the movement so focused on politics.

I do NOT lump them all together--I still consider myself a Christian, and am quite close with a few of the monster churches in Dallas (one of my best friends heads a missionary in Santiago, Chile--and he absolutely rocks).

What I've come to terms with over recent years is that our greatest threat apparently comes from within--the one group (Christians) that never should be involved in politics, much less push such a malevolent agenda, is the very group doing just that. It breaks my heart. And they've got to be reined in.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

18. in fairness...

being anti-abortion doesn't make you malevolent. Their church mission and position doesn't look too bad. I will, however, download a couple of sermons and give it a listen.

And just out of curiosity, why should Christians never be involved in politics? How would you suggest reigning in the Christian churches that you disagree with without violating their rights?

sP

[Shakespeare]

22. Oh, boy.

No, but the cumulative affiliations--especially with Dobson's very political organization--would seem to make them part of the larger movement that I absolutely find malevolent.

Nowhere did I say Christians shouldn't be involved in politics; however, that involvement should stop well short of politicizing and/or legalizing their agenda. It is in direct opposition to large chunks of the constitution, and frankly, against Christ's own teachings (render unto Caeser....). Keeping church uninvolved in state violates no one's rights, but the converse certainly does.

I don't know how familiar you are with Mike Papantonio, best known as the host of Ring of Fire Radio on Air America (I know him from years back in Pensacola, and he's one of the top trial attorneys in the country--and also a devout Christian), but he does a better job than most in explaining the danger of this agenda, and why Christians should be fighting HARD to stop it.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

23. well, you DID say they don't belong in politics

<snip>
the one group (Christians) that never should be involved in politics
<snip>

and the whole rendering unto Caesar was in reference to giving tribute not about being involved in gov't though I can see that interpretation.

The problem is that SOME Christian beliefs are frequently at odds with state policies. As an example, I would hope that most Christians would be against torturing fellow human beings and would stand up so. If the state says it is ok, should Christians sit back and say nothing? Or should they just say nothing BECAUSE they are Christians?

I agree that many things that are purely religious should never be blended in with our government. And I hope and pray that they never are.

Oh, and reading through some of the sermons, I see nothing overtly political. I have read four now...so far, I don't think most Christians (liberal or conservative) would have issue with these.

sP

[Shakespeare]

26. Sigh. I had hoped my meaning would be clear without parsing.

But very well, let me clarify: by "being involved in politics" I mean--and assumed you understood, since it's so frequently discussed here--that they should not, under any terms, be pushing their spiritual agenda in politics, because it then impedes the rights of others.

And yes, I know that the Caeser verse is open to interpretation (and also know the context from whence it comes), but that particular interpretation seems to jibe quite well with Christ's other teachings. Just looking at the battle royal between him and his disciples and the Jewish religio-political authorities speaks volumes to me about where Christ would probably come down on the church v. state argument.

Do you honestly see a big movement by the evangelicals to stop this current torture bill? For the most part, and as it includes the more relevant groups (like Dobson's, which advocates child abuse, for goodness sakes), NO. That is hypocrisy incarnate. Their agenda is selective, and leans strongly towards impeding the rights of non-Christians (or even Christians who happen to disagree with them). And THAT is where they're taking extreme advantage of their congregations by using them to further polarize this country and perpetuate the us (holy, saved) v. them (liberals, non-Christians). Plus, by standing up and being vocal on the torture issues as a Christian, you're not arguing for something that impedes rights, but guarantees them. That's a huge difference.

In looking at the big picture, what bothers me so deeply about mega churches in general is the very calculated way they appeal to very non-Christlike parts of human nature--materialism, particularly. They entice with all of these things that have nothing to do with Christianity, and subtly tell their members that this kind of materialism is just fine--which perpetuates that horrible puritan belief that the rich are somehow more righteous and blessed by God than the poor. I'm not suggesting that worship be conducted in sackcloth and ashes (indeed, I think it should be joyous), but when your church is turned into a hollywood-set-cum-shopping-mall, then I think you've lost sight of your mission. As long as you can entice and control by appealing to the very worst in American culture and human nature, you're on dangerous ground, and that control far too often is being used for--yes, I'll say it again--malevolent purposes. Part of me feels really sorry for the people who get sucked into the mega churches and are so smitten with the non-spiritual enticements. It's just ugly to me, and it doesn't strike me as something that Christ would approve of, just as he wasn't too wild about the moneychangers in the temple. I've belonged to a couple of VERY large congregations over the years, and when one in particular started down the mega church path (with retail establishments in the lobby, a big gym for people to use--the average mega church setup), I became very uncomfortable. It also coincided with--and not coincidentally, I think--a kind of losing sight of why we go to church in the first place. The congregation ended up horribly divided over the issue, and scarred a lot of very good people on both sides.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

27. Please don't sigh...I am not trying to be exaserbating

though I seem to succeeding.

I don't know where to start with your long and well spoken post. I guess the biggest thing that sticks out is this spiritual/political thing in paragraph one. What do you advocate when a political movement is at direct odds with your religious beliefs? And I am not talking about 10 commandments on lawns or Santa (my FAVORITE religious figure right next to the Easter Bunny) setup near the courthouse. There are good and well meaning Christians that DO believe abortion is murder. They really are PRO-LIFE (not anti-abortion). Should their views in a society such as ours be discounted just because they are Christians and should they bite their tongues so that they don't get involved? And there ARE churches coming out against the war and torture and the treatment of the poor.

I do VERY much agree with you on the selective agenda issues. It pains me to tears sometimes that people who hold the mantle of 'Christian' somehow find venom in Christ's teachings. And to that end also find that it is A-OK if you amass a fortune whilst neglecting those around you in need.

I have been to several mega-churches and regularly have attended two. And, the two that I have attended (one in NC and one in GA) were both biblically sound in their doctrine and in their lifestyles. Maybe my experience has been unique. I have never been attracted to the glitz of any church, but to the people there and to the teachings they focus on so maybe that has been my blessing.

Thanks for the reasoned discussion.

sP

[Shakespeare]

29. That, I think, is when a person needs to carefully weigh....

...their faith against the constitution that governs this country in which we live. I don't think abortion is a good thing, but I also understand it is ultimately a choice/control issue. There are verses in the bible that even speak to this--you'll never hear a fundy admit to it, but there's quite a bit of moral relativism between the covers of that book they so much love to shake at their enemies.

I think they're certainly entitled to speak their mind about it--that is their right, but to actively try and influence legislation that impacts and impedes the rights of their fellow citizens crosses a line (ergo, using one right to eliminate the rights of another--appalling). Perhaps that is where you and I disagree. To overturn Roe is to backtrack on individual rights, and I vehemently disagree that an in utero fetus has rights that trump those of a living, breathing human being. It is not an equal comparison, and that is where I differ most strongly with the anti-abortion crowd (and understand that I do not call it pro-life for a reason, because abortion affects more lives than just the life of the fetus--a fact they're generally unconcerned with).

As a Christian AND as an American, I have to be able to understand that not everybody who lives within these borders shares my beliefs, and should not be subjected to them. This is where the tenets of the enlightenment come in--where one can get one's head around the reality that the secular and the sacred can co-exist without interfering in the other. This country was constructed as a secular state, period. What we are battling now is an attempt to transform it into a religious state, and that attempt is coming from my own brothers and sisters in Christ.

[Zhade]

41. You ("they") are welcome to your ("their") anti-choice views.

You ("they") are not welcome to try to legislate those views, however, as not all people in this country believe in the same mythology you do, and thus are protected by the right not to be forced to live under your philosophy.

Don't want abortions? Don't have one. Want to try to eliminate women's inherent right to control their own body? You've got a fight on your hands, right on down to drawing blood on the street if necessary.

Anti-choicers WILL NOT be allowed to control others. Fucking PERIOD.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

45. I didn't exactly explain 'my' views but that is ok

What would you say to the argument "Don't want an abortion? Don't get pregnant."? That is just about as flippant as the remark you made. And certainly, someone with access to an abortion would have access to birth control.

Look, I am not a militant. I believe in education over legislation. I think the government is far too intrusive into ALL areas of our lives. And I certainly don't believe that my belief structure should be forced onto you or anyone else. But what happens, when one day, science proves when (to within a few days in the term of a pregnancy) a baby in the womb can feel pain? Or when that baby becomes aware of itself? Would it still be ok to for abortions to be as rampant as they are today after that point? At that point...whose body is being controlled and whose life is being ended and which is more important?

Suffice it to say, I am not going to change your opinion and you are not going to change mine. If you have further things to say on this matter I will be glad to read on and discuss, but only in a civil manner.

sP

[LeftyMom]

50. Yes, it does.

1. Anybody who wants to control what I do with my own reproductive organs, invade my privacy, stigmatize and legally restrict my choices, in short, anybody who thinks they are better equiped to make decisions about my life than I am, is vile, controling and simply evil.

2. Those crisis pregnancy centers exist to prevent abortions by lying about abortion procedures, lying about fetal development and making promises of assistance they rarely keep. I seem to recall that there's a large book with thin pages that says a thing or two about lying.

3. The real purpose of crisis pregnancy centers is to steer women pregnant with potentially marketable babies (those likely to be healthy and light complected) toward adoption groups catering to fundamentalists. As they conceal this aim, this is fraud, both financial (adoption is a big money maker, and these centers are cheap to operate) and ethical, as they conceal this aim from the very women whose babies they intend to sell to families who will raise them in fundamentalist churches.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

51. I am anti-abortion (pro-life) but that does not mean

that I am malevolent nor does it mean that I support the things you talk about. If you read up in this thread a little bit you will see that I am for education and not legislation. So, you can be pro-life and none of the things that you are talking about.

sP

[Ezlivin]

28. I'm an ex-fundy pastor at a megachurch

And I'd say that you should look at your church's finances. A megachurch can really rack up utility bills. Add to that the payment for the bond to buy/build the building and acquire the property, the staff salaries and other maintenance and upkeep bills. When you are done, subtract all of this from your receipts.

It's amazing that most megachurches spend more money on office and janitorial supplies than they do on helping the needy.

The scale of these big-box churches means that they are large money sink. To maintain large campuses requires a steady, strong money flow. And if the ministry wants to expand into radio and television (very tempting for a pastor of a megachurch), the costs spiral upward.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

32. Thanks for the heads up,

and I DO look very closely at the finances and the bottom line. One of my requirements for a church as that they be good stewards of the money that I give through them. I have not been a regular attender at a couple of churches (big and small) for that very reason. The money that I give is to further the kingdom of God...not to further the property line or the boundaries of the church building (unless it NEEDS to grow to accomodate worshippers).

One day, if you have the time, I would love to know why you left your position. Not to criticize or try to change your mind...just wondering what leads someone away from church.

sP

[Lisa]

35. didn't something like this happen in the Middle Ages?

The monastic communities which had started out centuries ago with vows of poverty, became the forerunners of transnational corporations -- they administered businesses and owned entire towns. One of the contributing factors was that prayer had become commodified, and the wealthy would pay to have monks pray for them and erase their sins.

As you say, it takes a lot of money to maintain an establishment with large numbers of employees, and pretty soon there was more being spent on keeping the status quo running, than helping the poor and doing good works.

[Zhade]

39. Yes - you're the one who said gays and lesbians were sinners.

Believe me, that hasn't been forgotten.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

47. And if you will recall without so much venom that I also said

that I am a sinner, and that it is not my place judge. According to the doctrines of most sects of Christianity all have sinned and fallen short of the grace of God. But hey, keep that selective memory working for you. It seems to be serving your anger well.

sP

[and-justice-for-all]

43. Just think of all those TAX FREE contributions...

...Maybe I should start a local cult and suck funds out of people all based on taking advantage of their faith and useing it against them. I would do that, but I am not good at lying to people.

[kurth]

4. "Next: donation machines that attach to the backs of pews"

says the article.

[Atman]

5. Jesus is my Pay Pal!

Buddy Jesus...does he charge an ATM fee for religions outside the network?

[FooFootheSnoo]

7. you better believe he does!!

[ProdigalJunkMail]

9. no...but the pastor might n/t

[Zomby Woof]

48. The pastor in this news story...

Makes a profit directly for himself (not the church, but himself) in EVERY transaction. It's because he set up a business plan with the company that made the machine, and a certain percentage of each transaction is paid, like a royalty, to the pastor.

Personally, I find that disgusting - profiting off of tithing. But then again, the majority of churches have always been money-making (tax-free!) enterprises for scammers like the Good Pastor.

[patrice]

11. Quid pro quo "salvation".

"I paid for gas today with a card, and got lunch with one," said Marshall, 30. "This is really no different."

[Duer 157099]

12. But wait!! Then they don't get to be seen putting $$ in the plate!!

I bet giving eventually drops off because of this. Unless they get to put a receipt token or something in the plate, so their pew neighbors don't think they're shirking.

A one-way ATM, that's got to be new.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

19. a lot of churches are trying to make giving more anonymous

not so that people won't give but so that people don't feel pressured to give. Our little megachurch has offering boxes in the back of the sanctuary and never passes a plate. We don't have an offeratory hymn or anything of the sort. While some Christians do give out of a feeling of misplaced obligation, many give from their hearts. Plate or no plate, they will keep on giving.

sP

[Flubadubya]

37. Now there's an oxymoron if I ever heard one...

"little megachurch"... Bwahaha!!!

[ProdigalJunkMail]

38. well, I was trying to make you smile

but in terms of mega churches we are pretty small considering some of them boast over 10.000 attenders in a weekend. I am not even sure some people would consider us a mega church with only 2.000 members and about 2.800 per weekend...

sP

[ClintonTyree]

14. Why do god and jesus need so much money?

Being omnipotent and all? :shrug: Couldn't they just print a lot of money like our government does? For the life of me, I can't understand why god is so bad with money and why he needs so MUCH of it. He should put himself on a budget, does he think we're MADE of money? ;)

[Whoa_Nelly]

16. Your subject line post could be the basis for an entire article

or even a book :rofl:

Riddle:
Why do god and jesus need so much money?

Answer:
So Jesus can have nice clothes

[Sequoia]

17. "But when they passed around the plate at the end of it all,

I didn't have a penny to pay
So I got me a pen and a paper and I made up my own little sign
I said, "Thank you, Lord, for thinkin' 'bout me. I'm alive and doin' fine."

[ProdigalJunkMail]

21. the basis of giving is two fold (well, maybe more)

one...so that money is put in its proper place. By saying that God has rights to the first ten percent (hence the word tithe) it is establishing that God is the source of all blessing (kind of like our goverment who take the first 30% (at least of my paychecks) to establish THEIR claim). Secondly, the church is an entity that does exist in this world and needs a means by which to exist and, according to the great commission, be spread.

Like it or not, believe it or not, that is the reason for giving. Out of the blessings that God has given you some should be returned in offering.

And just a note...I don't think Jesus ever had a dime but relied on others giving to Him whilst here on earth.

sP

[Zomby Woof]

49. The gov't doesn't tax you to establish a "claim"

:eyes:

It's your ADMISSION PRICE as a citizen of the republic, er, empire. You know, "of, by, and for the people", as that damn commie Abraham Lincoln once said.

As for tithing - it's the oldest scam in religion. With megachurches (although others are included here), the pastor and his inner circle live like kings, while the few crumbs they disperse to the poor rationalize the whole enterprise, and tricks the church membership into thinking they have done good work, so their consciences are salved and they feel good about themselves. Oh, and maybe they will "gwine up to hebbin!" too. What a bargain, at only 10%! Americans LOVE their bargains.

And of course, Jesus didn't have a dime. Mythical beings aren't known for carrying currency.

Gerard Straub's "Salvation for Sale" is a real eye-opener, if a copy can be found in print.

The meek shall inherit nothing.

[lectrobyte]

20. There's a church in Durham NC, Church of God in Jesus of the New Deal.

You can't make this stuff up. I'm way curious about that church, if anyone knows more about it.

[earth mom]

24. If churches aren't a business, I don't know what is!

These people are 'BUYING' GOD! :puke:

I know a woman who said the more she and her hubby gave to the church the more her hubby was blessed with selling more RVs at his salesman job! Um, excuse me, but maybe hubby is more MOTIVATED to make back all that money that was given to the church?!

It's all A TOTAL CROCK! People are so gullible it ain't funny! :eyes:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

25. wow, i give money to my church

to support our local pastor and our outreach programs...but I guess those are a total crock. And I guess I am totally deluded by the fact that our church has a quarterly financial statement that shows the expenditure of every penny.

sP

[earth mom]

30. NO ONE needs a church to believe in "god". eom

[ProdigalJunkMail]

31. yeah...but that whole thing

about not forsaking the gathering together for worship and prayer...well, that is a PARTICULAR God...so I guess you are right.

sP

[ContraBass Black]

33. What's wrong with this? Cash and checks already go in the plate.

Why not electronic transfer?

[chat_noir]

40. Diebold ATMs, I presume?

[htuttle]

42. That reminds me of the "Jesus Booths" in THX-1138

[jmowreader]

44. This discussion would have been better...

if Pastor Marty Baker was anything but a fundie. That way we could discuss this new technology and not whether fundamentalists are bad and megachurches are worse. And in case you're wondering, this isn't a "megachurch"--in the South, a church with 1100 members isn't uncommon. If Baker has a 500-seat sanctuary in his building and runs two services on Sunday, which is typical down here, he's covered.

If you click on the link, you will see that churchgoer Josh Marshall donated $400 through God's ATM. That's going to be the big selling point for these machines--larger, and more focused, donations. You can tell the box that a certain contribution is a standard tithe/contribution (tithe is 10 percent, any other amount is a contribution), that it's going to missions, that it's for the building fund, or whatever. It's actually a slick little piece of tech, and Baker is selling them. Five grand for a machine, and a monthly subscription fee.

What makes it capable of generating larger contributions is that it's cashless: your money goes straight from your bank account to the church's. You don't have the money in your hand, it's just a number on the screen. Also, most ATMs work in $20 increments; this one probably has buttons for $20, $50, $100, $200, $400 and "other." Obviously you could push "other" and key in $5, but the positioning of the "other" after the $400 suggests that it's for people who want to give more than $400, not less than $20.

This still has a moneychangers-in-the-temple feel to it.