Is organized religion a business?

[Zzyzx]

.
Many seem to cringe when religious organizations are referred to as businesses (as though preaching was "above" all that). However, it seems as though organized religions of all denominations fit the definition of business:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/business.asp
An organization or enterprising entity engaged in commercial, industrial or professional activities. A business can be a for-profit entity, such as a publicly-traded corporation, or a non-profit organization engaged in business activities, such as an agricultural cooperative.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/business
the activity of making, buying, or selling goods or providing services in exchange for money

Being classified as "not for profit" does not indicate an activity is something other than a business.

It makes no difference if customers of a business are referred to as clients, patients, subjects, parishioners, etc.

Income to a business may be labeled fees, receipts, donations, voluntary, mandatory, barter, expected, appreciated or whatever, without changing the definition of what constitutes a business.



If an organization provides legal (or tax) services, advice and counseling free of charge or for donations, and is categorized as not-for-profit (but has employees and other expenses covered by income), is it still a business?

If an organization provides religious services, advice and counseling free of charge or for donations, and is categorized as not-for-profit (but has employees and other expenses covered by income), is it still a business?

[Zzyzx]

.
Side note: Among my friends here in the Bible Belt are several ministers, preachers, chaplains who seem to bristle a bit when I refer to their "flock" as their customers. Their response can be summarized as "We prefer to think of them as parishioners." My reply is "Are they the source of income for you and/or your organization?"

A common retort is "Preachers are often paid very little" to which I respond "So are people who work at Walmart; however, some professional religionists are very well compensated -- including middle and upper management of your business as well as others."

Of course, my reference to "professional religionists" often meets with objection and with claims of a "calling", to which I respond "A friend who is a very expensive criminal court attorney says he was 'called' to that profession as well. So what?"

Most religionists don't seem to want to discuss such topics with me " even if I prod (some might unkindly say provoke) them a little

[WinePusher]

Interesting topic. I can only speak for my own Catholic church and the small amount of evangelical churches I've visited over the years.

Many seem to cringe when religious organizations are referred to as businesses (as though preaching was "above" all that).

It's not surprising that people cringe at erroneous claims. Many seem to cringe when creationists make inaccurate claims about evolutionary theory, and many seem to cringe at nontheists who make inaccurate claims about the historical Jesus, or about churches being businesses.

Being classified as "not for profit" does not indicate an activity is something other than a business.

Those who are unclear on what 'not for profit' organizations are should first consult a dictionary. In todays economy, markets are dominated by two types of businesses, those that seek to maximize profit and those that seek to pursue goals.

Churches, charities and other NPO's do not seek to maximize profit, which is why people don't generally associate these types of entities with the word 'business.' People, particularly economists, reserve the term 'business' for actual profit maximizing institutions, not churches or charities. But certainly there are MANY similarities between for profit and non profit organizations. Both of them require input factors (ie: land, labor, capital) and as a result both of them pay the typical costs that all businesses pay (ie: fixed costs, variable costs, total cost, etc).

It makes no difference if customers of a business are referred to as clients, patients, subjects, parishioners, etc.

Why should anybody accept what you say, especially when the claim you're making is so obviously wrong. A customer IS different from a client, and a client IS different from a patient and a patient IS different from a parishioner. The type of consumer (not customer) makes a huge difference. Again, if one is unclear on how these words are different from one another they should consult a dictionary.

Now, your incorrect belief that 'organized religions of all denominations fit the definition of business' is debunked by one very simple fact.

Here is the definition of 'business' taken from Merriam Webster: 'the activity of making, buying, or selling goods or providing services in exchange for money.' Parishioners and church goers ARE NOT required to pay money. The services that churches provide are not sold for money, and many people partake and consume these services without paying anything whatsoever.

Children go to church, yet the parents of these children pay NOTHING for their child to partake in the services provided by the church. This is very different from an actual business, like a restaurant for example, where each individual is compelled to pay a certain amount of money before they can partake in and consume the food and services of the restaurants.

So, as you can see simply referring to churches as 'businesses' is incorrect and if this statement were made in a room full of MBA's there probably would be a lot of 'cringing' going on. Churches are commonly referred to as non profit organizations, not just businesses. Businesses are generally associated with for profit entities, which is why business and economics class focus analysis primarily on for profit businesses, not NPO's.

Income to a business may be labeled fees, receipts, donations, voluntary, mandatory, barter, expected, appreciated or whatever, without changing the definition of what constitutes a business.

An organization that relies solely on voluntary donations can't be realistically considered a business. I mean come on, go down to your local college and talk to a professor in their MBA program and ask him or her if he or she considers habitat for humanity a business, or the Red Cross a business, or any church in the area a business. All of these organizations rely on voluntary contributions.

If you were to take a class on business finance, or if you were to just flip through any book on managerial economics you'd realize that all the material focused on for profit business, NOT NPO's. There are completely separate economics and finance courses dedicated to studying NPO's, but in typical business classes and in a typical MBA program almost all the material focuses on for profits, not non profits. Like I said, there are special courses designated for studying non profits because NPO's are exceptions to the business norm. Here are a few topics that are taught in managerial economics/business finance courses:

1. Pricing Strategies
2. Auctions
3. Economies of Scale (cost reductions gained through increasing the scale of production)
4. Investments
5. Valuation Techniques
6. Cash Flows

Is there anyone here who'd like to argue that these topics (which are applicable to for profit businesses) are applicable to NPO's like churches/charities?

[WinePusher]

Interesting topic. I can only speak for my own Catholic church and the small amount of evangelical churches I've visited over the years.

Many seem to cringe when religious organizations are referred to as businesses (as though preaching was "above" all that).

It's not surprising that people cringe at erroneous claims. Many seem to cringe when creationists make inaccurate claims about evolutionary theory, and many seem to cringe at nontheists who make inaccurate claims about the historical Jesus, or about churches being businesses.

Being classified as "not for profit" does not indicate an activity is something other than a business.

In todays economy, markets are dominated by two types of businesses, those that seek to maximize profit and those that seek to pursue goals.

Churches, charities and other NPO's do not seek to maximize profit, which is why people don't generally associate these types of entities with the word 'business.' People, particularly economists, reserve the term 'business' for actual profit maximizing institutions, not churches or charities. But certainly there are MANY similarities between for profit and non profit organizations. Both of them require input factors (ie: land, labor, capital) and as a result both of them pay the typical costs that all businesses pay (ie: fixed costs, variable costs, total cost, etc).

It makes no difference if customers of a business are referred to as clients, patients, subjects, parishioners, etc.

Why should anybody accept what you say, especially when the claim you're making is so obviously wrong. A customer IS different from a client, and a client IS different from a patient and a patient IS different from a parishioner. The type of consumer (not customer) makes a huge difference.

Now, your incorrect belief that 'organized religions of all denominations fit the definition of business' is debunked by one very simple fact.

Here is the definition of 'business' taken from Merriam Webster: 'the activity of making, buying, or selling goods or providing services in exchange for money.' Parishioners and church goers ARE NOT required to pay money. The services that churches provide are not sold for money, and many people partake and consume these services without paying anything whatsoever.

Children go to church, yet the parents of these children pay NOTHING for their child to partake in the services provided by the church. This is very different from an actual business, like a restaurant for example, where each individual is compelled to pay a certain amount of money before they can partake in and consume the food and services of the restaurants.

So, as you can see simply referring to churches as 'businesses' is incorrect and if this statement were made in a room full of MBA's there probably would be a lot of 'cringing' going on. Churches are commonly referred to as non profit organizations, not just businesses. Businesses are generally associated with for profit entities, which is why business and economics class focus analysis primarily on for profit businesses, not NPO's.

Income to a business may be labeled fees, receipts, donations, voluntary, mandatory, barter, expected, appreciated or whatever, without changing the definition of what constitutes a business.

An organization that relies solely on voluntary donations can't be realistically considered a business. I mean come on, go down to your local college and talk to a professor in their MBA program and ask him or her if he or she considers habitat for humanity a business, or the Red Cross a business, or any church in the area a business. All of these organizations rely on voluntary contributions.

If you were to take a class on business finance, or if you were to just flip through any book on managerial economics you'd realize that all the material focused on for profit business, NOT NPO's. There are completely separate economics and finance courses dedicated to studying NPO's, but in typical business classes and in a typical MBA program almost all the material focuses on for profits, not non profits. Like I said, there are special courses designated for studying non profits because NPO's are exceptions to the business norm. Here are a few topics that are taught in managerial economics/business finance courses:

1. Pricing Strategies
2. Auctions
3. Economies of Scale (cost reductions gained through increasing the scale of production)
4. Investments
5. Valuation Techniques
6. Cash Flows

Is there anyone here who'd like to argue that these topics (which are applicable to for profit businesses) are applicable to NPO's like churches/charities?

[WinePusher]

A common retort is "Preachers are often paid very little" to which I respond "So are people who work at Walmart; however, some professional religionists are very well compensated -- including middle and upper management of your business as well as others."

This is an interesting point. We have a clear understanding of why walmart workers are paid very little, and it's based upon the supply and demand for labor. Because walmart occupations require very little skill, there is a high supply of walmart workers which puts enourmous downward pressure on wages for that specific occupation.

Now, when it comes to preachers, pastors and spiritual leaders the wage rates vary drastically. Some preachers are paid enormous amounts while others are paid very little. For walmart workers there is a uniform wage rate across the board while for preachers the wage rates fluctuate depending on different factors. These factors have to do with location, effectiveness, church membership and most importantly, the church's philosophy. Some churches force their clergy to take vows to poverty while others are run by people who just seem intent on getting rich.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 2 by Zzyzx]

The size of the renumeration paid to clergy is a red herring in this debate. How much the officers and employees of an organization get paid is not the determining factor of whether the organization is a for-profit business or a not-for-profit organization.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

We run our church quite diligently and try to make a profit each year. Things run as businesses last a lot longer. I've never felt squeamish about the topic either.

In fact I wish more people ran their organisations like a business. Customers get treated better as well. So it's win win. Right?

[McCulloch]

We run our church quite diligently and try to make a profit each year.

I take it that your church does not issue tax receipts. In order to be eligible to issue tax receipts to your donors, the organization cannot make a profit.

Things run as businesses last a lot longer. I've never felt squeamish about the topic either.

I think that you are mistaking professionalism and competence with business-like. While it may be a good thing to exhibit competence and professionalism in the running of a church, it still does not make it a business.

In fact I wish more people ran their organisations like a business. Customers get treated better as well. So it's win win. Right?

For the most part, churches do not have customers. In the New Testament, the church is likened to a body, with the members representing parts of that body. If you were to run a church as a business, where customers receive some kind of service for a set fee, you would be running it counter to what is said in scripture.

[connermt]

From my experience, in the most basic fashion, these things are the same in various forms with (some) different rules:
religion
business
politics

Once an establishment starts taking in money, giving it to its 'members' and enforcing their influence on socitey, to me, they're a business.

As such, they should be taxed and held to the same standards as anyo ther business.

[Zzyzx]

.

Interesting topic. I can only speak for my own Catholic church and the small amount of evangelical churches I've visited over the years.

It is interesting that a representative of Catholicism attempts to declare that the wealthiest organized / commercial religion in the world is "not a business."

1. The Vatican has large investments with the Rothschilds of Britain, France and America, with the Hambros Bank, with the Credit Suisse in London and Zurich. In the United States it has large investments with the Morgan Bank, the Chase-Manhattan Bank, the First National Bank of New York, the Bankers Trust Company, and others. The Vatican has billions of shares in the most powerful international corporations such as Gulf Oil, Shell, General Motors, Bethlehem Steel, General Electric, International Business Machines, T.W.A., etc. At a conservative estimate, these amount to more than 500 million dollars in the U.S.A. alone.
2. The Vatican's treasure of solid gold has been estimated by the United Nations World Magazine to amount to several billion dollars. A large bulk of this is stored in gold ingots with the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, while banks in England and Switzerland hold the rest. But this is just a small portion of the wealth of the Vatican, which in the U.S. alone, is greater than that of the five wealthiest giant corporations of the country. When to that is added all the real estate, property, stocks and shares abroad, then the staggering accumulation of the wealth of the Catholic church becomes so formidable as to defy any rational assessment.
3. The Catholic church is the biggest financial power, wealth accumulator and property owner in existence. She is a greater possessor of material riches than any other single institution, corporation, bank, giant trust, government or state of the whole globe. The pope, as the visible ruler of this immense amassment of wealth, is consequently the richest individual of the twentieth century. No one can realistically assess how much he is worth in terms of billions of dollars.
http://www.dailypaul.com/107469/is-the- ... -the-world

AND

The Catholic Church, therefore, once all her assets have been put together, is the most formidable stockbroker in the world. The 'Wall Street Journal' said that the Vatican's financial deals in the U.S. alone were so big that very often it sold or bought gold in lots of a million or more dollars at one time.

Therefore, the Vatican was, and still is, the most redoubtable wealth accumulator and property owner in existence. No one knows for certain how much the Catholic Church was, or is worth in terms of dollars and other currencies, not even the pope himself.
That is the true situation borne out by a Vatican official who, when asked to make a guess at the Vatican's wealth today, replied very tellingly, "Only God knows."
http://www.cai.org/bible-studies/vatican-billions

Let's hear it again that the RCC isn't a business

Many seem to cringe when religious organizations are referred to as businesses (as though preaching was "above" all that).

It's not surprising that people cringe at erroneous claims.

It is the truthful claims that cause the most cringe. Erroneous claims can be honorably and effectively shown to be false.

Being classified as "not for profit" does not indicate an activity is something other than a business.

In todays economy, markets are dominated by two types of businesses, those that seek to maximize profit and those that seek to pursue goals.

Churches, charities and other NPO's do not seek to maximize profit, which is why people don't generally associate these types of entities with the word 'business.'

Okay, which of the categories you select best fits the RCC? Would it be "pursue goals?"

People, particularly economists, reserve the term 'business' for actual profit maximizing institutions, not churches or charities.

Kindly cite references to support the claim that economists "reserve the term 'business' for actual profit maximizing institutions.'

But certainly there are MANY similarities between for profit and non profit organizations. Both of them require input factors (ie: land, labor, capital) and as a result both of them pay the typical costs that all businesses pay (ie: fixed costs, variable costs, total cost, etc).

Note first that a non-profit business is still a business

Agreed that non-profit businesses also (at least typically) require "land, labor, capital" and "pay the typical costs that all businesses pay (i.e. fixed costs, variable costs, total cost, etc) -- just like other businesses.

It makes no difference if customers of a business are referred to as clients, patients, subjects, parishioners, etc.

Why should anybody accept what you say, especially when the claim you're making is so obviously wrong. A customer IS different from a client, and a client IS different from a patient and a patient IS different from a parishioner. The type of consumer (not customer) makes a huge difference.

No one should accept what I say without checking (I'm not a bible writer).

Perhaps you can help everyone by detailing exactly how " A customer IS different from a client, and a client IS different from a patient and a patient IS different from a parishioner."

Now, your incorrect belief that 'organized religions of all denominations fit the definition of business' is debunked by one very simple fact.

It is telling when grandiose claims of "debunk" fail dramatically

Here is the definition of 'business' taken from Merriam Webster: 'the activity of making, buying, or selling goods or providing services in exchange for money.'

Note that I cited a similar definition in the OP.

"In exchange for money" does not require that customers pay upon receipt of services. Payment can be voluntary or it can be distributed over long periods of time. OR payment may be in forms other than money (a defect in that definition). Barter is a recognized form of business, for example.

The means by which a business produces its necessary or desirable income is immaterial in determining whether it functions as a business.

Parishioners and church goers ARE NOT required to pay money. The services that churches provide are not sold for money, and many people partake and consume these services without paying anything whatsoever.

Children go to church, yet the parents of these children pay NOTHING for their child to partake in the services provided by the church. This is very different from an actual business, like a restaurant for example, where each individual is compelled to pay a certain amount of money before they can partake in and consume the food and services of the restaurants.

If a restaurant says "Kids eat free" is it no longer a business?

So, as you can see simply referring to churches as 'businesses' is incorrect and if this statement were made in a room full of MBA's there probably would be a lot of 'cringing' going on. Churches are commonly referred to as non profit organizations, not just businesses. Businesses are generally associated with for profit entities, which is why business and economics class focus analysis primarily on for profit businesses, not NPO's.

Non Profit Organizations are defined as: "A corporation or an association that conducts business for the benefit of the general public without shareholders and without a profit motive"
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... ganization

Income to a business may be labeled fees, receipts, donations, voluntary, mandatory, barter, expected, appreciated or whatever, without changing the definition of what constitutes a business.

An organization that relies solely on voluntary donations can't be realistically considered a business.

According to whom?

I mean come on, go down to your local college and talk to a professor in their MBA program and ask him or her if he or she considers habitat for humanity a business, or the Red Cross a business, or any church in the area a business. All of these organizations rely on voluntary contributions.

And if that professor says they are businesses???

If you were to take a class on business finance, or if you were to just flip through any book on managerial economics you'd realize that all the material focused on for profit business, NOT NPO's.

If course material "focuses" on profit businesses does that mean that they ignore non-profits " or that non-profits are not businesses?

If a course in comparative religions focuses on major denominations does that mean that other denominations are not religions?

There are completely separate economics and finance courses dedicated to studying NPO's, but in typical business classes and in a typical MBA program almost all the material focuses on for profits, not non profits.

Thank you. Since economics and finance (business) courses are dedicated to studying non-profits isn't that clear indication they are businesses?

Like I said, there are special courses designated for studying non profits because NPO's are exceptions to the business norm.

IF non-profits are subjects of special business and economics courses taught in business and economics departments, AND IF they are "exceptions to the business norm" " does that somehow indicate that they are NOT businesses?

Here are a few topics that are taught in managerial economics/business finance courses:

1. Pricing Strategies
2. Auctions
3. Economies of Scale (cost reductions gained through increasing the scale of production)
4. Investments
5. Valuation Techniques
6. Cash Flows

Is there anyone here who'd like to argue that these topics (which are applicable to for profit businesses) are applicable to NPO's like churches/charities?

It appears to me as though many or all of the listed items ARE considered by church organizations (with particular emphasis on, but not exclusive to, megachurches and televangelism). Some categories may be renamed (perhaps euphemistically) to read:

1. Increasing donations
2. Rummage sales, bake sales, sale of indulgences
3. Growth of the congregation to maximize potential
4. Investments (the RCC is among the world's leading investment organization)
5. Suggested donations or tithing
6. Cash flow