Seminary Students on Food Stamps

Status
Not open for further replies.
state income tax,

You're showing a Texas address on your tag, as does our brother in Hankamer. If you all are paying a state income tax, you're doing something very wrong.

LOL. That's true. I didn't see his Texas tag till I was halfway through my post; however, our other taxes and fees make up for it. AND, this does not even take into account the compounding tax principles (we are paying taxes, on taxes, on taxes). At least half of your money goes to the Government, even for people who are technically in a 0 percent Income tax bracket. The upper 3-5 percent pay somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 percent..
 
Wow what a discussion I entered this thread expecting it to be a slam dunk one sided conversation, what a surprise.

How did the church (particularly the Presbyterians) handle the issue of support for men in seminary throughout church history?

I had someone tell me the other day that when a friend of there's went through seminary in the sixties for the episcopal church he was given free married housing, denomination paid tuition and he was payed a small "salary" so he could be a full student, has anyone heard of such a thing? Is this accurate?

I felt the same way you do until I came up here for myself. The problem that we have in the SBC is that there is no organized system for supporting seminary students. It is up to the local churches, and if you come from a small church like I did, there is just not much money to be had. The seminaries don't make it any easier by refusing to participate in the federal student loan program, and the grants that are available are not near enough to pay for school. I understand about not getting into debt, but let's be consistent. Are you telling me that none of the faculty or administration at the seminaries has a loan on their house or their car? Most of us come up here on nothing but faith and had no intention of getting any kind of government assistance, but once you get up here and see how everything is stacked against you, it tends to make you reconsider.
 
How did you get out of mandatory Social Security and Medicare tax?

I am just that poor.

I don't pay property tax either due to the fact that I am living with my wife's grandmother. I do have the other taxes though. I highly doubt I am in the 50 percent bracket. None of the taxes you mentioned equal 50% of my income. They don't come close.

It seems that the highest tax that I pay is the gasoline tax. If every penny I made went to buying gas, I would only be in the 15% bracket if your figures are correct and at 3.50 a gallon. Seeing that some of my income is paying the 7.25% sales tax (I do not have county taxes) and some is 0% (things bought online and groceries), my percentage is much less than 15%.
 
I wonder how many people on this thread have actually been in a financial situation dire enough to need assistance from someone and had no one to help but the government.
 
I wonder how many people on this thread have actually been in a financial situation dire enough to need assistance from someone and had no one to help but the government.

Been there. God provided apart from government assistance.
 
Socialism is evil in all of its forms. It is a violation of the eighth commandment. Where are the churches that sent these men to seminary?

While I am hesitant to defend Socialism, ... what about how God instituted Israel's social welfare system? Was it stealing that people were taxed and the Levites distributed the tax revenue, especially to the poor, the widow and the orphan?

Also, this would mean that what Joseph did in Egypt was not only clever, but very evil. He saw the famine coming, so he instituted higher taxes to prepare the storehouses; then when the famine came he sold the very same grain back to them. I am not saying that, since it is in the Bible, it must be okay. I am just saying that taxation to provide for those in need was ancient, and even instituted in Israel.

So, I have a hard time believing that the 8th commandment is violated in this.

---------- Post added at 09:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 AM ----------

P.S.
I agree that the churches ought to help out more (but not under compulsion).
 
I wonder how many people on this thread have actually been in a financial situation dire enough to need assistance from someone and had no one to help but the government.

I have come pretty close, but no government assistance except for student loans.
 
Mark, it enslaves because it makes those you use it come to rely upon the source. It is a pernicious evil. I have seen this first hand from folks who one would never think could fall for the trap.

But surely anything can be abused and people can make mistakes and become overly dependent on anything.

That doesn't mean it can't be right for someone to use a benefit the government (even if it is a very imperfect government) provides to help out in their situation.


That is exactly right. The question "Should we have such a system?" is different than the question, "Since we are stuck with the system, should we live according to it?" I say NO, to the first, YES to the second.

That's how I feel. Though, I do see that the civil laws in Israel did include "redistributing" wealth, even in year of Jubilee, etc.
I think just the fact that one group of people are given extra privileges from the gov't kind of makes it more necessary for others. The system has created an uneven playing field. Maybe how much one makes would actually be enough if there wasn't gov't assistance going to his neighbors who are making the same amount. That enables grocery stores to charge more, etc, rather than letting the actual amounts people can afford contribute more to the discussion on value and costs. (I'm the farthest thing from an economist, but I think I'm on to something.)

Also, many Christians are also competing, financially-wise, with two income households--thus again making the playing field uneven. Now, we do that voluntarily, so probably a lot of these families could actually make more if the moms/wives go to work. And I'm not saying that the gov't owes me for choosing to be a stay at home mom rather than making the 45,000 or so that I'd make with my degree and skills. But our family's choice does keep an extra $45,000 from coming in. I don't think that is a biblical necessity, and even if I did, I don't need the gov't to make my Christianity possible or plausible, but I would still take whatever I could get. I know, that's a backwards thought for someone who considers herself a libertarian, but does this prevent me from taking the numerous tax credits, etc, that the gov't gives? I will say this, we pay zero dollars for federal income taxes and I happily cash my "return" which we in all honesty don't "need," strictly speaking. We'd survive without the extra funds that come to us every January. Sure, we pay other taxes, but so does everyone. Those aren't the taxes that the federal income tax returns are concerned with. And yes, we do pay social security/medicare taxes, BUT those are set up to come back to us in the future. Whether that happens, it is not exactly like a tax but a loan...which we hope to be able to collect on.

So even if it wouldn't be how I'd vote, if my husband were in seminary and I could get the courage to shop with food stamps (that'd be my biggest issue, my vanity) I think I'd do it.
 
Where are the churches that sent these men to seminary?

I have a wife and two kids and will be able to fully support them through a full time job at a hospital without her needing to work on top of working at being a godly mother. Having said that, I come from a new church plant that does not have the resources to be able to support me at all through seminary financially, so there are lots of circumstance where this is not possible. But overall I would say that government aid should be the last resort. It seems like 1 Tim. 5:8 is pretty clear on that. Though I recognize that it does not speak to it directly I think we need to understand that God has called me to provide for their families not to go to seminary. I say if you cannot do it, then maybe wait til you can. Just my two cents.
 
How did you get out of mandatory Social Security and Medicare tax?

I am just that poor.

I don't pay property tax either due to the fact that I am living with my wife's grandmother. I do have the other taxes though. I highly doubt I am in the 50 percent bracket. None of the taxes you mentioned equal 50% of my income. They don't come close.

It seems that the highest tax that I pay is the gasoline tax. If every penny I made went to buying gas, I would only be in the 15% bracket if your figures are correct and at 3.50 a gallon. Seeing that some of my income is paying the 7.25% sales tax (I do not have county taxes) and some is 0% (things bought online and groceries), my percentage is much less than 15%.

Social security tax is 6.2 percent of your gross income, regardless of how little you make. 1.5 percent for Medicare. That is 7.7 percent of your income before anything else.

I actually made 10,000 dollars one year. Lets use my figures from that years return to see how it broke down...

Social Security: $620
Medicare: $150
Truck: Registration fees: $110
Property Tax (county): $880
Property Tax (City): $450
Total Sales taxes (Receipts): $757
Utility taxes (Various): $120
Gas tax (average 2.5 gallons per day @ 54.6 cents) : $498 (rounded down)

Total: $3585

Now, this list is not exhaustive, and like I said, it does not include compounding tax burden (If you buy a $1 toy, the production of that toy is made up of a great deal of taxes; corporate taxes, income taxes that the employees that work the line paid, along with employer matching SSI and Medicare, regulatory charges and fees, etc. Then you pay sales tax on top of all of those taxes...Thus, the original price of a toy that ended up costing you a 1.08 after taxes, if all taxes were removed, start to finish, would have only cost you maybe 50 cents...).

---------- Post added at 01:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:03 PM ----------

Where are the churches that sent these men to seminary?

I have a wife and two kids and will be able to fully support them through a full time job at a hospital without her needing to work on top of working at being a godly mother. Having said that, I come from a new church plant that does not have the resources to be able to support me at all through seminary financially, so there are lots of circumstance where this is not possible. But overall I would say that government aid should be the last resort. It seems like 1 Tim. 5:8 is pretty clear on that. Though I recognize that it does not speak to it directly I think we need to understand that God has called me to provide for their families not to go to seminary. I say if you cannot do it, then maybe wait til you can. Just my two cents.

Paul used his rights and resources as a Roman citizen to further the ministry. Why do you think we are forbidden from doing the same? God has called men to provide for their families, no doubt. But if the system is designed where that requires they get that provision from the government, their is nothing in scripture that would forbid it. We are not allowed to "wait" when God says "Go." When God says "Go," we go, and use any non-sinful means we can to accomplish that task. We are living in a semi-socialist system, and as much as we may not like it, we are commanded to submit to it.
 
Also, this would mean that what Joseph did in Egypt was not only clever, but very evil. He saw the famine coming, so he instituted higher taxes to prepare the storehouses; then when the famine came he sold the very same grain back to them.
Are you referring to Genesis 41ff? Where does it say he raised taxes or took from landowners?
Yeah, I am referring to Gen 41. I am assuming it is taxed, since the people don't own/have immediate access to it. Joseph collects it from all the cities into reserves (v47-49), and then sells it when the famine breaks out (v55-57). I am assuming it is a higher tax, since they weren't doing it before.
 
The simplest reading of the text implies that the one fifth was collected from all the land of Egypt. In any case, it is up to the Church to provide where there is need. If the Church wants seminary qualified pastors then they need to be willing to foot the bill. If they are not doing it then they have no right to complain about the source of the money paid.
 
Socialism is evil in all of its forms. It is a violation of the eighth commandment. Where are the churches that sent these men to seminary?

Where are the churches is the bigger issue to my mind. Often there is no support or oversight at all of seminarians. This happens with Presbyterian churches too. A friend of mine did have active oversight by his OPC church but he was told by a professor at RTS that it was quite rare.

On the other hand, I do see a good deal of local church involvement and work in ministry by NOBTS students in our area, which I understand tends to be somewhat rarer at other seminaries. Whether or not some are on public assistance or are going heavily into debt I cannot say. Some have working wives that help put them through school. Tuition at SBC seminaries is relatively low, lower than many undergraduate schools, especially for members of Southern Baptist churches.
 
Damon, what year are you using for those figures? Up until this year, the FICA split has been 6.2 SS and 1.45 Medicare. SS is a little less this year.

Also, It's very unusual that you are paying BOTH city and county taxes on your property. I've never heard of a place where municipalities had dual taxation claim. You either live in a township or a county but not both. Maybe it's different in Texas. It usually is :stirpot:
 
Wow what a discussion I entered this thread expecting it to be a slam dunk one sided conversation, what a surprise.

How did the church (particularly the Presbyterians) handle the issue of support for men in seminary throughout church history?

I had someone tell me the other day that when a friend of there's went through seminary in the sixties for the episcopal church he was given free married housing, denomination paid tuition and he was payed a small "salary" so he could be a full student, has anyone heard of such a thing? Is this accurate?

I felt the same way you do until I came up here for myself. The problem that we have in the SBC is that there is no organized system for supporting seminary students. It is up to the local churches, and if you come from a small church like I did, there is just not much money to be had. The seminaries don't make it any easier by refusing to participate in the federal student loan program, and the grants that are available are not near enough to pay for school. I understand about not getting into debt, but let's be consistent. Are you telling me that none of the faculty or administration at the seminaries has a loan on their house or their car? Most of us come up here on nothing but faith and had no intention of getting any kind of government assistance, but once you get up here and see how everything is stacked against you, it tends to make you reconsider.

With the possible exception of student loans, the SBC system is arguably better than any of the Reformed seminaries with the exception of Greenville, which is unaccredited and very inexpensive and has a provision for going tuition free if the home church meets certain conditions. None of the conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations have an organized system for supporting seminary students. (The SBC way of sending missionaries with the CP is much more organized than the PCA, which operates more like indep. churches in that respect) With the exception of Covenant Seminary and some of the very small denoms, all of the seminaries are independent and not affiliated with any particular denomination.

Unlike Presbyterians, many SBC students also take on a pastorate, often at a small or rural church that is unable to support a full time pastor. In some cases there may be support available through an association or somewhat more likely, the state convention.
 
Tom: Sorry, you are right; Medicare is 1.45, not 1.5. That is a negligible difference, though.

Second, yes, there is both city and county taxes, at least when you live in the city limits, here. Some places even have three different property taxes, although the third tax is usually a private HOA, not the government.

I have no idea why this is different here...maybe because we do not have State income tax.
 
Also, It's very unusual that you are paying BOTH city and county taxes on your property.

Here there is a fairly small city tax, a smaller county tax, a tiny community college tax, and a huge school district tax. Sales taxes are high, but lower than Tennessee, and like Tennessee, no income tax. Car registration is low.
 
Texas has wierd real estate laws for sure. But TN doesn't have a state income tax and there is no dual municipality taxation.
 
Or the deacons where they are currently members ...

Are we talking about widows and orphans here? Are we talking about men unable to work to support their families? Or are we talking about men who have made choices?

Instead of being full time students and part time workers, perhaps these men should be full time workers and part time students. I don't see the shortcoming by the deacons.

My thoughts exactly. I don't see the wisdom in a man with a wife and several children going to school full time.
 
Yes. Those two came to mind, as they are both community property states. Don't get me started on Louisiana..... :doh:

I don't see the wisdom in a man with a wife and several children going to school full time.
There's often nothing wise about what we do in following Christ. Sacrifice isn't wise. Nor is it acceptable in America nowadays. Not saying your statement is antithetical to that, btw. Just pointing out that I hear often from people who can't believe people are doing mission work or going to seminary or ____________ because how could they possibly do that to their kids? How will they afford tvs in each room? How will they afford $85 sneakers for all of them? How can they have family night at Ruth Chris?

I'm not saying the traditional model of a man UHauling his family hours away to do a 95 hour Master's degree is the ultimate sacrifice for Christ. Not saying there may not be a better way. However, our society is so allergic to anything sacrificial that for some, the thought of doing this is tantamount to spousal/child abuse because some creature comforts may have to be punted.
 
Abuse? That's rather a leap. This isn't about giving up TVs or sneakers or restaurants. This is about willfully choosing to have other folk provide for one's family, which is hubby's job.

Not wise, yes. I agree with Gloria. Esp if the husband has not set aside enough $$$ to hold the family over through the studies.

Food stamps should, at best, be for short-term, devastating circumstances, in my opinion.
 
Yeah, if my husband wanted to go to seminary, I'd do anything for that to happen, as long as we could be together. (Or even if he wanted to go to school for a "secular" PhD.) I would never say, or think, "Well, dear, your job is to provide for us, so please stay at the job that is sucking the life out of you or please ignore the call to the ministry." Instead, I would say, "OK. well, it's going to be tough. How are we going to do it? Where can we live? Whatever the answer, let's make this happen."

Seminary men, I hope you don't feel guilty for choosing seminary, even at a juncture where you have dependents. We can't do it all--marry young AND have all of our ducks in a row. (And even if we marry after said ducks are in a row, what happens when plans change?)
I was happy that my husband married me before he went to grad school, rather than having a long, long engagement.
 
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." - Alexander Tyler


As much as I like the above quote, it was not written/spoken by Alexander Tyler. The gentleman's name was Alexander Fraser Tytler. See this article.
 
Abuse? That's rather a leap. This isn't about giving up TVs or sneakers or restaurants. This is about willfully choosing to have other folk provide for one's family, which is hubby's job.

Not wise, yes. I agree with Gloria. Esp if the husband has not set aside enough $$$ to hold the family over through the studies.

Food stamps should, at best, be for short-term, devastating circumstances, in my opinion.


Then the government needs to quit taking the money from these men in the first place. GETTING BACK money that YOU paid into the system, is not "willfully choosing to have others provide for your family." That is rubbish. All food stamps do, at least for the person who is working and paying taxes, is giving back part of what THEY paid in...

The fact is, under your premise, only those who were born from a rich family, or a member of a mega-church, could go to Seminary. If the government is going to take my money to pay for abortions, they can DARN SURE give some of that money to struggling seminarians. As long as we allow the left to keep sucking up all the resources, while the sinfully prideful conservatives refuse those resources, we are going to be continually taxed out of existence.
 
Agreed. The arguments proposed against thus far as nonsensical. Only the rich or already established are "morally allowed" to go to seminary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top