OPINION & EDITORIAL
What would Jesus do with millions?
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ben Patterson:
- What would Jesus do with millions? (November 6, 2007)
- University of Wisconsin System hinges on budget allocations (October 9, 2007)
- Homeless need to find their bootstraps and pull up (September 25, 2007)
- Bush veto puts spotlight on incompetent government (May 4, 2007)
- UW to fund discrimination (April 20, 2007)
Related Stories:
- A delicate topic (November 26, 2007)
- Exploring the issues: Religion - Your responses (November 30, 2007)
- Ten Commandments removal sparks counterpoint (September 10, 2003)
- Jesus dolls unsuitable for tots (November 30, 2006)
- Beckstrom wrong on religious case (September 20, 2005)
by Ben Patterson
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
My family has never been very religious, and I’m no
exception. But through education and meeting of all kinds of people, I’ve come
to understand the value behind any faith. Religion has the power to moralize,
to build community, to act as a refuge, even be an escape. But one thing I’m
very confident of is that religion was never intended to become a monopoly.
Recently, the Blackhawk Church opened its $17 million doors
on Madison’s west side. The church
claims that it has gone through rapid growth and with gatherings of 4,000 or so,
a new facility was the only way to house everyone. The church has three
auditoriums with lounges and a video café. Sunday mornings, Executive Pastor
Gregg Bergman conducts mass in the largest of the three auditoriums, and live
video is fed to the other two auditoriums.
The church claims that it intends to keep its small-church
atmosphere while allowing for as many as possible to attend services. Family,
according to church officials, is still the main priority of the church.
What’s interesting is that if small-church values are said
to be the focus, why were millions of dollars raised to create a massive,
warehouse-style church? For the officials to preach of small-church values in a
complex that has parking space comparable to Wal-Mart, the hypocrisy is more
than obvious. I was always under the assumption individuals attended mass to
seek refuge in their Savior, not in the video café.
The creation of this church undermines what has
traditionally been a primary focus on faith and religion. These people are
coming to the church to explore its amenities, not its beliefs. How can
thousands of people blindly attend mass in a multimillion dollar facility,
while the people they are supposedly praying for are hungry, sick and
homeless?
Can you imagine what could be done with $17 million? It may
seem cliché to ask the question, but what would Jesus do? If overcrowding was
an issue and people truly were faithful, why not separate into smaller bodies
and hold services independently? Why thoughtlessly consume land, resources,
funds, time and energy to create something that is so obviously arbitrary to
the real purpose of faith? It can only be seen as the changing of religious
priority in today’s world. One’s true faith and moral standing are not what’s
important any more. Rather, the “what can you do for me now” mentality has
taken a firm hold on society.
In order for churches to survive today, it seems as though
something more than eternal salvation has to be offered. Maybe they should give
a free lunch for every soul saved or priority parking for those who have sinned
the least. It’s unfortunate that I’m able to joke about such an issue as
traditionally revered and respected as personal spirituality. However, it’s
just as unfortunate that people have bought into this system of faux-religion.
The church may very well preach the same morals and beliefs
as it did prior to the new church’s construction, but for it to do so by spending
such an excessive amount of money that, according to National Coalition on
Health Care, could provide health insurance for more than 4,000 people seems
nothing less than hypocritical.
Religion has, from its onset, been designed to create an atmosphere conducive to moral edification and social awareness. It’s amazing that in this day and age of education and communication, no one thought that the creation of a mega-church was in direct opposition of true Christian faith. It’s obvious we are all living in a veiled world. And what’s most unfortunate is that the people supposedly in charge of altering this sad reality are, in fact, the ones perpetuating it.
Ben Patterson (bpatterson@wisc.edu)
is a junior majoring in political science.
Anonymous (November 6, 2007 @ 2:18am):
amen.
Anonymous (November 6, 2007 @ 7:21pm):
I find it very interesting that this article, which mentions spending the $17 million on those who need healthcare and reaching out to the homeless comes from someone who wrote an article entitled "Homeless need to find their bootstraps and pull up."
In that article, you essentialy state the the homeless in Madison need to stop begging for money all day and do something for themselves. You mention that you laugh.
How is it that in one article you can say chastize a church for not giving to the poor, and in another chastize the poor for not fending for themselves and doing something about their homeless state.
Seems as though these two opinions by the same person contradict each other drastically.
Anonymous (November 7, 2007 @ 12:15am):
I was just wondering if Ben had actually attended Blackhawk church just once to see for himself, or if he is making these claims from what he has heard?
Anonymous (November 7, 2007 @ 5:43am):
Sheesh... somebody got all pink and puffy like an infant with deleting comments overnight.
What happened to all the comments from yesterday?
Was "amen" all that needed to be said?
pffl
Anonymous (November 7, 2007 @ 9:13am):
This is a poorly written and poorly researched article. It's clear that you read an article in the Capital Times and made no effort to check with any real sources as you came up with your anti-religious rant.
While your article may address some valid points, you are setting up a straw man that simply does not exist. Next time do some research, visit Blackhawk (so you know what you're writing about, i.e. realizing that they are not Catholic, thus do not have "mass"), and then develop your argument so that your product is better informed and based on reality, not a caricature.
Anonymous (November 7, 2007 @ 10:37am):
Hey man,
Not intending to attack. But there are a couple facts here that just aren't correct. Come and check it out. I'll go with you. Seriously. I'm not trying to persuade you towards any view, but this stuff is definitely worth checking into before writing about (again, not meaning to come of as condescending.) mhughes2@wisc.edu Email me. Let's go.
Anonymous (November 7, 2007 @ 11:17am):
To: 7:21pm
I read both of the articles your commenting on and the thing you fail to realize is that it might be his opionion that the homeless need to get off their ass, but the church's opinion is that they should be helping these people. He pointing out the hypocrisy of the church not spending money to help others rather just helping themselves, he's not contridicting himself. You should read between the lines next time and not be a brainwashed christian.
joe chapman (November 7, 2007 @ 12:19pm):
In 2006 the us revenue from internet porn was $2.84 billion. Some estimates put the cost of the war in Iraq at over $450 billion, the New York Times reports the cost to be around $1.2 trillion. In 2005 Americans spent about $38 billion on pet food. Peyton Manning gets paid around $34 million to throw a football.
We've got bigger problems than big churches...give em' a break.
Anonymous (November 7, 2007 @ 1:51pm):
I agree that Blawkhawk has done a disservice to its students and local residents by moving out of the neighborhood and massively upgrading its facilities. I agree there are seemingly endless ways to better spend $17 million.
But perhaps the author of this article should have viewed the upgrade in the context of historical church-edifice undertakings. In many cases, well-meaning church leaders saught some way to express the glory and awe they felt, and wanted to inspire in their congregations with impressive structures. Yes, there was corruption and misuse, but something has to be said for the beautiful cathedrals that still stand today. Churchs often start in basements, garages, etc. And some churches do well, grow, and ... sometimes get too big, and break apart.
Blackhawk has probably given a lot of thought into how they are spending their money. They probably had a vigorous internal review process. And it's their right to do whatever they want with their money, and deal with the consequences. On the other hand, look at the cost of the Iraq war and the US' foreign entanglements. At the UW, look at the wastefulness of the new campus buildings. $17 million is a drop in the bucket.
Megachurches are often disgraceful, but some do thrive. Look at the 700,000+ congregation in Seoul, Korea.
If you don't like the way Blackhawk is spending their money, then go join the church, and voice your opinions there.
Anonymous (November 7, 2007 @ 2:08pm):
There are many weaknesses in your op ed piece. The most glaring is the lack of first hand research. In paragraph 5, how many of the 4,000+ attendees did you interview to conclude their primary motive for attending? A pull quote or two, with a named source might add strength to your opinion.
Secondly, your conclusion that "big = bad" is an interesting conclusion from the biggest school in the state, with no less than 2 multi-million dollar building projects in process in any given year. Why should you apply a different standard to the church than the school. Could not the state have better spent that money on social and environmental programs and educated its students in the old one room school houses? So tell us, why is bigger better for the university and not the church? If a quality program fills the seats and requires more space in the classroom, why should a quality program that fills the pews not also get more room to met its needs?
Just a thought.
Anonymous (November 7, 2007 @ 2:29pm):
To the question posed in the article's title: What would Jesus do with millions?
Well, I can only begin to imagine, but if you look at some of the seemingly bizarre things he's enjoyed, I would expect to be shocked at what he'd do with $17 million. Check out Mark 14:3, and ask yourself if you would have expected that.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 8:08am):
2:29pm
You make an excellent point about what would Jesus actually do with $17 million. In fact, Jesus' very own disciples bitched and moaned about the woman "irresponsibly" dousing Jesus with expensive perfume. Why, they could have sold that perfume and fed the hungry and taken care of the poor. Jesus response to this is hilarious.
To the author, I really don't understand the basis of your article. Blawkhawk is a private institution. I assume that all of the $17 million was raised through private funding. It's not like they received a government grant, tuition, or any public tax money. Even if they want to burn the money, who cares? I agree with you, the new church does seem like waste, but what's worse is the entire basis of this article.
Anonymous (November 11, 2007 @ 10:56pm):
please be informed before making such large claims in an article. perhaps try to back up your conclusions, or bring some truth into them. To understand maybe you need to look from the inside out.
Anonymous (November 21, 2007 @ 3:24pm):
Did a pastor at Blackhawk tell you that they weren't giving to the poor? $17 million is a lot of money, but maybe you should check into some of the other things that they're doing with their time and money...just a thought.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
