In Theory: A Russian court seems to equate prayer with money
A Russian regional court has ruled that an Orthodox Church diocese can repay part of its outstanding debt in prayers, the Associated Press reports.
The Nizhegorodsky Regional Court ruled earlier this month that the local Russian Orthodox Church can repay the 258,000 rubles ($3,244) it owes — along with 65,000 rubles ($817) in fines and legal fees — by praying for the health of the company that installed its boiler system.
Q. What do you think of the Russian court’s ruling?
--
What a strange story! And is there a catch? Also, how long do the official prayer or prayers have to take? I mean, how does anybody put a quantitative value on something like prayer? And who is the judge who determines that enough prayers have been said?
Is there an April Fool’s Day in Russia that occurs in February? That’s what this story sounds like: an April Fool prank.
Also, why does the diocese owe money? I realize that Russia doesn’t have the private property laws that we hold dear in this country, but there is simply too much that is not known to say anything more — except if other faiths get word of this and they owe money, can’t they point to the prayers the diocese is supposed to say? Again, what a strange story, and I’m still not convinced that it’s not a prank of some sort.
The Rev. Skip Lindeman
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada Flintridge
--
From this story it appears that the Russian court has ruled that the church may repay its financial obligation for boiler system services rendered with prayers instead of cash. If it is the case that the church contracted the services for a certain amount of money then the church should pay exactly that to the contractor. If the church and the contractor agree together that a certain portion of the debt may be paid with prayers, then that’s also acceptable. But it is wrong for the court to require the company to accept prayers on their behalf instead of the money that was promised to them.
Moral and financial integrity is and has always been a huge issue for the church. It’s what God requires of his people and it’s what the world rightly expects from us. In the early days of the church God took Ananias and Sapphira’s lives because they lied about the amount of property sales proceeds he and his wife donated to their church (see Acts, chapter 5). Proverbs 22:1 reminds us that “A good name is to be more desired than great wealth, favor is better than silver and gold.” How can we renege on our debts and still claim to have integrity? Would anyone else want to do business with the church after such a decision? Maybe there’s more to the story than I can discover via the Internet, but on the surface this seems wrong. As believers our public actions either reflect positively or negatively on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I cannot see how this exalts the name of Jesus Christ before the world, therefore I cannot agree that the ruling was good for anyone.
Pastor Jon Barta
Burbank
--
By making religious institutions tax exempt on the basis of their religiosity alone, America is also essentially allowing payment with prayer. As an atheist, one might think I would pronounce this bartering agreement patently ridiculous out of hand. In fact, my first inclination was to do just that. However, a humanist respects others’ beliefs even if they are not their own, so my assessment of the issue is actually more nuanced.
A form of payment is appropriate if it has value to the person receiving it. So, if an exchange is being made between private parties and, the party accepting payment values prayer as equivalent to money, this is a valid exchange. Personally, I believe in forgiving debt for those who cannot pay on a case by case basis. I also value positive thought, which is similar to prayer in some ways.
That being the case, when it is something other than two individuals making an agreement, there are more issues involved. For example, it would be ethical for a private corporation to decide to accept payment in prayer if they agreed to set a standardized value to prayer and any such policy was applied to all clientele. The problem with that is, the corporation would go out of business for lack of income.
In the instance referenced, it is not the creditor, but the government deciding to place a pecuniary value on prayer. This is problematic on a number of levels. Since I am not too familiar with Russian politics, I will analyze the situation from an American perspective. First of all, it is the duty of government to support and protect its citizenry and be representative of all. Although certain people may value prayer, many do not consider prayer valuable, certainly not in that way. If, as in this case, the government decides prayer can be accepted only from certain parties, namely religious institutions, and not all debtors, that is also unfair.
So, I do not believe this Russian judgment is wise, effective or even-handed.
Joshua Lewis Berg
Humanist Celebrant
Glendale
--
Imagine such a thing ever happening here, in ostensibly Christian America! Only in Russia…
Naysayers will castigate the church, calling them deadbeats or thieves, but there are two sides of this story with unpublished details. For example, why has the church reneged only partially, yet is seemingly capable of paying fines and the rest of another part of the installed system? There may be a dispute regarding work quality or equipment. Perhaps the estimate inflated beyond budget. It’s hard to say, not knowing the particulars, but something of which to be aware is that the aggrieved company actually came up with the settlement, as the company identifies with this particular denomination, and they value the spirituality of its constituents. They wished to maintain a continuing relationship, and that’s what we should all hope for in our communities.
I wish to never see a Christian entity disregard a promise, or to welsh on its debts, because the Bible says, “Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker” (Leviticus 19:13), “Give to everyone what you owe “ (Romans 13:7), and only “The wicked borrow and do not repay” (Psalms 37:21). If this church is truly Christian, that is, not merely some cultural tradition with which ungodly Russians identify, then these verses surely factored into their decision.
This reminds me of one godly local mechanic named Vahe, who owns ABC Auto Electric in La Crescenta. Because he has a charitable heart, he has helped many who promised to repay, but never returned. They received their repaired vehicles, but their bills are ultimately filed into the fat folder of nonpayers. I know of this, because he helped me when I was recently caught short. And yet I’m sure that Vahe (Vick) Maranian prays for these people who have despised him. In today’s article, it is the Church which received the service and didn’t pay — yet prays for the company. With Vic, it is he who rendered service, was cheated, and yet prays for his customers. In either case, there is a perceived, genuine spiritual dynamic at work.
I’m awed that the heating company valued prayer as payment exchange, and that they believe God is answering its concession. I would hope customers who received double their value from Vic, return and pay the man, and likewise restore their own relationships with him and God.
In specific answer to today’s question, the court ruled well because it let the parties formulate the agreement. However, I wish that it had been done out of court since the story only provided unbelievers fodder for godless chatter (1Corinthians 6).
Rev. Bryan A. Griem
Tujunga