Are We Outward Focused or Inward Focused? Follow The Checkbook To Find Out.

$50 billion.

$50,000,000,000

That is a lot of money even in a day of trillion dollar Federal deficits. It is also the estimated amount given as "tithing" by some 10,000,000 American church goers based on a study I saw published by Christianity Today ( 10 Million Tithers Donate More Than $50 Billion ). Given that some ridiculously high percentage of Americans self-identify as "Christians" that is not a lot of givers but since I put zero stock in checking the  "Christian" box on a survey it doesn't make much difference. What is pretty incredible is the staggering amount of giving. The study also points to the most common form of religious giving, a form that is pounded into the head of every Christian, "97% make it a priority to give to their local church". If there is one thing that is uniformly taught across the religious spectrum, it is the prioritization of giving to your "local church".

I have said this before but the idea of prioritizing giving to the "local church" is at its most fundamental level a self-serving concept. I say that because most of the money that goes to local churches stays in the local church and is used to make "worship" and religious observation more pleasant, more entertaining and more convenient for the very same people who donate the money. That is not to suggest that all local church giving stays in house as most local churches pay a token percentage to mission work, mercy work or local ministries like food pantries. It is to say that most local church budgets focus on keeping the local church open on Sunday morning. As an added bonus those who are most vociferous in teaching the priority of giving first to your local church are those who likewise depend on perpetuating that myth, namely the paid clergy who depend on this system for a paycheck.The entire system borders on a scheme where our most trusted sources in the church are the ones peddling the most self-serving notion.

This gets back to the broader of issue of our love and indeed worship of money in the church, an idolatry that is a near perfect reflection of the broader American cultural obsession with money. I absolutely affirm that we have a serious problem with how money and the church relate but I don't think it is the same problem we hear about so often. We don't so much have a giving problem in the church, what we really have is a spending problem. Where is our spending as the church focused? Is it outward or inward and which is more Biblical?

The New Testament church was outward focusing in....

• Caring for the needy, such as widows among the church.
• Concerned for the welfare of Christians in other locations that were suffering.
• Supporting the evangelistic work of apostles/missionaries/evangelists who were traveling and preaching the Gospel.

The New Testament church was not concerned with...

• Mortgages, interest payments, building projects, utilities.
• Salaries for religious employees.
• Material and curriculum for Sunday school. 
• Supporting the hierarchy of religious organizations like denominations and seminaries.

...because those things didn't exist. Have we matured beyond the simplistic, primitive state of the early church? Or have we rejected what was important to the church under the leadership of the apostles and substituted what is important to those with a vested interest in perpetuating the current religious system that panders to the basest impulses of a people obsessed with convenience, entertainment and self-focused consumption?

It is not a coincidence that there is a backlash against the "radical" Christianity movement and the labeling of virtually any notion of a prioritization of mercy ministry as "social justice" with the connotation of liberalism that is attached to that term. These movements, which are by and large so mild that Christians of days past in the early centuries of the church, or those persecuted by Catholic and Protestant alike through the Reformation years or contemporary Christians who put their lives on the line for Christ everyday would find laughable to be label them "radical", are a major threat to church as we know it. The questions they raise are uncomfortable and lead to people thinking thoughts dangerous to the religious establishment. When you read between the lines you can see the worry as the religious world that we have known for so long evaporates.

We can have all the studies we want about giving with the implied disapproving finger wag toward those who don't "tithe" to their local church or who give less than 10% or who, gasp!, "tithe" based on net earnings rather than gross. That doesn't get to the heart of the problem, a problem which truly is a "heart"  issue. Where is the church focused? Is it on Sunday morning and our own convenience? Or is it on the messy and often invisible work that goes on "out there"? Until we get our spending figured out, our concerns over giving are a wasted effort.

Year End Giving

It is nearly the end of 2011 and if you are like me and on lots of e-mailing lists, you probably are getting inundated with requests for last second gifts. Ligonier needs a quarter million. 9 Marks needs money. On and on and on. It is easy to just ignore them all and not worry about it. I hope you don't. What better way to close out 2011 and ring in the New Year than by contributing to the care for orphans in Haiti by making a tax deductible contribution that goes 100% to helping orphans rather than paying administrative costs?

I would ask you to consider yet again the Haiti Orphan Project. Why the Haiti Orphan Project? Check out this link to see what your donation can do for a child in need: Two Days to Make 2011 Year End Contribution

I just made a donation via PayPal and it took me all of 45 seconds. Not a huge amount of money but a sum that will go a long way toward making sure that these kids get the chance to hear about Christ, get an education, have a place to live and food to eat.

I know that there are lots of places to give in the next few days but I would ask you to consider carefully and prayerfully The Haiti Orphan Project.

Thanks!

People are not budget items

I mentioned yesterday that world famous Canadian blogger Tim Challies is doing a series on giving in the church. As I expected most of it is little more than a regurgitation of the cultural understanding of “give to the local church to support the local church” dogma. Today he covered the “where” and “how much” question and his answer and more importantly his rationale for answering “where” with “the local church” was quite telling. His first two points were not terrible…

First, the church appoints certain people to be aware of need and responsive to it. In most churches this is the job of deacon who are called and equipped to be both proactive and responsive when it comes to need.

Second, the leaders of the church can identify the most important needs. The elders and deacons work together to identify and determine how to meet whatever needs arise.

That seems reasonable. We see that the early church sold their belongings and gave them to the apostles’ feet to be doled out….

There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.(Acts 4:34-35 ESV)

I would point out that elders in local churches today are not exactly the same as the apostles but that is a minor quibble. Now I have never been a deacon in a church except in the sense of deacons being servants and I certain strive to serve wherever I am but I wonder how accurate the assumption is that, i.e. that the deacons are aware of the needs of the church and ensuring that they are being met. I question this for a couple of reasons, one being that in most churches we have been associated with there is not the level of close fellowship that would be required to really know what the needs of every Christian in a local church are (plus our American pride that prevents us from seeking help from friends). The other reason is that in a church budget, benevolence or mercy ministry is but one line item and is rarely (again in my experience) a very substantial one compared to clergy salaries and building maintenance. Still, those first two points seem defensible from Scripture. His third point is that often more can be accomplished by big gifts to a relatively small number of ministries, which seems to fly in the face of the reality that $500 to help a family with heating and food in your local community is probably more Biblical than a $5000 donation to some massive bureaucratic ministry.
Then take a look at reason number four (emphasis added)….

Fourth, the New Testament makes it clear that the church is to set aside certain men to the work of the ministry and some of these are to be set aside to vocational ministry. Most Christians take this to mean that they are to be paid for their work. By making the church your primary means of giving, you are supporting your pastors in the ministry. And, of course, you are also supporting all the ministry of that church, from paying salaries to paying for a building and Bibles and everything else that is needed to keep a church going. If you are at a church week-by-week but giving your money to another cause, you are not supporting and sustaining your own church.

Most of it is typical pay clergy rhetoric but the second from the last sentence was really telling. The mindset that says we need salaried professional clergy and “church” buildings in order to keep going is so prevalent in the church and it is really damaging because the actual people of the church become a line item on the budget and often that line item falls far down the pecking order on the budget. We have to pay for the building and the pastor because without those how could we possible have a church?! Sure the Jones family is beingevicted or having their heat turned off but at least they can come here on Sunday and listen to a sermon in a comfy pew!

This is so contrary to Scripture where sharing within the church and caring for one another was not one of the financial priorities of the church, it was the priority of the church. In the midst of false teaching, violence and persecution against the church and the generally poor conditions of the first century, the church didn’t just “keep going”, it thrived. Today in the midst of unimaginable wealth and cultural acceptance the institutional church in the West is largely spiritually dead and everyone knows it but the proposed solution is always more of the same. More programs, more and better buildings, more clergy.

This is not the time for business as usual. Playing church for centuries has gotten us in serious trouble in the church to the point that the world we are supposed to be reaching associates us with hypocrisy, money grubbing, anger, jealously and politics rather than grace, mercy and love. I can't say that the world is wrong. For all of our talk about “loving one another”, our budgets and financial decisions scream just the opposite. We love religion, we love performance, we love private property. Our fellow members of God’s elect, His adopted family which we were brought into by the blood of Christ and the grace of God? They are just a budget item, somewhere between snow removal and office supplies.

Why do we marvel that unbelievers want nothing to do with “Christianity”? Much of the time I don’t either.

Giving and sharing: Are They The Same Thing?

Tim Challies is doing a series on giving over at his blog. So far it is pretty much boilerplate stuff and you can see where it is heading (i.e. give 10% to your local church first and then to other ministries or direct giving if you have anything else above and beyond that). As I read over it, I started to think about how much I dislike the term "giving". Is "giving" the same thing as "sharing"? Do we see the model of the New Covenant church as "giving" or as "sharing"?

First a couple of definitions, at least in my own interpretation of the terms.

Giving implies that what I have is mine and I give some of it to whatever cause I choose, whether that is a church or the Salvation Army or the National Rifle Association. I give a certain percentage and the rest is mine. It is a gift I choose to give.

Sharing implies that within the community of faith what's mine is yours. I make no claim on what is "mine" because truly nothing is mine. Anything I have is available to any brother in need at any time, without strings attached and without the need for budgets or committees to determine where it goes.

Those are clumsy definitions but I think they are a starting point. When we look in Scripture what do we see, specifically in the New Testament is the church giving or sharing? Clearly the Old Testament/Old Covenant model is "giving" but what about the New? Do we see our traditional notion of "storehouse giving" or is the church "sharing"?

In the one case where the church gathered up money, the example often cited as "proof" that Christians should "give at church", 1 Corinthians 16:1 (see also Rom 15:26 and Acts 11: 29-30 dealing with the same issue), Paul is telling the church in Corinth to set aside money to take to Jerusalem. The church was sharing with their brethren in Jerusalem who were in need and not keeping the money "in house".

In Acts 2:44-45 and Acts 4:32, perhaps the most uncomfortable passages for many Western Christians in all of Scripture, I think what is happening is "sharing", not "giving". They were not writing a check on Sunday morning at church. They were sharing directly to those who were in need and perhaps as importantly were not paying operating expenses but rather meeting the physical needs of the church (presumably food and clothing?)

I have argued in the past that we never see the church in the New Testament treating money as we do, i.e. the giving of offerings to the local church where it is primarily used to fund the offerings of that local church with a small portion being distributed outside of the church organization. I think the distinction between Christians sharing with one another and giving to the local church is enormous and very, very important. What do you think? Is there a difference between giving and sharing and is the way we understand and view money important to how we relate to one another?

Repost:: Why do we give?

Guy Muse has posted a couple of good posts on Kingdom giving versus storehouse tithing (part one and part two). I posted something along these lines, Why do we give?, back in October of last year and I thought it was a good time to repost it and look at what Scripture says about giving (hint, giving to pay mortgages or salaries for local elders is not in there)

----

The other day, Eric Carpenter had a blog post about something R.C. Sproul wrote on tithing. I read the same thing from Sproul and had a similar reaction and as I said in response I have a hard time taking Sproul seriously when the topic turns to giving when I get daily pleas for money from Ligonier.

What I found interesting was a comment from Alan Knox:

First, refusing to put money in an offering plate in order to support an organizational structure is not the same as supporting the church. In the same way, refusing to put money in an offering plate in order to support an organizational structure is not the same as failing to support the church. In fact, if you see the organizational structure as detrimental to the church, then perhaps it is better NOT to support that organization.

That is right on. If you view, as I do, most of the organized, tradition bound church as an impediment to the making of disciples and equipping believers, why in the world would you support that system financially? It is irresponsible to keep pouring money into a system without asking the hard questions just because tradition and the loudest voices say so. Unfortunately, a reasonable and eminently Biblical question like that rises to the level of wicked rebelliousness in some eyes. I have been accused in the past of failing to support "The Church" financially. In fact, one guy on Facebook described refusing to put money in the plate to support clerical staff at a local church as "evil". He was dead serious and outraged that anyone would even question the whole system.

Of course the opposite is just as dangerous and un-Biblical. Cynically refusing to give to others is simply unacceptable for a Christian. Giving of our resources in support of one another and the needy is a fundamental feature of the life of a believer and reflective of a changed life. So we ought to be giving deeply of our resources which includes not just money but our time, our love, our compassion, our talents. We need to think through why we give and how we give because just putting some money in the plate and letting others worry about where it goes is and giving little thought to how it is being spent is not healthy or helpful either.

Having said that, Kingdom giving is not the same thing as writing a check to sustain a local church organization and the confusion between the two is a problem. I want to take a lengthy look at giving in the NT church because I think we assume a lot of things about giving, where we should give, how we should give and what the purpose of giving is.

When we see the church giving in the New Testament, there are a couple of important things going on. First, the early church didn't "tithe" in the sense of paying a fixed percentage out of obligation, but gave completely and sacrificially and joyfully. Second, they gave to help others and by helping others I mean meeting the physical needs of believers and others. Let's look at some examples of giving in the New Testament (keeping in mind that the model under the Old Covenant is no longer applicable under the New Covenant in the church so we cannot appeal there for direction). Lets start with Acts 2: 44-45 and Acts 4: 32-35:

And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. (Acts 2: 44-45)

Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:32-35)
 

The first thing that jumps out at me here is that this is a sacrificial giving, not a miserly tithe. I don’t think that this mandates that all Christians have all things in common but I certainly do see the advantages of that among believers and I likewise think that any believer who withholds from another when the other believer is in need has a troubling understanding of money and possessions. You certainly have a hard time reconciling the idea of giving a percentage of what is left over after taking care of all of your expenses and savings for retirement to the church and feeling that you are satisfying the call to support others.

The second thing, and this will be a recurring theme, is that the funds are being given as any had need. Not to fund a program or an institution but going to Christians who were in need. It sounds to me like it was “see a need, fill a need” situation. As someone has a need, it was fulfilled so that none were without. That would mean that some would have far less materially than they might have otherwise (i.e. Barnabas who sold his real estate and gave it to the church to be distributed to others in Acts 4: 36-37) but that was OK and expected.

Next we move to Acts 11: 27-30

Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this took place in the days of Claudius). So the disciples determined, everyone according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. And they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul. (Acts 11: 27-30)
 

Here we see a specific need that was prophesied as besetting the church in Judea that the rest of the church took up offerings for and delivered by hand for the relief of those saints. The church around the region was made aware of a need that wold impact a church in a completely different region and they gave to see to it that the needs of those brothers was met. This is a recurring theme....

Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. (1 Cor 16: 1-3)

We see here a special collection being taken at the church but not to stay in the coffers of the church in Corinth (and previously Galatia) but rather to be gathered and taken to Jerusalem for the severe need there, spoken of in a number of places throughout the New Testament.

Let’s look at the praise heaped upon the church in Macedonia for their generosity that was so extraordinary that Paul took the time to mention it in his letter to the church in Corinth. Paul devotes virtually all of two chapters to giving (2 Corinthians 8-9) but we often only hear about the "God loves a cheerful giver" portion (2 Cor 9: 6-8) from pulpits as a plea for greater giving to the local church when the offering is down, even though that has nothing to do with what Paul is talking about.

We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints— and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us. (2 Corinthians 8: 1-5)


In a time of severe trial, the Christians in Macedonia gave generously, “beyond their means” for….the relief of the saints. What a far cry from the situation in America where tens of thousands of churches across the land each have their own bank account, jealously guarded, where untold millions (billions?) are hoarded away for the needs of that local church. Going on further…

For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, “Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack.” (2 Corinthians 8: 13-15)


The expectation again is that as some saints prosper, they help those who are less prosperous wherever they may be and not just in that particular local church. Given what Paul said about the saints in Maecdonia giving generously even in their poverty, I think that "prospering" means something very different to Paul than it does to us. So that means that we should feel a burden for the care of the saints beyond the “members” of out local church and include other believers in our area and indeed around the world. Can you imagine a traditional evangelical church in Nebraska where they decided that the offering for the next month would be bundled up, 100%, and sent to a community of Christian in Detroit who were suffering? It is hard to imagine because it would seem so out of place and out of character and because almost every local church has monthly bills that need to be paid. Nevertheless, that is precisely what was going on in the early church. Paul continues this conversation in the next chapter where he urges the Corinthians to be ready for the promised offering so as not to be embarrassed by a shortfall (2 Corinthians 9: 1-5). Then we get into the “cheerful giver” passages (2 Corinthians 9: 6-8). That is where the discussion often stops, but Paul goes on….

For the ministry of this service is not only supplying the needs of the saints but is also overflowing in many thanksgivings to God. By their approval of this service, they will glorify God because of your submission flowing from your confession of the gospel of Christ, and the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others, while they long for you and pray for you, because of the surpassing grace of God upon you. (2 Corinthians 9: 12-14)
 

How are they glorifying God? By buying new carpet or adding a new wing on their “church” or hiring a youth minister? By saving money up in their bank account? No, they were glorifying God by supplying the needs of the saints, taking up a contribution for others who are not even part of their local church and who they probably never had and never would meet this side of eternity.

In a more general sense, under the marks of a true Christian in Romans 12, we see this admonition in verse 13:

Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. (Romans 12:13)

"Contribute to the needs of the saints". Notice that the mark of a true Christian is not sustaining the local church organization, it is again caring for the needs of the saints.

An interesting passage shows up in 2 Corinthians 11: 7-9, where Paul talks about receiving financial support from the church:

Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God's gospel to you free of charge? I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you. And when I was with you and was in need, I did not burden anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied my need. So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way. (2 Cor 11: 7-9)

What is interesting here is that Paul is receiving support from other churches in order to serve the Corinthian church rather than burdening the Corinthian church and impeding his right to boast in the Gospel (this is consistent with 1 Corinthians 9: 1-23 where Paul talks about rejecting payment for preaching the Gospel so that his getting paid would not be an obstacle to the Gospel proclamation [see 1 Cor 9:12] ). In fact Paul sees the support he was receiving from these other churches as robbing those churches. I think it is fair to say that Paul saw the support he was receiving from these other churches as taking away from caring for the poor and needy among the saints in those areas. Given the lengths to which Paul reminded the church that he worked to provide for himself with his own hands, we can see a picture where caring for the needs of people is seen as the primary reason for giving in the church. Certainly there are occasions when money is diverted to support missionaries and church planters to use the traditional terminology but I tend to see that as the exception rather than the norm.

How did we arrive at the point where we transformed Biblical support for giving to meet the needs of the saints into giving to prop up the machinery of the institution? We give to sustain the church instead of giving to support the need of the Church. Here is what I mean...

You can give generously to The Church, i.e. other Christians as they have need, without giving to the church, i.e. the local organization where you meet with other believers. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t give to your local church but it does mean that you should be very cautious in doing so. Giving is not the price of admission nor is funding the operations of a local religious organization an especially pious act and certainly giving to the local church organization should not replace giving to care for the needs of the saints, the poor, widows and orphans. I have often heard it said that you should give to your local church first and then after fulfilling that obligation give to others. I think the opposite is more Biblical. We should give generously, sacrificially and joyfully to the needs of others as our first priority. The local church can and should be a part of that giving and distributing but it should not the primary beneficiary of that giving.

If we are people who take the Bible seriously, and most people who read and comment here fall into that category, ought we not see what the Bible has to say about the issue of giving, generosity and money? There are few things more contentious in the church than how we deal with giving and spending. Little wonder when we view these issues as we do, through the lens of tradition, instead of asking what the Bible has to say about it. Before I even started to look at this topic I had an idea of what I thought I would find but I was a little surprised by how overwhelmingly the Bible depicts the act of giving as being something that is primarily designed to meet the needs of others.

What do you think? Am I missing something or overstating my case? How do you think Christians would view giving if it were something that was mostly aimed at meeting the needs (I would argue primarily physical needs like hunger) of others instead of perpetuating the local church?

Where should our giving go?

I was directed to an interesting post by J.D. Greear on Some Questions I Get About Tithing. He put together a list of four questions he often gets and then attempts to answer them. I appreciate that he went through a great deal of trouble to point out that a 10% tithe is not expressly commanded in the New Testament. I was sort of Ok with where he was going until I got to the fourth question that addresses a real concern that I have where giving is concerned, i.e. does the Bible teach that we should give first to the local church? Here is what J.D. had to say….

4. Should we give to the church, or other things? In the OT system, the tithe went to the work of God’s institution, the Temple. Caring for the poor beyond what the Temple did, or funding an itinerant rabbi, etc, all came out beyond the tithe. I believe the implication is that tithing should go to God’s new institution, the local church. Hopefully you have a church that you feel good about how they spend their money (not all on buildings, entitlement perks for members and pastors, etc) and you see them working in the streets and unreached parts of the world. Give some grace here, of course… it’s always easy to play armchair quarterback and talk about how you’d do it differently. I’d say if you trust your pastors, however, you honor God by giving to the institution He ordained. Then, give like a Gospel-touched fool beyond that to all the things God has put in your heart.

So there are a bunch of things I have a question about here.

Right out of the gate we have an appeal to the Old Testament. The problem with that is that the way God’s people functioned under the Old Covenant versus the New is so radically different that it is a dangerous proposition indeed to try to make a New Covenant, “priesthood of every believer” community made up of people from every tribe, nation and people conform to a very specific set of rules and regulations that governed the Israelites in the days when there was a priesthood that operated the temple. Even with the obsolescence of the Levitical priesthood, sacrificial system and temple, we still find ourselves trying to make the church conform to that system. It doesn’t work and it doesn’t make sense Biblically.

Second, the local church is not the reincarnate temple. God’s people are the temple and that includes all of God’s people not just those who belong to the same local church you do. This is especially true when you look at how the traditional local church is organized and managed compared to the Biblical model. It is the difference between a hierarchical corporate structure and an extended family.

Third, caring for the poor and supporting itinerant ministers was the primary and I would argue only way that giving was used in the New Testament. It was not an afterthought or an add on, it was the whole purpose (I wrote about this topic here). So I reject the idea that Christians are under obligation or even being particularly faithful by giving their offerings to their local church and then trusting that whatever is left over after paying for salaries, mortgages, maintenance, programs and savings for a rainy day will find itself going to those in need or some sort of denominational mission organization (with its own expenses that come off the top for salaries, mortgages, maintenance, etc.)

I think almost all Christians can and should give more sacrificially and find ways to increase what we do give. I don’t think that should lead us to believe that we are obligated to bring our offerings to the local church to be distributed. If you see a need and are able to do so, meet it!

Religious giving is not the same thing as New Testament sharing

Came across an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal today that looks at how religious charitable giving has remained pretty static amidst the economic downturn compared to non-religious charitable giving. From Charity's Religious Edge...

Along with jobs and 401(k)s, a major casualty of the Great Recession has been charitable giving. According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, America's charities report an 11% drop in contributions in the past year alone. There's one big exception: Charitable contributions to religious groups dropped by only 0.1% from 2007 to 2009.

Americans are generous people. In 2006, as detailed in our recent book, "American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us," 80% of all Americans reported having made a charitable contribution in the previous year. But some—the religious—contributed more than others.

Of the most secular fifth of Americans, two-thirds said they gave money to charity in the previous year. That's an impressive number, but it pales next to the 94% of the most religious fifth who reported making a charitable donation.

We find the same pattern when we examine how much people give. On average, those in the most religious fifth donate $3,000 to charity annually. Those in the most secular fifth give approximately $1,000. The story is the same when we consider charitable giving as a fraction of household income: By this measure, religious Americans are four times as generous as their secular neighbors, even as they are a little less affluent than secular Americans.

The point is apparently that religious people are more generous than non-religious people, even when times are bad, and doesn’t that make us swell (and by implication better than those unbelieving and stingy heathens). I see these sorts of surveys all the time. It is without question that “religious” people give a greater percentage of their income in tax deductible contributions than non-religious folks. Apparently we are supposed to feel good because we give more than those secular people. Not so fast my friend. There are two problems with this line of thinking.

First, when we give as the church a huge percentage of our giving goes directly into the operating budget of our local church to keep it running. Ministerial salaries, building expenses, various programs, organizational hierarchy all eat up enormous amounts of the resources we contribute, both in terms of money and in terms of time. It is a vicious circle. The church needs money so it spends a lot of time trying to solicit donations from the membership to meet budgetary targets to that the church can survive to….solicit more donations. We give to the local church to keep the local church functioning, something that is utterly foreign to New Testament sacrificial and communal sharing.

The second problem is perhaps even more troubling. I don’t see anywhere in Scripture where our standard for giving is what unbelievers give to charity. If we think our benchmark is the world and anything above and beyond what the world gives makes us pious, we have a serious misunderstanding of our calling as Christians with regard to money. Giving in the New Testament was truly sacrificial to the point of being absolute. I don’t think Christians are called to eschew any private property at all, that isn’t the point of the applicable passages in Acts 2 and 4, but we certainly need to change how we view possessions and money so that we are willing and eager to give so that none among the Body of Christ have need while others have excess. I would hope we are not satisfied with being marginally more sexually moral than the world but we seem quite satisfied with being marginally more sacrificial in our giving than the world.

Let me go further. If I have in excess of what I need and my brother is in real need and I don’t seek opportunity to share with him, am I not sinning? As great a sin as sexuality immortality? While the Bible is clear about the grotesque sin of homosexuality and equally clear about the importance of marriage, it doesn’t address opposition to gay marriage but it does speak strongly against those who refuse to give to their brother in need or caring for widows and orphans or one Christian eating and drinking gluttonously while another goes without. The Bible doesn’t address “gay marriage” being recognized by a secular state in even one verse but the human authors of Scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit expended a ton of ink (I think they used ink?) on wealth, money and possessions.

I am not just talking about responding to the request of a brother in need, I am talking about seeking opportunity to share sacrificially. This is so hard to think through dispassionately because it screams out against our American assumptions. In the American economic model embraced and adapted by the church you work hard to earn a living and consume and save to your hearts content as long as you give a little something on Sunday morning. That worldview is what we know and accept by and large but it is far more in line with what the world thinks than what we see modeled in Scripture. The way we ignore the Bible’s admonitions about money are every bit as grievous as Thomas Jefferson infamously cutting out the supernatural passages from the Bible to turn it into a book of moral guidelines.

There is nothing that makes American Christians squirm more than talking about money and personal finance in light of Scripture but there are few areas that are equally important to our witness to the world. We need to come to a place where we put money and possessions in their place in the right perspective in the church. In order to do that we need to have constant conversation and study about the topic even though it makes us uncomfortable. Perhaps it is better to say that precisely because these topics make us uncomfortable and cause such a visceral reaction that we need to talk about it.

Why do we give?

The other day, Eric Carpenter had a blog post about something R.C. Sproul wrote on tithing. I read the same thing from Sproul and had a similar reaction and as I said in response I have a hard time taking Sproul seriously when the topic turns to giving when I get daily pleas for money from Ligonier.

What I found interesting was a comment from Alan Knox:

First, refusing to put money in an offering plate in order to support an organizational structure is not the same as supporting the church. In the same way, refusing to put money in an offering plate in order to support an organizational structure is not the same as failing to support the church. In fact, if you see the organizational structure as detrimental to the church, then perhaps it is better NOT to support that organization.

That is right on. If you view, as I do, most of the organized, tradition bound church as an impediment to the making of disciples and equipping believers, why in the world would you support that system financially? It is irresponsible to keep pouring money into a system without asking the hard questions just because tradition and the loudest voices say so. Unfortunately, a reasonable and eminently Biblical question like that rises to the level of wicked rebelliousness in some eyes. I have been accused in the past of failing to support "The Church" financially. In fact, one guy on Facebook described refusing to put money in the plate to support clerical staff at a local church as "evil". He was dead serious and outraged that anyone would even question the whole system.

Of course the opposite is just as dangerous and un-Biblical. Cynically refusing to give to others is simply unacceptable for a Christian. Giving of our resources in support of one another and the needy is a fundamental feature of the life of a believer and reflective of a changed life. So we ought to be giving deeply of our resources which includes not just money but our time, our love, our compassion, our talents. We need to think through why we give and how we give because just putting some money in the plate and letting others worry about where it goes is and giving little thought to how it is being spent is not healthy or helpful either.

Having said that, Kingdom giving is not the same thing as writing a check to sustain a local church organization and the confusion between the two is a problem. I want to take a lengthy look at giving in the NT church because I think we assume a lot of things about giving, where we should give, how we should give and what the purpose of giving is.

When we see the church giving in the New Testament, there are a couple of important things going on. First, the early church didn't "tithe" in the sense of paying a fixed percentage out of obligation, but gave completely and sacrificially and joyfully. Second, they gave to help others and by helping others I mean meeting the physical needs of believers and others. Let's look at some examples of giving in the New Testament (keeping in mind that the model under the Old Covenant is no longer applicable under the New Covenant in the church so we cannot appeal there for direction). Lets start with Acts 2: 44-45 and Acts 4: 32-35:

And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. (Acts 2: 44-45)

Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:32-35)

The first thing that jumps out at me here is that this is a sacrificial giving, not a miserly tithe. I don’t think that this mandates that all Christians have all things in common but I certainly do see the advantages of that among believers and I likewise think that any believer who withholds from another when the other believer is in need has a troubling understanding of money and possessions. You certainly have a hard time reconciling the idea of giving a percentage of what is left over after taking care of all of your expenses and savings for retirement to the church and feeling that you are satisfying the call to support others.

The second thing, and this will be a recurring theme, is that the funds are being given as any had need. Not to fund a program or an institution but going to Christians who were in need. It sounds to me like it was “see a need, fill a need” situation. As someone has a need, it was fulfilled so that none were without. That would mean that some would have far less materially than they might have otherwise (i.e. Barnabas who sold his real estate and gave it to the church to be distributed to others in Acts 4: 36-37) but that was OK and expected.

Next we move to Acts 11: 27-30

Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this took place in the days of Claudius). So the disciples determined, everyone according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. And they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul. (Acts 11: 27-30)

Here we see a specific need that was prophesied as besetting the church in Judea that the rest of the church took up offerings for and delivered by hand for the relief of those saints. The church around the region was made aware of a need that wold impact a church in a completely different region and they gave to see to it that the needs of those brothers was met. This is a recurring theme....

Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. (1 Cor 16: 1-3)

We see here a special collection being taken at the church but not to stay in the coffers of the church in Corinth (and previously Galatia) but rather to be gathered and taken to Jerusalem for the severe need there, spoken of in a number of places throughout the New Testament.

Let’s look at the praise heaped upon the church in Macedonia for their generosity that was so extraordinary that Paul took the time to mention it in his letter to the church in Corinth. Paul devotes virtually all of two chapters to giving (2 Corinthians 8-9) but we often only hear about the "God loves a cheerful giver" portion (2 Cor 9: 6-8) from pulpits as a plea for greater giving to the local church when the offering is down, even though that has nothing to do with what Paul is talking about.

We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints— and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us. (2 Corinthians 8: 1-5)

In a time of severe trial, the Christians in Macedonia gave generously, “beyond their means” for….the relief of the saints. What a far cry from the situation in America where tens of thousands of churches across the land each have their own bank account, jealously guarded, where untold millions (billions?) are hoarded away for the needs of that local church. Going on further…

For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, “Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack.” (2 Corinthians 8: 13-15)

The expectation again is that as some saints prosper, they help those who are less prosperous wherever they may be and not just in that particular local church. Given what Paul said about the saints in Maecdonia giving generously even in their poverty, I think that "prospering" means something very different to Paul than it does to us. So that means that we should feel a burden for the care of the saints beyond the “members” of out local church and include other believers in our area and indeed around the world. Can you imagine a traditional evangelical church in Nebraska where they decided that the offering for the next month would be bundled up, 100%, and sent to a community of Christian in Detroit who were suffering? It is hard to imagine because it would seem so out of place and out of character and because almost every local church has monthly bills that need to be paid. Nevertheless, that is precisely what was going on in the early church. Paul continues this conversation in the next chapter where he urges the Corinthians to be ready for the promised offering so as not to be embarrassed by a shortfall (2 Corinthians 9: 1-5). Then we get into the “cheerful giver” passages (2 Corinthians 9: 6-8). That is where the discussion often stops, but Paul goes on….

For the ministry of this service is not only supplying the needs of the saints but is also overflowing in many thanksgivings to God. By their approval of this service, they will glorify God because of your submission flowing from your confession of the gospel of Christ, and the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others, while they long for you and pray for you, because of the surpassing grace of God upon you. (2 Corinthians 9: 12-14)

How are they glorifying God? By buying new carpet or adding a new wing on their “church” or hiring a youth minister? By saving money up in their bank account? No, they were glorifying God by supplying the needs of the saints, taking up a contribution for others who are not even part of their local church and who they probably never had and never would meet this side of eternity.

In a more general sense, under the marks of a true Christian in Romans 12, we see this admonition in verse 13:

Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. (Romans 12:13)

"Contribute to the needs of the saints". Notice that the mark of a true Christian is not sustaining the local church organization, it is again caring for the needs of the saints.

An interesting passage shows up in 2 Corinthians 11: 7-9, where Paul talks about receiving financial support from the church:

Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God's gospel to you free of charge? I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you. And when I was with you and was in need, I did not burden anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied my need. So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way. (2 Cor 11: 7-9)

What is interesting here is that Paul is receiving support from other churches in order to serve the Corinthian church rather than burdening the Corinthian church and impeding his right to boast in the Gospel (this is consistent with 1 Corinthians 9: 1-23 where Paul talks about rejecting payment for preaching the Gospel so that his getting paid would not be an obstacle to the Gospel proclamation [see 1 Cor 9:12] ). In fact Paul sees the support he was receiving from these other churches as robbing those churches. I think it is fair to say that Paul saw the support he was receiving from these other churches as taking away from caring for the poor and needy among the saints in those areas. Given the lengths to which Paul reminded the church that he worked to provide for himself with his own hands, we can see a picture where caring for the needs of people is seen as the primary reason for giving in the church. Certainly there are occasions when money is diverted to support missionaries and church planters to use the traditional terminology but I tend to see that as the exception rather than the norm.

How did we arrive at the point where we transformed Biblical support for giving to meet the needs of the saints into giving to prop up the machinery of the institution? We give to sustain the church instead of giving to support the need of the Church. Here is what I mean...

You can give generously to The Church, i.e. other Christians as they have need, without giving to the church, i.e. the local organization where you meet with other believers. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t give to your local church but it does mean that you should be very cautious in doing so. Giving is not the price of admission nor is funding the operations of a local religious organization an especially pious act and certainly giving to the local church organization should not replace giving to care for the needs of the saints, the poor, widows and orphans. I have often heard it said that you should give to your local church first and then after fulfilling that obligation give to others. I think the opposite is more Biblical. We should give generously, sacrificially and joyfully to the needs of others as our first priority. The local church can and should be a part of that giving and distributing but it should not the primary beneficiary of that giving.

If we are people who take the Bible seriously, and most people who read and comment here fall into that category, ought we not see what the Bible has to say about the issue of giving, generosity and money? There are few things more contentious in the church than how we deal with giving and spending. Little wonder when we view these issues as we do, through the lens of tradition, instead of asking what the Bible has to say about it. Before I even started to look at this topic I had an idea of what I thought I would find but I was a little surprised by how overwhelmingly the Bible depicts the act of giving as being something that is primarily designed to meet the needs of others.

What do you think? Am I missing something or overstating my case? How do you think Christians would view giving if it were something that was mostly aimed at meeting the needs (I would argue primarily physical needs like hunger) of others instead of perpetuating the local church?

A tale of two sins

From Radical:

So what is the difference between someone who willfully indulges in sexual pleasures while ignoring the Bible on moral purity and someone who willfully indulges in the selfish pursuit of more and more material possessions while ignoring the Bible on caring for the poor? The difference is that one involves a social taboo in the church and the other involves the social norm in the church. (David Platt, Radical, pg. 111)

Ouch. We are quick to condemn sexual immorality, whether extra-marital sex or homosexuality but boy when it comes to something that hits a little closer to our affluent middle-class values, we seem to clam up. The Bible is every bit as harsh and unequivocal in its condemnation of ignoring the poor as it is on sexual immorality but we accept one and not the other. The church makes it easy on us, drop a check in the plate and feel like you are doing your part. Then go out to lunch in your nice car and go home to your nice house without a thought to those who are starving all around us and all around the world.

Case in point was something I read about a "megachurch" in my hometown of Toledo celebrating a milestone and making plans to raise additional funds:

...the goal is to raise $4.5 million by 2013 - $1.5 million for each of the two new sites, $500,000 to pay down debt on the West Toledo property, and $1 million to give to local, regional, and Third World ministries.

Give them credit for raising money for unnamed ministries but the real goal is building a bigger empire.

It seems incomprehensible that a reading of the Scriptures would lend itself to multi-million dollar building projects but the sad truth is that much of what we understand as Christianity in America is a social construct more than a Biblical reflection. We turn to the traditions of our culture and fit the Bible in where we can (and sometimes cram it in where we cannot).

I think David Platt raises a troubling and unanswerable question in this paragraph. The sin of ignoring the poor is a very real one and one that is as unacceptable among the followers of Christ as sexual immorality because it is associated with many of the same core sinful attitudes: selfishness, hard heartedness, pride, idolatry. Granted, Christians by and large are very generous when it comes to giving compared to unbelievers but when you look at where those dollars go and how relatively little most Christians give away, it is more than a little shameful. Being a little better than unbelievers is hardly something we should hang our collective hats on. Why then is it so easy to stand behind a pulpit and rail against sexual promiscuity and sexual deviancy but seemingly so difficult to address poverty and Christian responsibility to the poor? Perhaps, as David suggests, because one is a comfortable topic among our middle-class churches and the other hits a little too close to home and makes people uncomfortable.

The implications for what David is saying, if true and I think they are, raises some very troubling questions for the church.

The New Testament Tithe Is 100%

Very interesting editorial in the Wall Street Journal today, on tithing of all things. The very title of the editorial speaks volumes: Pass the Plate and Grow Rich in Spirit. If that doesn’t capture the prevailing view of the church, I don’t know what does.

Tithing as a practice seems very holy, very spiritual. It is also one of those doctrines that are grounded more in traditional understanding than in Scripture. It is tempting to look at the Old Covenant life of the Jews and compare it to our lives as Christians and think we have it way easier than they did. They had all those laws and rules and stuff, we have grace! Sweet! The hard reality that rarely appears in the teaching of the church in a meaningful way or practiced in a genuine fashion is that being a Christian requires far more of us than being a Jew. As long as you followed the rules as a Jew, you were seen to be in good standing. Granted the rules we pretty onerous but for Christians we are called to so much more. I think an event in the New Testament helps to understand this issue more clearly.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! (Matt 23: 23-24)

Wow. Those are powerful words and not just for Pharisees. You can tithe everything, following the letter of the law down to the smallest detail, and still not be living life for God. Jesus is saying it is not about the tithe (or any other activity), it is about a heart for God. There are many parallels in the Bible to this, notably Micah 6: 6-8 and Isaiah 66: 1-4.

The danger I see in much of the teaching on giving in the church is that it becomes very much like what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 23: 23-24. Do A, B and C and you are a “good Christian”. Even though A, B and C are very positive things like read your Bible every day, go to church on Sunday, etc., the fulfillment of those items is not the purpose. The reality, as Christ so forcefully taught the scribes and Pharisees, is that you can do lots of the right things and still have hearts far from God.

The life we are called to between regeneration and glorification is far more all-encompassing than checking off boxes on a checklist. We are called to die to self, to deny ourselves, to love others more than ourselves, to take up our cross daily, to turn the other cheek. In gaining the right to call God “Abba, Father”, we relinquish all of our other cherished rights. In giving it is no different. “Tithing” ten percent is not the standard even though it is often referenced as if it is. Giving is so misunderstood and so poorly practiced that I wonder if the way we practice it is even Scriptural at all. In the church “tithing” or giving is seen as a line item, a budget item. I allocate X percent of my income to giving at the local church, taking into account my other expenses like car payment, mortgages, etc. The picture in the New Testament is complete surrender and abandonment. When you accept that you are called to give up what you once cherished as your life, you shoudl find that your money and property become essentially meaningless.

Where this notion of New Testament tithing really falls apart is that in traditional Christianity, Christian giving by and large goes to support the institution of the church: buildings and maintenance, Sunday school materials, pastoral staff salaries. Believers in the earliest days of the church not only gave a portion of their income, they sold their possessions (Acts 2: 44-45). I can’t even fathom someone selling a cherished family heirloom and giving the money to a brother in need. The early church went so far as to not even consider their possessions their own (Acts 4:32 ). That doesn’t mean they didn’t have any personal property, clearly they owned homes and clothes and other sundries. It also was not a proto-socialism because the state was not involved in coercion. What it does mean is that for Christians our offering is our entire life and everything in it, not just a percentage of our income. I think Christians would be more willing to live a self-sacrificial life like we see in the New Testament if their offerings were used to help one another (“as any had need”) instead of used to fuel the machinery of the institutional church.

Giving and Spending

Another day brings another article about a huge church struggling to pay their bills in the midst of recession. The church in question is Bent Tree Bible Fellowship Church in Carrolton, Texas. From the Wall Street Journal Slump Strains Church Finances as Need Grows …

When leaders of Bent Tree Bible Fellowship Church sat down to plan this year's budget, they knew that extra prayer was in order.

The slowing economy was squeezing the 4,000 members of this evangelical megachurch outside Dallas, prompting more families to ask for spiritual and financial help even as fewer could afford to give.

To cut 10% from its $6 million budget, the church froze staff salaries, stopped using a daily cleaning service and cut $10,000 from its lawn-care bill. It also laid off five of its 71 staff members, including a popular pastor.

It is my hope that this economic downturn will cause local churches to really start to reevaluate their debt and their spending. This insatiable appetite to spend, spend, spend in local churches cripples them when times get tough. As the economy collapses and people show up looking for help from the local church, many find that the church is already overextended because of fixed costs associated with buildings and staff. Think of the example above. They cut $600,000 from their budget by getting rid of a daily cleaning service, cutting ten grand from their lawn care bill (how much was left over?! With 4000 “members” you couldn’t find a couple of guys to mow the lawn for free?) and getting rid of five staff members. This could have been avoided with some restraint when times were good. The unprecedented affluence we experienced over the last couple of decades is unlikely to come back. We have lost too many jobs and the rest of the world is catching up.

The problem is not a lack of giving. The problem is not Christians being unfaithful in tithing. The problem is one of spending. Many churches run their finances like the Federal government. When they get more money, they spend more money. When times are tough, they blame the revenue instead of the spending. Ministry requires money sometimes, that is true but not nearly as much money as we make it seem. In the Gospels we see Christ sending out His disciples to proclaim the Kingdom of God and they were pretty ill-prepared by our standards.

And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal. And he said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics. And whatever house you enter, stay there, and from there depart. And wherever they do not receive you, when you leave that town shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony against them.” And they departed and went through the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. (Luke 9: 1-6)

The twelve went out without food or money or even so much as an extra tunic. I wonder what they would say about sermons trying to guilt people into giving to pay for jumbotron screens, $10,000 lawn care services and all of the other things we spend money on that has very little to do with proclaiming the Kingdom?

A call for a new Reformation in the church: Money changes everything

Stewardship: The most misused term in the church!

I came across a statement on Thabiti Anyabwile’s blog that sort of stuck in my craw a bit. It was regarding the expected drop in giving at church in light of the generally poor economic conditions.

We're just about to wrap up some budget planning at FBC. I know a number of other churches are in the same activity as we. And it's been interesting to hear and consider how Christians are connecting the economic woes dot with the giving dot.

Given the data, one can only conclude that many treasure this world and its coffers more than they treasure Christ. That they have not sold all and purchased this One Pearl of Great Price.

Or, as my friend James succinctly points out, maybe they are just broke? Over the last year I have had a steady stream of people come in my office who have lost their jobs, their house is about to be foreclosed on, cars about to be repossessed. Many of them spent foolishly. But that doesn’t change the fact that when times are tough, people have less discretionary income and the mortgage payment doesn’t go down and food for the table doesn’t become cheaper.

I have the utmost respect for Thabiti Anyabwile. He is a marvelous speaker, a bright writer and a man clearly passionate about Christ. But his comment illustrates the prevailing idea in the church that giving to the local church is part and parcel with the Gospel. How in the world do we connect the man who finds that precious pearl of great price with giving in the local church?

"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it.(Matthew 13:45-46)

The precious pearl, that great treasure is the Kingdom of Heaven and I thought that the Kingdom was not for sale. If you sold everything you owned, you couldn’t buy God’s favor. At least that was my understanding. If giving is going down, what good does it do to chastise the sheep? When giving goes down, spending must also go down. Maybe the staff at First Baptist Church Grand Cayman might have to be shrunk down. According to the webpage, there are 23 staff members at FBC-GC and I assume a number of them are paid staff. That is what for-profit entities have to do when times get tough (unless they are auto manufacturers...)

Giving and finances are always a sore spot in churches. There are few things more painful than a sermon on giving, because typically the man giving the sermon is directly benefiting from the offering and can hardly help but sound self-serving. It is not necessarily the intent, but how often have you heard a skeptic comment that all preachers ever talk about is getting money? There is an inherent perception of a conflict of interest when preachers are preaching giving on the one hand and getting a cut from the plate in the form of their salary, benefits and housing on the other.

The result of this in many churches is a series of guilt trips and anecdotes about how this person or that has always faithfully given in the offering plate and how God has fulfilled their material needs. Aunt Bessie gave her ten percent every week and God made sure she always had plenty! Or worse the tales of the pastor himself giving faithfully designed to guilt you into giving. I can speak from experience here when I say that it is a whole lot easier to preach about giving when you are not dependent on the offering to pay your mortgage (in fact I would contend that is easier to preach about nearly anything when you can do so without fear of financial retribution!) With all of the stories of how God has faithfully taken care of people who tithe, it in essence becomes a watered down health, wealth and prosperity Gospel. Go ahead and put money in the plate because if you do, God will take care of your financial needs. Maybe He will but maybe He won’t. God is not obligated to shower you with financial freedom if you put money in the plate when it comes by.

If you give groceries to a hungry neighbor in need, or contribute to a brother who is in danger of foreclosure or help pay the heating bill for a widow is that less noble than putting money in the plate? If you give no money at all in a given week at church, but are generous with those around you, is that a case of bad “stewardship”? Think about it this way…

Really, what does the offering at the local church do that builds the Kingdom? A decent chunk goes to missionaries, although typically not a huge percentage. A bunch goes to maintain the church building, and many churches spend on the physical plant far more than is reasonable. Sometimes we can make do with what we have and I have been in a number of churches for conferences that are obscenely opulent with multi-million dollar AV systems. Many churches, and I know this from being a banker, sit on an enormous amount of money for future building projects. Some money is spent on materials for Sunday school. A small percentage of churches, and growing smaller, spend a substantial portion of their offering on charitable work (i.e. food pantries, etc.) Then of course there are the staff salaries. I would hazard a guess that staff salary is the second biggest line item or the biggest line item in the budget of most churches, including in that housing allowance and other reimbursements given the pastor. Getting back to my previous post Pay The Man! I would argue that the reason we constantly worry about the offering is because we pay people to do what can and probably should be done for free.

What was that about the love of money… serving two masters...etc.?

Money can cause divisions among believers. Money leads to churches welcoming the unregenerate because the put money in the plate. Money can lead to watering down messages to avoid offense.

All of these things ultimately are sin driven, but why make it easier for sin to infect the church? Money is not evil, but it can lead to people doing evil things. Money is one of the most divisive issues in the world. Eliminating it's grip on the church would go a long way towards alleviating many of the problems we have, and it would help take away something that sucks the life and power out of the local body.

Now there is great gain in godliness with contentment, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. (1 Timothy 6:6-11)