Should Christians Give More During Lean Times?
by Steve Watters on 03/06/2009 at 2:30 PM
Writing on the World magazine blog, Tony Woodlief makes an unconventional suggestion:
It’s a foolish idea, but I’m wondering if we can work up the courage to give recklessly this year. Wouldn’t it be something if our response to hard economic times was not to give less but to give more? What would the world think of us if all of us turned off the financial advice shows, imperiled ourselves just a little, and gave so much that every crook and lowlife and spendthrift in town darkened our churches’ doors?
Woodlief knows this idea seems foolish because of what our natural tendencies are when it comes to giving. He writes:
It’s frightening, even in good economic times, to give in the face of seemingly endless need. Many of us have been in a position to write a check or hand over a bundle of cash or food to someone who we have no confidence will be anything other than needy next week, too. And now that we’ve given to them, won’t they be more likely to come back for more? How much will they end up taking from us?
This is what I so often thought as I watched my dad try to minister to needy people. He got burned again and again trying to give people cash. He seemed to be a little more effective when he set up a food bank in our church and looked for ways to minister to underlying substance abuse problems where those played a role. But he still got burned--people still took advantage of our church. And his efforts turned our place of worship into something of an emergency room church compared to the country club church I grew up in. All those former addicts, ex-cons and people with missing teeth often made me uncomfortable, but I guess God isn't always interested in our comfort.
I hope God can stir a more reckless approach to giving in me.
1. f-jen said the following at 5:14 PM on Mar 6:
"Wouldn’t it be something if our response to hard economic times was not to give less but to give more?" Hmm. That sounds like an appealing challenge... for those of us, that is, who are blessed to currently still have jobs... and whose incomes have not yet been cut in the name of possibly saving a few jobs.
Too bad just a good suggestion leaves such a bad taste - in light of the oft-repeated idea that the only reason we're having a "recession" is because people are "nervous" and failing to spend their money. I guess the bad taste it's because I've heard people repeat that idea so many times now. Apparently, this economic tsunamai was and still is being caused by people who use their lack of income as an excuse for their failure tospend money -- or, perhaps by the people trying to put every penny towards a mortgage & hope that it's enough to keep them holding on until the long-promised relief comes.
So, sure -- giving more during lean times sounds like a good idea. A sign of trust in God. Perhaps I'll give it a try -- at least, as long as my job holds out, that is...
BUT. The idea that we "should give more," implies that there is actually some more to give. So I'm wondering -- as I ponder most recent strikes of the layoff axe at my workplace this past week -- Do you suggest we follow our govt's lead, and borrow heavily against unknown future, in order to give that "more" which we don't have today, precisely because today is a "lean" time?
2. Daniel said the following at 6:05 PM on Mar 6:
I too would love to see the church continue to give in faith in light of these slightly harder economic times...and maybe as things get harder people will give more. The church does seem to have a way of thriving in hard times if those in the church have faith. A question I do have is, how does one find the balance between giving and other wise stewardship of our money? Being in college I would love to be able to give a little more but there just doesn't seem to be more. It is easy to think this won't be the case after I graduate but I know it will seem the same way then because I'll just be working to pay of my debts. I hope maybe I'll hear back.
3. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:12 PM on Mar 6:
Economist Walter Williams, himself African-American, points out that if you put your hand in your own pocket to give to the poor, it's commendable. Put your hand in someone else's pocket to give to the poor is theft and reprehensible. He points out:
"Two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that's exactly what thieves do -- redistribute income. Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God. ... No human should be coerced by the state to bear the medical expense, or any other expense, for his fellow man. In other words, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another is morally offensive. ... One of the wonderful things about free markets is that the path to greater wealth comes not from looting, plundering and enslaving one's fellow man, as it has throughout most of human history, but by serving and pleasing him."
4. Cliff said the following at 10:21 PM on Mar 6:
Hi Steve,
In response to your post, I wrote a blog => http://soulofachristiantriathlete.blogspot.com/2009/03/reckless-and-radical.html
keep up the good fight.. :o)
5. Matthew said the following at 10:34 PM on Mar 6:
hear hear! God’s love for us is reckless, foolish, & prodigal– constantly giving when we don’t deserve it or even when we misuse it. Let’s keep imitating Him in this regard.
6. Jeremy said the following at 9:16 AM on Mar 7:
"Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God."
While I am sympathetic to the general idea behind this line of thought, this seems like a ridiculous and demonstrably false extreme. Recall that in Matthew 22:15-22, when asked whether believers should pay taxes, Jesus answered with a resounding yes (and reminded the questioners that in many ways this was an unimportant issue).
There may be limits on the level of legitimate taxation, but claiming that all tax is sin simply does not line up with Scripture. In the same way retributive killing by a citizen is murder, but is not when done via due process by the government, forced taxation is stealing when done by a citizen, but not always when done by the government. Governments have some legitimate, God-given authority that individuals do not.
7. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:40 PM on Mar 7:
Yes Jeremy, Dr Williams is not advocating tax evasion, and thinks that the Government has a legitimate role in protecting life and property, restraining coercion and fraud, and enforcing contracts. But now, taxation has become confiscatory of the most productive to reward incompetent businesses (bailouts), home-owners who bought more than they can afford, girls who get themselves pregnant, and non-workers.
Jesus said to pay taxes; He never said that we aren't allowed to protest against government financial oppression and waste.
But note that the Colonies that became the USA rebelled against King George who imposed a mere ~2.5% tax! It's rather ironic for Americans to quote Jesus on payment of taxes!
8. BDB said the following at 12:24 AM on Mar 8:
Oddly enough, this is happening at my church. Several months ago we started a capital campaign for building expansion - we started it before things REALLY tanked in the economy, and frankly, the Pastor only went forward because he felt very strongly that God was telling us to have the discussion about giving NOW - which was the 2nd half of 2008. Discussions of what was happening in the economy became part of the sermons underlying the campaign. It really kind of forced us to think about the question: do you put your trust in God or in money?
Well, since we ended the campaign, giving is up more than 20%, and we've added 1000 people. We're pretty shocked - statistically people leave when you talk about a building campaign. And not just the giving to the campaign. General and benevolence giving is up, too. So, we've decided as a church to turn around and help out church members who are struggling to keep their home, are living in their car etc. Unemployment is above 10% here.
While we weren't expecting God to provide MORE resources to the church during this time, we're pretty sure we're suppose to use the increase to help people out.
9. Jo said the following at 7:06 AM on Mar 8:
Why has this thread become about taxes?
I think Christians should certainly continue to give in 'lean times', but I'm not sure we should necessarily give *more*. That would imply we could afford to give a lot more when times were good, in which case the question becomes, why didn't we?
On the other hand, I think the 'lean times' should pose a challenge to us. As we reassess our finances perhaps our priorities will change, and perhaps we will find that we *can* afford to give more than we do, even now we're not so comfortably well off.
In short, it probably depends on what our attitudes towards giving were in the first place.
10. Jason said the following at 1:55 PM on Mar 8:
I'm not sure "reckless" giving is exactly biblical, especially if a person is in debt. It is important to remember that if a person is in debt, any money they give away is actually not theirs -- it is the money of their creditors. The money emphasis in the Body of Christ should be on clearing debt first and then on supporting others within the Body. This is far more productive in the long term than attempting to support outreach programs, etc. As those in the Body help one another into financial health (and hold one another accountable against excess), everyone benefits -- and the Church looks as attractive as it should.
11. Shannon K said the following at 9:39 AM on Mar 9:
Jason (#10) said, "I'm not sure 'reckless' giving is exactly biblical...". I can think of two Biblical examples of "reckless" giving off the top of my head. The first is in Luke 21:1-4, where Jesus praises the widow for giving two mites at the temple because "for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had."
The second is in 2 Corinthians 8, where Paul joyfully describes "the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia: that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded in the riches of their liberality. For I bear witness that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability, they were freely willing, imploring us with much urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints." A destitute woman giving away her whole livelihood and a body of believers imploring to be able to give beyond their ability despite their deep poverty -- these both sound reckless to me!
As to the rest of your argument: "if a person is in debt, any money they give away is actually not theirs -- it is the money of their creditors." Any money a believer "has" belongs first and foremost to the Lord. Has the believer any business voluntarily contracting debts so large that he/she cannot give to support the Lord's work?
12. Holly (the married, parental one) said the following at 12:07 PM on Mar 9:
But now, taxation has become confiscatory of the most productive to reward incompetent businesses (bailouts), home-owners who bought more than they can afford, girls who get themselves pregnant, and non-workers.
Jonathan Safarti, Ph.D - I've surely never heard of a girl getting herself pregnant before. Somehow that usage seems crass and excuses the responsibility of the other person involved.
13. brx said the following at 12:44 PM on Mar 9:
RE: reckless giving, Biblical or not...
It's often taught that Jesus praised the widow for offering all the money she had. Reading Mark 12 last week, I suspect Jesus was instead pointing His disciples to 'true religion'...
Speaking of religious (church) leaders In Mark 12:40 "They devour widow's houses and for a show make lengthy prayers" Jesus seems to be condemning church leaders who gladly accept a widow's entire income without scruple.
In Mark 12:43 after Jesus observes what one widow did, he calls his disciples to him, maybe not to make a big fanfare of praising her in the temple square, but perhaps to point out the widow and her financial situation to his disciples. Perhaps Jesus was implying to his disciples that though this widow has great faith, she may be financially reckless in her old age and will need people like you to look after her needs. Perhaps Jesus was talking about what James would later write in James 1:27 "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress..."
2 Cor 8, Paul clarifies the Apostle's stance about giving in v13 "Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, as it is written: "He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little."" (refering to the collection of manna in the desert and the sharing of it)
The socialist-leaning political constituency would like to force equality and sharing via a written, government tax and benefit system. The problem is, people will always run into problems trying to assert the principles of God and Christ without the heart of God and Christ. A tax and welfare system is a resented burden on both the rich and poor of a society that lacks a heart with proper balance for repentance and compassion. Jesus' tax and welfare system in his Church is voluntary, not compulsory - and it produces more lasting fruit.
Grace, peace, faith, risk & adventure...
14. Shannon K said the following at 1:43 PM on Mar 9:
brx (#13): I'm assuming your comment is directed at me, since you reference the same two passages I did. Regarding the scribes: it has been my understanding that "devouring" widows' houses referred to some way in which they dishonestly defrauded widows, who after all had fewer rights and less formal training than they.
The contrast Jesus draws is between those who give what is convenient out of their plenty and those who give sacrificially out of their poverty. I see nothing from the passage to indicate that He was censuring the scribes for not refusing to accept her gift. Nor do I see any evidence that He was telling them to physically care for her in particular -- He didn't send them after her to make sure she had food to eat for supper that day, for instance. Though, as you say, later epistles do command that the believers care for godly widows such as she.
I'm a little confused by your last couple of paragraphs. Do you think my reference the Macedonians' "reckless" giving in 2 Cor. 8:1-4 automatically means that I interpret the later verses in that chapter as the Bible mandating socialism, that I'm part of "the socialist-leaning political constituency"? That is absolutely not the case! I agree with your point that unwilling/grudging/enforced giving is not what Jesus desires or commands, and that the tax and welfare system tends to not produce "lasting fruit." Perhaps I'm missing something in your comment?
15. Shannon K said the following at 1:57 PM on Mar 9:
brx (#13): Just re-read the other comments and realized your socialism remarks might be directed toward them and not me. If that's the case, then sorry about the mix-up!
16. Louise from Chicago said the following at 1:58 PM on Mar 9:
Comment 7, since when do females "get themselves" pregnant?
Last I heard males usually had a part in it, unless it's artifical insemination or in vitro with donated embryos.
You of the "PhD" should know better than that, I should think!
17. brx said the following at 4:09 PM on Mar 9:
RE: Shannon K.
Nope, none of my post was directed at you. Actually, I was going to make my comment about Mark 12 and 2 Cor 8 last night but didn't get around to it. Glad to know I wasn't the only one thinking about those passages.
I equate "reckless" with "unwise"; so, maybe that explains better why I don't think the Bible encourages reckless giving. Though, it does say sacrificial giving is good. Giving is really a discipleship practice that needs to be led and tempered by the Word, the Spirit, faith, love, and wisdom. ...and in Christianity Today, it looks like researches say Christians average less giving than they feel like they give.
Grace & peace!
18. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 5:30 PM on Mar 9:
12 and 16, unless rape is involved, the girls involved must bear some responsibility for falling pregnant. And yes, some do so to get the single mother's benefit. Furthermore, yes, the young men involved are grossly irresponsible too. But modern welfare removes some of the consequences for this behaviour.
19. Louise from Chicago said the following at 8:26 AM on Mar 10:
Comment 18, again, the men involved don't necessarily have to be "young."
And comment 12 and I never said the women involved didn't bear any responsibility, just in most cases, the woman doesn't do it alone.
Now I have a friend who as a 30 plus divorcee had sons with the use of a donor insemination (sperm bank), now that would be a good example of a woman "getting herself pregnant."
20. Christina (in green) said the following at 4:55 PM on Mar 10:
Louise (#16 and #19),
I seem to recall a post about some woman who had octuplets recently...
Yes, an extreme, but women "get themselves pregnant" a lot these days.
21. Louise from Chicago said the following at 7:54 AM on Mar 11:
Comment 20, yup they certainly do and if you read my comment 19 carefully you'll see I gave an example of a friend of mine who did exactly that through artificial insemination.
Twice, in fact!
22. Paul said the following at 8:45 AM on Mar 11:
Jonathan (#7),
The bailouts of incompetent businesses are intended to keep the greedy capitalist system (that the Republican wing of the church so loves) afloat. There are alternatives, but I doubt you'd prefer them.
Support for young single mothers might help avoid a few abortions (i.e. murders). Are you really against that?
Helping the poor generally is something that governments have to get involved in when churches fail in their calling. Should we be pointing out the speck in the government's eye when we have a log in our own?
23. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 5:53 PM on Mar 11:
Paul (#22): a genuine capitalist system would not regard any cocmpany as too big to fail, but too big to keep alive. Bailouts are socialist not capitalist. What a good thing the horse and buggy industry was not bailed out when motorcars were mass-produced; same with iceboxes v refridgerators and typewriters v word processing programs.
Why is it "greedy" to want to keep more of the money you earn, but not "greedy" for the government to want to confiscate more of it?
As I've explained before on this blog, you have it precisely back to front: it was the expansion of government during the New Deal that crowded out the widespread charities and mutual aid societies. After all, how can organizations relying on voluntary donations possibly compete with the government welfare bureaucracies that people are forced to give to with their taxes?
Right, so you support using unborn babies as hostages to extort money from taxpayers to support their single mothers? Adoption!
24. Paul said the following at 2:04 PM on Mar 12:
Jonathan,
Agreed, if you let a few of the large car manufacturers go under, it hurts a lot of people, but in the grand scheme of things it facilitates progress, allowing better products to flourish and industry to become more efficient or relocate to more cost effective parts of the world. The banks and the insurers are a different matter though. Banks have a complicated web of inter-lending, and insurance risks are spread across the whole industry. If you let a big bank or insurance company fail, the whole financial system comes down with it. That's the problem with unchecked capitalism, it will eventually descend into self destructive short-term greed.
Perhaps I can be a little clearer. Pure capitalism in a fallen world is a very bad thing. Pure socialism in a fallen world is also a very bad thing. Both are very good ideals, but in a world where we cannot rely on people to be naturally virtuous, we need an equal measure of both to keep society balanced and healthy.
You make a good case for government harming charity. There is a fallacy that lies behind your argument though. It is simply not possible or reasonable to expect to separate the roles of church and state into two mutually exclusive lists. It may be constitutional, but that doesn't make it biblical. There will always be works of God that can only be achieved through the church, and works of God that can only be achieved through the government (have you read the story of Joseph recently?). What is the point of arguing about whether God has chosen the right instrument to use for his purposes?
Add yes, I do support a society that has the decency not to force good parents (single or married) to kill or give away their children if mammon has not blessed them sufficiently.
25. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 5:08 PM on Mar 12:
Paul (#24), adoption gives the baby a far better chance of a decent life than being brought up by a single mother on welfare. Such kids are highly over-represented in poverty and crime stats. And once again, welfare means confiscating by force from the productive.
Greed is universal: part of the fallen human condition. The chief failing of the Left is ignoring the Fall. In the socialist countries, greed and self interest produced shortages and poor quality. The beauty the capitalist system is that even greedy people must serve their fellow man to make money.
Pure capitalism requires the rule of law, not anarchy. I.e. the government has a role in restraining fraud and coercion and enforcing contracts, but not in interfering with free transactions between buyer and seller.
Ah yes, Joseph. There wasn't exactly a church back then ;) But Rabbi Daniel Lapin cites Jewish tradition that Joseph was well respected for his wisdom because he charged only a 20% "tax" on produce. Any more would discourage production.
But nowadays, every man woman and child below the official poverty line could be given enough money to move over that line--at a fraction of the current welfare budget!
26. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 5:01 AM on Mar 15:
Note also, Obamov wants to reduce tax deductions for charities. That is, more big government crowding out charities, then more lefties will whinge that the charities don't do enough! Naturally, Obamov thinks that government knows how to spend money better both than those who earn it and those charities they donate to. "In Big Government We Trust".