When Necessary, Use Money

I think I'd better clarify some things about yesterday's post, "Would Jesus Contribute?" It may sound like I'm opining that Christians should be giving more money to organizations or efforts that I consider to be Christ-honoring and much less to "evil" things like presidential campaigns.

That's not what I meant to convey (but if it's a conviction of yours you should act on it). I don't believe that donating funds to a campaign is inherently bad. I don't think I'm better than you if you've never given a dime to the Downtown Rescue Mission, and I don't even think you're a terrible Christian if that's the case. I intended to illustrate that our priorities as a nation just might be out of whack, and the direction our money flows could be a key indicator of that.

Jesus and the apostles gave to poor people from a pool of money they collected, and Judas was their treasurer (see John 12:5-6 and 13:29). So while there may be a Biblical basis for stating that Jesus likely would've been more likely to give money to a rescue mission rather than a political coup effort (I can't think of a better comparison at the moment; the political landscape of the middle east was... well, a bit different from that of modern America), my guess is that Jesus would've actually been at the rescue mission rather than simply donating money to it.

This also touches on one of the serious issues I have with modern church culture. The typical church atmosphere today is such that attendees are conditioned to put money into an offering plate and consider this to be a pretty decent way to spread the Gospel (you know, it will grow the size of the church so more people will come, hear the preacher preach, and get saved -- which is not a Biblical concept). Whether intended or not, this method of helping, if it is the primary focus, keeps the average church-attender from actually meeting and connecting to needy people and it tells him that money is his best gift or good deed. And it keeps the business end of the church above water so that the process can be repeated over and over.

While I'm not condemning all churches that see fit to sink their funds into a state-of-the-art building, frankly, it makes me sick to learn of a church raising, say, $5 million and pouring it into a new facility when they've never lifted a collective finger to help to the needy in their own community or the organization a few miles down the road that's furnishing meals, clothes, and blankets to those who are going without. This is utterly appalling.

Again, my intent yesterday was not to say that Christians should be giving more money to such-and-such or less money to this-and-the-other. To modify a saying that's most frequently attributed to Francis of Assisi -- "Preach the Gospel at all times; when necessary use words" -- I believe that our "contribution" should be a lifestyle of sacrifice for others, for the sake and in the name of Jesus Christ. When necessary, use money.

Read more »

Nicholas of Myra

"Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you." (James 1:27, NLT)

In 270 AD a wealthy husband and wife had a baby boy, whom they named Nicholas. Sadly, while he was still a young boy, Nicholas' parents died as a result of an epidemic, and his uncle, a bishop (also named Nicholas), took him in and raised him. The elder brought the younger Nicholas up with a love of reading and a love for the church.

One of the things Nicholas is most remembered for was the fact that he used his inherited fortune to help those who were in need. He did this secretly (though he may not have been too efficient at keeping it a secret, seeing as how everyone knows about it now), never expecting anything in return.

Incidentally, here's what Jesus said about giving:

"Watch out! Don’t do your good deeds publicly, to be admired by others, for you will lose the reward from your Father in heaven. When you give to someone in need, don’t do as the hypocrites do—blowing trumpets in the synagogues and streets to call attention to their acts of charity! I tell you the truth, they have received all the reward they will ever get. But when you give to someone in need, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Give your gifts in private, and your Father, who sees everything, will reward you." (Matthew 6:1-4, NLT)

During Nicholas' life, Rome came under the rule of one of the most oppressive of its anti-Christian emperors, Diocletian. Nero is more widely known, but under Diocletian, Christians were hunted in caves and forests, they were burned, thrown to wild animals, and tortured and put to death in horrible ways. It is said that under Diocletian, so many Christians were imprisoned that there was hardly enough room in prisons for actual criminals. Nicholas was imprisoned along with many other believers.

One of the evidences of how brutally Christians were treated under Diocletian may have been uncovered in forensic examinations of Nicholas' bones in 1950. His nose was badly broken. Here is a link to a computer-generated forensic reconstruction of Nicholas' face (wish I could post the photo, but haven't obtained permission). The CG work was done in 2004, based on 2D images of his skull from the 1950 examination.

In 325 AD, Constantine became emperor and Nicholas was released from prison along with other Christians. (It was at this point that Christianity became the national religion and the church was not only no longer persecuted, but began to enjoy preferential treatment and benefits like tax exemption. Under Constantine it became popular to identify oneself with Christianity, since many saw it as a way to power and influence. Rather than continuing efforts to stamp Christianity out, Satan began to corrupt it from within. And that's a whole different story.)

Over the years Nicholas' reputation has obviously grown into fable (miracles have been attributed to him, both during his life and after his death). The basis we have for Santa Claus is a weird mixture of truth and fiction. It seems ironic to me that so much has been built up around this figure who made efforts to avoid putting himself in the spotlight.

(By the way, I don't have time to write about his official "sainthood" status being granted about 100 years after his death. That status is not for anyone other than God to grant, and the title belongs to all living true believers.)

Merry Christmas!

Read more »

C. S. Lewis on Christmas

I offer sincere thanks to my friend Jason for e-mailing me the following. C. S. Lewis is easily my favorite author. I think you'll identify with his sentiments.

What Christmas Means To Me [An essay from God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics]
by C.S. Lewis

Three things go by the name of Christmas. One is a religious festival. This is important and obligatory for Christians; but as it can be of no interest to anyone else, I shall naturally say no more about it here. The second (it has complex historical connections with the first, but we needn't go into them) is a popular holiday, an occasion for merry-making and hospitality. If it were my business to have a 'view' on this, I should say that I much approve of merry-making. But what I approve of much more is everybody minding his own business. I see no reason why I should volunteer views as to how other people should spend their own money in their own leisure among their own friends. It is highly probable that they want my advice on such matters as little as I want theirs. But the third thing called Christmas is unfortunately everyone's business.

I mean of course the commercial racket. The interchange of presents was a very small ingredient in the older English festivity. Mr. Pickwick took a cod with him to Dingley Dell; the reformed Scrooge ordered a turkey for his clerk; lovers sent love gifts; toys and fruit were given to children. But the idea that not only all friends but even all acquaintances should give one another presents, or at least send one another cards, is quite modern and has been forced upon us by the shopkeepers. Neither of these circumstances is in itself a reason for condemning it. I condemn it on the following grounds.

1. It gives on the whole much more pain than pleasure. You have only to stay over Christmas with a family who seriously try to 'keep' it (in its third, or commercial, aspect) in order to see that the thing is a nightmare. Long before December 25th everyone is worn out -- physically worn out by weeks of daily struggle in overcrowded shops, mentally worn out by the effort to remember all the right recipients and to think out suitable gifts for them. They are in no trim for merry-making; much less (if they should want to) to take part in a religious act. They look far more as if there had been a long illness in the house.

2. Most of it is involuntary. The modern rule is that anyone can force you to give him a present by sending you a quite unprovoked present of his own. It is almost a blackmail. Who has not heard the wail of despair, and indeed of resentment, when, at the last moment, just as everyone hoped that the nuisance was over for one more year, the unwanted gift from Mrs. Busy (whom we hardly remember) flops unwelcomed through the letter-box, and back to the dreadful shops one of us has to go?

3. Things are given as presents which no mortal every bought for himself -- gaudy and useless gadgets, 'novelties' because no one was ever fool enough to make their like before. Have we really no better use for materials and for human skill and time than to spend them on all this rubbish?

4. The nuisance. For after all, during the racket we still have all our ordinary and necessary shopping to do, and the racket trebles the labour of it.

We are told that the whole dreary business must go on because it is good for trade. It is in fact merely one annual symptom of that lunatic condition of our country, and indeed of the world, in which everyone lives by persuading everyone else to buy things. I don't know the way out. But can it really be my duty to buy and receive masses of junk every winter just to help the shopkeepers? If the worst comes to the worst I'd sooner give them money for nothing and write if off as a charity. For nothing? Why, better for nothing than for a nuisance.

The above is reprinted from God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, C. S. Lewis, Walter Hooper (Editor), Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Reprint edition (October 1994; original copyright 1970 by the Trustees of the Estate of C. S. Lewis).

Speaking of C. S. Lewis, I wonder if you've seen The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader yet...? I intend to write something specifically about the movie soon, so hopefully you'll be on the lookout for an opportunity to chime in with your personal review (or at least your two cents).

Read more »

On the Receiving End

Many years ago I worked at a music store in Decatur, AL, and had the privilege of working with some friends who were very dedicated to following Jesus Christ. I remember a couple of occasions when I didn't have money for lunch (usually absent-mindedness on my part) and one of them would try to give me a few bucks. I also remember this happening when I didn't need money for lunch.

It was a mix of being polite and self-sufficient that prompted me to say, "Thanks, but don't worry about it. I'm okay." My response to offers like this had always been to refuse them, not because I didn't want to eat, but because I wanted to put others before myself and I didn't want them to have to make up for my mistakes.

These friends broke me of this habit pretty quickly. The first time this happened, I remember my friend Christian ("Webe") saying, "Listen, if you don't take this, you're going to be depriving me of a blessing, because I want to do this for you." It wasn't just a platitude; he was serious. I agreed reluctantly.

This stuck out in my mind, and I realized that he was right. If I were in his position, it would mean a lot for me to be able to do a simple good deed for someone. There's a difference between accepting hospitality and being a leech.

Sunday evening after our meeting in our home, a few of us were talking and my wife mentioned something I'd never really thought about before.

If faith without works is dead, when we refuse the genuine hospitality or gift of another believer, we're essentially assisting in rendering a part of their faith dead!

That's pretty big. The community of believers is founded upon Jesus Christ, and at the heart of our community should be generosity. When Jesus sent His disciples out to preach, raise the dead, heal the sick, and give as freely as they had received, He instructed them not to refuse the hospitality that people would give them (Matthew 10:9).

This is a wise saying: in order for generosity to flourish, pride and self-sufficiency must not.

Read more »

our bottom line

I was listening to the December 13 sermon/message podcast from Cornerstone Church in Simi Valley, CA, entitled "Beware of Good Liars - Part 2," and in the podcast, teaching pastor Francis Chan noted that while Cornerstone typically gives away about 50% of its income from tithes and offerings, the following week, December 20, they would be giving 100% of their offerings away. They would give it away to needy people, organizations who fight to prevent human slave and sex trafficking (yes, that goes on, and it's shocking to hear the statistics), and other kinds of "social justice" efforts, both in America and around the world.

Now, I have not yet confirmed that this is what they did, nor do I have specifics on exactly where the money went. But I'm stuck on the fact that they gave away 100% of the money that came in. I don't say this to elevate this church fellowship to some sort of "They have arrived and the rest of the churches in America stink" status, but it immediately made me begin to wonder how the people and leadership at my own church fellowship, and others, would respond to such an idea. Would these be the responses...?

• I understand what they're trying to do, but our money already goes to kingdom-oriented purposes.
• We have to take care of the things that God has given us, and then we can turn our attention to the needs of others.
• What a liberal idea.
• That's a nice idea, but we live in the real world and have bills to pay and new facilities to build.
• We need to be focusing on ministry at home before we try to heal all of the world's ills.

No matter what you think of it, this kind of action is quite obviously one that puts the interests of others above self-interests. It's an incredibly Kingdom-focused thing to do. I want to see my own church fellowship begin thinking and acting like this. I want to see it reflected in the thoughts and resulting actions of the Church in America and globally.

So what can I/we do to see that happen? Giving to others at our own expense is exactly what Jesus taught us to do, and we've ostensibly already been teaching that for thousands of years, so to say that we just need to keep on teaching people in our churches to be more Christ-like is, to me, not a very good answer.

(By the way, the title of the post comes from Facebook friend Stacy, who said in response to my tweet about this earlier in the day, "thinking about others and not the bottom line.... oh wait.... church... bottom line.... WAIT the others ARE supposed to be the bottom line for THE CHURCH!")

Read more »

...and re-presents on the tree

I'm curious... Did any of you re-gift something(s) this Christmas? For instance, on December 22 when you had "Christmas Eve" with your spouse's parents and brothers and/or sisters, you got a brass cheese grater knuckle protector, and upon realizing that you hadn't gotten your great aunt anything and were supposed to go to her house on the 23rd to exchange gifts, you repackaged the cheese grater knuckle protector and gave it to her.

You know, that kind of thing.

(It's perfectly legal to post any comments as "Anonymous." I won't push for full disclosure.)

Read more »

The Church and Charity

The other day I took a survey on charitable giving habits. It was an eye-opener.

The first section was on monetary giving, asking that responses not include giving to a church or religious organization. Apparently monetary giving to religious institutions is pretty popular and they were looking for other areas. Just an assumption.

Here's the part that made me think a little more deeply. The survey asked respondents to indicate which of the following they'd personally given time to over the past year:

• Arts and culture organizations
• Organizations that serve youth and children
• Human service organizations (e.g., blood banks, homeless shelters,drug abuse and crisis centers and others)
• Other health and healthcare organizations
• Churches or religious organizations
• Educational organizations (e.g., schools, colleges)
• Organizations that serve the aging and elderly
• Community groups and programs (e.g., animal welfare work, public safety, fire and rescue squads, or another organization meeting communityneeds)
• Disaster relief organizations
• Hunger relief organizations (e.g., food banks)
• Conservation and environmental organizations
• Hospitals
• Other
• None of these

Wow. "Churches and religious organizations" got one little bitty line. I've done some personal time investment that's outside of any organized effort, but beyond that I really haven't been involved in many of those areas. How about you?

I've stated in the past that the Church's most popular way of giving is to sit and drop money into a plate that someone puts in front of us. This fosters "easy giving" and allows us to remain uninvolved in our community and uninvolved in actually being the feet that carry the Gospel to the world or being the hands that physically touch the needy -- we remain uninvolved but tell ourselves we've done a very good deed. We're financially helping people to do things that we weren't called to do (like share the Gospel, right?), and that's usually good enough for us.

Have you ever noticed how little ink in the New Testament is used to discuss monetary giving versus how much is used directing us to actually do things besides giving money?

What would it look like if the Church got up, got out, and became involved in some of those "secular" areas of service? Would the world outside begin to understand that we actually do place a high value on people then? (Because I don't think we communicate it very well on the whole.) How about being a part of the physical ministry efforts in which our own church fellowships are engaging? I believe that the average church member rarely does either.

Don't stop giving money to your local church, but don't let that be your only (or your primary) means of helping the needy and spreading the Gospel.

Read more »