Since I've tried probing any deep issues. Mostly, I've just been tired. Helping (well... doing, along with Steve) the setup for the Marriage Seminars at church means I'm there from 2-8 on Sundays - almost like a 6th day of work each week.
Nevertheless, I have been thinking. A little, here and there, and mostly on the topic of stewardship, especially in the context of "what should our church do with its funds?" Because of the position I am in with Coram Deo, this is a much more serious question than it used to be - since my thoughts on the matter, well... they matter.
I do know the general principles of wealth-building - save, invest, earn a return on your savings, save some more, keep a tight rein on your expenses, etc. It's a very reliable, very standard means of operating. And I wonder where the role of faith is in that picture, if it is there at all.
I contrast that with someone like Spurgeon, who relied on God so much that he would gather his (orphans, I think) for a meal though they had no food, and somehow bread and milk appeared at their door, through one coincidence or another.
In one sense, it would be easier without any paid staff, or paid staff that I had no concern for. With no obligations, we could spend everything and not worry at all. But we do have staff, and their provision matters a great deal to me. So how do we spend the money we get?
The world is full of needs beyond our ability to meet them. We could give away every dime we have and every dime we receive, even without staff, and be but a drop in the bucket against the poverty and oppression in the world. Substituting money for arms, we might quote Gandalf in The Return of the King: "We cannot find victory through strength of arms."
And yet, like Oscar Schindler - every dollar we hold back could feed the hungry when they otherwise go without, provide warmth to the freezing, water to the thirsty, a future for an orphan.
We could wait - investing our money, building our reserves, so that like Warren Buffet we can say "Others will meet the needs now - this money can be better used building a reserve to meet needs even better tomorrow." We could hold back, trying to be wise and cautious, not wanting to over-expose ourselves.
But I think that God looks to the small things to see how we will act. Like the parable of the talents - the servants were not given cities to manage until they had used the money they were first given wisely. They were faithful in the small things, and so large things were given.
I think we have to give now, in our "poverty," if we are ever to be a giving church. We have to be faithful with little, or we will never be faithful with much. With much, we may give more - as the Pharisees in the temple did. But it was the faith of the widow that pleased Jesus - giving all she had, trusting God to provide.
So when Dawson freely offered a valuable thing our church had been given to another church that needed it more, though it will soon leave the staff very inconvinienced if a substitute is not found - that's who we are. When we are careful with our resources, pinching pennies so we can build up a large reserve, we will feel secure. But when we give what we have away, trusting God to provide in ways we cannot yet imagine - then we actually ARE secure. And having seen both, I vastly prefer the second option.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm really excited to hear this discussion, as I really struggle with the question of what a Christian should do with his money. I'm also really excited to hear the route you guys are choosing at Coram Deo.
One thought I've had in the past, which is a hybrid discussion for this blog, is whether God is bound by scarcity. There's a lot that could be said about this, but if the answer was "no, God is not bound by scarcity," could that in any way change how we think about money?
Is God bound by scarcity? I'll say no. When Jesus can take 5 loaves, 2 fish, and feed thousands until they are stuffed - scarcity has gone out of the window long before. Another example can be seen, off-hand, in the widow's oil that did not run out after a visit from Elisha.
A more interesting question is whether God usually limits himself to acting within the constraints of scarcity. The first question needs only one example to break the point, but this is harder.
I will suggest that God generally chooses to be limited by scarcity, in that he often seems to work through people, instead of feeding the hungry with animals on a blanket descending from heaven.
When there is a famine approaching for the sons of Jacob, he chooses to provide through Joseph's faithfulness in Egypt. When Solomon is "given" great wealth, it is in the hands of tribute, not a magical materialization in his treasury. When there is a famine in Jerusalem, a collection is taken to provide for them.
One question, then, is how do we know whether to be acting as if resources are scarce vs. when should we act as if they're not?
I'm not sure what the difference in behaviors is. I suppose the widow could have tried rationing her oil, or the 5,000 could have avoided eating their fill, but evidence of their thoughts and motivations is not explicit.
Is that acting as though resources are scarce, or not?
Meanwhile, we see people in Acts selling their posessions to provide for each other, or the widow dropping her last two cents into the offering without promise of more. Without evident scarcity-defying plenty, they nevertheless gave as though there was more around the corner (whether in this life or the next).
They were generous (the closest I can compare to a scarcity-less state) with their posessions, and this mattered.
The question didn't seem to be "Will you have more if you give this away," but "What will you do with what you have?"
Scarcity doesn't seem to factor into it, on the surface. But choices were made somewhere along the line. The money/food that was given to hurting brothers in Jerusalem was not given to the Roman War-Orphans Fund. That's the result of scarcity, too - if you spend $X on cause A, you no longer have $X to spend on cause B, C, D, etc.
So, what do we say? Do we say "give your tunic to him who asks, unless you think someone who needs it more will ask you tomorrow?" Or do we give away all we have now, trusting God to provide for both us and others when we can no longer do either?
Post a Comment