A faith offering
I was a visitor at the church; a representative of a mission team that was working in the area. I went to visit the local church, say a few words about what we were doing and thank the congregation members for their support. It was an ordinary local church of a mainstream denomination. And it was an opportunity to observe the different rhythms of life in a different congregation. The ordinary conventions of worship were slightly foreign to me and incredibly fascinating.
Towards the end of the service, a matronly woman stood up and announced that the church would be participating in a faith offering. She told us that the minister had requested that she give a testimony on her previous participation in such offerings as an inspiration to the rest of the congregation. She explained that a faith offering required that each person engage in prayer and reflection and seek guidance from God as to the amount that he or she would offer. Then it was a matter of having faith that God would provide the nominated amount - not through your normal income but through God’s intervention in the form of some sort of windfall or unexpected bonus. And then, when God had rewarded the person’s faith, that money would then be donated to the offering.
And this lady began to breathlessly share the story of her experience with such an offering and how it had “worked for her”. She had decided to participate in a faith offering and meditated and prayed about how much she would offer to give. She admitted that she hadn’t been entirely convinced about the whole faith offering thing and had set a rather modest amount as her pledge. She had prayed for God to give her this money and tried to have faith that he would reward her.
At the time, she shared, she had a role in a statewide christian women’s organisation, the type that was filled with other older women just like herself. Her role was to travel around the state and collect the affiliation fees or subscriptions from the various different groups. Apparently sending a cheque would have been too complicated or something, so this lady got in her car once a month and travelled around to collect the cash. She would advise the different groups how much they owed, check that the right amount was received and be on her way to the next place. One day when she got back home after one of these trips, she counted up all of her receipts. And lo and behold!! She had more than she required for the fees. In fact she had been overpaid by the exact amount that she had prayed for in her faith offering.
She went on to say how amazed she was at the power of faith and to encourage everyone to take part in the offering.
Which is great until you realise that God is paying for that faith offering by stealing from little old ladies.
October 19th, 2005 at 12:03 am
I have had enough of the cunning techniques of the Church to raise money to last me a lifetime.
It is amazing that the very Churches that have their origins in the faith movement, put their more faith in money than that of mainline denominations.
So much so that it would take a courageous Pastor to take a stand for Truth and place their faith in God and consequently renounce the dodgy practice of tithing even though there is absolutely No Biblical mandate for it:
http://prayershack.freeservers.com/programs/REK-Tithing2.pdf
Why will Pastors and Churches not recant dodgy theology and open the whole issue of faith and finances up for open discussion?
Obviously protection of the religious / system is more important than Truth and Theological integrity.
This whole thing makes me angry.
October 19th, 2005 at 12:21 am
I believe the ‘faith promise’ system is based on some very dodgy theology.
Perhaps the dodgiest of it all is that I (a wealthy western Christian) wait on God to provide me with more money over and above the affluence I already live in so I can give to mission.
I refuse to participate in this nonsense.
I am all for sacrifical giving - trusting God - faith - the whole bit - but when we expect God to give us more money when we already have plenty it just starts to sound like a cop out to me.
There… I said it gently
October 19th, 2005 at 12:41 am
Cracker of a story Dan. I’m interested to know if you think this is just coincidence or if strangely God was somehow at work here … While I would regard myself as very cynical about these things I’m always amazed at the amount of coincedences that seem to occur and often reflect on God being bigger than we know.
For the record, to my knowledge I’ve never been in a church context where there was dodgy faith/finances business happening. I wonder if people get so worked up about it all because money is too close to our hearts?
*duck*
October 19th, 2005 at 4:19 am
You should remove the last sentence. To let it pack more of a punch than it already did.
Plus I’m just nosy and wanted to know how many of us would pick up that the moral compass was missing.
October 19th, 2005 at 7:15 am
first thing I thought of.
I am a firm believer that God is not the only author of coincidences. These old ladies overpayed, did she take the money back? No she took it as a sign from God that He robbed those old ladies of her offering money. Sick
the rev
October 19th, 2005 at 7:42 am
“I wonder if people get so worked up about it all because money is too close to our hearts?”
G’day Tim,
I have spent over 15 years in churches that do flog the faith / blessing / tithe thing and the lines they use to shut down anyone who questions are invariably like the line you used.
Some other gems are “you just have a poverty mentality”, “you have a bad attitude” & “you have a problem with money”. The assumption is that anyone who questions the pressuring, guilt inducing techniques used, is automatically a tight-wad who doesn’t want to give. I have found the opposite to be the case & this whole brush off very offensive. My husband & I were big givers before we started questioning what we were hearing - as were many others we knew. Our motive for questioning was wanting to follow God’s word in respect to our giving, not man’s rules - nothing at all to do with whether or not we were generous with our money.
October 19th, 2005 at 8:57 am
Wow - really Tim? So building fund campaigns never fall within the category of “dodgy faith/finances business”?
I guess it’s a matter of extremes. Fortunately I’ve never been in a church where there was outright corruption/theft etc. But I’ve seen churches plough money into more buildings (for offices, never housing for refugees or people on the streets) and where people were placed under immense pressure to give to to building funds. I’ve frequently witnessed an array of methods of guilt tripping people into giving from the pulpit. Surely this is “dodgy faith/finances business” too?
October 19th, 2005 at 9:05 am
At the time (as a teenager mind you) I found the whole thing amazing. First the idea of a faith offering is that we pray to God who gives us extra money so we don’t have to spend our hard-earned. My idea of a faith offering is to have God challenge us to set an amount for a gift that would force us to make some hard decisions about our financial priorities and then have faith that he would hold us to our end of the deal.
I think that there is some truth in what Tim says about money always touching close to home, but I think it is much more mundane than that. I think that the fear we have about talking about financial stewardship seriously on any level is driven by a fact that people are sensitive about money and find that where there treasure is where their heart is. That is why so many churches don’t routinely discuss or encourage financial stewardship as an element of their spiritual life. They talk about prayer and hospitality etc year round but only seriously talk about money once a year during the pledge drive.
However, I think that reactions to this sort of stuff isn’t just about sensitivity. And we like to talk about this as if it were those penties that are doing the damage with the “praying for money” doctrine, but this event took place at a fairly bog ordinary regional baptist/uniting/presbo church.
October 19th, 2005 at 9:36 am
Dan, this is quite common in AOG circles. I can name the denomination because that is to a significant degree my heritage. It is incredibly sad. I know of an instance where a single mum who was doing it really tough, came into an inheritance from her recently deceased mother. I thought finally, she gets a break. She was involved in a church that was in the midst of a building program and there was significant pressure, including some badly exegeted passages. You know where this is going. She gave it all to the building program. The techniques used were the same. She believes that she has sacrificed greatly to God.
It is the standard technique used to get people to give. Don’t know how to finish this story so I’ll just stop.
October 19th, 2005 at 10:31 am
Steve’s story points out the importance of talking about money within the context of financial stewardship. Exhorting people to give, divorced from any notion of stewardship, is likely just to produce guilt, pressure, and even bad decisions about giving. Surely good stewardship might sometimes involve saying ‘no’ when asked for money? P’raps the single mum Steve refers to could have invested the money in a manner that provided a bit more stability for her future, which may have improved her ability to provide for her children AND for her church in the future. I don’t know.
I agree with Dan’s point about this abuse occurring in a variety of contexts. I frequently come across a kind of “poverty doctrine” (and I don’t say this as a penty, but someone who is inclined towards this view!) - there is a notion that having a mortgage is bad, that having a good income is bad…sometimes these things are expressed outright, sometimes they’re simply the subtext. Just as exhortations to give are often decontextualised and without reference to the concept of stewardship, so too can these other exhortations be divorced from the concept of stewardship.
October 19th, 2005 at 11:27 am
I believe that three things are close to our very being: 1) Our Spirituality – our relationship with God, 2) Our Relationship with Others and 3) Our Finances – which Jesus spoke so much about.
The reason people get so angry about this stuff is because they feel abused when Spiritual Leaders leverage their positions and authority (and use bad exegesis) to get people to give to their dream.
It is not unlike sexual abuse, in a way. People are seen as objects, or treated as merchandise to give to another’s ‘dream’ or worse ‘family business’. It makes it worse when you find out that you have been mislead (eg. An unamed well known Pastor publicly claims in a TV that he earns about as much as an average High School teacher, conveniently fails to mention that he earns much, much more through his private company).
Because our finances like or relationships are so close to our very being, it is a feeling like abuse when you find out that you have been used, manipulated or ‘ripped off’.
For the Protection of myself and my family I have been developing a number of guidelines, because unlike many Christians who believe stewardship ends “when they give to God – the Church”, I believe that stewardship also means knowing about what goes on and the other end of your cheque book:
1) Only give to a Church/Organisation where you know exactly how much the Pastor and his family makes from being a minister of religion.
Do not give into an organisation that uses business and fund raising practices that violate scriptural direction (eg. Special priveledges/recognistion to donors that contribute over $5000.
2) Only give to a Church/Organisation where the Spiritual Leader does not have a conflict of interest with his congregation (ie. Does leverage his relationship with the congregation to further his own business interests).
3) You do not feel that you have to ‘ask’ about the finances – the Church should be justifying to YOU what they are doing with your (God’s) money (annual AGM, full disclosure with Q&A time, and financials distributed and accessible by web)
4) Do not give to a Church/organisation where there is an inherent lack of accountability and transparency.
5) Do not give to a church that uses dodgy theology to raise money (if its dodgy at collection it must be dodgy when banked) especially if there is a governing closed-book incorporated company run by the leader to oversee the organisation.
6) Do not give to an organisation where there is no recourse for contributors / members etc. members should be able to elect the board members. Be careful where the Leader claims a divine ordinance to lead and elects his own board.
7) Do not give to an organisation where there is no plan to protect the organisation from becoming an inherited institution.
9) Give where there are visible direct or indirect benefits to the community ‘widow and the orphan’ as a considerable proportion to the budget.
Hamo, on a scale of 1 to 10 how is that for gentleness?
October 19th, 2005 at 11:31 am
What is the money collected going to? This sort of stuff makes even less sense if the money’s just going to benefit the same people who are giving the money.
October 19th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
Lionfish, just a wrinkle for you, to prompt some thoughts. I agree with your points but have also seen where the pastor/leader becomes a scapegoat for the congregation/organisation’s guilt about money issues (and this is from one married to a minister, so I can get sensitive to it). It can become difficult for a minister as an employee to advocate for their own position because everyone believes that the minister should be on a low salary and benefits.
So, not arguing against any of your points but I think that a lot of people would insist on the pastor/leader having their salary/earnings known publicly as an organisational/structural tool. But I wonder how many church people would be comfortable with the same information being available about their own circumstances.
October 19th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Great post Lionfish
Here’s another money story for you all….we were presented with (yet another) building fund drive a couple of years ago. We had always given sacrificially over the previous years to all of these types of drives, however this time, when the pastor encourged us (the “leadership section” of the church) to “seek God & give accordingly” - we really felt not to. The plan they were presenting was one of these yearly things where you give so many units per week. We were not financially in the position to participate, so felt we’d just give something later on down the track. We were very encouraged about being told to seek God “for ourselves” - not being sarcastic here, but this is not something we often heard.
Anyway, a year later, we were on the leadership camp, when the pastor stood up and spoke about this same building fund drive. We were told in no uncertain manner that they were aware of those who had not made it to the camp & of those who had not participated in the drive - and that these folk who did not come & did not give, obviously did not love the church….and if they did not love the church, “they did not love Jesus”.
October 19th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
Dan,
The Church needs to be a good steward in its own right and apply smart business principles. Most small local Churches do not to enough of this (eg. Take advantage of economies of scale, use resources wisely, get smart about priorites). But especially in the context of the Church, these principles must be aligned with scripture. A Church must play by the rules.
I am all for a Pastor being well paid. No argument there.
A workers needs must be met. But there is a tension between serving God and serving mammon. Jim Collins the business author, as good as he is, cannot not remove the tyrannical ‘OR’ from the choice between serving God OR serving money. But one who chooses to serve in an office of Public Ministry (Religious or Government) must do everything to remain accountable, transparent and ethical. This will include eliminating or openly declaring conflicts of interest. Or in other words being ‘above reproach’.
That old argument about ‘you would not want others to know how much you are on’ is a red herring.
A Pastor is an employee of the Church, a person in public office, NOT an owner of a family business. Hmmm. The employer (the congregation) has the right to determine what the worker is worth and if they are remunerated fairly and appropriately. The only time a Pastor should feel the need to hide what they earn is when they feel they are being paid more or less than they are worth.
It is also an issue that when a Pastor is on an exceptionally high income, and then has the audacity to preach tithing to those on average wages or less, then they are obviously out-of-touch with their congregation.
Leaders are there to serve, not benefit from their congregations. The congregation are people, not Merchandise or consumers in a business.
October 19th, 2005 at 2:11 pm
I agree with Lionfish’s point about accountability to members.
While I guess it depends on the church structure (often determined by the denomination) and culture, members are not ‘clients’ paying for a service, but are usually more akin to the employers of a minister. In Baptist churches it is the membership that has the final say in determining who will be employed, and so it should be the membership to whom the minister is accountable (financially and otherwise).
Dan, who would you have minister’s be accountable to?
However I do feel sympathetic towards Dan’s point of view - I’m sure we’ve all come across people that earn a significant amount more than their ministers, and who baulk at any suggested increase in the minister’s salary.
October 19th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
One thought.
I have no trouble with accountability in church structures, indeed, I would insist on it. Any church which doesn’t want to talk about where its money goes, or worse, deliberately obscures or lies about it, should be run out of town on rail wearing feathers and tar.
But having been the child of a pastor…can I point out that in almost any other career, a person with usually two, but at least one, tertiary degrees, say 15 years experience and in a management position, required to be available 20 hours a day and 7 days a week, would be on a lot more than your or my pastor…
October 19th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
Lionfish and Bec, there is no way that I am arguing against accountability, and I am certainly not arguing that ministers are not accountable to the church.
And for the record, our rates of pay at Northern are in accordance with the recommended standard and our budgets etc are declared and audited and comply with all of the things that you say. So let me firmly say that I agree with all of that.
This is getting onto a slightly different topic, but I think it is relevant (and I’ll explain how). I agree with what you say, but I think, to the extent that it concerns the ministry team, can have a shadow side.
I agree for example that the congregation employs the ministers, but I have often seen this translate into indiviudal congregation members considering that they play the role of the employers. As a result, ministers can be treated really badly by being managed a thousand times - first by the board or eldership and then by every congregation member that thinks that they have something to say.
I have seen a heap of ministers treated pretty poorly financially, pastorally and in a whole range of ways, often in the name of openness and accountability. And I don’t think the comparison with other members is a red herring. I am merely trying to illustrate that we make demands on our ministers that we would be indignant if they were made on ourselves. The demands may be appropriate, but the way in which we make them may not.
October 19th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
I agree 100% Dan - and I wasn’t for a moment suggesting that you were anti-accountability.
I think that the issue of ‘management’ is a really big problem for institutional churches that operate more along the lines of emerging churches than some other institutional churches. Let me explain this further - those churches that are obviously ‘emerging churches’ are often small, community-based, fairly informal. They don’t have a lot financially so their ‘ministers’ aren’t necessarily paid a great deal and usually have other forms of income. Because they’re small, informal communities, accountability is informal and relational more than anything.
In big, very institutional, hierarchical churches, the individuals/group to whom a minister is accountable is often very clear and fairly confined. Members don’t necessarily expect to have a huge say.
As institutional churches - like mine and yours, Dan - move towards a more ‘emergent’ culture, greater numbers of members can and do ‘have a say’. As a deacon at my church, I see the problems with this all the time - while we have fairly traditional, hierarchical decision-making structures in a formal sense, there is a wonderful sense of…organic, chaotic decision-making. It’s hard to balance the two, to work out how to integrate the two, to work out what is most appropriate in each situation. We don’t want to be overly bureaucratic and hierarchical, but given that our constitution identifies the membership as having certain powers, which things should go to them, and which things should just ’slip through the net’ and occur organically? What exactly is the role of the minister when it’s increasingy blurry due to the ‘emergent’ culture? The greater the breakdown of hierarchy, the greater the number of people who feel they have a ‘right’ to ‘manage’ the minister (and perhaps they actually do).
Am I making any sense??
October 19th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
Yeah, you are making sense. However, my experience of some of this is that it is a part of traditional church culture. Maybe it is a Church of Christ thing. And of course, I see a lot of stuff that others don’t see.
October 19th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
You are right Dan, I hear what you say. Generally “It’s not what we say, but the way that we say it” that is important. Ministers are in a difficult role and in a difficult position and we must respect them for that.
Having said that, some prominent Ministers and Evangelists act as if they are above the law, and often times the only time they get some feedback is when people ‘rattle the cage’ or when they get caught. I have heard some first horror hand stories of people in Churches asking basic questions about doctrine, finances and direction of Churches and being ‘hauled before the elders’. Isuues such as tithing in many churhes are seen as a sacred cow.
Basic accountability and openness is an imperative, not an option. And when this is obviously absent, they should expect some criticism. Both Billy Graham and Tim Costello have urged Pastors to enter into a situation of full disclosure.
I feel we are nearing a situation where a government body will have to be established to monitor religious bodies and protect the interest of their “consumers” because they don’t self-regulate adequately.
October 19th, 2005 at 5:01 pm
Oh, I didn’t mean to say it wasn’t a part of ‘traditional church culture’ - it sure is! - I just think that it arises in different ways, it raises different issues.
I was lucky enough to have a female minister when I was a kid. The first time she did the prayers at church, she was pulled up by several of the little old ladies after the service, and severely rapped over the knuckles for failing to pray for the Queen. *ROFL*
October 19th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
Hey Luke, you say you are the son of a Pastor???…I thought that you were a Catholic?
Like, I am now so confused!
October 22nd, 2005 at 9:27 am
This is a sad, sad story, not just because the lady was giving, as her own, a gift that was actually someone else’s, but that Christians out there think we have to wait for God to give us amounts like that before we can give ‘in faith’. If she had that much faith that God was going to supply her need, she should have given the amount already out of her own pocket, trusting in God to ‘reimburse’ her.
More so, it’s amazing that we expect that a call to sacrificial giving will, in the end, cost us nothing! The idea that we give expecting God will give it straight back is disgraceful. I’m not saying he won’t supply our needs if we give sacrificially, or that we should give without a thought to our own needs (not often a big problem in the western world), but the reason for our giving should not depend on a godly reimbursement. That is hardly the attitude God expects us to have when we give!
What the hell has happened to the church??????
October 31st, 2005 at 1:52 pm
Lionfish,
I am both, old friend! hehe…My father is a Church of Christ-ordained minister, but I converted to Catholicism at 23.
And he still loves me
October 31st, 2005 at 2:16 pm
WOW! Luke, I have been really busy with work and will organise to catch up for coffee soon…I’d love to hear THAT story!
October 31st, 2005 at 2:22 pm
You got my details mate - whenever you’re free that would be great.