It was reported by the Associated Press that, near the town of Gavas, eastern Turkey, one sheep among a large flock walked to the edge of a cliff and jumped to its death. A second sheep quickly imitated the first, also leaping off the cliff to its death. Then a third sheep followed. Then a fourth. Then a fifth. The AP reported that “stunned Turkish shepherds, who had left the herd to graze while they had breakfast, watched as nearly 1,500 others followed, each leaping off the same cliff.” When it was all over, 450 sheep had died and 1,050 survived, but only because those sheep that jumped later were saved as the pile of sheep got higher and the fall more cushioned.

Imagine the peer pressure that last sheep must have felt. Surely 1,499 sheep can’t be wrong…can they?

There is no such thing as a sheep that possesses leadership qualities—all are born followers. Consequently, any sheep that does anything out of the ordinary, regardless of how foolish it is, becomes a leader by default. And all the other sheep, having no idea what it means to think for themselves, blindly follow. They simply assume the “lead sheep” must know something that they don’t. I once watched scores of sheep jump over an obstacle that didn’t exist, only because the first sheep in line had jumped over that same invisible obstacle. Perhaps not wanting to appear foolish, they all acted like fools. Slaughter houses take advantage of this weakness among sheep, commonly employing what they call a “Judas sheep” that every day leads the other sheep down the corridor to where their throats will be slit.

I’m sure you know where I’m going with this. It is no accident that God refers to people, and often His own people, as sheep—probably not the highest compliment. Sheep are dumb, and I mean d–u–m, dumb. They are easily misled, and so are we. As hard as it may be to admit, we generally tend to be followers who let others do our thinking for us. Sadly, we’ll follow just about anyone who appears to know what he is talking about. The wool is easily pulled over our eyes if somebody draws big crowds, has initials after his name, shows some stage presence (what is often referred to as “anointing”), can read Greek, is on TV, or has written a book. “There’s a sucker born every minute,” quipped P.T. Barnum, but I’m afraid there’s a sheep born every second. And there are a lot of sheep who are leaders by default only because the rest of us are too sheepish to question where they’re leading us. Unfortunately, they’re often leading us off the edge of cliffs, over non-existent obstacles, or down slaughter house corridors.

So what should not-so-smart sheep like us do to avoid being misled?

Foremost, we should make sure we’re following the one whom Scripture refers to as “the good Shepherd,” “the Great Shepherd,” “the Chief Shepherd” and the “One Shepherd” (see John 10:11; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 5:4; John 10:16). That would be Jesus, of course, and it is no accident that Scripture refers to Him using all those phrases. He is the only safe Shepherd to follow. When He has His rightful place in our lives as Supreme Shepherd, we will not be misled.

A person’s propensity to be misled is directly proportional to the degree that he allows others to usurp Christ’s lordship in his life. Those who “love the approval of men rather than the approval of God” (John 12:43) are most likely to follow other cliff-jumping sheep, craving their approval. But the sheep who can honestly say, “The Lord is my Shepherd” (Ps. 23:1), who refuses to give to any other sheep or shepherd what rightfully belongs to the Great Shepherd alone, and who doesn’t care what the other sheep think, is safe. He won’t be jumping off cliffs. Rather, he’ll be lying down in green pastures (see Ps. 23:2).

Jesus plainly warned us against giving to any spiritual leader what rightfully belongs only to God:

But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant (Matt. 23:8-11).

I’m afraid that the letter and the spirit of these instructions are often ignored. So many spiritual leaders these days are grasping for titles, and there have never been so many bishops, doctors, psalmists, prophets and apostles. Not only do they place titles in front of their names, but they line rows of initials after their names, and all for one purpose—to impress us. And impressed we are. Dumb sheep like us have made idols of these men, and the evidence is plain:

1.) We give them continual praise, frequently talking about them and their marvelous ministries.

2.) We’re awe-struck in their presence (even addressing them with the title “Reverend”).

3.) We bring them our offerings so they can continue to live at a standard far above us.

4.) We read their books more than we read our Bibles.

5.) We follow their teachings that blatantly contradict the words of the Great Shepherd.

That’s at least semi-idolatry.

I recently looked through the full-color monthly ministry magazine of one of those very popular idols, and counted his photo no less than 47 times within its eight pages. When we give honor to those that are exalting themselves in these ways, we are laying out a welcome mat to the deceiver.

Take note that in the New Testament, no one in God’s Kingdom had any titles except the Lord Jesus. You can’t find, for example, the phrase “the apostle Paul,” in the Bible. Yes, Paul did refer to himself using the words, “Paul, an apostle of Christ” (see 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1). The word “apostle,” however, (meaning, one who is sent) was his calling, not his title. Paul also sometimes began his letters with, “Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle” (see Rom. 1:1; Tit. 1:1). He once asked the Corinthian believers, “What is Paul?”, and then answered his own question: “A servant through whom you have believed” (1 Cor. 3:5). To the same group he later called himself “the least of the apostles” (1 Cor. 15:9).

Compare that to the spiritual leaders today who try to impress us with their titles and bios that list the many reasons they should be admired. Some time ago, for example, I saw an advertisement for a church in my area that consists of about 25 people. The pastor had bestowed upon himself the title of “senior pastor.” I was recently reading the bio of an unknown minister on his website (where he had plagiarized an entire article I had written), and it said that he was one of America’s most sought-after speakers. (Perhaps he meant he was being sought by the police.) A few days ago, I was shocked to discover that a humble Indian pastor who once spoke in my church when his ministry was much smaller now goes in India by the title, “His Grace, Most Reverend Metropolitan.” (I also found it interesting that his Indian title is kept hidden from the tens of thousands of American Christians who support his well-known ministry.)

In the book of Acts, Paul’s name is listed 126 times. Only once did Luke even mention that Paul was an apostle (see Acts 14:14). The other 125 times Luke simply called him “Paul.” Similarly, Peter once mentioned Paul in one of his letters, and he called him “our beloved brother Paul” (2 Pet. 3:15).

Along these same lines, there is no mention in the New Testament of “Bishop so-and-so,” “Apostle so-and-so” or “Prophet so-and-so. In fact, there is no mention of anyone with the honorable title of “Pastor” either. Was Jesus’ forbidden list of titles limited exclusively to “teacher,” “father” and “leader”? Or should we read beyond the letter of what He was saying and into the spirit of it?

As one who has pretty well proven his love and esteem for pastors all over the world, I’m certainly not advocating that we not honor those to whom honor is due. But I’ve noticed that some saints go beyond honoring their pastors to the point of idolizing them, and the title that always accompanies their pastor’s name is one among many manifestations of the very thing Jesus forbade. Could we be arousing the jealousy of the Great, Good, Chief and Only Shepherd when we gush over earthly shepherds? If someone asked you, “Who is your shepherd?,” would you quote Psalm 23:1, or would you name the person whose name is painted on the church sign? Of greater concern, would your pastor correct you if you started addressing him without his title? If so, run. Run for your life. “Beware of the scribes, who…love respectful greetings…and chief seats…and places of honor” (Luke 20:46).

All of this is just to say that, when we are enamored by spiritual leaders, we are susceptible to be deceived because we are giving to man what rightfully belongs only to God. Again, a person’s propensity to be misled is directly proportional to the degree that he allows others to usurp Christ’s lordship in his life. And when spiritual leaders crave to be admired, it reveals that something is very wrong in their hearts.

Please note that I am not saying that God’s sheep only need Jesus and don’t need pastors. On the contrary, God has placed shepherds in the Church, and sheep desperately need shepherds. But the shepherds they need are under-Shepherds who are setting an example of obedience to the Great Shepherd (see 1 Tim. 4:12). That kind of shepherd is the only safe under-Shepherd to follow. Paul wrote, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). True, God-sent leaders are like Christ. But you can’t discern who is like Christ unless you know something about what Christ is like. So again, it is unsafe to follow any human shepherd unless the Great Shepherd has absolute preeminence in your life.

Pastors and other spiritual leaders are, of course, also sheep in God’s flock, who have just as much propensity as the rest of us to follow other sheep over cliffs. They, too, have their favorite teachers, many of whom are default leaders only because they’re straying in a new direction. That is why the Church is always besieged with new “movements.” Pastors, following other sheep who are the latest default leaders, promote the latest movement to their flocks.

Some pastors jump from one movement to the next, thinking that “winds of doctrine” (see Eph. 4:14) are actually “waves of the Spirit.” They’re always looking for the next wave to catch. Others get locked into movements that have long ago subsided, and visiting their churches is like going back in time anywhere from ten to four-hundred years. On the other hand, some wise pastors who have the good sense not to go with the latest flow, have unfortunately been washed right out of their churches by movements that gained enough influence to send most of their flocks surfing a wave that ultimately crashed on the shore of reality. How much better is it to just stay anchored to Jesus and His timeless Word. Then those waves roll right on by.

Although Scripture compares us to sheep, the analogy is of course imperfect, as are all analogies. Unlike real sheep, we don’t have to be so stupid, following other sheep over cliffs. We can all actually think for ourselves, and Jesus, the Great Shepherd, has even also told us how we can recognize those who are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Although they may appear to be sheep, they can be recognized, He said, by their fruits. He was not speaking of fruits of miracles, because He warned within the same context against spiritual leaders who work miracles but who were not holy (see Matt. 7:22-23). Thus, when He said that we’d know them by their fruits, he must have been speaking of their fruits of holiness. Simply put, are spiritual leaders like Jesus? Do they live as He lived? Do they teach what He taught? Are they humble servants?

If we’ll only follow the simple instructions of our Great Shepherd it is quite easy, even for dumb sheep like us, to know who to follow and who not to follow. Our Good Shepherd is guiding us, not to follow foolish fads, but down “paths of righteousness for His name’s sake” (see Ps. 23:3). He leads us on paths of righteousness because He is holy, and He requires that we be holy. Thus, any under-shepherd who is not leading his flock down paths of righteousness—by means of his teaching and example—is not a shepherd that anyone should be following. 1,499 sheep can be wrong.

The post There’s a Sheep Born Every Second appeared first on David Servant.

So let us admit it: It costs money to inform potential donors of needs, and it costs money to use donated funds properly in order to meet the needs for which they were given.

And just as business leaders must decide what percentage of their budgets to allocate for advertising, so nonprofit leaders must decide what percentage of their budgets to allocate for fundraising. The same is true for administrative expenses. And the reason that many nonprofits fail or underperform is the same reason that many businesses fail or underperform: poor allocation of funds.

One reason that Heaven’s Family has succeeded in our mission to the degree that we have (and I’m not saying that we could not have done much better) is simply because we’ve made our best effort to effectively allocate what God has entrusted to us. And we’ve unashamedly allocated a small part of what God has entrusted to us for fundraising.

A Corny Example

Fundraising is like planting seeds of corn. There is an element of risk. When you plant corn seeds, you are burying something that you could have eaten instead. If it doesn’t rain, you’ll regret planting those seeds and wish you’d used them to make cornbread! But if things go as you hope after planting, you’ll end up with a whole lot more corn than if you had “played it safe.” In fact, one harvest insures that you’ll have a chance at another harvest, while the farmer who eats all his seed is a farmer for only one year.

I’ve watched quite a few fine missionaries come off the field permanently because of failure to understand this. They invested 99% of their money and time on their target beneficiaries, and 1% on the people who made their ministry possible through their donations. They made very little effort to communicate to their donors what their donations were accomplishing on the field, often with the excuse of “not wanting to waste time and money.” Consequently, their donors didn’t feel like they were an important part of the missionary’s ministry when, in fact, they were its lifeblood!

So those donors stopped giving, and before long, the missionary returned home, and often bitter that “no one wants to give to missions.” (Meanwhile, Christians give hundreds of millions of dollars annually to support Christian missions.) The real problem is that missionary violated the Golden Rule. He didn’t treat his donors like he would want to be treated if their roles were reversed.

At Heaven’s Family, from the very beginning, we’ve considered our ministry to our donors to be just as important as our ministry to the “least of these.” When we raise funds, we’re giving our donors an opportunity to invest in building God’s kingdom around the world. And we know that without those wonderful “investors,” we can’t do anything. So we’ve worked hard at acquiring new investors and letting our current investors know that we’re all enjoying a great ROI (Return On Investment)!

A Confession of Sorts

So what is my confession this month? Actually, it is really not much of a confession at all, because it is not something of which I’m ashamed. But it might be a surprise to some of my readers—whom I’ve been trying to prepare for what I’m about to reveal.

Here’s my confession: In 2012, Heaven’s Family bought full-page ad space in World Magazine (an excellent Christian periodical to which I subscribe, by the way). We negotiated the best rate we could, and we didn’t use money from our General Fund, but rather a portion of a sizable, single donation concerning which the donors were OK with our using part of it for strategic advertising. Our four ads in World cost us $11,410. That is money, of course, we could have used to meet some very pressing needs around the world. But we decided to take a risk at multiplying our seed by planting it in soil that might give us a harvest.

Our ads in World offered readers a free copy of a book that I wrote, titled Forever Rich, that is somewhat disguised to the undiscerning as a book that promotes the “prosperity gospel,” but which is really all about laying up treasure in heaven. 724 of World’s readers requested a free copy, and our printing and postage costs to fulfill their orders totaled $3,875. So our total investment was $15,285.

We’ve since tracked donations from the people who ordered a free copy of Forever Rich. To date, they’ve cumulatively given Heaven’s Family about $124,000. That’s an ROI of over 700%, enough to turn even Warren Buffet green. (And that ROI is only going to grow larger every year as those donors continue to invest in Heaven’s Family projects.) With that $124,000, we’ve done a lot more good around the world than we could have done with that $15,285 “seed” money. And the folks who gave Heaven’s Family that $15,285 know it was a good investment on their part.

Another Confession

Let me make another confession related to fundraising. This one is a genuine confession, because it is something about which I am ashamed.

Have you ever attended a Christian concert during which, at some point in the show, the lead singer spent time encouraging everyone to peruse child-sponsorship packets in the lobby after the concert in hopes that everyone will sponsor a poor child for about $30 per month? I confess that I was shocked to learn some years ago that Christian bands are often paid a $75 commission for every child who is sponsored at their concerts. On some concert tours, child sponsorships can result in tens of thousands of dollars in commissions for Christian bands.

In fact, some of the larger child-sponsorship ministries approach popular Christian bands before their tours begin and offer advance commissions. Using a formula that calculates how many children will likely be sponsored if they follow the script, those child-sponsorship ministries can sometimes offer a check that exceeds $100,000, or even enough to buy a tour bus. The bands are told, “If you can get x number of children sponsored by the end of your tour, you don’t have to return any of this check.” (Which could explain why the passion displayed by some Christian bands for the child-sponsorship ministries they plug increases towards the end of their tours!)

I don’t know why I ever thought that Christian bands promote Christian ministries out of the goodness of their hearts and for free. But when I discovered that some are making tens of thousands of dollars doing it, I was grieved. I concluded that they were not motivated by love for poor children, but love of money for themselves. And I told people about my discovery, speaking very negatively about this “industry secret.”

Since then, I’ve reconsidered my judgment. Christian bands, consisting of very talented vocalists and musicians who could well make more money in secular music, have chosen to use their talents for God’s kingdom. To that degree, they’re making a sacrifice.

Second, they endure the misery of life on the road, often away from their families. What may appear to be a glamorous life is not. They sing the same songs over and over and over again. And they always have to look like they are enjoying themselves. It is work. And workers should be paid.

Third, I’ve learned that the money generated from child-sponsorship commissions actually defrays the costs of concert tours, which means concert tickets can cost less, which means more people can afford to attend. That also means more people can hear the gospel (if the gospel is shared).

Fourth, tens of thousands of children are sponsored every year as a result of band promotions, and poor children, their families, and their communities are helped as a result. Child sponsorships result in hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into service and ministry in poor countries.

Fifth, the Return-On-Investment for child-sponsorship is incredible, one that may well supersede that of any other means of fundraising. If the cost to acquire a child sponsor is $100, and the average child sponsor gives $30 per month for 7 years, that is an ROI of 2,520%! A good ROI is actually an indication of good stewardship, and everyone knows that who has read Jesus’ Parable of the Talents (see Matt. 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-27). The goal of every Christian fundraiser who wants to be a good steward is a high ROI (unlike those nonprofits that spend $100 million to raise $105 million).

All these things being so, I’ve asked God to forgive me for being critical of Christian bands that plug child-sponsorship ministries. I suppose I still wish that Christian bands would tell the whole story, and as they push child sponsorships, add, “Not only will you be helping a child, a family, and a community through your sponsorship, but you’ll also defray the costs of our concert tour through the commissions we earn.” But it occurs to me that rarely do pastors say on Sunday mornings, “Your offering this morning will, in part, help me make the payments on my new SUV!”

Holy Advertising

Speaking of SUVs, General Motors spends about 3% of its total revenue on advertising. So when you buy a $30,000 car, you paid $900 to be persuaded to buy it.

You can be sure that General Motors has spent a lot of money to arrive at the perfect percentage of its revenue to invest in advertising in order to realize the highest profits. If GM’s president suggested that the company save money by eliminating all advertising, he would soon be looking for a new job.

The average percent of revenue spent by publicly-traded companies for marketing is about 10%, a cost that is passed on to consumers. So it is safe to say that about 10% of what you spend on purchases is what you pay to be persuaded to make those purchases. But you shouldn’t be upset about that. If those companies had not advertised their goods and services, you probably would not have known about them, and therefore would not have enjoyed the benefit of the goods and services that you purchased. (Yes, I know that advertisers often persuade people to purchase what they really don’t need or really can’t afford, but that is another subject…)

Heaven’s Family, and most Christian ministries, don’t spend anywhere close to 10% of their revenue on fundraising. But I’m wondering, if the average publicly-traded company allocates about 10% of its revenue on marketing, that obviously reveals part of the formula for success in business. In light of how much less of a percentage most ministries spend on advertising/fundraising, could that be an illustration of something Jesus lamented: “The sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light”? (Luke 16:8). (And I’m uncertain if I’m correctly interpreting the intent of Jesus’ words.)

I’m wondering, if you made a contribution of $10 to Heaven’s Family, and Heaven’s Family used $1 of your contribution for advertising that would generate $10 in additional contributions, would you be upset? I suspect not. (And for this reason, in 2016 our staff and board members are going to be praying about and discussing, for the very first time in Heaven’s Family’s history, if we ought to increase our current minimal advertising/fundraising budget.)

An Affirmation

I’d like to close this e-teaching by quoting a letter addressed to America’s donors, written and signed by the CEOs of three significant nonprofit watchdogs: Charity Navigator, GuideStar and the BBB Wise Giving Alliance. They titled their letter, “The Overhead Myth”:

To the Donors of America:

We write to correct a misconception about what matters when deciding which charity to support.

The percent of charity expenses that go to administrative and fundraising costs—commonly referred to as “overhead”—is a poor measure of a charity’s performance.

We ask you to pay attention to other factors of nonprofit performance: transparency, governance, leadership, and results. For years, each of our organizations has been working to increase the depth and breadth of the information we provide to donors in these areas so as to provide a much fuller picture of a charity’s performance.

That is not to say that overhead has no role in ensuring charity accountability. At the extremes the overhead ratio can offer insight: it can be a valid data point for rooting out fraud and poor financial management. In most cases, however, focusing on overhead without considering other critical dimensions of a charity’s financial and organizational performance does more damage than good.

In fact, many charities should spend more on overhead. Overhead costs include important investments charities make to improve their work: investments in training, planning, evaluation, and internal systems—as well as their efforts to raise money so they can operate their programs. These expenses allow a charity to sustain itself (the way a family has to pay the electric bill) or to improve itself (the way a family might invest in college tuition).

When we focus solely or predominantly on overhead, we can create what the Stanford Social Innovation Review has called “The Nonprofit Starvation Cycle.” We starve charities of the freedom they need to best serve the people and communities they are trying to serve.

If you don’t believe us—America’s three leading sources of information about charities, each used by millions of donors every year—see the back of this letter for research from other experts including Indiana University, the Urban Institute, the Bridgespan Group, and others that proves the point.

So when you are making your charitable giving decisions, please consider the whole picture. The people and communities served by charities don’t need low overhead, they need high performance.

Art Taylor, President & CEO, BBB Wise Giving Alliance

Jacob Harold President & CEO, GuideStar

Ken Berger President & CEO, Charity Navigator

(You can view the letter in its entirety here.)

I agree wholeheartedly with these three men. The “Overhead Myth” is one that I have helped perpetuate in the past, and one that I hope to help eradicate in the future! — David

The post More About Fundraising appeared first on David Servant.

I don’t think that “fundraising” is a dirty word. Rather, fundraising is biblical. You can find examples of it in both Old and New Testaments.

Paul, for example, was quite a fundraiser. He devoted two chapters of his second letter to the Corinthians to communicate the needs of poor saints in an attempt to persuade his readers to give sacrificially to meet those needs. That is fundraising. When people sometimes tell me that I shouldn’t communicate needs or attempt to motivate people to meet those needs—but instead just pray about them—I point them to 2 Corinthians 8-9.

Fundraising involves telling a story (one that should be true, of course). People don’t give to causes about which they know nothing. So good fundraisers work at communicating their stories in an honest, compelling way.

Some stories are epic, and so they spread virally, needing little push from fundraisers. A prime example would be the ministry of Jesus. When the lame are walking and the blind are seeing, there is no need to send out newsletters asking for ministry support. The marketing was built into the miracles. And Jesus’ ministry was supported, at least in part, from the private donations of women whom He healed (Luke 8:1-3). Jesus also used donations He received to help the poor (John 13:29).

Another example of an epic story would be any large-scale natural disaster. All international relief agencies know that when the devastation of an earthquake is widely broadcast through the media, fundraising suddenly becomes much easier. And the reason is because the story is being told to millions of people, and a percentage of them will want to make some sacrifice to provide relief. Capitalizing on this free advertising, well-known relief organizations enjoy financial windfalls that require relatively little investment on their part.

Most stories, however, aren’t so epic. So we fundraisers work hard to find people who will listen to our little stories. We know that if we can communicate with excellence through our words, photos and videos, people will respond, and we will be able to help those whom we desire to serve.

All of this is to say that honest fundraisers have no reason to be ashamed.

Fundraising Dreams

All fundraisers wish that money would fall from heaven just by praying! But it doesn’t work that way. Fundraising requires work. And once funds are raised, more work is required to administrate what donors have given in order to serve the target beneficiaries.

And that brings me to my second point: There is always a cost to both fundraising and administration of funds raised. Consider even Paul’s fundraising appeal for the poor saints in Jerusalem, found in 2 Corinthians 8-9, and the subsequent administration of the funds he raised. Paul had to write the letter, which took time. It was part of what he did in a day full of ministry, ministry for which he was financially supported by churches he’d planted. So even the writing of 2 Corinthians 8-9 cost a little bit of money. Paul may well have used the services of a scribe, which may have also cost money.

Paul had to have his letter transported from Philippi or Thessalonica, from where he wrote it, to Corinth, a distance of 350 to 450 miles, journeys that would have required many days of travel. It could not have been done for free.

The funds had to be collected, not only from the Corinthian church, but other churches as well. That could not have been done without some expense.

And finally, the large sum of collected funds had to be safely transported to Jerusalem, something that also could not have been done without expense, and then distributed conscientiously to the Jerusalem saints in need, a task that would have involved the time of numerous people. Even if they were all volunteers, there were still the basic costs which the volunteers paid themselves. Again, there is always a cost to both fundraising and administration of funds raised.

So nonprofit leaders have to wrestle with what percentage of their income should be used for fundraising and administration, just like business leaders have to think about how to allocate their company’s resources. But because donors are generally convinced that the best nonprofits are those that spend the least on fundraising and administration, nonprofit leaders are inclined to budget as little as possible for them. The end result is that they are often less effective at serving their target beneficiaries. Let me explain with a few examples, moving from the ridiculous to the sublime:

Example A: Rural Kenyans are starving from a local drought that is not big enough to make world headlines. A small U.S. nonprofit has a representative presence in that region of Kenya. But not wanting to “waste” money on advertising (via staff wages, mailing letters, or buying ad space), the nonprofit leaders make no effort to communicate to those inside or outside their constituency about the starving Kenyans. So they raise no money to help the starving Kenyans. Consequently, their nonprofit does not help a single starving Kenyan. But at least they can make the donor-attractive claim, “We don’t waste money on advertising like those big organizations do!”

Example B: A similar nonprofit does invest some effort to raise money for those starving Kenyans. It cost them $5,000 in staff wages, printing, postage, and internet ad space to raise $100,000, which is a little bit of a concern to them. Because they want to “keep overhead low” so that “the maximum percentage of our donors’ money reaches the end beneficiaries,” they decide to not send a trusted U.S. staff member to Kenya to administrate the distribution of $95,000 worth of food. Such an effort would cost several thousand dollars in airfare, food and lodging for that staff member. Rather, they know a Kenyan pastor whom they trust who lives 200 miles from the drought region.

So the nonprofit sends that Kenyan pastor $95,000, instructing him to use it to serve his fellow starving Kenyans, but to spend as little as possible on administrating the relief. That pastor buys relief supplies in his home town from friends who appreciate his business, rents a big truck from another friend, hauls the supplies 200 miles, and dumps them in one location, the same place scores of other “efficient” nonprofits are dumping relief supplies. He makes sure he gets a few photos of thin people smiling for the camera while holding bags of flour. Then he hurries back home to return the truck as quickly as possible to save money on the cost of the rental.

The end result is that those who are suffering the most from the drought receive no relief, because they live too far from the relief dump site. Worse, once the Kenyan pastor has left town, unscrupulous “local administrators” who have been “entrusted with distribution” sell all the relief supplies at whatever price they can get and pocket their 100% profit. So the hard-earned $95,000 sacrificially given by the donors only benefits those who can afford to buy the relief supplies and the “local administrators.”

Moreover, there is a good chance that the glut of low-priced relief supplies has shut down long-standing businesses in the town near the relief dump site, as those business can’t compete with the low prices offered by the “local administrators” whose wholesale cost was zero.

Finally, there is also a good chance that the trusted Kenyan pastor who delivered the supplies pocketed $9,500 of the $95,000, a biblical tithe, as a customary payment for his services that somehow never makes it into the accounting that he sends back to the U.S. nonprofit.

But at least that “efficient nonprofit” can boast to its donors about “how little we spend on overhead” when they publish their Kenyan relief report with staged photos! (And aren’t you glad now that you helped with your donation to feed starving Kenyans?)

Example C: A Christian nonprofit is committed to spending no more than 10% of its income on administration, a commitment that is plastered everywhere on its website in order to impress and attract donors. And it works. That commitment is made possible, in part, by (1) all of the staff living on low wages (“for the glory of Christ”) and (2) by some of them working 60-80 hour weeks (“for the glory of Christ”) in order to manage the total work load.

One consequence is that some of that Christian nonprofit’s best employees leave to work for other Christian nonprofits that don’t require quite as much financial sacrifice. It isn’t because they’re greedy. Rather, it is because they love their families, and want to have enough money to send their children to a Christian school.

And that Christian nonprofit discovers that it can’t attract the highly-skilled employees—people who have worked very hard and spent a lot of money to acquire their skills and knowledge—that modern nonprofits must have. Not having qualified human resources hinders them from accomplishing their mission.

Another consequence is that some children of staff members rarely see their overworked dads, and as the years roll by, they begin to resent the faith that stole their fathers from them. Seeking affirmation, they gravitate towards the wrong crowd.

In addition, some wives grow jealous of their husbands’ mistress named “ministry.” Their marriages struggle to survive. Some don’t.

These are things you will never read in any ministry’s annual report to donors, a publication where you might read, “We only spend 10% of our income on administration!”

The truth is, that nonprofit is paying much more than 10%, but the cost is being transferred to the staff, their spouses and their children, not to mention the targeted beneficiaries.

The Other Side

I am, of course, very much aware—as most of the giving public is, thanks to occasional media revelations, that many nonprofits are on the opposite side of the extremes I’ve just described in the above three examples. They spend enormous sums of money to raise slightly-more enormous sums, or they spend enormous sums of money to administrate the funds they’ve raised (usually through exorbitant salaries), so that in the end, the targeted beneficiaries receive very little benefit from the money that was raised on their behalf.

Some of the worst offenders are nonprofits that hire third-party telephone solicitors, such as Kids Wish Network, which in 2014 paid telephone solicitors $115.9 million to raise for them $137.9 million. When someone donates $50 to KWN via a telephone solicitor who simply follows a script, $42 of it goes to the company that is paying the telephone solicitor. $8 goes to KWN. After KWN takes its cut for administrating that $8, only $1.25 is used to directly help kids with life-threatening medical conditions. Yet on KWN’s website’s home page is this bold declaration:

100% of contributions directed to Kids Wish Network’s Guardian Angel Fund will go directly to supporting our kids through our services and programs.

For a list of 48 similar lopsided nonprofits, see http://www.tampabay.com/americas-worst-charities/.

A Google Gag

The fundraising world is awash with deception. If there was ever a group of people who are tempted to believe that “the ends justifies the means,” it is fundraisers. Let me tell you of a recent example I uncovered that you would likely never suspect. To understand this example, I need to first explain to you how Google’s advertising services work.

When you use Google’s search engine to find a product you might want to purchase, the search results pages will always show some “Sponsored Ads” at the top and side column. Those top-of-the-page-and-side-column results are not there because they are the most popular or the most relevant to your search, but because advertisers have paid for those positions. In fact, advertisers have competed with each other for the top-most rankings through a bidding process.

So when you search for “tennis racquet,” for example, the topmost item on the first page of your search results is there because that advertiser was willing to pay more than the advertiser in the second slot whenever someone searches for “tennis racquet.”

Advertisers can also set advertising budgets using Google. Say, for example, Wilson Tennis Racquets Company gains the top slot by agreeing to pay Google $5 for the top slot when anyone searches for “tennis racquets.” But Wilson can also set a daily limit of how much it is willing to spend. So once their daily limit has been met, their ad won’t appear at all when someone searches for “tennis racquets.” And the advertiser whose ad previously appeared in the #2 slot then automatically bumps up to the #1 spot.

Advertisers have two options for what they buy from Google. They can “pay per view” or “pay per click.” With “pay per view,” advertisers pay whenever their ad appears on someone’s computer screen in response to a search inquiry. With “pay per click,” advertisers only pay when someone is interested enough in their ad to click on it to learn more. Paying for clicks is always more expensive than paying for views, as clickers are much more likely to purchase than viewers.

This is how Google (and Facebook) make their money. (And this is why Facebook loves to know everything it can about you and your interests, because advertisers pay Facebook for very targetted advertising.)

Spending $28 to Gain $25

You may be surprised to learn that Heaven’s Family has been given a $10,000-per-month grant by Google, but unfortunately, it is not $10,000 per month in cash. Rather, it is $10,000 per month in free advertising credit. (We’ve used it primarily to find people who are searching for daily devotionals, but have occasionally used it to fundraise.)

Heaven’s Family’s monthly grant from Google prohibits us from bidding higher than $2 to attain the topmost slot on any search results page. So for example, when Nepal experienced an earthquake this past April, we used our $2-per-search limit on words and phrases that people might use as they searched for ways they could help the people of Nepal. I don’t recall all the words and phrases that we chose, but they would have been phrases like “Nepal earthquake” and “Help the people of Nepal.”

Nepal’s earthquake hit late Saturday morning in Nepal, which was very early Saturday morning in the eastern U.S. So we knew that we had two days—Saturday and Sunday—to use our Google grant with a $2 limit until most other nonprofits got back to work on Monday. After that, we knew many of them would be willing to pay more than $2 (of actual money…not Google grant money) to gain top-most ranking in search results in order to gain donations. And we were correct. By late Monday, there were top-ranking ads that cost the sponsoring nonprofits $28 for every time someone clicked on their ad! Clearly, the competition for donations was fierce among relief agencies.

Now imagine you are someone who wants to help earthquake victims in Nepal. You do a search on Google with the words, “How can I help Nepal’s earthquake victims?,” and your search results show you ads from a number of nonprofits to which you can donate. You see one at the top of the right-hand column that says, “Give $25 Now to Help Nepal’s Earthquake Survivors,” and since $25 is within your means, you click on that ad and donate $25 using your credit card. Meanwhile, acquiring your donation just cost that nonprofit $28! So you effectively gave nothing to help earthquake survivors in Nepal.

And why would a nonprofit ever pay $28 to gain a $25 donation? Because now they have your name and address, and that could be worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars in future donations from you. The “cost to acquire a customer” was only $3, a bargain.

But in this series of my confessions, what is my confession-of-the-month, and how does it fit into the topic of fundraising?

My Confession

We began Heaven’s Family in 2003 with the purest of intentions. We truly wanted to serve the poor and suffering members of our spiritual family. We initially focused on training leaders and helping orphanages, and we started a child sponsorship program to raise money to help orphans. We promised to send 100% of every $20-per-month sponsorship gift to the orphanage where each sponsor’s child lived. We paid for all the administration (and boy, was there a lot of administration, we soon discovered) from gifts to our General Fund. We didn’t want to appear, to any degree, that we were exploiting orphans.

That is the pattern we followed as we added additional Focused Ministries. 100% of what people contributed to any Focused Ministry was sent overseas. All administrative costs were paid from our General Fund.

That well-intentioned policy has strained us, however, and particularly me, as I’ve had to persuade people to give to the General Fund to cover all our administrative costs. That has proven to be a tough sell, because given the choice, people would much rather give to provide food for orphans and widows than pay for bank fees, phone bills, staff salaries, and annual financial audits.

Worse, because of our 100% policy, we’ve had to skimp on important administrative needs, resulting in failed projects at times (see Example B above). Also, because of lack of finances to pay for administration, we’ve not been able to afford to hire much-needed staff. Moreover, some of our staff (including me) have been working too many hours, and our families have been paying the price (see Example C above).

In addition, some of our most popular ministries (among the 21) have been well-funded. But because all of the funds to those ministries are restricted for overseas, and because we haven’t had enough money for the human resources necessary to administrate those funds, we found ourselves with money that was bottlenecked in our bank account.

Finally, it has bothered me more and more that we are asking a few people to pay for all our fundraising and administrative costs so that everyone else could have the blessing of knowing that 100% of what they gave directly benefitted the “least of these.” That is fundamentally unfair, and also something against which the Bible is philosophically opposed. “There is no free lunch!” Those who benefit from services rendered should pay for them.

So we’ve faced up to the fact that it is not wise to continue our 100% policy, and it was probably a mistake to have ever started with it. And that is this month’s confession. So as a result, starting in December, our new policy will be to use a portion of every contribution to Heaven’s Family to pay for our essential general and management expenses.

Looking back, I’m particularly ashamed of my pride concerning our 100% policy, something I perceived made Heaven’s Family superior to other ministries, but which I now perceive as a revelation of my inexperience and foolishness. I’m also embarrassed that I’ve promoted the idea that it is OK to expect someone else to pay for services from which you benefit. Remember, both fundraising and administration are essential to every nonprofit, and someone has to pay for them. Clearly, the folks who should pay for those essential services are those who benefit from them!

What percentage will be used from every contribution for Heaven’s Family’s fundraising and administrative expenses? It will be as small as possible of course, but not at the expense of our quality of ministry, our program effectiveness, or the basic well-being of our staff and their families. And I think that will all please God. I hope it pleases you too!

Of course, that is not all that big of a change for Heaven’s Family. All we’re doing is spreading the burden of our fundraising and administrative expenses from a few to everyone who benefits from the the hard work of our devoted staff members (as well as all the other supportive services, like printing, postal, banking and so on.) Heaven’s Family is going to keep right on doing what we’ve always been doing, building God’s kingdom around the world. — David

The post Fundraising appeared first on David Servant.

For example, have you ever heard a pastor say, “Your tithe belongs to the local church”? I’ll bet I’ve heard that hundreds of times over the past 40 years of my Christian life. That familiar claim is often followed with, “If you want to give to other ministries, you can give offerings over and above your tithe.”

Those claims have been repeated so often that they are widely accepted as biblical truth. You may be surprised to learn, however, that those claims aren’t biblical at all. If you don’t believe me, keep reading.

If you are a pastor who has been making those claims, what I’ve got to say may not be easy for you to accept. But if you’ll keep reading to the end, I promise I’ve got something much better and more biblical for you to teach God’s flock. And your ministry could be so significantly changed that you will be eternally thankful that you took ten minutes to read what follows. I don’t exaggerate.

What is the scriptural basis for the claim that the tithe belongs to the local church? Generally, it is three verses from the Old Testament:

“Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, ‘How have we robbed You?’ In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you! Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this,” says the Lord of hosts, “if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows” (Mal. 3:8-10).

Clearly, in Malachi’s day, there was a storehouse in the vicinity of the temple (which God calls “My house”) where the people’s tithes were brought. Since the temple is the physical place that God was worshipped under the Old Covenant, and since the church building or meeting location is the physical place where God is corporately worshipped under the New Covenant, New Covenant worshippers should bring their tithes to the local church. At least, that is what we’ve been told for many years.

But there are problems, on several levels, with that line of reasoning.

First, that line of reasoning is not taught anywhere in the New Testament, either by Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, James, or Jude. No one can point to any verse or passage in the New Testament that says something like, “Under the Old Covenant, God’s people were commanded to bring their tithes to the temple storehouse, and since the temple was the physical place where God’s Old Covenant people worshipped, and the church building or church meeting location is the physical place where God’s New Covenant people worship, so New Covenant believers should give their tithes to their local church.” So any person who makes that claim is teaching what the New Testament never teaches.

Second, not only is there no teaching in the New Testament that equates the Old Covenant temple storehouse with the New Covenant church building or meeting place, there is also no teaching or instruction in the New Testament for Christians to give their tithes to the local church. That is, of course, why pastors have to resort to proving the idea from the Old Testament book of Malachi. They have nothing to draw from in the New Testament. Nothing at all.

Third, anyone can string a few scriptures together, take them out of context, twist their meaning, and make the Bible say anything they want it to say.

I could, for example, prove that Christians should tithe to themselves using Malachi 3:8-10. Sure! Under the New Covenant, believers are God’s temple (see 1 Cor. 3:16-17). Since God’s Old Covenant people were instructed in Malachi 3 to give their tithes at the Old Covenant temple, so God’s New Covenant people should give their tithes at the New Covenant temple—themselves! Bingo!

What I have just done is no different than what pastors do who use Malachi 3:8-10 to prove that Christians should tithe to their local church.

As one who directs a ministry that focuses on serving those whom Jesus referred to as the “least of these,” I could very easily string some scriptures together to prove that every Christian should tithe to the “least of these.” Sure! Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek (Gen. 14:12), a priest who was, at very least, a type of Christ, and who was, at most, Christ pre-incarnate (Ps. 110:4; Heb. 5:6, 7:1-10). Therefore, Christians, all children of Abraham (Gal. 3:7), should follow his example and also pay tithes to Christ who is their high priest, and who told us that when we give to the “least of these,” we actually give to Him (Matt. 25:34-40). So all Christians should tithe to Heaven’s Family! Voila!

What I have just done is no different than what pastors do who use Malachi 3:8-10 to prove that Christians should tithe to their local church.

An Old Testament Embarrassment

There are other fundamental problems with the Malachi 3 tithe-to-the-local-church idea.

One is that, under the Old Covenant, not all tithes were supposed to end up at the temple or, for that matter, be consumed by the Levites:

You shall eat in the presence of the Lord your God, at the place where He chooses to establish His name, the tithe of your grain, your new wine, your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and your flock, so that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always. If the distance is so great for you that you are not able to bring the tithe, since the place where the Lord your God chooses to set His name is too far away from you when the Lord your God blesses you, then you shall exchange it for money, and bind the money in your hand and go to the place which the Lord your God chooses. You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household. Also you shall not neglect the Levite who is in your town, for he has no portion or inheritance among you.

At the end of every third year you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in that year, and shall deposit it in your town. The Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance among you, and the alien, the orphan and the widow who are in your town, shall come and eat and be satisfied, in order that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do (Deut. 14:23-29, emphasis added).

When you have finished paying all the tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and to the widow, that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied. You shall say before the Lord your God, “I have removed the sacred portion from my house, and also have given it to the Levite and the alien, the orphan and the widow, according to all Your commandments which You have commanded me; I have not transgressed or forgotten any of Your commandments (Deut. 26:12-13, emphasis added).

From what we just read, it is obvious that, under the Old Covenant, some tithes were not to be brought to the temple, and some tithes benefitted people whom Jesus referred to as the “least of these.” (Incidentally, you may have also noticed that these passages actually do support a limited version of tithe-to-yourself…)

Why do pastors never mention these passages when they teach from Malachi 3 about how the tithe belongs to the local church?

Incidentally, one other twist on the standard tithe-to-your-local-church claim is also exposed as fallacious from these passages. Some pastors claim that, just as Levites were God’s ministers under the Old Covenant, so pastors are God’s ministers under the New Covenant. Thus, because the people’s tithes were given to the Levites under the Old Covenant, they should be given to pastors under the New Covenant.

The problem with that line of logic is that it was not just the Levites who received tithes under the Old Covenant, as the passages we’ve just read make so plain. Beyond that, how is it that the only New Covenant ministers who are allegedly the equivalent of Old Covenant Levites are pastors? Aren’t there any other New Covenant ministers besides pastors, such as apostles, prophets, evangelists and teachers (see Eph. 4:11)?

Yet Another Problem

Another problem with the tithe-to-the-local-church idea is that, not only is there no teaching or instruction in the New Testament for Christians to give their tithes to the local church, there is no teaching or instruction in the New Testament epistles for Christians to tithe, period. In fact, tithing is only mentioned once in all of the New Testament epistles, in Hebrews 7:8-9. There you will find a reference to the Old Testament story of Abraham giving a tenth to Melchizedek.

When you think of all the commandments and instructions that Paul, Peter, John, James and Jude were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write to New Testament believers to help them please God, and consider that not once were any of them inspired to instruct Christians to tithe, that seems rather significant. Any pastor who makes the claim that Christians are expected by God to tithe is teaching what Paul, Peter, John, James and Jude never claimed in any of their letters to the churches. (The New Testament authors, of course, had plenty to say about stewardship and giving.)

But didn’t Jesus advocate tithing? In all that is recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John concerning what Jesus taught during His 3-1/2 years of ministry, together they record that He mentioned tithing only twice. That’s it. Once was in His story of the Pharisee and the tax collector—in which the Pharisee boasted of his tithing—and once when He was denouncing the Pharisees for tithing their garden herbs while neglecting “the weightier provisions of the law,” namely, “justice and mercy and faithfulness.” In that case, Jesus ended by saying to the Pharisees: “But these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others” (Matt. 23:23). So there is Jesus’ single endorsement of tithing, something He obviously considered a “lesser commandment,” spoken to people who were living under the Old Covenant and who were of course expected to tithe.

But is tithing included in the Law of Christ, thus making it binding upon New Testament believers? A fragile case could be made from Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:23, but it would be difficult to strengthen that case in the absence of any endorsement from the New Testament epistles. And still, even if that single verse in Matthew warrants tithing under the New Covenant, it speaks nothing about where the tithe should be given.

Why is there so little about tithing in the New Testament? I tend to think that people who are genuinely born again are transformed by God’s Spirit and filled with His love, and He makes them into givers who aren’t trying to figure out the minimum they can reluctantly relinquish while still feeling OK about their relationship with Him. People who actually love God and neighbor live to give. They are storing as much treasure as they can in heaven.

New Testament Giving to the Church

So do Christians have any obligation to financially support their local church? Rather than twisting an Old Testament verse to fit our theology, let’s look at what the New Testament clearly teaches on the subject.

Here’s a very relevant New Testament verse:

The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him (Gal. 6:6).

That’s easy to understand. If someone is teaching you God’s Word, you have an obligation to reciprocate. You should share what you have to support your teacher. Obviously, that applies to pastors. And it also applies just as much to other teachers outside the “local church.” Paul’s words expose the fallacy that the local church is somehow “first in line” to receive support from believers. And notice, of course, that Paul makes no mention of tithing in his instructions about supporting teachers.

Here’s another relevant New Testament passage:

The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” (1 Tim. 5:17-18).

Obviously, Paul was writing about paying church elders (who, according to the New Testament, are the same as pastors). Notice again Paul’s emphasis on supporting those who work hard at teaching (and preaching), because that is what elders/pastors should be doing more than anything else.

Also notice the principle on which Paul’s instruction is based. Elders/pastors should be remunerated because they work. Financially supporting elders/pastors is not charity, it is paying them wages for what they do.

Incidentally, if Paul believed that Christians should tithe to the local church, this would have been a good place to mention it. But he didn’t.

Here’s yet another relevant New Testament passage:

Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working? Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock?

I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things? For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.” God is not concerned about oxen, is He? Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops.

If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar? So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel (1 Cor. 9:6-14).

Paul undeniably believed that it was not just teachers and elders/pastors who should be supported by those whom they serve, but also apostles, like himself and Barnabas. Again, Paul exposes the fallacy that the local church is “first in line” to receive support from Christians. That idea is not taught in the New Testament.

Note that once again we find no mention of tithing in Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians regarding their obligation to financially support those who “sowed spiritual things” into their lives.

And again, notice the principle on which Paul’s argument is founded: Ministers expend time and effort to teach us God’s Word, so it is only right that we should support them materially. Paul is not arguing from a principle of charity, but of reciprocity. He wrote, “Don’t muzzle the ox while he is threshing” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim. 5:18). Failing to support someone who is teaching you is like eating at a restaurant and not paying for your meal. It is like hiring people to harvest your field and then not paying them for their labor (see Jas. 5:4). Such a thing should not be done. It is taking advantage of others. It is equivalent to stealing. It angers God.

When Israel failed to pay their tithes (which we read about in Malachi 3:8-10), it invited God’s curse. In effect, God said, “So you are going to steal from the Levites (and others of course), expecting them to serve you for free? OK, I’ll give you a taste of what it feels like to have your hard work go unrewarded. Let’s see how you like it when all your crops fail…”

Giving Versus Paying

This same principle of reciprocity is true of just about every dollar that you put in your church’s offering plate. It is “payment for benefits,” not “charity.” Your money not only pays your pastor’s salary, reciprocating for his service to you, but it also pays for the mortgage on the building where you sit and listen to his teaching. It pays for the electricity that powers the lights and air conditioning. It pays for the maintenance and cleaning of the building. And it pays for the salaries of the other church employees, such as youth pastors, worship leaders and so on, who serve the members. As a beneficiary of their labors, and as one whose attendance generates expenses for the church, you should pay your fair share.

But this leads me to something that many Christians (and pastors) don’t seem to understand. “Paying for services rendered” is not the same as “giving to the Lord.” You don’t lay up treasures in heaven when you pay for services rendered.

Let’s be honest. The collective money put in the offering plate primarily benefits the folks who put it there. They are essentially giving to themselves, just like country club members do when they pay their dues.

Do we lay up treasure in heaven when we make a mortgage payment on our house, buy food to eat, or pay someone to repair our car? Of course not. So why would God credit us with treasure in heaven when we pay for services rendered and benefits received at church? What is so virtuous about paying for services from which I benefit that it deserves God’s reward? (I suppose the exception could be when one gives more than his or her fair share, thus benefitting others who aren’t paying their fair share.)

What About Churches that “Tithe on the Tithe?”

Of course, many churches take what their members put in the offering plate and use a tenth of it to support outreach, other ministries, missionaries, or the poor. Some churches give more than 10%.

Praise God for any money that is put in church offerings plates that ends up benefiting people other than the people who put it in the plates. For that money—if you are one who gave—you will receive credit in heaven for actually giving, since that portion does not end up as “payment for services rendered.” Again, let’s be honest. If you tithe to your church and your church tithes, you are getting credit in heaven for giving 1% of your income…not 10%. The other 9% of your income you are spending to pay for services rendered and benefits received at your church.

Am I wrong? Consider what Jesus taught:

And He also went on to say to the one who had invited Him, “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, otherwise they may also invite you in return and that will be your repayment. But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous” (Luke 14:12-14, emphasis added).

Jesus is quite clear on this: Do something kind for those who can and do repay you, and when they do repay you, you’ve got your full reward. Consequently, you’ll receive no reward for it at the resurrection. If that is true, why would anyone ever expect reward at the resurrection for doing nothing more than repaying someone for a kindness received, or paying someone for a service rendered? That is exactly what occurs when the offering plate is passed at church.

If we can trust Jesus, it seems that the only way to lay up treasure in heaven is to give, not in two-way earthly transactions (which would include repayments for gifts received, payments for services rendered, or gifts that will likely be reciprocated by the recipients), but by one-way earthly transactions. That truth is clearly illustrated in Luke 14:12-14, which we just read. It is also echoed in Jesus’ words to all His followers in Luke 12:

Sell your possessions and give to charity (Greek: eleemosune, translated as “alms” in most other places it is found in the New American Standard translation; that is, “gifts to the poor”); make yourselves money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys (Luke 12:33, emphasis).

“But our church building is a place where the lost can come to hear the gospel! So what we give to the church helps other people hear the gospel!”

Certainly that is true. But it doesn’t change anything I’ve said. If your church has 100 attendees every week, 1 of whom is an unsaved person who hears the gospel, then an additional 1/100th of what you put in the offering plate each week is credited as treasure in heaven. The lion’s share of most church offerings benefits the attendees.

If a country club’s annual membership costs $10,000, and one of the members invites a friend to play golf with him on the club golf course—which costs the member a $25 fee—that member would be fooling himself to think that the $10,025 he paid to his country club that year was all for the benefit of the friend who played a round of golf with him!

How Much Do I Give to My Church?

So, should you put money in the offering plate as it goes by? Of course you should, but not based on some alleged biblical requirement that you should tithe to your local church. Rather, you should put money in the plate to pay your rightful share—based on your means—of all the expenses that the church is incurring in order to serve you and your family.

Your pastor might be able to tell you the annual cost, per attendee, of the many programs and ministries his church provides. That would give you an average annual amount that all attendees should pay their church. But in order to arrive at everyone’s fair share as a percentage of their income, you’d have to know that aggregate income of all attendees, something that is likely impossible to find out. (For example, if the total expenses of your church are $100,000 and the aggregate income of everyone who attends your church is $2,000,000, everyone should support the church with 5% of their income.)

But here is something that I, and every pastor in the world, can guarantee you: There is no church in the world in which every attendee tithes, so you can be sure that there is no church in the world that needs 10% of everyone’s income to provide the services that it currently provides. Right now, every church is providing the services it provides using less than 10% of the aggregate income of those who attend. On that basis alone, you can be certain that your rightful share of support for your church is less than 10% of your income.

Of course, most pastors would like to see church offerings increase, as more money means they can provide more programs, ministries and services, perhaps by hiring another pastor, or building a gymnasium, broadcasting on a local TV station, or supplying free donuts every Sunday.

But wouldn’t it be best to ask ourselves what ministries and programs God expects the local church to provide? Anyone who reads the New Testament quickly realizes that the modern church offers exponentially more programs and services than the early church, which consequently requires exponentially more money. Meeting in homes, as did the early church, there were no expenses related to special buildings, like mortgages, utilities, sound and multi-media equipment, parking lots and so on. The only paid “staff” were elders/pastors. There were no executive pastors, youth pastors, children’s ministers, worship leaders, secretaries, custodians and so on.

This opens up a new subject in itself, but the early church did wonderfully well without all those things, and many places in the world where the church is the healthiest today are places where churches have none of those things. So why do we think we must have all those things to simply make disciples who obey Jesus’ commandments, which is what Jesus wants us to do?

Another related question every disciple should ask is: “Do I want to attend a church that offers lots of services, to which if I pay my rightful share, will require a significant percentage of my income? Or do I want to attend a church that offers only discipleship (following Jesus’ model), to which if I pay my rightful share, will require a much smaller percentage of my income, thus allowing me to have more money to send the gospel to the unreached and care for the poor?” This is actually a profound question on many levels, and is worth seriously pondering.

Who is Really Robbing God?

If you are a pastor who has been teaching your flock that the tithe belongs to the local church and you’ve read this far, then I praise God. Don’t stop reading now, because I’ve saved what is most important for last. Your ministry could be changed in such a way that you will be eternally thankful for reading the final paragraphs.

Pastors who are telling their non-tithing members that they are robbing God need to ask themselves if they might be bigger robbers themselves. Here is why: Every dime those pastors collect for the “Lord’s work” and then spend on things the Lord never mentions in the Bible as necessary to make disciples could be used to serve the poor and reach the lost. Consequently, the lost and the poor are being robbed of what God commands His church to give them, namely a chance to hear the gospel, food, water, clothing, shelter, and someone who cares about them. On top of that, those pastors’ flocks are being robbed of future rewards as they “pay for services rendered” while being told that they are “giving to the Lord” and “laying up treasure in heaven.” I wonder what those “givers” will be thinking about their pastors when they get to heaven and discover that they’ve been misled?

But all of this is not just the fault of pastors. It is also the fault of many professing Christians, consumers who demand more and more programs and services that can only be provided by churches with big buildings, big staffs, and big budgets. Any pastor who attempts to reverse that trend will find himself in trouble (albeit glorious trouble; see Philippians 3:10).

I know what I’m talking about. My ministry today began when, as a pastor years ago, I first believed Matthew 25:31-46 and stopped playing church games. I realized that Jesus said nothing to the sheep or goats in that passage about tithing to the local church. Rather, the eternal salvation of the sheep and goats hinged on what they did or didn’t do for Jesus Himself, incarnated in the “least of these.” Now read slowly: It was the goats who were literally “robbing God,” withholding basic necessities from Him!

Ever since then, I’ve been on a crusade to help others see what I was blind to for so long, but what is so obvious to me now. I thank God for the receptive hearts I’ve found all around the world.

A Call to Action

In summary, if you are a pastor who has, knowingly or unknowingly, been misleading your flock regarding tithing, you have a decision to make. Will you continue to promote a twisting of Malachi 3:8-10? Or will you stop? If your church tithes, using 90% of its income for church programs and ministries that benefit those who attend, will you tell your flock that 90% of what they give is just paying for services rendered, and only 10% of what they give is credited by God as treasure laid up in heaven? Will you tell those who tithe to your church that they are actually only giving 1% of their income and paying for services rendered with 9%?

If you continue to mislead your flock on these issues, sooner or later, they’ll know you’ve misled them. If you admit that you’ve been misleading them, they will respect you as a man of God, and your example of humility will be worth more than 100 sermons on the same topic.

Pastors and church boards, will you lead your churches in financial repentance by implementing a budget policy to annually increase what your church gives to missions, to the gospel, and to the “least of these,” so that each year you can tell those who support your church that 20%, then 30%, then 40%, then 50%, then one day 90% of their support is benefitting others besides themselves and is treasure laid up in heaven? I’d be willing to bet that any pastor who started teaching the truth, and any church board that implemented the budget policy that I’m advocating, would find that church’s income increasing exponentially.

If you are a church attender, will you ask your church leadership what percentage of your church’s income is used for ministry that doesn’t only benefit the church attendees? Will you stop demanding more ministries and programs that only benefit you and your family, and start requesting that progressively more of your church’s income be used for the benefit of others?

Reader, will you have the courage to forward this e-teaching to your pastor and every Christian you know?

If this e-teaching rocked your boat, maybe your boat needed to be rocked. May God help us!
— David

The post Tithing to the Local Church? appeared first on David Servant.

My fears, however, proved to be baseless, as most of the feedback I received was very positive. We emailed that e-teaching to 9,000 subscribers. We also posted it on our website here, where about 4,500 people have since read it. 888 Facebook subscribers “liked” it and 529 of them “shared” it. That made it our most popular e-teaching ever.

Looking back, I don’t know what I was so afraid of. Did I really expect pastors to write and say, “The Bible does teach that Christians should tithe to the local church!”? Of course no pastor wrote such sentiments, because no pastor could produce any biblical support for such a view. (Yet the idea of tithing to the local church is contained within many churches’ doctrinal statements.)

Did I really think that someone would write and say, “Putting money in my church’s offering plate—most of which is used to benefit me and my family—is just as virtuous in God’s eyes as giving to an orphan or widow!”?

Did I really think that anyone would disagree that the goats of which Jesus spoke in Matthew 25:31-46 are the ultimate God-robbers, considering the fact that they let Jesus go hungry, thirsty and homeless?

Of course, not all the feedback was positive. I did receive one very negative response that is too lengthly to quote in full, but here are a few excerpts:

I find it extremely disturbing that this article on tithing basically encourages people to give into their natural greed and keep their money for themselves….

I strongly disagree with so much of your latest teaching…. Why anyone would think that the bills that a church has are less legitimate needs than the bills an orphanage has is beyond me.

Beyond my disagreement with your theology, I have issues with how this robs the people. As far as I’m concerned, a person truly is more blessed when they give than when they receive. By basically telling people to keep their money (and, seriously, that’s what I got out of your message), you rob them of that blessing. Who cares what charity, whether a local church, or a ‘save the spotted owl’ fund, when the issue at hand is a person’s attitude toward God and their money?….

I feel that this ministry has been subtly moving farther and farther from the Bible and more and more into something that stops focusing on Christ and more into Pastoral-centered-cultish beliefs. Will you next start saying that abortion is okay and that Jesus ‘isn’t *really* divine, but just a good man’? So this is the last time I’ll be reading anything from this ministry. I’m sure you don’t care since one reader is hardly important. In any case, good-bye.

Just for the record, I didn’t think that reader gave my teaching a fair appraisal. And I don’t agree with many of her perceptions. But she may have been having a bad day. (If you haven’t read that e-teaching or if you’d like to read it again, click here.)

On a More Postive Note…

Perhaps the most interesting conversation I had regarding that teaching was with a local pastor who is a good friend of mine. Pastor Bob’s church supports Heaven’s Family, although from my perspective, his church doesn’t really need our ministry, which I will explain momentarily. Bob has encouraged his flock to tithe, but not because his church needs their money.

During our conversation, Bob affirmed that he has publicly told his flock that their church could continue existing without receiving any offerings. As I inquired further, I learned that the church’s profits from its daycare ministry, sports ministry, dance classes, musical instrument classes, and gymnasium and softball field rental could pay for all the church’s operating expenses. So no offerings need be taken. But with the combination of business profits and offerings, the church is able to significantly fund ministries that promote the gospel outside the church and benefit the “least of these.”

For example, Bob’s church has purchased two homes in El Salvador that he refers to as “Houses of Hope.” One is a home for young women who’ve been trafficked and/or sexually abused—all rescued from the streets. The church employs a house mother and a professional therapist on their behalf, and the young women are receiving skills training and education in a godly environment. Some are now operating cottage businesses.

The other home provides shelter for a family of ten headed by a disabled father. The church has set them up with a micro-enterprise to help them become self-sustaining.

Two more Houses of Hope are in the plans—intended for young girls and boys to save them from neighborhood gangs. And the church has other outreaches in El Salvador as well. That is why I said earlier that his church doesn’t really need Heaven’s Family. They are doing a great job stewarding their resources without Heaven’s Family as their “link to the ‘least of these.'”

I might add that the church’s profit-making businesses are not the only reason that a large percentage of its income can be used for ministries that don’t benefit the people who give the money. For example, the church is out of debt, which required discipline.

Also, the staff is lean. Pastor Bob does not believe that the church needs scores of assistant pastors to care for parishioners or feed his ego, but that his job is to “equip the saints for the work of ministry.” (Honestly, for example, if a church has been in existence for five or ten years, and there isn’t a single Christian couple in that church that is qualified to do marriage counseling, what is wrong?)

While so many church buildings sit idle most of the week, Bob’s church building and grounds are being used almost every day to provide services to local families, furnish jobs for caretakers, teachers and leaders, and make a profit that is ultimately a profit for the kingdom of God. Hindu, Muslim, atheist and nominal Christian parents have daily contact with believers when they drop off and pick up their children and when they participate in the church’s various sports programs. Concerning the daycare center, all parents have signed a form upon enrollment acknowledging that they understand that their children will be hearing Bible stories and learning Christian songs. “Customers” are paying for themselves and their children to be evangelized!

(I must add parentheticlly that I encourage Christian parents to not put their children in daycare, but to care for their own children if possible, and to make sacrifices if needed to that end. But most all the children at Bob’s church’s daycare would be in daycare somewhere else if his church did not offer the service.)

More Sacred Cows that Need to Die…

Many churches could imitate at least some of what pastor Bob’s church is doing. But there may be some other sacred cows that first have to be shot. One is, “The church should not be engaged in business, especially businesses that exploit people by making a profit!”

Now think about that. All churches exist and continue to exist because the parishioners are all involved in businesses that make profits…by which parishioners are earning money…and by which they financially support their churches. We all like to say (and rightfully so) that the church is not a building, but the believers who gather. Thus, all churches are engaged in profit-making business every day. So if “the church should not be engaged in business,” then all Christians should quit their jobs, sit around all day and try to disprove the ancient Chinese proverb that says, “Man wait long time for roast duck to fly into mouth.”

So let’s face up to the truth: It is profit-making people engaged in business who make all the ministry of the church possible. (Which makes their work just as important and holy as the work of the pastor.)

Second, the idea that people are exploited when a profit is made from them is nonsense when there are free markets. If I buy a widget, it is because I wanted a widget. No one is exploiting me. If the price is too high, I simply won’t buy a widget.

All those who sell widgets have to compete for my business, which drives quality up and prices down. And they all must make a profit to survive. Perhaps you have seen the cartoon in which a customer is angrily complaining to a store owner, “I would be buying these same items much cheaper at the store down the street, but they went out of business!”

If I expect widget makers to sell their widgets at no profit, then not only am I very stupid, but I’m violating the most fundamental moral principal of the Bible. I’m not loving my neighbor as myself. I’m not treating others like I want to be treated. I’m expecting others to work for me for free. (Even slaves at least receive a little profit for their labor!)

The Myth of Free

I’m convinced that the anti-business and “freebie mentality” that is so pervasive in much of the church around the world reveals a basic misunderstanding of the teachings of Christ. For example, Heaven’s Family sometimes receives critical communications from Christians who believe we should not sell our books or videos, but that we should give them away freely “because that is what Christ commanded.” It is difficult to know what to say to those people. What they are really saying is that other people should work, earn money, and give money to Heaven’s Family so that they can get free books and videos. I wonder, do such people go to work each day for free? Do they refuse their paychecks because Jesus said, “Freely you have received, freely give?”

The truth is, nothing is ever free. Someone has to pay. So when we expect free stuff, we’re actually expecting other people to pay for us. We’re expecting them to work, earn money, and then give their money to us so that we don’t have to work. And the Bible condemns that kind of lazy, selfish attitude:

If anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either (2 Th. 3:10).

“Salvation is free!” someone will say. But, no, actually it is not. Our salvation cost Jesus death on a cross. And after we benefit from God’s gift of salvation, God expects us to pay whatever price is necessary to follow Him.

Pastor Bob was telling me about a former attendee to his church who complained that free coffee wasn’t available before church services. Again, the freebie mentality. Of course, there is no such thing as free coffee. Bob expressed that if he ever offers coffee before church, he’s more likely to sell it. And think about the potential! No competition! A corner on the market! Volunteer labor that would help generate margins that would make Starbucks jealous. Honestly, selling coffee at church on Sunday mornings could be a cash cow.

So let’s shoot the sacred cows to make room for cash cows. Business can be a wonderful expression of the golden rule. It gives us an opportunity to all serve one another by working hard to provide valuable goods and services that can be freely exchanged through the medium of money—always a win-win. That is a much more accurate picture of what biblical Christianity looks like than the lopsided picture of the hardworking people who give all their possessions to the lazy people. Remember, the Good Samaritan didn’t pay the innkeeper enough to take care of the man who had been robbed for the rest of his life!

And pastors, if you have a church building like my friend Bob, you may be sitting on a potential profit center for the kingdom. Has God entrusted you with a “talent” that you’ve buried?

Perhaps you have no business ability. (I tend to think that you actually do, since running a church is so much like running a business. You have a “product” that you “sell” to “customers” whom you have to attract through some type of “advertising” and whom you need to “retain” by “serving.” You have “assets,” “liabilities,” “income” and “expenses,” and you must make a “profit” to keep the doors open.) But if you actually have no business ability, is there no one in your church who could figure out ways to use your church’s assets and human resources, and at the same time engage with nonbelievers before whom your church members could let their lights shine?

And pastor, can you imagine saying to your congregation, “By stewarding the time, talent and treasures that God has given you, and by loving your neighbor as yourself through providing valuable goods and services for which your neighbors are willing to pay a fair price, you are able to give to today’s offering. And by the entire church stewarding what God has given to us collectively, and by loving our neighbor as ourselves through providing valuable goods and services for which people are willing to pay a fair price, I’m happy to tell you this morning that 100% of what you place in the offering will be invested in kingdom business outside the four walls of this church. With this offering, we will send the gospel to the lost and care for Christ incarnated in the ‘least of these.’ This offering will be untainted with selfishness, as it will not benefit us at all…at least until we stand before Jesus to be rewarded by Him!”?

— David

The post A Profit-Making Nonprofit appeared first on David Servant.

Last month, we began to explore the degree of dispossession that Jesus expected of the rich ruler if he was to inherit eternal life. This is of interest to us, as I have shown that Jesus’ words to the rich ruler have undeniable application to every one of us, rather than uniquely to him, as is often thought.

I did my best to prove that Jesus did not expect the rich ruler to dispossess to the degree that he would be naked and homeless, poorer than those who were helped by his charity. But we naturally wonder to what degree Jesus did expect him to dispossess, and that is the primary subject of this e-teaching.

As we explore this topic, it is important to remember that the most dangerous Bible teachers are those who focus solely on one or just a few selected scriptures at the expense of ignoring all the rest. I would go so far as to say that all bad theology stems from that very error. Any time interpreters assign greater importance to one, or select groups, of biblical texts, they are certain to be dead wrong at worst or very unbalanced at best. (Yet even the innocent practice of highlighting certain verses in our Bibles reveals our tendency to judge some scriptures as being more significant than others.)

All of this is to say that Jesus’ conversation with the rich ruler is not the only passage in the Bible that deals with the subject of money, possessions and stewardship. And in light of all that God has said, it is hard to believe that Jesus expected the rich ruler to dispossess to the degree that one who reads only that story might assume.

For example, we cannot help but wonder, if God was opposed to the rich ruler owning any land, why did He give land to every Israelite family during the conquest of Canaan? The fact is, God gave the Israelites land for the express purpose of providing them with the means to create wealth:

For the Lord your God is bringing you into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and springs, flowing forth in valleys and hills; a land of wheat and barley, of vines and fig trees and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey; a land where you will eat food without scarcity, in which you will not lack anything; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills you can dig copper…. But you shall remember the Lord your God, for it is He who is giving you power to make wealth (Deut. 8:7-9, 18a).

If it was wrong for the rich ruler to possess land, then it was wrong for the Israelites to possess land. Moreover, God helped the Israelites to “sin” in this regard, since He is the one who gave them their land.

Also, take note that God required the people of Israel to generously care for widows, orphans and the poor. The only way that they would have been able to care for the disadvantaged, however, was if they had some means of creating wealth—thus the need for land. In fact, their obedience to God’s requirement that they leave the gleanings of their fields so that they could be gathered by the poor (see Lev. 19:9-10), for example, required that they have fields and crops.

And this is where I would like to begin my thesis regarding what the Lord was expecting of the rich ruler, and what the Lord is expecting of us. I do not believe that the rich ruler thought, or that we should think, that God expects us to dispossess of those means by which we earn an honest living, produce goods, or create wealth. The rich ruler’s sin was not over-productivity, but self-indulgence coupled with gross negligence of the poor. He had tons of treasure on earth, and little, if any, in heaven. This thesis, I think, squares well with all that the rest of the Bible teaches about godly stewardship.

Support for My Thesis

Supporting my thesis are examples in Scripture of wealthy people whom God apparently approved, and of whom it is never said that God required near-total dispossession of them, or dispossession of all their means of creating wealth. All of those examples of wealthy biblical characters beg the question, If near-total dispossession, including dispossession of all means of creating wealth, is required of wealthy people to inherit eternal life, why was such a requirement not revealed any time prior to Jesus’ conversation with the rich ruler?

Job, perhaps, is the pre-eminent example of a wealthy individual approved by God. By the biblical account, he was extremely wealthy, perhaps a millionaire by modern standards, yet God considered him to be the most righteous person on the planet at the time (see Job 1:8, 2:3).

There are, however, at least two things we need to keep in mind about righteous Job. The first is that, clearly, God did not want Job to serve Him only for the material benefits. Thus Job was rigorously tested, and God permitted Satan to take almost everything he had. Those whom God has so blessed would do well to check their own motives for serving God, and they should be prepared for the possibility of having their motives tested.

The second thing to keep in mind about Job is that he possessed a sincere concern for the poor. He said,

Some remove the landmarks;
They seize and devour flocks.
They drive away the donkeys of the orphans;
They take the widow’s ox for a pledge.
They push the needy aside from the road;
The poor of the land are made to hide themselves altogether.
Behold, as wild donkeys in the wilderness
They go forth seeking food in their activity,
As bread for their children in the desert.
They harvest their fodder in the field
And glean the vineyard of the wicked.
They spend the night naked, without clothing,
And have no covering against the cold.
They are wet with the mountain rains
And hug the rock for want of a shelter.
Others snatch the orphan from the breast,
And against the poor they take a pledge.
They cause the poor to go about naked without clothing,
And they take away the sheaves from the hungry.
Within the walls they produce oil;
They tread wine presses but thirst.
From the city men groan,
And the souls of the wounded cry out….
Have I not wept for the one whose life is hard?
Was not my soul grieved for the needy? (Job 24:2-12, 30:25).

But Job did more than lament over the plight of the poor. He served them with his wealth. He had no need, like the rich young ruler, to repent and liquidate those personal possessions that testified of his selfishness and lack of love for his neighbor. Job continually liquidated his personal wealth to meet pressing needs, as he served orphans, widows, the handicapped and strangers. In his final defense before his judges, he testified of himself:

When I went out to the gate of the city,
When I took my seat in the square,
The young men saw me and hid themselves,
And the old men arose and stood.
The princes stopped talking
And put their hands on their mouths;
The voice of the nobles was hushed,
And their tongue stuck to their palate.
For when the ear heard, it called me blessed,
And when the eye saw, it gave witness of me,
Because I delivered the poor who cried for help,
And the orphan who had no helper.
The blessing of the one ready to perish came upon me,
And I made the widow’s heart sing for joy.
I put on righteousness, and it clothed me;
My justice was like a robe and a turban.
I was eyes to the blind
And feet to the lame.
I was a father to the needy,
And I investigated the case which I did not know.
I broke the jaws of the wicked
And snatched the prey from his teeth (Job 29:7-17).

If I have kept the poor from their desire,
Or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail,
Or have eaten my morsel alone,
And the orphan has not shared it
(But from my youth he grew up with me as with a father,
And from infancy I guided her),
If I have seen anyone perish for lack of clothing,
Or that the needy had no covering,
If his loins have not thanked me,
And if he has not been warmed with the fleece of my sheep,
If I have lifted up my hand against the orphan,
Because I saw I had support in the gate,
Let my shoulder fall from the socket,
And my arm be broken off at the elbow.
For calamity from God is a terror to me,
And because of His majesty I can do nothing…. (Job 31:16-23).

Have the men of my tent not said,
“Who can find one who has not been satisfied with his meat”?
The alien has not lodged outside,
For I have opened my doors to the traveler (Job 31:31-32).

May I mention in passing that Job assisted those who were truly poor, the “biblically poor” as I prefer to call them, the “least of these” as Jesus called them. They are those who lack basic necessities and opportunities to help themselves, not the “lazy poor,” whom Scripture condemns because they shun opportunity and expect handouts, greedy of what others, who do work, possess (see 2 Thes. 3:10).

May I also mention that Job gained his personal wealth through his business capital, which apparently consisted mostly of livestock. Without that means of creating wealth, he would have had no means to continue to help the poor.

Job’s Optimal Charity

I cannot resist also mentioning something Job didn’t mention but that is worth mentioning!

Job no doubt employed scores of people to take care of his livestock, a virtuous thing. Employed people don’t have to beg; employed people produce goods and services; employed people buy goods and services from others (providing income for them); and employed people have potential discretionary income that they can give to the truly poor who lack opportunity.

Poverty is cured and prevented through opportunities to earn income through work. Poverty is preserved and strengthened, however, through handouts, because handouts destroy initiative, create dependency, and reward neediness. Thus employers, like Job, hold the best cure for poverty.

Who would not agree that it would be best if economic parasites could become economic participants—people who earn incomes and enjoy self-sufficiency—by using their skills to produce goods and services that benefit others? Participants have opportunity to love their neighbors, first by simply not being a burden to them as parasites are, second by providing goods and services for them, and third, by caring for those who cannot care for themselves.

All this being so, some say that the best way to eliminate poverty is to purchase goods and services, which rewards work and economically lifts those who work. And those folks are partly right! When you purchase a good or service for your own benefit, you also benefit others. The standard of living of millions of people has been increasing in China, for example, because people in wealthier nations purchase what Chinese workers produce. Unfortunately, the economic benefits don’t trickle down all the way to the bottom as we might wish. And that is why, for example, Heaven’s Family is funding fish ponds in isolated leprosy communities in China. Even then, we’re not giving a never-ending stream of handouts, but providing a way for those afflicted with leprosy to provide for themselves.

Saving Money

While I’m on this topic, please allow me to go one step further and briefly answer another related question that readers have recently asked me: Is it wrong to save money?

Of course, when you save money, you are actually lending it, which is why your bank pays you a little interest. Your bank invests your loan, hoping to make a profit, which ultimately contributes to a functioning economy that employs people and keeps them out of poverty. So your savings help others besides yourself.

If you take a little more risk and bypass the bank, directly investing your money in stocks, bonds, or some business, you also contribute to a functioning economy, which again creates employment opportunities and keeps people—all over the world in our global economy—out of poverty. All of that is a good thing (as long as you avoid investing in what God hates).

As I’m writing this, I happen to be on a United Airlines flight to Albuquerque, where I’ll be serving the Lord for a couple of days. I’m so glad I’m not making this journey in a covered wagon, as so many have in the past. Of course, someone owns this jet. Actually, thousands of people each own a little piece of this jet. They are United’s shareholders. Most likely, the majority of those people worked hard to produce more than they consume, which enabled them to purchase shares in United Airlines. I’m thankful for those investors, because without them, I’d be wasting a lot of travel time. A functioning economy requires the savings and investment of those who produce more than they consume.

Part of my ticket price will make its way into those investors’ hands via United dividends, and part of it will be distributed to all of United’s thousands of employees. I’m helping to keep people out of poverty while I save myself months of travel time! It’s a win-win transaction, the hallmark of capitalism.

Now can I say something that might shock you? In light of the numerous charity-created fiascos around the world, I suspect that people’s hard work, their marketplace participation, and their savings and investments have done much more to lift people out of poverty than have many of their contributions to humanitarian organizations. In fact, I would be so bold as to say that many of those contributions have ultimately hurt, rather than helped, the poor.

Case in point: Give money to a charity that dumps a million tons of free rice in a poor country. That sounds wonderful until you learn that this seemingly wonderful act of charity is putting hundreds of regional rice growers and distributors out of business, because people don’t buy rice when they can get it for free. Everyone connected with the region’s rice industry is negatively affected. Jobs are lost, which cripples every aspect of the local economy. Only when the free rice runs out does the economy have a chance to slowly recover…until another boatload of free rice arrives in the port. The donors whose generosity made that free rice possible would have done better to invest in something that would create jobs and wealth rather than destroy them both.

All of this being so, clearly, the portion of our incomes that are devoted to helping the poor should be given wisely. If at all possible, it should help the poor to help themselves so that they no longer need our charity and can ultimately produce more than they consume. Then they can become savers, investors and givers. Only those who have no current hope of providing for themselves, such as orphan children, elderly widows lacking income, recent victims of natural disasters, refugees, and so on, should be given handouts (until such time as they can, when possible, become self-sufficient).

Back to the Rich Ruler

I ask again: Did God expect the rich ruler to do something that He never required, as far as we know, of anyone else before him? Did God expect him to liquidate everything, including all business capital, so that he would have no way of contributing to the health of the local economy, no way of hiring employees, no way of investing into profitable ventures, and no way to earn an income that he could share with the poor? Did God want to reduce him to a beggar and parasite, dependent on the charity of others (who incidentally could only help him if they had not already liquidated everything)? That seems unlikely to the point of impossibility.

So, although it is clear that Jesus expected the rich ruler to significantly dispossess of his personal possessions, I don’t believe that Jesus was requiring of him, as a requirement to inherit eternal life, something far beyond what God ever expected of any other wealthy person before him who also desired eternal life, people like Job, Abraham or David, or something far beyond what was ever required of anyone under the Old Covenant, under which the rich ruler was living.

Certainly, under the Old Covenant, God expected the people of Israel to care for the poor (see, for example, Ex. 22:21-27; 23:11; Lev. 19:9-10; 23:22; 25:35-43; Deut. 14:28-29; 16:9-15; 24:10-15, 19-22; 26:12-13; Ps. 37:21, 25-26; 41:1-3, 112:5, 9; Prov. 14:21, 31; 19:17; 21:13; 22:9; 28:27; 29:7; 31:20; Is. 1:16-17, 23; 10:1-3; 32:5-7; 58:6-10; Jer. 5:27-29; 22:13-17; Ezek. 16:49; 18:7-17; 22:12-13, 25, 27, 29; Dan. 4:27; Amos 2:6; 5:11-12; Zech. 7:8-10; Mal. 3:5). The rich ruler would have heard these verses read in the synagogue all of his life. He surely knew that those whom God considers righteous not only avoid murder, theft and adultery, but that they also care for the poor. But it would have never entered his mind, or the mind of any Jew knowledgeable of Scripture, that God required near-total dispossession, or dispossession of their God-given means of creating wealth, on behalf of the poor.

Surely the rich ruler had plenty of opportunities to use his wealth to benefit the poor, but he apparently hadn’t seized those opportunities. And so there was only one remedy—he needed to deny himself, dispossess of a significant percentage of his personal possessions, and give to the poor. Of course, one such act of dispossession followed by a return to hoarding and self-indulgence was not what Jesus had in mind, but rather, following the example of Job, an on-going self-denial and dispossession on behalf of the poor for the rest of his life.

Two Stories That Support My Thesis

Looking at the wider context of all of Jesus’ words about the wealthy, we recall His condemnation of a rich man in a parable who, after an exceptional harvest, decided to tear down his barns and build bigger ones in order to hoard his grain and goods, so that he could take it easy for the rest of his life, eating, drinking and being merry. He died on the night of his selfish decision. Jesus called him a fool who “stored up treasure for himself” (see Luke 12:16-21).

Was Jesus condemning his productivity? Was He trying to communicate that the rich man should have sold his farm, given all the proceeds to charity, and then lived as a beggar or searched for a job as a day laborer?

I think it is more likely that Jesus was condemning his selfish decision to hoard His God-given blessing—which demonstrated his lack of concern for the poor—along with his selfish decision to become unproductive and live a life of ease. I think God expected the man to give to the poor as much as he could from his abundance, yet preserve what capital he needed to continue being productive, by which he could have continued to lay up treasure in heaven and continue doing his part in the local economy that helped others stay out of poverty.

We recall another story Jesus told about a rich man who found himself in hell after doing nothing to help a starving and sickly beggar named Lazarus who had been laid at his gate. Jesus described the rich man as one who “habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day” (Luke 16:19).

There is no hint in Jesus’ narrative that the rich man was guilty for earning wealth. It is quite clear, however, that Jesus condemned him because he, like the rich man who built bigger barns, only cared for himself, and lived luxuriously, having no concern for the “least of these.” His self-denial score, like so many professing Christians, was zero.

Paul Adds Support

I can’t think of any instructions to believers in any of the epistles to sell everything and give the proceeds to the poor. I can find, however, some words that Paul addressed to employers. He instructed them to treat their employees fairly, but he never told those employers to dispossess of their business assets. All of this implies that there is nothing wrong with owning business assets (see Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1; 1 Tim. 6:2).^[1]

Moreover, Paul did give specific instructions to the rich, and he did not tell them to totally dispossess or relinquish themselves of their means of making money. Rather, he told them:

Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed (1 Tim. 6:17-19).

First, note that Paul said that God “richly supplies us with all things to enjoy” (v. 17). If it is a sin to have some things to enjoy, then God is helping us sin by supplying us with those enjoyable things.

Second, Paul clearly implies that those who are rich in this present world are not necessarily rich in the future world, but that they can become eternally rich by generous giving and laying up treasure in heaven.

Third, Paul indicates that those who are rich in this present world but who are not rich in good works, generous, and ready to share, will not “take hold of that which is life indeed,” undoubtedly meaning “eternal life,” which is perhaps why the King James Version translates it, “that they may lay hold on eternal life” (v. 19). That agrees perfectly with what I have been trying to communicate in my e-teachings since April!

So How Much?

So what portion of our incomes should we give to charity?

That depends on numerous factors, and so there is no set amount or percentage that can be set as the universal standard. For example, everyone faces different circumstances during the course of their lives that dictate varying degrees of need. If, for example, you are just getting started in life and need to gain vocational training or higher education, or get a business started, your needs may well be greater than those who are past that stage. I do not believe that God is expecting you to forgo what will help you earn an income that will ultimately enable you to lay up maximum treasure in heaven. Everyone needs some kind of capital to get started earning an income, whether it be physical (muscle and/or tools) intellectual (skills or knowledge), or material (money to invest or start a business). And most folks have to take some start-up risk by borrowing someone else’s capital in order to gain some capital of their own.

And, of course, how much one can give depends on one’s current assets and income. It wasn’t until the farmer in Jesus’ Luke 14 parable realized his bumper harvest that he was faced with a decision of what to do with his windfall—and when God held him accountable for it. If you find yourself afflicted, like him, with “Bigger Barn Syndrome,” you need to re-read his tragic story.

The wisest people, of course, are those who lay up as much treasure as possible in heaven, because only there will it not perish. And even though our purchases of goods and services, as well as our investments, do help lift and keep people from poverty, Jesus never told us that those are means to lay up treasure in heaven. The reason is because purchasers and investors benefit by their purchases and investments. They make no sacrifice. It is not until they dispossess of their purchases and investments, and give the proceeds, that love is expressed.

Laying up heavenly treasure is accomplished by selfless giving to the “biblically poor.” So our goal should be to give to them the greatest percentage of our assets and income that we possibly can, and in every case, if possible, to help them ultimately become self-sufficient. Remember, the Good Samaritan did not enroll his victimized beneficiary in a never-ending welfare plan.

We can only give, however, what we earn and don’t consume. So, as John Wesley taught, “Earn all you can, save all you can [that is, consume as little as possible], give all you can.” If we use our God-given talents and opportunities to reach our highest earning potential, and if we live as frugally and simply as we can within the unique circumstances of our lives, then we can effectively lay up the maximum amount of treasure in heaven.

And the person who “gives all he can” will find that God gives back to him abundantly, enabling him to continue giving (see 2 Cor. 9:6-11).

Finally, What About Luke 14:33?

Finally, it would seem that Jesus’ statement that no one can be His disciple who does not give up all his possessions (Luke 14:33) should be similarly understood as His words to the rich ruler. Note that Jesus’ Luke 14 requirement to give up all of one’s possessions is found at the end of a list of three requirements for those that would be His disciples. The first two requirements were surely not meant to be taken literally, namely, Jesus’ requirement to hate one’s parents, spouse, children and siblings and His requirement to carry a cross. For that reason—and other reasons that I’ve already mentioned in relationship to Jesus’ words to the rich ruler—it seems doubtful that Jesus’ words in Luke 14:33 should be taken in their most literal sense. But just like His words to the rich ruler, they obviously indicate some degree of actual dispossession, rather than nothing more than a “mental relinquishment” that requires no actual relinquishment (what is often taught in Christian circles).

OK, I’ve done my best to interpret honestly Jesus’ conversation with the rich young ruler and address all the good questions I’ve received from my readers. I hope it has helped you as you journey along the narrow way that leads to life (Matt. 7:13-14)! — David

[1] I realize that the verses I’ve cited are about masters and their slaves rather than employers and their employees. However, according to Wayne A. Grudem, a professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, first-century slaves “were generally well treated and were not only unskilled laborers but often managers, overseers, and trained members of various professions (doctors, nurses, teachers, musicians, skilled artisans). There was extensive Roman legislation regulating the treatment of slaves. They were normally paid for their services and could expect eventually to purchase their freedom.” Thus, Grudem informs us that, “the word ’employee,’ though not conveying the idea of absence of freedom, does reflect the economic status and skill level of these ancient ‘slaves’ better than either of the words ‘servant’ or ‘slave’ today.”

The post Sell Everything? Part 2 appeared first on David Servant.

This e-teaching is another follow-up to April’s e-teaching titled, Five Modern Myths about Jesus’ Conversation with the Rich Young Ruler. I would strongly encourage you not to read this e-teaching unless you’ve first read that one, otherwise you will likely be confused. In that e-teaching, I presented compelling biblical evidence that Jesus’ words to the rich ruler have application to all of us, contrary to what so many professing Christians think. I made a very strong case, and I wish that I could persuade every professing Christian in the world to read that e-teaching and the two that followed (The True Grace of God and All Christians Believe “Works” are Essential for Salvation), because neglecting the poor, according to Jesus, is a barricade to eternal life. If you are shocked by that statement, then I beg you to read Five Modern Myths about Jesus’ Conversation with the Rich Young Ruler.

The most common question that I received in response to my April e-teaching could be summed up by the following paraphrase: “Jesus required the rich ruler to sell all of his possessions. Does He require the same of us? If not, to what degree does He expect us to dispossess?”

Those are challenging questions, and our concern over the correct answers reflects how much we are like the rich ruler. As long as we assume that He isn’t requiring such a sacrifice of us, it is so easy to say, “If the Lord wanted me to give up all my possessions, I’d do it in a second.” But as soon as we are faced with the possibility that He might actually be requiring such a sacrifice, we start looking for a way out!

That being said, let us consider what Jesus was truly requiring of the rich ruler.

Streakers for Christ?

Although there can be no doubt that the Lord was requiring of the rich ruler a significant dispossession, it would seem unlikely that Jesus was requiring a total dispossession to the degree that the rich man would be left homeless, naked, and without enough food for the day, poorer than the people whom he would help by his charity. (If he was married, such a total dispossession would also have left his wife and children in the same homeless and naked state, hardly an act of love towards them.)

It is also seems unlikely, in fact, that the rich ruler ever thought that Jesus was requiring such a total dispossession of him, as he could plainly see that Jesus Himself had not totally dispossessed, since He was wearing clothes! (And we happen to know that Jesus’ group carried money for purchasing food—see John 13:29).

One of the most dangerous ways of interpreting Bible verses is to ignore their context within the entire Bible. If Jesus was requiring a total dispossession by the rich ruler in order for him to obtain eternal life, we’d have to wonder why he never made such a requirement of anyone else. For example, although it is clear from reading the book of Acts that significant dispossession was a practice of the early Christians, they did not dispossess to the degree that they were all sleeping on the ground under the stars each night or walking around naked in the daytime. Jesus, in fact, promised that our Father would clothe us like He clothes the lilies of the field (see Matt. 6:28). Which is why you’ve never heard the old hymn, They’ll Know We Are Christians by Our Nudity.

So let this be our first point of understanding. When Jesus told the rich ruler to sell all his possessions, he did not mean “every single solitary thing” any more than He meant—when He told His disciples to go into “all the world”—that each of them should visit every square foot of land and sea on the planet.

Having established this point, we then naturally wonder to what specific degree Jesus did expect the rich ruler to dispossess, and then to what degree He expects us to dispossess. And so we will explore that subject. But first, I need to address three theories that are sometimes offered to explain why Jesus required of the rich ruler what He allegedly does not require of any of us.

A First Theory Considered

Some suggest that the rich ruler may have gained his wealth unethically, which would then explain why Jesus (allegedly) uniquely required him to relinquish all of it in order to obtain eternal life. His dispossession would have validated his repentance of thievery.

Against that theory is the fact that the rich man claimed that he had kept the commandment forbidding thievery since his childhood (see Luke 18:20-21), and Jesus did not refute him. Rather, Jesus affirmed the rich man’s claim when He told him that he lacked one thing, and that one thing was not thievery, but dispossession on behalf of the poor.

Moreover, if the rich ruler had gained his wealth unethically, I would doubt that Jesus would have instructed him to give it to the poor rather than return it to those from whom he had unethically gained it. I also question if Jesus would have told him that, by giving his ill-gotten gains to the poor, he would effectively lay up treasure in heaven. In such a case, God would be rewarding thievery.

All that being so, I’m assuming that the rich ruler gained his wealth ethically, either through inheritance or by his own efforts. Still, Jesus expected him to dispossess to a significant degree.

A Second Theory Considered

Some suggest that the reason Jesus (allegedly) uniquely required the rich ruler to dispossess is because his possessions would otherwise prevent him from literally “following Jesus” around Israel, which was part of what Jesus told him to do:

And looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me” (Mark 10:21).

Since none of us can literally follow Jesus around Israel and are only expected to follow Him in the keeping of His commandments, and since our possessions don’t prevent us from following Him in that sense, there is no need for us to dispossess as there was for the rich ruler, some say.

Against this idea is the fact that it requires an assumption that the rich man’s possessions required his daily attention, so much so that they would have prevented him from literally following Jesus around Israel. But it would seem unlikely that an “extremely rich” (Luke 18:23) man would have no stewards or trusted people working for him who could not at least temporarily handle his affairs.

Moreover, unless he could have delegated the tasks, it would seem that the selling of his many assets and the distribution of the proceeds to the poor would have required a considerable length of time, during which he would be unable to literally follow Jesus around Israel. So if by keeping his possessions he would have been unable to literally follow Jesus, selling them and distributing them to the poor may well have also prevented him from literally following Jesus for a considerable amount of time. How long would it take you to sell all your possessions and distribute the proceeds to the poor?

Furthermore, none of the gospel writers offer any support to this idea, telling us that the reason Jesus required the rich ruler to dispossess was because he otherwise could not have literally followed Jesus.

And finally and most importantly, the reason Jesus gave for requiring the rich man’s dispossession was to help the poor, not to free up his time.

A Third Theory Considered

Some suggest that the rich ruler was ultra-wealthy, far beyond most of us, and by that we can understand why Jesus required him to dispossess, and why Jesus does not expect others, like us, to dispossess. Luke does tell us, they point out, that the rich ruler was “extremely rich” (Luke 18:23). Maybe he was like Bill Gates.

Against this theory is the fact that Jesus told all of His followers to sell their possessions and give to the poor (see Luke 12:33) and He forbade all of them to lay up treasures on earth (see Matt. 6:19).

Moreover, we read of the first Christians:

And they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need (Acts 2:45).

All who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need (Acts 4:34-35).

Did they believe that only folks like Bill Gates were expected to dispossess?

And don’t forget that John the Baptist instructed those who owned just two coats to give one to someone who was coatless. So we find little support in Scripture for the theory that Jesus only expects dispossession by those who are wealthier than us!

May I also point out that most people reading this are among the world’s wealthiest. In fact, the vast majority of what we own, the rich ruler could never have dreamed of owning, as those possessions had not been invented yet. The rich ruler would probably have been willing to liquidate everything he owned if by doing so he could have purchased even a used automobile. So we have to stretch the truth to justify our lack of dispossession by the claim that the rich ruler was far wealthier than most of us.

And may I also point out that the primary reason for dispossession contradicts the theory that Jesus only expects those who are richer than us to dispossess. The primary reason for dispossession is to benefit the poor, an expression of loving our neighbor as ourselves (see Luke 10:27-37). We only need to ask ourselves if there are still poor people who could benefit by our dispossession, and if God still wants us to love our neighbors as ourselves. The answer to both is obviously “yes.”

Furthermore, there is a secondary reason for dispossession that contradicts the theory that Jesus only expects those who are richer than us to dispossess. Once the poor have benefitted from our dispossession, we effectively lay up treasure in heaven, treasure that would not be laid up there otherwise. So we only need to ask ourselves if it would be wise for us to lay up treasure in heaven! Again, the obvious answer is “yes.”

A Once-in-a-Lifetime Opportunity

It is on this very positive note that I would like to conclude this month’s e-teaching. Jesus was not asking the rich ruler to actually give up anything. He was trying to save him from ultimately losing everything! Had the rich ruler dispossessed as Jesus instructed, he would have ensured the eternal ownership of that which he was destined to forfeit in just a few years. In one sense, Jesus was telling the rich ruler to put his wealth in the bank, specifically the Bank of Heaven, the only place it would be safe. It was really a no-brainer…for those whose brains are fixed on eternity.

Moreover, had the rich ruler transferred the large majority of his assets to heaven, he would have also had no need to worry about any future earthy lack or reversal of fortune, as Jesus has promised givers:

Give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, they will pour into your lap (Luke 6:38).

And of course, what would have been true for the rich ruler would be true for any other rich person who wisely does what the rich ruler foolishly did not do. When you dispossess to give to the poor, you guarantee the preservation of what you will surely forfeit otherwise. And you meet divine conditions by which God has obligated Himself by His own promises to take care of all your temporal needs.

We need to wonder why the idea of wise eternal investment would ever be met with resistance. It is the best deal there is! God not only offers us the wonderful opportunity to find deep satisfaction by being a vessel of His blessing to the poor, but by the same act, He makes it possible for us to eternally preserve the fruit of our earthy labors, fruit that we would have surely relinquished otherwise!

To the person who is unwilling to dispossess to any degree, it is irrelevant to discuss to what degree God might want us to dispossess. So before we go any further in trying to answer the question of how much one should dispossess, we need to ask ourselves if we are truly willing to dispossess to any degree.

If you tithe, for example, a dispossession of sorts that was clearly required of those under the old covenant and practiced even before the old covenant by Abraham and other biblical patriarchs, that hopefully reveals something about your heart that is good. (I say “hopefully” because I’m afraid that many caught up in the prosperity gospel who do tithe are only motivated by selfishness rather than love of God and neighbor.) Yet you need to consider if only depositing 10% in heaven’s bank via the poor and ultimately forever forfeiting the other 90% that you “keep”—makes sense. And keep in mind that the rich ruler likely tithed all his life, and the Pharisees all scrupulously tithed, yet they were lovers of money destined for hell (see Matt. 23:15, 23; Luke 16:14).

Please ponder these things until next month, when I’ll tackle more on the same subject. And do take advantage of our free book offer below! — David

The post Sell Everything? Part 1 appeared first on David Servant.

Excellent, David… what do [you] think about…”re-booting” the economy with a “Jubilee” concept…I keep hearing that it is actually impossible to get out of debt now as a nation… — Michael

My response: I think that the “Jubilee concept” outlined in the Old Testament is only fair if everyone knows in advance that there is going to be a remission of debts every fifty years, otherwise a mass debt forgiveness is very unfair to lenders. Keep in mind that under the Old Testament Jubilee system, everyone knew what would happen on the fiftieth year. The value of land was therefore always based on how many years remained until the Jubilee.

Part of the genius of the Jubilee concept was that it leveled the economic playing field every fifty years, eliminating the possibility of any family amassing wealth over generations and gaining a superior economic advantage that they could use to exploit others.

I don’t know what our nation should do about the mountain of debt that many say can never be repaid, but I’m sure that the answer is not to increase the debt load even more by stealing our grandchildren’s future earnings.

——————————

David, I think your view is oversimplified. It would work if the majority of the USA had intact families and everyone had children. It would work if churches everywhere really cared for the poor.

But it doesn’t work. Not everyone HAS loved ones to take care of them—a huge percentage, in fact, do not. Not every church cares for the poor—the majority, in fact, do not. You take away the government cushion, and people will be out on the streets and starving. We already do not do a good job caring for the poor and homeless that we have even WITH the government helping many stay out of that situation. If the government pulled out, it would be far, far, far worse.

My answer is—let the church first start demonstrating overwhelmingly that it will care for the children, the poor, the homeless, the broken—and when the church is taking care of everybody, then the government will see no need to continue any programs for the elderly, the poor, the needy, etc. We have no proven ourselves a viable option to the world’s way of doing it, and so the world will continue to pick up the tab where we are not.

I think the government is doing the right thing, taxing those with hard hearts to give to those who have nothing. The government bears the sword of the Lord against injustice and evil—as long as we are a nation of uncaring people, the government sword will be weilded appropriately against the wickedness of uncaring people through taxation. — Heather

My response: Thanks, Heather, for your interesting comments. I agree that the church falls far short of what it could and should do for the poor, as so many churches are spending their money on things that you won’t find the church spending money on in the book of Acts. I’m still persuaded, however, that it is morally wrong for governments to forcibly take money from one person and give it to another person. That is theft, condemned by Scripture repeatedly. If the people who are benefitting from this theft were in the shoes of those whose money is being stolen, they would condemn it.

What we need is another “Great Awakening,” a true revival, that will turn the hearts of those with financial means to care for the genuinely poor, and that will turn the hearts of those who are living off the theft of other people’s money to take responsibility for their own lives. That is the only answer that I see.

——————————

I agree David. Are you sure that you want to get into this? The more truth that you publish on this the more people will be required to take a stand.

The entire government is criminal. It has departed completely from the original Constitution. The federal Income Tax is being applied unlawfully and is in fact not a tax but a currency regulating mechanism for the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve is theft on a global scale…That is what banking is all about…

Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England, in an informal talk to students at the University of Texas said, “Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin… Bankers own the world. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money… and with the flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again… Take this great power away from banks and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear because this would then be a better and happier world to live in…But if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers, and pay the cost of our own slavery, let them continue to create money.”

I would suggest that you could better benefit your readers by explaining to them how this present corrupt system of government and banking is about to collapse and be replaced by martial law… — Steve

My response: My friend Steve, who is preparing for the worst, has been trying to educate me on these things for several years, which I appreciate. Some years ago, I even watched a three-hour historical documentary entitled The Money Masters, which recounts the origins and history of fractional reserve banking and the current Federal Reserve (see http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936#) . Another friend named Peter in New Zealand has helped me with a written version (much shorter) that recounts the same history (see http://tinyurl.com/dxgp3p ). It is all fascinating and troubling.

Few of us realize how vigorously a central banking system has been opposed at times in our nation’s history. Andrew Jackson, for example, ran his re-election campaign on the single issue of shutting down the central bank of his day. He won by a landslide, and there was no central bank for seventy-five years. Thomas Jefferson wrote: “The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered. “

U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, a very smart Christian man, who wrote a best-selling book last year entitled, End the Fed, also introduced a bill called the “Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009,” which requires an audit of the Fed’s Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve Banks before the end of 2010 (see www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/audit-the-federal-reserve-hr-1207).

——————————

I greatly appreciate your e-teaching on Government Theft. I wish more ministers addressed the issues you have. The more ministers ignore the moral issues connected with government, the more irrelevant they make themselves to the common people who have to struggle under the load that our government is doing right now as we slide into socialism.

While ministers generally are supposed to preach the gospel, our government’s swing away from Christianity and into persecution of it, the more that needs to be said as our country seems to be going the way of the Titanic. Political issues that have moral intents become connected with the gospel and cease to be just political. If our government is not reigned in, it will become the enemy of Christ.

Rev. 19:19 says: “And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army”. Kings of the earth have a choice whether to come against God at Armageddon, and it is terrible that nations will choose to do that. When that happens, those who believe in Jesus Christ will have to resist obedience to their leader and its military.

Even how with ObamaCare threatening to come down the pike, many doctors, nurses, hospitals are having to consider the moral choices they may have to make concerning abortion, euthansia, restricting medication, care, etc. for the elderly and those who are “not of value to society”. It may cost them their job, their future, their career to resist.

When I was 20 (around 1970), I lived in Germany for a short time, and the first thing many Germans said to me was, “I’m sorry”. Not knowing much German, I could not talk with them to find out what this was all about. It was years later that I understood that they were apologizing for being in obedience to Hitler and the devastation he brought to their country pre-WW2. Many of them were like lemmings and blindly followed him until it finally became apparent even to the most blind that he was an evil despotic demigod bent on murdering all he could. A few Lutheran (the state religion of Germany) ministers refused to come under his control. Several of them were hung by piano wire naked as a public spectacle. Needless to say, they became martyrs for Christ as they resisted evil.

I never thought I would witness the death of MY America. How far we have come. How low we have gone. It is the job of ministers of the gospel to exhort Christians, more than ever now, to cling dearly to Christ and his will, lest when darkness gets too extreme in our country, many turn from him as the the Word warns about: (1Ti 4:1) “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils”.

There is much I would like to say, but time prohibits. This much is sufficient to say I believe what you have written is “right on” and what American Christians need to hear. You quoted Fraser Tytler and Margaret Thatcher, but in ending here, I would like to give you another quote to add…

“What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” – quote from Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931–2005) — FJK

——————————

Who cares? Really..what does this have to do with a believer who has his mind set on things above where Christ is seated?… Also, if we read Revelations doesn’t everything get worse before the end? — Sean

My response: As believers who have their minds set on things above where Christ is seated, we live to please Him in preparation for the day when we will stand before Him to give an account. Since all government authorities are established by God according to Romans 13:1-7, our republican government is established by God (I am speaking of our form of government, not the Republican Party). And since a republican government is elected by its citizens, we all bear a moral responsibility to be involved, at least by acting as informed voters.

Our current governmental leaders are only a reflection of the moral convictions or non-convictions of the citizenry. If we vote for politicians whom we know are immoral people, we cast a vote for immorality—in opposition to Christ—and we will have to give an account before Him for it. If we vote for greedy politicians who are in favor of borrowing money for our benefit that will have to be repaid by our children and grandchildren, then we share their culpability in sinning against our own offspring. If we don’t exercise our right to vote, we reveal that we don’t care about great moral issues that very much concern God.

As those who are commanded to be “salt” and “light” and who pray every day for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven, we cannot be silent when politicians steal from our grandchildren and excuse ourselves because we know that things are going to get worse before Jesus returns. That is why we preach the gospel and call sinners to repentance!

——————————

Thank you for putting to words, and doing it so well, what many of us have been feeling and thinking. I would only add that not only will the debt being so irresponsibly created now be repaid later with dollars worth less (worthless?), but they are again stealing from us because the dollars we have left over will all be worth less (worthless!) by the same mechanism….the printing of more (worthless!!) dollars. And our worthless dollars are worth less not only in this country, but are, even now, losing value all over the world in relation to other currencies. Can you say “inflation” and “pauper state”?

As you have so graciously continued to point out, lovingly reminding us, there is only one safe place to store any treasure – God’s very own personal heavenly vault. — Eve

——————————

Well said, but what can we do except pray? And pray and PRAY?! — Angela

My response: We can also not vote for immoral, greedy thieves, but rather, vote for candidates who hold to moral convictions. We can run for political offices. And we can speak up! “When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when a wicked man rules, people groan” (Prov. 29:2).

——————————

I’ve long been concerned about the “religious right.” When I was in Bible College, I began to detect that some of my fellow believers were being swept into the political arena by their sincere desire for righteousness. When a believer is confronted with all of the sin in the world, and the opportunity exists to make a difference in an open and free political system such as we enjoy in the USA, there is a strong temptation to become politically active. I believe it is a mistake and a trap to do so. The world of politics is a world of compromise, and a Christian in politics has to compromise to gain enough political power to accomplish anything. Shall we do evil that good may come?…

Several times in recent years, I’ve had to gently rebuke fellow believers for being too political. Although we are blessed to live in a democracy, we need to be constantly reminded that “our citizenship is in heaven.”….I fear that my politically-minded brethren are seeking to preserve the comfortable, free lifestyle that we have enjoyed as Americans as much as they are seeking to promote righteousness. If preserving the American way of life becomes primary, these may find themselves actually working—against—the gospel!….

The gospel is about making men ready for Heaven, not about creating Heaven on earth!….

I don’t mean to insinuate that you were getting too political in your e-teaching. In fact, I think you did an excellent job of laying the scriptural foundation for what was a good moral lesson. And you didn’t accuse any particular politician or party. It is important that Christians understand contemporary issues and apply biblical principles to their understanding. I also believe that Christians should speak out against evil, and support candidates for office whose track record is a moral one. My concern is that Christians be Christians first, and patriots second. — Hugh

My response: I would only add that being Christian means being righteous, and righteous people do righteous deeds and promote what is righteous in every way they can. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people” (Prov. 14:34).

Read David’s follow-up article, “About Time to Abort the Abortionists”.

The post Feedback to “Government Theft” appeared first on David Servant.

You shall not steal….You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet…anything that belongs to your neighbor (Ex. 20:15, 16).

Most people, Christians and non-Christians alike, agree that it is wrong to take what belongs to someone else. Every nation and culture has laws against theft. The God-given conscience of every human resonates with a built-in knowledge that stealing is ethically wrong.

God is so deeply opposed to theft that when He chose Ten Commandments among potentially hundreds that He could have written with His finger on tablets of stone, “Thou shalt not steal” was listed there as number eight.

The sin of coveting, which is always a precursor to theft, is also found in that same list of ten essentials. God is deeply opposed to even the desire to possess what belongs to someone else. In essence He is telling us, “Don’t even entertain the idea of taking what isn’t yours.”

Under the Mosaic Law, thieves who were caught had to repay their victims anywhere from two to five times what they had stolen (see Ex. 22:1-7), an obvious divine commentary on the gravity of the sin of theft.

The New Testament underscores the fundamental evil of theft by teaching that it is a transgression against the second greatest commandment. If I love my neighbor, I will not steal from him:

For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Rom. 13:9, emphasis added).

Similarly, theft violates the Golden Rule. I don’t want anyone to steal from me, so I should not steal from anyone else.

Theft is so grievous to God that He warns that no thief will inherit His kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Heaven’s doors are closed tight to thieves.

All of this is to say that the fundamental ethical evil of theft is well established. No one has any excuse to claim ignorance in this regard.

Obviously, if it is wrong for one person to steal from another person, it is wrong for two people, or three people, or three thousand people to covet what belongs to someone else and steal it from him. Group theft is just as ethically wrong as individual theft. And this leads me to my topic. Governments can be guilty of theft, and they frequently are.

Before you think I’m about to advocate that taxation is theft, let me clarify.

Human governments have the God-given right to tax their citizens in order to provide services that governments can best provide for the good of all its citizens, such as protection from foreign enemies, a system of courts, public roads, and more. Scripture instructs Christians to pay their taxes and honor those in authority (Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:17).

When governments cross the line, however, from providing services for the benefit of all its citizens to exploiting its citizens for the benefit of government officials or taxing some of its citizens for the benefit of others, that amounts to theft.

We generally abhor the world’s dictators and regimes who steal from the citizens they should be serving. Yet we’ve grown quite accustomed to our government “spreading the wealth”—so much so that very few of us even identify it as being theft. Consider this: Any modern-day Robin Hood, if apprehended, would be prosecuted as a criminal by any government regardless of how noble his motives might be. Yet many of those same governments play the part of Robin Hood all the time, taking money from some and redistributing it to others in the form of special benefits.

Once a representative government adopts a policy of “spreading the wealth,” its citizens are set at war against each other, as everyone clamors to get his or her slice of the national pie. When does it end? One hundred years ago the U.S. government spent only 8% of our gross national product. Last year it spent 43%.

You’ve probably heard the famous quote attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship.

Former Prime Minister of Great Britain Margaret Thatcher is often attributed to a similar bit of wisdom:

The only problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.

Let’s consider some specific cases of theft by the U.S. government.

Although most of us don’t mind paying taxes to help provide for those who are genuinely disadvantaged, to forcibly take money by taxation in order to take care of the disadvantaged is theft. Again, if any individual forcibly took money from someone and gave it to someone else who was disadvantaged, he would be prosecuted as a thief. So how is such an act made right if a government does it?

I am, of course, not arguing against helping the disadvantaged. All of us have a God-given responsibility to voluntarily help the disadvantaged (without encouraging irresponsibility, as do government welfare programs). But the key word is “voluntarily.” And if governments got out of the charity business, taxes could be lowered, and everyone would have more money to voluntarily give to disadvantaged people or to organizations that serve the disadvantaged.

Of course, it could be argued that, unless our government forced us to be charitable through tax revenues that are distributed to the disadvantaged, the disadvantaged would remain in peril. Perhaps that is so, but on the other hand, I wonder how many people justify their personal uncharitableness with the excuse, “The government takes care of the disadvantaged, so there is no need for me to be burdened with helping them.” Regardless, when governments take money from some and give it to others, it is theft.

One “disadvantaged” group that the U.S. government assists are the elderly. (I put the word “disadvantaged” in quotes because not all elderly people are in that category. If you don’t believe me, visit Florida sometime.) The largest expenditure of the U.S. government revolves around caring for our elderly population through Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Together, they account for about 40% of the federal budget. If you are of the age to benefit from those programs, I’m sure you appreciate them.

If you are employed, you may think that about 7.5% of your earnings are taken from each paycheck for Social Security and Medicare. Your employer, however, is required to match that amount, paying approximately another 7.5%. So all 15% could (and should) be yours if it wasn’t taken in taxes.

You probably realize that 15% is not invested to wait for you to reach retirement. It is distributed to current retirees. Of course, most of those retirees paid Social Security and Medicare taxes themselves, and they feel as if they have a right to the benefits. And those of us who are still in the work force don’t mind paying those taxes now as long as future workers will be forced to fund our retirement years. For that reason, few of us consider the entire program to be theft, taking money from one person and giving it to another.

The system will continue to work as long as workers significantly outnumber retirees. But with the current changing ratio of workers to retirees, it seems inevitable that Social Security taxes will go up and/or benefits for retirees will go down. It won’t seem fair then, especially if you ultimately don’t receive as much as you paid into the system. It will seem like government theft, which it has been from the beginning. The very first recipient of monthly Social Security benefits paid in a total of $22.54 over three years and collected a total of $22,889 before she died. The government took other people’s money and gave it to her.

I am, of course, not advocating not caring for the elderly. Everyone should of course voluntarily care for their elderly parents if there is a need (like just about everyone in the U.S. did before 1940, and the majority of world still does), and if they have the means should help other elderly folks if such folks have a valid need. Think about it: If your income increased by 15% for the rest of your working life, I’ll bet you could not only better prepare for your own old age, but you could also do something to care for some elderly folks right now as well. How many people in their twenties and thirties, if given the choice, would prefer to have the government take 15% of their earnings for Social Security and Medicare or to invest that 15% themselves for their own retirement and to have something they could use to care for elderly parents who need assistance?

What is abhorrent to most all taxpayers is the thought of the government taking their money via taxation and redistributing it to those who are not deserving in the least, such as people who should be paying taxes themselves, but aren’t, or deceptive people who could work, but don’t. It feels like theft when the government bails people out of their self-inflicted problems using the taxes paid by people who have acted responsibly. Again, those same governments would prosecute any individual who did what they are doing.

I’ve occasionally heard Christians argue that our government should be “spreading the wealth” on the basis of what Jesus taught about caring for the poor. But Jesus was not speaking to governments when He preached about caring for the poor; He was speaking to individuals. Voluntary sharing is what Jesus had in mind. Keep in mind that Jesus is also the one who inspired Paul to write, “If anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either” (2 Th. 3:10). God does not want governments, or Christians for that matter, to reward laziness or immorality.

How about another example?

It could be argued that graduated tax rates are a form of theft. When the rich pay a greater percentage of their earnings in taxes, it benefits those of us who pay not only less taxes, but a lesser percentage. It is just another form of “spreading the wealth.” Just for the record, I’m writing, not as an angry rich person, but as a lower-income person who benefits every day from the taxes paid by the wealthy.

Similarly, and on a more local scale, wealthy people who can afford bigger homes pay more in school property taxes than those with smaller homes, effectively helping to provide a better education for the children of less wealthy families. That is also a form of government theft, or “spreading the wealth,” taking from some and giving it to others. The entire system of school property taxes is grossly unfair to those who never have children and home-schoolers, who receive no benefit from their property taxes yet help pay for the education of everyone else’s children.

The many “pork barrel” earmarks that are attached to so much of the legislation that pass through our congress are yet another example of government theft. Why should every taxpayer in the U.S. pay for special projects that only benefit very limited numbers of people? How is that any different than theft?

Perhaps the grandest example of government theft is the government’s borrowing trillions of dollars, a debt that will either be repaid with dollars that are worth less because so many more have been “printed”—which amounts to stealing from the government’s creditors—or a debt that will be passed on to future generations, which amounts to stealing from our children and grandchildren. That enormous debt is the ultimate “spreading of the wealth,” as the future earnings of our unborn grandchildren are spread to us. It illustrates the worst form of greed imaginable—to knowingly borrow money which benefits one generation with the full knowledge that the debts incurred will be paid by future generations. Currently, every U.S. taxpayer’s share of the national debt is $113,000. What are the chances of you paying off, through tax legislation, your share of that debt before you die? Incidentally, as long as we continue to cast our votes to keep thieves in office, we’re complicit in stealing from our grandchildren.

OK, I’ve transgressed two cardinal rules by bringing up both religion and politics! Thanks for letting me get this off my chest. I invite your feedback. Please be kind. I hope to publish varied excerpts from your feedback next month. If you wish to remain anonymous, please let me know.

The post Government Theft appeared first on David Servant.

If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men (Luke 6:33-35; emphasis added).

The gist of Jesus’ words is that we are to do better than sinners, and even sinners lend without charging interest. There is nothing extraordinarily virtuous about lending to others without charging interest.

That being so, Jesus’ command to “lend, expecting nothing in return” means that we should lend, and if our borrowers repay us, great, but if they don’t, we should not hold them to it, effectively turning our loans into gifts. And that would certainly demonstrate above average virtue on our part.

I suspect, however, that if any of us unreservedly did what Jesus said—without taking into consideration anything else the Bible has to say on the subject—we would soon be penniless, as borrowers without plans to repay would be standing in line to benefit from our obedience to Christ. It is wise, therefore, to consider a few other scriptural passages that would shed some light on God’s thoughts and expectations regarding lending.

Two of those passages are found in the Mosaic Law:

If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, you are not to act as a creditor to him; you shall not charge him interest. If you ever take your neighbor’s cloak as a pledge, you are to return it to him before the sun sets, for that is his only covering; it is his cloak for his body. What else shall he sleep in? And it shall come about that when he cries out to Me, I will hear him, for I am gracious (Ex. 22:25-27).

If there is a poor man with you, one of your brothers, in any of your towns in your land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks. Beware that there is no base thought in your heart, saying, “The seventh year, the year of remission, is near,” and your eye is hostile toward your poor brother, and you give him nothing; then he may cry to the Lord against you, and it will be a sin in you. You shall generously give to him, and your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all your undertakings. For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, “You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land” (Deut. 15:7-11).

Notice that God’s commandment to the people of Israel in regard to making loans presupposes that their loans would be made to the poor among their countrymen. The borrowers, in fact, might be so poor that their only collateral (or “pledge” of repayment) was their “cloak,” or outer garment, a coat that provided warmth. A lender could lawfully accept a poor man’s cloak as collateral—which was a convincing pledge of the borrower’s sincerity to repay—but the lender was expected to have compassion on the poor borrower and return his cloak before sunset so that he might have a means of keeping warm at night. Obviously, such borrowers were extremely poor, and they would be borrowing as a means of survival, for things such as food.

So it is quite plain that God was talking in Exodus 22 about lending to those who lacked the most basic necessities, rather than lending to people who desired conveniences, luxuries, or to capitalize businesses. And if it was lending to the extremely poor that Jesus had in mind when He commanded His followers to “lend, expecting nothing in return,” we can easily understand His rationale. Godly lenders should not be concerned if their impoverished and desperate borrowers never repay. People who are borrowing to survive need our compassion. Amen.

Jesus’ commandment to loan, expecting nothing in return, like so many of His commandments, was actually nothing more than what the Mosaic Law already stipulated to some degree. You probably noticed from reading Deuteronomy 15:7-11 above that God also expected the Israelites to “lend, expecting nothing in return.” His Law stipulated the forgiveness of everyone’s debts every seven years (see Deut. 15:1-2). God expected the Israelites to generously lend to needy neighbors regardless of the nearness of the year of remission, a year that would turn all unpaid loans into gifts.

But what about lending to those who are not poor? Do Jesus’ words have an application?

Take note that, implied in the two Old Testament passages quoted above, is the lawfulness of lending money with interest to those who are not poor. The very poor, who need loans to survive, are to be treated specially, thus the reason for God’s instructions in Exodus and Deuteronomy. But if those instructions are applied to those who are not poor—which requires that we ignore what God’s instructions actually say—they really make no sense. And the same would seem to be true regarding Jesus’ words about lending, expecting nothing in return.

For example, are we to think that Jesus expects us to make loans—without expectation of repayment—to those who would take our money and use it to turn a profit for themselves? If so, why? What would be the moral justification? Shall we return to our banks all interest earned on money held in a checking or savings account? (And should we let the banks keep all the money, if they want to, that we’ve “loaned” to them?) I don’t think so. And neither do I believe that there is anything wrong with lending money at interest to those who will use our loans to make a profit, as long as our loans do not help promote what displeases God, and as long as our intention is to wisely steward our resultant increase into things that concern God’s kingdom. Again, however, when it comes to making loans of necessity to the extremely poor, especially to the poor among God’s people, it is righteous in His eyes to charge no interest and expect no repayment. And that makes perfect moral sense.

The Application

Now that we have hopefully established a more accurate understanding of Jesus’ commandment to “lend, expecting nothing in return,” let us consider if we are accurately obeying Him in this matter. In my humble opinion, there are often two obstacles that prevent many of us from obeying Jesus’ clear commandment.

The first obstacle is that most of us don’t consider ourselves wealthy enough to be lenders. So let me start there. Research shows that if you have assets of just $2,200, you are in the top half of the world’s wealthiest people. All you need to do is subtract what you owe from the value of what you own, and if the balance is at least $2,200, you are in the upper half. Incidentally, if you have assets of $61,000 or more, you are in the top 10% of the world’s wealthiest people. I suspect that the majority of people reading this are in the upper half, having assets of at least $2,200. Thus, we probably qualify to be lenders, except for the fact that so many of us, because of discontentment, are borrowers. We need to scale down, learn contentment, and get out of debt so that we can be lenders.

The second obstacle is that we don’t know anyone in the lower half (or the lower tenth) who could benefit from a loan. We are living in wealthy nations where just about everyone is in the upper half.

Thankfully, that too can be remedied. These days you can lend, with a few keystrokes and clicks of your mouse, to people who are relatively poor in developing nations. One of my favorite ways to do that is through an organization named Kiva, found at Kiva.org. Kiva can link you to people in more than 170 nations who are seeking loans as small as $100 in order to start or expand small businesses. Kiva is used by scores of well-established micro-credit organizations working around the world, serving as a clearing-house to link lenders with borrowers. You only need to choose someone on Kiva’s website who is seeking a loan, agree to lend that person $25 of the total that he or she is seeking, and then enter your credit card number. The term of the loan is spelled out in advance, and the average rate of payback is 98%. When your loan is repaid, usually in a few months to a year, you can withdraw all your money or loan it to someone else. You will not earn any interest, by the way.

When you lend money through Kiva.org, you can’t be sure that you are lending to Christians, which is what I would prefer to do, as I naturally prefer to help my holy brothers and sisters in Christ before the unrepentant. On the other hand, I don’t think there is anything wrong with being “kind to ungrateful and evil men” (Luke 6:35), which is something Jesus commands us to do in the very same sentence in which He commands us to “lend, expecting nothing in return.”

Another way that you can effectively obey Jesus’ commandment to “lend, expecting nothing in return,” is to contribute to Heaven’s Family’s Micro-Loan Fund, or any of our other Focused Funds that are involved in micro-lending. If you do, you should truly “expect nothing in return,” because Heaven’s Family won’t return your contribution as Kiva will! Your gift will be used perpetually to make small loans to believers around the world to help them start or expand small businesses. We don’t, by the way, lend to our brothers and sisters who need food or covering. We give to them.

Capitalism (even when it is practiced with far-from-perfect adherence to the Golden Rule) has lifted more people out of poverty than any humanitarian effort ever has or will. The problem, however, is that so many of the world’s poor have no capital. Banks will generally not lend to people without collateral. Micro-loans, however, are a proven way to lift people out of poverty who would otherwise have no chance.

May God help us to learn contentment so that we can be generous lenders and show compassion to the poor—to lift them with dignity. And may we glorify Christ by our obedience to one of His forgotten commandments: “Lend, expecting nothing in return.”

If you are interested in learning more about micro-credit, David recommends three books: (1) Banker To The Poor: Micro-Lending and the Battle Against World Poverty, (2) Out of Poverty: What Works When Traditional Approaches Fail, and (3) The Poor Will be Glad.

Got Six Minutes Each Weekday Morning?
You Can Read Through the New Testament in Twelve Months with David Servant

If you sign up today for David Servant’s daily e-commentary, HeavenWord Daily, the first issue will be in your inbox on the very next weekday and every weekday thereafter for the next twelve months.

David’s commentary follows a unique reading plan that takes you through the New Testament chronologically. You’ll read through one of the four Gospels every quarter, and as you read through the book of Acts, you’ll stop along the way to read the epistles during the time they were originally written. This method provides very interesting insights.

Each day’s Bible reading is an average of 700 words (just one New Testament chapter), and each day’s commentary is no longer than 700 words, so your entire reading time each day will be six minutes if you have an average reading speed.

Start each weekday with a spiritual boost! To start receiving HeavenWord Daily in your inbox, click here!

The post Lend, Expecting Nothing appeared first on David Servant.