Stewarship in the IC

Thesis 1--Preachers generally only preach about money during stewardship campaigns.

If Jesus spoke so much about money, which He did, why don’t preachers address money more than once during the year?

Are we to give money to those less needy?  Of course.  Don’t we see others throughout the year who need our help?  So, preachers should preach about money throughout the year, not just during stewardship season.  When preachers only address money during a stewardship campaign, they lose credibility in speaking about money, because everyone sitting in the audience knows that the pastor is speaking about money in order to loosen his audience’s purse strings to benefit his church. 

On the other hand, if you address money and greed in a proper way throughout the year, then people’s hearts are open to helping others and to giving to the church.

Thesis 2—The 10% tithe has no application to the IC or to the ecclesia.

From an exegetical basis, read the commandments in the OT about tithing in the context of a theocracy and try to apply them to modern day America.   The use of the tithes for each family to have a celebratory meal with God and their fellow citizens in God’s nation simply doesn’t translate to today (Dt. 14:22-29).  Unless, of course, you read this command to use our tithes to support July 4^th celebrations.   That is the closest that I can come in seeking to translate to today’s reality, and that would probably be a ludicrous result.  We already place too much emphasis on America as being a Christian nation.  America is not a theocracy and won’t be until Jesus comes back.

The 10% tithe in “every third year” prescribed in Deuteronomy 26:12 was designed to provide for the livelihood of one of the twelve tribes, the Levites, as well as the poor.  The Levites were charged with constantly praying and working for the spiritual benefit of the Nation of Israel.  The Levites made up about 3% of the population.  (Num. 1-3) So, one-thirtieth of the population was being supported by the 10% given every third year.  If this command has application to the NT church, then it is only for 3% per year, not 10%. (John MacArthur points out that the total giving each year was 23%, which he analogizes to our current tax structure.  Remember the Nation of Israel and the religious structure were "one and the same.")

Thesis 3—Today's church has no comparison to the NT church.

What’s more, the early church met in the homes of believers—there was very little overhead.  Now, our churches have become institutions with multi-millions of dollars in overhead.  To be good stewards of our money, perhaps churches should re-think the church model.  Rather than erecting buildings which are only fully utilized for a few hours during the week, perhaps churches should lease space or erect multi-purpose buildings.  Jesus foretold the destruction of the Temple, and I don’t think Jesus is going to be any happier with our generation for spending billions of dollars on church buildings.  (Read Garry Wills' thoughts about this in his wonderful book: "What Jesus Meant."

Thesis 4--How much should you give to a local church.

First, it is helpful to remember that Jesus did not come to form an institutional church.  Institutional churches sprang up, because humans always institutionalize things.  Humans are unwilling to rely upon the Holy Spirit to create community and to proclaim the Gospel, so we create institutions for community and to proclaim the Gospel.  Further, institutional churches are a way for us to feel like we are doing God's work, without our really having to become personally involved in God's work.

Second, I heard a preacher proclaim how exciting it would be to live sacrificially, i.e., giving beyond our means and then waiting expectantly on God to meet our needs.  Obviously, this preacher did not think the institutional church and its leaders should embrace this excitement, because they want a "pledge."  I am not against pledges--but people are called to responsible with their money, just as churches are.  St. Paul was very clear about this.

Third, budget the money which God has given to you.  Give to the local institutional church, if you have found one which proclaims the Gospel.  If the church doesn't proclaim the true Gospel in all of its radicality, then is it really any different from giving to a mosque?

Thesis 5--Giving is to be from the heart.

Jesus turned everything on its head when he changed the focus from our outward actions to our hearts.  Jesus knew that one's actions can only be changed by changing one's heart.  Once our hearts are changed by the Gospel (if you are fortunate enough to hear the Gospel proclaimed or made known to you), giving will become second nature.  Your giving won't just be to the IC, but to real people that you bump into in your daily lives.  So, when your preacher prescribes a formula for your giving, say: "No thanks preacher.  I'm a child of god.  My direction comes from the Scripture and the Holy Spirit, not from man."

Jesus and Friends

"Jesus and Friends" is a TV show on the TV show, South Park.  Why does Jesus have a TV show on South Park?  Are the writers being sacrilegious?  Are the writers demeaning who Jesus was, i.e., why would the son of God have a TV show?  I don't think it's any of those things.  I think, by giving Jesus a TV show, the writers of South Park are saying that we wouldn't recognize him as the son of God, just as the first century Jews didn't.  We want to think that, if Jesus showed up at our church or at our front door, we would warmly welcome him.  I'm just not sure this is true.  The writers of South Park are saying that, if Jesus was alive today, he would need to introduce himself to us, because we would not recognize him for who He really is.

So, why didn't the Jews recognize him, and why wouldn't we?  First, the Jews thought that the Messiah would come on a white horse and liberate Israel from the Romans.  They were expecting someone who would exact worldly victory.  We think that, if Jesus came back, he would heap blessings on America--that He would make America the "shining city on the hill."  Instead, Jesus came and was killed by the religious people of his time.  The non-religious types, the Romans, actually tried to save Him, but the religious people wouldn't have it--Jesus was an affront to their view of God.  If Jesus was God, then there would be no earthly victory for Israel, no earthly victory for the religious people.  If Jesus came today, He wouldn't be about saving America--the religious people of America wouldn't like this or put up with it any more than the first century religious people did.

Second, Jesus hung around with the social outcasts.  He hung around with the tax collectors, the poor--the non-religious people.  If He came today, who would he hang out with--the religious people or the non-religious people?  Recently, I was attending a funeral with my daughter.  She wanted to prepare me to meet some of the young people that would be there.  She said:  "You know dad, there will be a transgender person, a friend of mine."  At the funeral, I met several of my daughter's friends and acquaintances.  They asked her whether she was going to sit with them or with her dad.  I overheard and asked why they didn't think I would sit with them.  "Oh, you probably wouldn't like us very much."  I am sure that I looked like just another religious person to them.  But, in God's grace, I got to have a nice chat with them.  It really brought home to me again how religious I can be at times.  Jesus did not come to found a religion or a church--Jesus came to bring solace to sufferers.  If Jesus showed up at our churches with persons of different sexual orientation, would we let Him in?  If Jesus showed up with Abraham (a man who offered his wife sexually to another man), with David (an adulterer and murderer), with the "rag tag" prophets, would we let Him in?

The Burden of Karma

I listened to one of Tullian's sermons this morning about our inability to exact justice in this world.  Often, we convict innocent people.  Often, the guilty go free.  In addition to the inadequacy of our criminal justice system, we experience non-criminal injustices every day, such as not being loved by our spouses, being slandered by co-workers, not receiving promotions, being gossiped about at church, etc.  Of course, per Christ's diagnosis of sin in the Sermon on the Mount, we are guilty of these same things, both in actions and in our hearts.  Praise God, the injustices of this world will ultimately be made right.  Because of Christ, the justice that should be exacted against us has already been borne by Him.

Tullian went on to address karma, which I found fascinating.  Tullian said that Eastern religions posit that, if we do more good than bad, then we will receive more good than bad in this life.  He then went on to say that we Christians believe the same thing.  We believe that, if we get up and pray and read our Bible first thing in the morning, that God will bless the rest our of day--that good things will befall us.  We believe that, if we don't, bad things will befall us.  What a LIE and TRAP of Satan.  This type of thinking puts us right back under the burden of the law.  We return to struggling to keep the law to please God and thereby make our lives better.  This struggle leads either to self-righteousness (when we think God is rewarding us for being good) or despair (when we think God is punishing us for being bad).  God doesn't want us to be self-righteous or despairing.  God wants us to experience the liberty found in His unqualified, unconditional love.  When we get this, when we know that God loves us even when we don't read our Bibles or pray, then we are free to be good, not bound to be good.  Then, we run to our Bibles and to prayer to experience the unconditional love of God.

So, thank you Tullian.  Thank you for your boldness in proclaiming the Gospel in all of its radically.

Call No Man Father

Jesus didn't command many things, but He did tell us to "call no man father, since your father in heaven is your only father."  Jesus, obviously, wasn't referring to our physical fathers, but to those that we might view as our spiritual fathers or perhaps mentors.  Why this commandment?  Aren't we to revere or elevate other persons?

No, the answer is: "No!"  When we revere others, we create huge problems for that person and for ourselves.  Pastor and author Steve Brown notes how we place preachers on pedestals. The revered person is put under pressure to perform, pressure to live up to expectations.  This inevitably leads to their fall.  When they fall, we lose faith in what they stood for.

A friend, Paul Zahl, said that his parishioners always wanted to call him "father" when he was an Episcopal priest.  Paul did his best to discourage this, but to no avail.  Only after he received his doctorate did they stop calling him "father," then they began calling him Dr. Zahl.  Paul probably wouldn't think that that was any better.

When a person is revered, they lose touch with reality.  Their identity becomes the one that others place upon them, instead of their God-given identity.  This leads time and time again to horrific consequences.  The most public recent fruit of such reverence is the story about "Joe Pa" and Penn State.  Had Paterno not been so revered, I suspect that Sandusky would have been brought to justice more than a decade ago--many fewer children would have been molested.  This appears to be confirmed by the fact that Sandusky was arrested only one week after "Joe Pa" became the winningest coach.  This hardly appears coincidental.

This message is also for me.  When Bear Bryant died, I cried, really cried.  I was 22 when he died.  I didn't know him personally.  Therefore, I had no reason to grieve except for the fact that I revered his success as the Alabama football coach.  I robbed him of his identity in Christ, just as many PSU fans robbed "Joe Pa" of his God-given identity.  It is perhaps noteworthy that Bear died within 2 months of retiring as football coach.  You have to wonder whether his reason to live was gone?  Was his identity gone?

So, who do you revere?  Your pastor, a football coach, an actor, a rock star, a co-worker, a mentor.  Let's be fair to such persons.  Instead of revering them, let's love them.  Let's treat them like anyone else.  Let's free them from the bondage of our expectations.

Man's Love for Institutions

The story unfolding at Penn State brings sharply into focus our irrational love for institutions.  So, does the ESPN movie: "Roll Tide/War Eagle."  So, does our devotion to the plethora (95%) of churches where the Gospel is not preached.  Why do we venerate our institutions?  Because we are looking for something bigger, greater, and better than ourselves to grasp onto for our identity.  It is our search for God.  Before there were institutions, societies created gods from earthly materials (stone and metals).  They were hoping to grasp onto and obtain favor from something greater.  Now, our stone and metal idols are the universities, churches, businesses (Apple) which give us identity.

I am a fairly rabid Alabama fan.  I recall when the news about Cam Newton first hit the airwaves, and I was exultant.  I thought:  "Finally, Auburn's cheating is going to come out."  As I began seeing the hurt that this was causing my Auburn friends, I came to repentance.  My love for Alabama should not trump my love for my fellow man.  I am now glad that Auburn wasn't found to be guilty--it would have devastated my Auburn friends.

Similarly, the rioting students at Penn State appear to be placing their feelings for their institution above their fellow man.  It appears that the coaches and administration at Penn State did so as well.  I can't come up with any reason for their inaction unless it was to preserve their good names and the good name of their institution.  If this is what was going on, it is a most stark example of venerating our institutions over man.

What I have found over time is that only the Suffering Servant will satisfy my craving for identity with something bigger, greater, and better.  Instead of trying to preserve His good name and His reputation, the Son of God gave up His good name, gave up His reputation, gave up His life for us, for me, for all of us who seek our identity in institutions, rather than Him.  What a God!  What a Savior!