Home

  • Is This Stupidity, or Is This Treason?

    When I was in my family business, we had quite an interesting customer base:

    As its main theatre of operations was the Gulf of Mexico, Vulcan had two principal customers: McDermott and Brown and Root [a Halliburton division at the time] (whose construction operation was first divested to OPI, then Horizon Offshore.) It also serviced the other offshore contractors in the region, including Santa Fe, Raymond International, Movible Offshore (first Teledyne, then Global), Ingram (which was purchased by McDermott) and Fluor.

    But Vulcan also had a wide variety of customers outside of the U.S. These included some of the major platform contractors, such as Heerema, ETPM, Micoperi (whose assets were purchaed by Saipem,) Uglands, Jardine and Nippon Steel. But these also included state owned (full or partial) oil companies which were doing their own platform installation: Aramco (Saudi Arabia), NPCC (UAE), ENAP (Chile), PDVSA (Venezuela), CMM (PEMEX), Brunei Shell, and CNOOC (China). [I have an entire presentation on our sales to the Chinese.]

    Our international customers were, on the whole, good to do business with.  They paid well and came back to us for the spare parts.  In the years when Vulcan was active offshore, we routinely exported a third of our output.

    This week one of those customers (or a related entity) spent their sinking US Dollars on something other than pile driving equipment:  the purchase by Abu Dhabi of a significant share of Citibank, one of the US’ premier financial institutions.  This is entirely sensible from the buyer’s standpoint.  What else is there to do with depreciating dollars?  What’s shocking from an American standpoint is the giddy reaction the whole transaction is getting from the “Americans” themselves.  People in this country are, to use an old Pentecostal phrase, “running the aisles” about this.  As Julian Delasantellis points out:

    For me, the most surprising, and possibly the most upsetting thing about the Citigroup news was the absolutely orgiastic reaction to it. The general media, of course, saw this only in the context of something that would cause the stock market to go up, so it must be good. (Dead white American suburban young women = bad, rising stock prices = good; it’s not that hard to be a US TV news producer these days.) The Dow Jones Industrial Average opened strong, gave up most of its gains midday, then was rallying into the close to finish up 215, a fairly average price change these days.

    If the electronic media are now history’s first draft, then, to judge by the reaction of the on-air personnel on business cable channel CNBC, America has just had its best day since the famous New York City Times Square victory celebrations at the end of World War II.

    What a difference two years makes!  After all of the bawling and squalling over the CNOOC/Chevron and the Dubai Ports deal, our media is ecstatic over this, which (coupled with the Saudis’ own substantial state in the bank) will arguably give more substantial control of the US economy to foreign entities than either of those transactions.

    Why is this?  The first is that this deal is part and parcel with bailing out our current ruling class from the mess it’s gotten itself into with the subprime mortgage fiasco.  (The Fed’s excessive dropping of the interest rates is in this too.)  Ruling class happy, media happy, everyone’s happy.

    The second is the generally myopic view Americans take of their lives and country.  As Delasantellis goes on to say:

    As has been proven so many times in the recent past, from America’s budget and trade deficits to its crumbling infrastructure, its appallingly dysfunctional primary and secondary school system, its non-existent savings rate, and the total diffidence with which it approaches the global environmental impact of its prosperity, this is a country that looks at the prospect of any pain or inconvenience in the present with such boundless levels of abhorrence that it is more than willing to satisfy its heroin-like addiction to immediate gratification with sales of any or all of its national heirlooms.

    A comparable absurdity would be Americans selling their houses and forever being renters in order to gain the requisite funds to, in the newly sacrosanct modern tradition, line up at big box electronic retailers in the cold early hours of the morning after Thanksgiving.

    As I’ve said before, the basic problem we have here is that this country has gone on for so long, has been so successful, and has so few rivals currently out there, that Americans simply think that they (individually and collectively) are invincible, that no amount of blundering will have any adverse impact on our future.

    But such is not the case.  Unlike the Persians at the end of Herodotus, Americans have forgotten that it’s better to live in rugged places (literally or figuratively) and rule than to live in rich plains and be subject to others.  Some of us are already looking abroad for shelter.  Like the Anglicans who place themselves under provinces in the Global South, we implicitly or explicitly feel that those who direct our doings have abandoned us for their own selfish interests.  Allowed to continue, the US will not be the country it was; in fact, in many ways it isn’t the country our ancestors fought to preserve (and in some cases, to separate.)

    This kind of scenario invites conspiracy theorists.  And I’m sure there are people out there (such as George Soros) who are pleased with this weakening.  It’s the same question that Pavel Miliukov asked the Russian Duma in 1916 over a litany of Tsar Nicholas II’s mistakes (one of which actually buoyed the stock market:) “Is this stupidity, or is this treason?”  In the case of Imperial Russia, it was mostly the former, and I suspect that it is also the case here.  But, as Miliukov went on to say, “Choose either one, the consequences are the same.”

    And those consequences aren’t pleasant to contemplate.

  • Gene Robinson Travels to Sympathetic Territory

    The controversial bishop is taking his message to Nova Southeastern University law school:

    While some Episcopal dioceses are discussing breaking away from the church, the controversial bishop is traveling around the world to spread a peaceful and inclusive message.

    His next stop — South Florida, where a number of Episcopal leaders have shown their support of Bishop Gene Robinson.

    There’s no doubt that the Diocese of Southeast Florida is sympathetic to his idea.  But South Florida, with its lack of community, is not so much inclusive as balkanised.  The central problem with the whole diversity agenda is that it in fact tends to balkanise society rather than unite it.  Community erodes as members of a less and less homogeneous society see themselves as members of their own group first and a part of society second.

    South Florida–where "the animals are tame and the people run wild"–has simply been ahead of its time.

    ,

  • Making a Better Case

    A couple of years ago, I wrote a piece entitled Hanukkah: Opening Shot in the Culture Wars, which attempted to show that the whole war between Judaeo-Christian morality and the alternative isn’t just a creation of the 1960’s, but has been going on for a long time.

    Some visitors to this site like to think that I am full of myself (one recent one actually said so,) but I have to admit that Dennis Prager does a lot better job of making the case for this–and explaining why it’s important to defend the faith–in Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality.  Take a look and see for yourself.

  • Making Marriage Private?

    Stephanie Coontz’ New York Times piece on “Taking Marriage Private” presents an idea that’s been brewing on this site for some time.

    Let’s start with my piece “Gay Marriage?  What Marriage?” back in 2004:

    …in their quest for a change in the legal status of their relationships, homosexuals have at least three options to pursue:

    1. They could call for the abolition of civil marriage altogether. This would be the more “Sixties radical” position to take, and certainly more consistent with their political antecedents…

    As far as the church is concerned, I suggested the following course of action:

    With a little organisation, Christian churches could even enable their members to opt out of civil marriage altogether, divorcing themselves from an institution that first came from God Himself but has been nationalised to suit the needs of the state, and putting it back in the hands of Him who joined the first man and woman in the Garden.

    Three years later in my piece A Show Stopper for Everyone in the Marriage Debate I made the following observation:

    The sudden “revelation” by the California Governor and Attorney General, who say marriage can be eliminated in the future is only news to those who have not thought the issue out very carefully.

    Before Christians in California go off and begin a quest for a constitutional amendment, they need to think about a few things.

    First, without going into a long theological dissertation, marriage for the Christian is an institution of God.  Allowing the state to dictate the terms and conditions of that institution as blithely as American Christians do is a mistake.  We’ve already seen that many of those terms and conditions have been changed at law.  The opinions of both the Governor and Jr. Brown confirm the obvious: with marriage, what the state gives, the state can take away.  (The phrase “rational legislative purpose” is absurd; legislatures do all kind of things for all kinds of reasons, rational and irrational.)  The “rights” of civil marriage are in reality very ephemeral, which makes one wonder why some are fighting so hard to obtain them.

    To which I received the following response from Liam, a gay Californian:

    Although I am an advocate of same-sex civil marriage, I would like nothing better than to see civil marriage itself abolished altogether. My advocacy of civil marriage for all consenting adults has nothing to do with advocacy of marriage in general, and everything to do with providing all U.S. citizens equal protection of the laws, since the state confers material benefits to those who are married.

    But the complete abolition of civil marriage would be even better! Marriage was originally a religious institution and, as such, deserves no legal recognition. Marriage should be more akin to baptism, which may very well be important in the personal lives of Christians, but which is completely irrelevant in the context of civil law.

    Liam’s position makes a lot more sense than that of, say, Susan Russell.  She and others in the GLBT community in TEC want to consider the elimination of ecclesiastical marriage, satisfying themselves with blessings while the state does the job of marriage.  This is the state of affairs in most of Europe.  For example, the French took marriage away from the church in the wake of the French Revolution.  In most of Europe it is illegal for entities other than the state to say they marry anyone, as Belgian King Leopold III found out the hard way in his marriage to Lillian Baels.

    And that indicates who will be the most formidable opponent of denationalising marriage: the state.  Prying the power from the state to pronounce people spouses will be a job.

  • Maybe Fox Wants Its Viewers to Stay Awake for the Commercials

    Fred Thompson charges Fox News is biased against his campaign.  But anyone who watches Fox News knows that a) it is fair with the Republicans, but b) it likes a fast pace, which is something it definitely doesn’t get with the Thompson campaign.

    Thompson’s campaign is a sore disappointment.

  • Being Right May Not Be Enough

    It’s tempting for me to dismiss Russell Kelly’s last outburst in our back and forth on tithing.  But I can’t quite bring myself to do so.  The whole encounter has been rather bizzare, given that we both agree on the most important premise: that tithing is an Old Testament concept, not a New Testament one.  Let me start by making two important points.

    The first is that his charge that "you seem to want to judge me as very narrow minded" is not correct.  What I said was that he is "narrow-focused."  There’s a difference.  I’ve taken the trouble to find Dr. Kelly’s entries on other blogs, and basically he’s a "one-note" (thus the drone analogy) instrument about the falseness of tithing.  He’s like a one-issue candidate: he or she may be right about that issue, but if the candidate is elected, he or she will have to deal with the wide variety of matters other than the issue they’re running on.  My purpose in the original post (and follow up with him) was to broaden the debate to include the whole spectrum of Christian "prosperity teaching" and stewardship as a two-way street in the church, but he has chosen not to do so.  That’s his prerogative, and I’m sorry I offended him in the process, but he has to realise that some of us look at things from a different vantage point than he does.

    And that leads to my second important point: although I am Pentecostal in affiliation and ministry employment, my Christian intellectual formation is heavily Roman Catholic in content.  That explains my view on the relationship between the Old Testament and the New, and that also explains my conviction (in part; my formative years in Palm Beach were the actual genesis of this) that selling all is the stewardship ideal of the New Testament.  That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s easy to do or not frought with practical difficulties.  But it’s like the Sermon on the Mount; it’s hard to put into practice, but the more of it we do, the better off we and the church are.  To its credit, the RCC does more to facilitate this ideal than just about anyone else.  But even if we never get to this point–and most of us don’t–the total commitment of our lives and resources is where we want to go in our Christian walk.

    That last point, of course, is what Bernie Dehler (my other commenter on the original post) was trying to say, and I agreed with that.  But I suspect that Dr. Kelly’s reluctance to face this issue–and, if he did, his job of refuting the tithe enthusiasts would be a lot simpler–is a product of his Baptist/Evangelical formation.  Evangelical Christianity has brought the faith to new levels in many ways, but there are certain places where, to put it bluntly, Evangelical Christianity has pandered to the world around it in order to become respectable and accepted.  And I’m not thinking about prosperity teaching, which is relavtively new; I’m thinking about issues such as the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the reality of miracles and spiritual gifts and manifestations after the Apostles, and of course the business about selling all.  As far as Baptists are concerned, one could throw in the whole business of combining an Arminian view of election with a Calvinistic view of perseverance ("once saved, always saved,") which obviates the whole need for discipleship.  My comment that "Dr. Kelly is an adherent of a religious system that is simply too conventional and bourgeois to grasp the basically radical, revolutionary nature of the Gospel" needs to be seen in that light.

    Finally, at this point in history, Evangelical Christianity in the US in in a tight place.  Out of favour with the country’s elites for at least a century, those elites are very much "on the move" to do it in, and many things that are going on–including Charles Grassley’s grandstanding–are a part of that.  My corporate and ministry experience, though, tells me that we need to do more than gripe about "corruption" or ape the world’s social goals (as the Episcopal Church is doing with the UN’s Millennium Development Goals.)  We need a constructive plan that works, and one that may be a major departure for American Christianity to boot.   Such a plan may put many people out of their comfort zone–including people such as Kelly and Dehler–but the survival of the faith will depend upon it.

    When I look at Dr. Kelly’s website and admire the long list of Christian preachers he refutes, a line from the "John Boy and Billy Show" comes to mind: "We like a good fight down here."  That’s what I thought when I saw his original comment.  But we all need to keep the following in mind:

    For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.  (Ephesians 6:12)

    Finally, on a more personal note, I make a lot on the site about growing up in Palm Beach, probably too much.  (People do find it interesting, though…)  My wife, on the other end, grew up in very serious poverty.  But she and her family tithed and gave offerings through the whole dearth of resources.  They also backed this up with serious Christian living and very tight management of their substance.  The blessings we have today are in no small measure a result of that faithful (and comprehensive) stewardship.  (Dr. Kelly might argue that being married to me isn’t much of a blessing, and he’s probably right!)  People who have the same experience (and there are many) will find Dr. Kelly’s message very offensive, especially his characterisation of tithing as a "lottery," which is one reason I satirised it the way I did.  The next reaction he gets may exhibit more anger and pain than mine.

    ,

  • The Worst Imperialist?

    Although I find much about our government’s MO to be objectionable, I also find Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’ characterisation of the US as the ‘worst’ imperialist amusing and not a little disingenuous.

    His idea that the US "wields its power in a way that is worse than Britain during its imperial heyday" shows a good deal of historical amnesia.  Same amnesia also pervades the following:

    He poured scorn on the “chosen nation myth of America, meaning that what happens in America is very much at the heart of God’s purpose for humanity”.

    The UK also had a divine component about its mission, one that included the state church sending missionaries to every colony it conquered.  Today those missions are the Anglican Communion that is giving Williams such a headache about same-sex relationships and other matters.  Perhaps his secret wish is that the UK hadn’t gone on its imperial binge, which would simplify his present job.

    The blunt truth of the matter is that the English-speaking peoples are masters at myth-making about their own place and purpose in the world.  If Americans are exceptionalists, we got our start in the old country, as I pointed out in To Do The Work.  And, as far as combining moral certainty of speech with turpitude of action, they used to say that Britain ruled the waves, but on occasion waived the rules.

    On a more personal note, I’ve known people over the years from former British colonies, and very few of them have a lot of good to say about British rule.  (That’s especially true of the Muslims.)  In some ways, Anglomania is most enthusiastically practised in the US, which had the good sense to leave the British Empire rather than wait for the mother country to get around to granting our independence.

    Finally, the Archbishop has conveniently waited until dollar hegemony went into decline, making his comments a "kicking us while we’re down" kind of thing.  But if he and reappraisers in the US ever hope to make their "tolerant" agenda stick on a global basis, they will find it nearly impossible without dollar and other US-backed hegemony.  The EU simply doesn’t have the will to take up the slack and the rest of the world, Christian and otherwise, isn’t sympathetic to it.

    Rowan Williams better hope he’s wrong on this one.

    Note: after this, I noted the appearance of Ruth Gledhill’s posting, Why we should all love America.  I can’t agree with the entire list but it’s good to know we have a few friends.

    ,

  • Once More, With Feeling, on Tithing

    Russell Kelly responded via email to my last post on tithing.  He had problems with the "math question" (which I will discuss below.)  But I will reproduce his email and my response.

    You have a lot of verbiage but little concrete content. I am not sure what your postilion is on tithing, but it seems we might actually agree.

    The one thing we do agree on is that tithing isn’t taught in the New Testament; it’s an Old Testament concept.  That’s probably more important to me than to him.  Dr. Kelly has obviously spent a lot of time disagreeing with people who can’t differentiate between real New Testament Christianity and the synthetic Judaism that his opponents have derived from the Old.  Perhaps Dr. Kelly can’t either.  This is a common fault of American Christianity, but that’s one of those "broad issues" that Dr. Kelly doesn’t deal with.  A better source for that is "Spengler" at Asia Times Online.

    Personally I tend to categorise those who try to turn Christianity into a "high-speed" form of Judaism as ignorant, which is why I don’t spend a lot of time discussing them.  Maybe someday one of them will "call my bluff," and I’ll deal with it then.

    Why does the whole message I am typing not show up on your screen without being interrupted? That is weird.

    That’s because the "math question" is time limited.   Since Dr. Kelly runs a static site, he’s not had to deal with comment spam, which is the rationale behind the question.  For long responses (or responses where you’re spending a lot of time thinking about what to say,) the best way is to use a word processor, then cut and paste.

    What is your book?  What got you into a frenzy about book reviews?  I review pro-tithing books if that is what you want and I post Amazon.com reviews of my book on my site. What is so wrong about that?

    I’ll take this to mean that Dr. Kelly has declined my challenge.

    If you want a dialog I have never backed down and you are seriously underestimating my tenacity by over evaluating your own ability. You just need some way of letting others know you have replied to their post.

    I’ve spent this past year in two major "dialogues:" one on this blog with Liam, a gay Californian, on the issue of same-sex civil marriage, and the other with a Salafi Muslim in Indonesia on Islam and Christianity.  I can hang tough with the best of them.  If Dr. Kelly spent more time using his talents for debates with non-Christians, we’d all be better off.

    First, "tithing is a good place to start" is a product of mesmerization and people say it automatically without thinking of their false assumptions. Not everybody in the OT began their giving level at 10% –only farmers and herdsmen inside Israel did that. Therefor it was NOT a standard of giving for everybody.

    Dr. Kelly just doesn’t get it–I’m not looking for a legalistic rule, I’m looking for a helpful guide.  “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” Galatians 3:24, 25.  However, just because we’ve graduated doesn’t mean we should forget everything we’ve learned.

    Second, you wrote The concept of the Jerusalem church was so successful that no other church mentioned in the New Testament emulated it.  It‚s dangerous to make an argument from silence, but in this case there needs to be a good reason not to perpetuate the model that the Apostles themselves started in Jerusalem. "

    Friend, that is an insane interpretation of Acts 2 and 4. Those early Christians thought that Jesus was coming back very soon. They were not told to sell all but they chose to do so and later regretted it. When the money ran out they had nothing –no homes, no businesses, no food, etc and had to beg for food through Paul for at least a decade when the famine came.  and if you read Acts 15 and 21 you will discover that they were still zealous of the law 21:20-21 and most likely still paid whatever tithe they might have to the Temple.

    It’s obvious from responses like this that Dr. Kelly is an adherent of a religious system that is simply too conventional and bourgeois to grasp the basically radical, revolutionary nature of the Gospel.  The Apostles had just spent three years as Jesus disciples, and they were there when Jesus challenged the rich young ruler.  They were the leaders in this community.  Without their approval, such a radical step would not have happened.  The Apostles felt that this was the way to carry out the Lord’s commands.

    In any case, where is it said that "they were not told to sell all?"  Don’t the scriptures say the following?

    “And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” Acts 2:44-47, KJV.

    To his credit, Dr. Kelly does put his finger on one "good reason" why the Jerusalem church wasn’t emulated: the issue of economic viability.  But that doesn’t give us an answer on how we must live today.

    Christianity is a total commitment: life, mind, heart, soul and possessions.  Most laity have to work for a living; they give a third of their time and a larger portion of their energies into making a living.  What they give to their church and to the ministries is a part of them.  Dr. Kelly can go back and forth all he wants on whether tithing is what is needed, but given the totality of the Christian commitment, 10% is still low except for the destitute (and I dealt with that in the last post as well.)  Dr. Kelly dislikes tithing, but what does he propose for an alternative to support the work of the church?  A few pence in the offering?  Or no offering at all?

    Beyond that, the whole issue of Christian stewardship cannot be intelligently discussed without the issue of church polity and governance.  But Dr. Kelly ignored my original post’s treatment of this subject, along with many other issues related to stewardship.  It used to be that Baptists were very strong on the participation of the membership in the governance of the church, but evidently this has fallen out of fashion even with some of them.  Or perhaps he has spent so much time disputing with authoritarians that he has overlooked it.

    Or perhaps it’s a matter of focus.  In the Harvard Dictionary of Music, one definition of a drone is "(a) primitive bagpipe, capable of playing only a few low tones and used to accompany other instruments or voices."   They provide a steady bass line; by themselves, however, it’s a very turgid symphony.  That’s the best way to describe Dr. Kelly’s perspective.  In the past rigid proof texting might have won the day, but today we deserve better.

  • Pickett’s Charge and Tithing

    Russell Earl Kelly was quick to respond to my piece The Backlash Against Tithing.  But, like our Confederate ancestors at places like Gettysburg, he may have charged without properly assessing what was in front of him.

    Let me start by reiterating one important point that Dr. Kelly has obviously missed: I do not say that tithing is a New Testament concept.  It isn’t.  It’s an Old Testament one.  Selling all is the standard of the New Testament, whether we’re talking about the rich young ruler or the Jerusalem church.  The fact that American churches–liberal and conservative alike–do not teach this is for two reasons:

    1. American culture is too bourgeois for selling all.  For the moment, at least.  That may not last.
    2. The concept of the Jerusalem church was so successful that no other church mentioned in the New Testament emulated it.  It’s dangerous to make an argument from silence, but in this case there needs to be a good reason not to perpetuate the model that the Apostles themselves started in Jerusalem.

    That being the case, it remains to discover just what is expected of Christians relative to giving to the church.  It should be self-evident that, in the face of the high standard of the New Testament–communal living or not–10% is cheap.  Given that, I think that 10% is a reasonable starting guideline.  If you have people in the church who are too destitute to pay it, then it’s the church’s obligation to do something about that.  One of the reason why Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire after only three centuries is because it took care of its own, something churches are rediscovering in wonderful ways today.

    Now to another point that he makes:

    Tithing is not the magic lottery-sty [sic] not the secret to success.

    This gets us into the whole issue of prosperity.  Unfortunately Dr. Kelly has chosen to engage a Palm Beacher in debate on this subject, so he’s in for a wild ride.

    Prosperity is a relative term.  Since he lives in a Mega Millions state (up here, we get the Powerball numbers, too) when I think of a "magic lottery," I’m thinking big.  Given the grandiose way that prosperity resulting from giving is set forth, I’ve always felt that the resultant wealth from this should result in net worth comparable to the people I grew up with, and the influence on the society that goes with it.  With very few exceptions, that hasn’t panned out.  Part of the problem I discussed in my piece If You’re Going to Take the Land, Take It, but there are other good reasons as well.

    For most Evangelical Christians, prosperity is a decidedly modest proposition–reasonable housing for the family, decent transportation and clothes, good health, etc.  That’s what’s being promised, and is usually an integral part of the "redemption and lift" theology so common today.  In addition to the lifestyle changes wrought by salvation in Jesus Christ, the financial aspects of this are twofold: supporting the work of the church (so that others can experience what you have) and not allowing the consumerist urge to overspend and go into debt to become de facto "idol worship."  The main fault with the way most churches present stewardship is they dwell on the former to the exclusion of the latter, with the result that their members are so far in debt they’re unable to give.  (I discussed the debt problem in my original post, but that’s another point that Dr. Kelly overlooked.)

    Since we’re getting into depth of content issues, I need to present my challenge.

    My Challenge to Dr. Kelly

    I noted on his site that he likes to see his book reviewed.  The list even includes the website of my current employer.  If he wants make Positive Infinity another notch on his gun stock, my challenge is as follows:

    1. I will be glad to read and post a review of his book if and only if he commits on a public forum (his site or mine will do) that he will do the same for a book of mine, and do so by the end of this year.
    2. Once this agreement is made, we can exchange books.  His is available online; I can email him a copy of mine.  (Click here for the website for these books.)
    3. Again, before the year is out, once he has read my book, he must post a review on his site, whether he thinks the book is relevant to his idea or not.  He must do this in a place where it can be found.  In my case, I discuss just about anything, so that’s not a problem for my posting of the review of his book.
    4. This agreement must be made by the end of this month (November 2007.)

    Let the games begin!

  • The Backlash Against Tithing

    As my church’s Finance Committee chairman, the article about The Backlash Against Tithing (also here) certainly hits home.  It’s something I deal with all the time, especially at budget season.

    At one time in evangelical churches, people tithed first and then gave offerings on top of that.  Today people are more likely to mentally allocate so much to the church and then shuffle around what they give to various appeals.  This can get exciting.  If, for example, one is in a capital stewardship campaign, one sees large pledges on the one side and a drop in gifts designated as tithes and other offerings on the other, which then makes meeting operating expenses a challenge.  Budgeting in this environment becomes a guessing game vis as vis the congregation, and this isn’t good for anyone.

    What I think is going on is a confluence of trends in the Boomer generation.

    The first is a general decline in a sense of community, which in turn leads to a decline in charitable giving.  Much of the secular charitable giving is in reality a tax collected by NGO’s (enforced by our culture) to sponsor the same kinds of projects that governments do.  If we ever get into a tax increase mode, we’ll see that decline too.

    The second is the decline of participation by church members in the direction of the church.  Boomer pastors frequently have a Gothard-man, top-down idea of their role, with them casting visions (which they represent are from God) and everyone else following their "inerrant" lead.  It never occurs to anyone that true leadership in the church is tapping into the God-endowed giftedness of the congregation (a concept that the New Testament supports) that just might include some good ideas for the course of the church.  This is one reason why men in particular struggle with church: they earn the money, why can’t they have a say in how its spent?  So the giving declines.

    The third follows from the second: too many churches have adopted a corporate model for ministry.  This puts church on a "services rendered" basis, which appeals to people’s consumerism but in the long run wears down the whole concept of generosity.   (BTW, don’t criticise your church for cash-generating activities like bookstores and coffee bars; if they help to support the ministry with your addiction to coffee, consider yourself doubly blessed.)

    The fourth is the flip side of the third: churches don’t always run their business on a corporate model.  This is most visible in building projects.  Boomers love grandiose building projects, and, as anyone knows, building programs are both the most thrilling and most stressful times in the life of a church.  Churches need to adopt the corporate model here and look at facility utilisation on a more businesslike basis.  (And, of course, there’s the business of the rowdies trying to impress everyone…)

    To try to reverse this trend, churches could start by being more transparent with their membership with how and why they allocate their funds the way they do and not be so defensive when criticism comes up.  Beyond that, churches need to recognise that stewardship is more than a code word for increased giving: it’s a two-way street.  The people of God exercise responsible stewardship by giving of the resources that God has given them and the church responds by allocating those resources in a responsible and transparent way.  The latter would also be an encouragement to the membership, since we are in a culture that encourages debt-laden indulgence.  As I always like to say, "You can’t outgive God, but you can outspend Him!"

    As far as the concept of tithing itself is concerned, I said my peace back in March:

    Evangelical churches have been criticised for their obsession with tithing and giving.  People say that "tithing is Old Testament."  But the above scripture (about selling all) shows what the New Testament standard might look like.  In this perspective 10% is the easy way out.

    As an additional observation, the local church that’s not worth tithing to isn’t worth belonging to.

    Finally, I was amused by the following line in the article:

    The tithe has been the Episcopal Church’s "minimum standard" since 1982, although the average annual gift from its 2.3 million members in 2006 reached only $1,718, less than the 10% requirement, according to its own figures.

    The Episcopal Church I grew up in considered it in bad taste to demand its members to tithe, although it always kept the offering plate and mite box in front of its parishioners, as I reminded everyone yesterday.   But by the time it adopted this standard, TEC had already lost many members, and necessity is the mother of invention.

    ,
Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started