Americans are a generous people. Arguably, among the most generous in the world.
We can do better.
Americans give away only 2% of our incomes to charities. That's not much. The basic religious teaching is to give away our wealth until it hurts--if it hurts to give it away, it's enough to heal what's broken in someone else's life. 10% of your income or 1% of your total wealth (whichever is larger) is a nice number. It should be every person's personal goal. And if you're there already, keep bumping it up a percentage point a year.
But the point I'm more interested in making is that Americans waste their money on giving to church. Or perhaps it's better stated: churches waste our money. As a pastor in the middle of a stewardship campaign, I'll need to explain this point.
About 40% of giving by individuals goes to religious institutions. Giving to religious institutions accounts for about $100 billion a year. It may be a small percentage of income, but it's still a huge amount of money. Money that could make a huge difference in the world.
$100 billion. We give it to churches... who spend it on... what? Mostly, on themselves. On flat-screen TVs and furniture, lawn care and HVAC systems, on church musicians and pastors, on photocopies and websites. Churches typically spend no more than 10% of the money they receive from contributions on direct support for human needs (ie, care for the poor).
I am thoroughly compelled by Ray Mayhew's article, Embezzlement: The Corporate Sin of Contemporary Christianity (for download here). Mayhew argues that the historical church committed all of its contributions towards alleviating the needs of the poor--that's how it embodied Jesus' ministry. Mayew's not delusional--he knows that we live in a different world and that the institutional church requires money to maintain buildings and pastors. But Mayhew argues for a new way of thinking about giving. Christians should give 10% of their income--but 10% to causes that alleviate suffering. To support the church, give from the 90% of what you would spend on your family. The church, after all, is family.
So. Could you?
Could you give away 10% of your income or 1% of your wealth to relieve grinding poverty, disease, homelessness? Could what you give to your church to support its day-to-day expenses come from the remaining 90%?
We give $100 billion a year--and 90% or more comes back to "serve" us in our churches. Americans can do better. Mayhew's proposal would get us there.
David,
ReplyDeleteJust a minor point but 1 Timothy 5:18 seems to indicate that the person hired by the congregation for preaching or pastoral purposes should be financially supported. I think Paul said similar things less clearly in other letters.
How does this fit in with your thinking?
Are ministers and their families to go back to begging from their congregations for food?
Ron Cook.
Ron, point taken. I'm not interested in groveling, either. Staff costs are the largest portion of our church's budget. I would agree with Ray Mayhew in two things: 1) churches should work constantly toward lowering "internal" costs, like salaries and buildings, and raising external pay-outs toward the welfare of the sick, hungry, and homeless.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, it can be a goal of every Christian to tithe 10% of their revenue to direct service, and pay their pastor out of the 90% remaining.
I also think it would be beneficial for Presbyterians to set a salary range for their clergy (minimum and maximum) and pool resources among churches to pay clergy.
My 2 cents...
Funny, about 10 minutes ago I opened my financial statement from my church from 2012. I gave away over enough money for it to hurt, that's for sure. However, knowing my church's budget and how money to charities is indeed too small of a percentage, your note was convicting.
ReplyDeleteBasically, the difference is this: I give away enough to satisfy the Biblical requirement. So, I have a (wrongly) clear conscience personally. However, I feel uneasy about the church's overall giving . . . my corporate conscience is not clear.
There's more going on here, of course, I could drown this in nuance. For example, what's the value of the teaching done in the building, outside the building by the staff and members, blah blah blah. This still makes me think. I'll pray on it as well.
Brian, thanks for reading and responding. I'm pretty tied up in knots here, too. I think you get the contours of my basic concern--churches collect money from congregants, assuage their consciences, but then don't really put enough of the congregants' gifts into solving real human suffering.
ReplyDeleteYou're right--there is value in what the church does. Preaching motivates compassionate actions and righteous living (gulp... I hope!). Our church houses all kinds of groups that do good (from scouts to birthing classes). But a lot of what we spend in-house only serves us. That's not charity.
Keep at it. And let me know how it's going!