I've recently read a very stimulating paper called Embezzlement: The Corporate Sin of Christianity? written by Ray Mayhew. I've found the paper really challenging; it's probably the most important thing I've read in the last few years! However, it's twenty two pages long, which doesn't make it the most appealing read, especially after reading a blog post. So, here are a few of my favourite quotes from the article that will hopefully whet your apetite for the whole thing (go on, read it, it's definitely worth it).'I am not saying that we are obligated to follow the example of the early church. But most of us do believe that they have bequeathed us an important legacy. We take this with great seriousness in the area of doctrine, and I am simply advocating that we listen to them with equal seriousness in the area of stewardship.'
'the assumption of most church leaders today is that we have the right to spend our revenue in ways that we believe would be most beneficial to the work for which we are responsible. Budgets are drawn up, employees paid, buildings built and maintained, and missionaries supported. This is the way things are done, and as long as there is an annual audit and no misappropriations of funds, all is well. But is it?'
'It is not surprising that, after immersing himself for a lifetime in the patristic writings, John Wesley wrote his now famous lines that, “any Christian who takes for himself anything more than the plain necessities of life lives in an open, habitual denial of the Lord.” As we know, he practiced what he preached by giving most of his income away, wearing inexpensive clothes and eating only simple food. “If I leave behind me ten pounds,” he wrote, “you and all mankind bear witness against me that I lived and died a thief and a robber.”10 Strong words, but a faithful echo of patristic orthodoxy and ethics.'
'In the late fourth century John Chrysostom echoed Matthew 25 in lamenting, “thou hast been bidden to give freely to the hungry.....but thou dost not count him deserving even of a loaf; but thy dog is fed to fulness while Christ wastes with hunger.” Such perspectives were normative in informing the theology of stewardship in the early church.'
This paper has led a bunch of American-based Christians to develop a faith experiment called Relational Tithe. I find the whole subject deeply challenging, let me know what you reckon.
18 comments:
Sorry to be so intellectually shallow, but how is that baby coming along?
At least I understood this paper, or the bits you posted, anyway. But am not going to attempt to converse in a scholarly manner. This is why I am not doing a Masters. Sexualities in Caribbean literature? That could have been my fate. I am so much better off writing about lovely flowers and hats. I am a simple soul. Over to the intellectual gang...
alright jonno,
i felt sorry for you as no-one was posting about the most-important thing you have ever read(haha). So i have two posts/comments to make but i will start with the most straight forward... the second quote:
'the assumption of most church leaders today is that we have the right to spend our revenue in ways that we believe would be most beneficial to the work for which we are responsible. Budgets are drawn up, employees paid, buildings built and maintained, and missionaries supported. This is the way things are done, and as long as there is an annual audit and no misappropriations of funds, all is well. But is it?'
This to me suggests that the answer should be no, and i guess you have probably taken these quotes independently of each other, but none of the other points made in the post seem to suggest that the churches handling of things is wrong?
can you clarify - does the documnet suggest a different way the church should run its business? The church handling doesnt seem to go-against the wesley quote or the feeding you dog quote?
I will be honest, I havent read the paper or the thing about relational tithing, so maybe the answer is there, but im prob not gonna have the chance to read it, so could you just sum it for me?
i will post my thoughts on the blog later.
Well, that wasn't terribly intellectual. I think he's right. But more likely, Jon, you didn't post the bits of his paper where he slams the church. Or, the author was too wimpy to do it and skirted around it in a cowardly and subtle fashion. Is it one of those papers that tries to make you draw your own conclusions? I hate that.
So come on, Jon, explain it like I'm a three year old. What's his point?
Okay, maybe I get it. We are supposed to only have the basic supplies required for living and keep the hungry in loaves using our pay-packets? But he says it in a kind of wimpy way, doesn't he? And he spelt 'practiced' wrong.
It's tough to argue with holier-than-thou logic like that. It's even tougher to act on. Are those relational tithe people truly giving away almost everything to the needy? Or are they supporting a few select members of the community and turning up the heating when it snows? Who decides what we actually need?
ok jon. I'll join in. the article sounds quite boring. are these really the best quotes?
so you've been talking alot about this living by what you need, passing the rest one, etc. how are you acting on this inspirational way of thinking and living?
and does this tie into 'buy nothing day' on the 25th November?
Robbo, laugh it up sonny. The answer is yes, that way of handling things is wrong. If my memory serves me right I think he is suggesting that the church should give 90% of the tithe to the poor using ten percent to pay its workers. The other stuff about our own personal approach isn't central to the argument. The quotes weren't meant to be related, just things that jumped out at me while I read it. Hope that helps.
Anna, baby is fine. Had a scare the other day with Becky being kept in hospital overnight but everything turned out okay. She is 23 weeks and a day.
I think his argument that the church should give 90% of the tithe to the poor. The personal stuff isn't really central to his argument. The relational tithe people all give 10% of their money into a central fund and then give it all away to people who they come into contact with that have needs. What's wrong with turning up the heating when it snows?
I mentioned the personal stuff because I find it really challenging particularly seeing as it was a common theme throughout the first 500 years of Christianity yet I've rarely heard it mentioned in my experience of Western churches.
Scriblah, errr.. it's not boring. Those quotes are my favourite. In terms of the main thrust of the article it's a bit difficult as I don't control where the money that our church gets given is distributed. So aside from arousing discussion in relation to this, not much.
With regards to the personal stuff we've decided to increase the amount of money that we give away and have begun to be more critical in relation to where it goes. On an individual level, I've begun to look for more oppurtunities to give and redistribute our wealth in everyday scenarios outside of our more strucutred avenues for giving. Another of my little 'things' has been that just giving and maintaining a safe distnce from the needy might not be enough. So I've continued to look for ways to actually get involved on a practical level. I hope that's what you were after as I don't feel comfortable being any more specific on the internet.
In relation to 'buy nothing' day, I don't see the relevance. I don't know anything about the day as such, but I don't think there is anything wrong with buying things in general.
well jonno its buying things that is the very heart of the problem!
when buying things we need to ask do we need it? really need it?
can we borrow? share?
still really need to buy?
then buy second-hand. really cant buy second hand?
then look for an ethical or recycled, re-used product.
but buying new things is such a huge problem. consumerism takes soooo much carbon, causes sooo much bad capitalist practice.
do we need new things?
I mean why are they still making bloody cars?
I understand the development of new technologies, cleaner cars, but whats with the general car production??
and jon the practical stuff sounds good I was just trying to wind you up...if only it worked...
hows becky in all this, does she get pissed off with your communistic musings, or is she with you all the way? (cos jodes hates me)
.... if only it did. lol.
Becky used to get really pissed off with me. Money was the thing we argued most about over our first year of marriage (and second). However, as time has gone on we both seem to be meeting in the middle somewhere (good news for our marriage).
I have some more thoughts about the whole consumption thing but in essence I agree. We should discuss this in person when we see each other over the Christmas period (can't be arsed to go through it over the blog).
Matthews, did you just write 'lol'?
What were you thinking, you haven't got a word limit for goodness sakes, write in properly.
And were you meaning 'lots of love' because that's what it usually means.
Jon we have to buy avg now! damn....
about buy nothing day...it falls on the day after american thanksgiving which is traditionally the biggest shopping day in the US, so it is an anti-mindless-consumerism-and-lets-
spend-some-time-with-real-people-in-
our-lives type of day.
Scriv you prick, you talk about what you know best- pointless little vegetables, and I'll talk about what I know best- young peoples.
It does often mean laugh out loud, but it usually appears at the end of texts when 'laugh out loud, Belinda' wouldn't make much sense. It can also mean lots of luck. There are no hard and fast rules. Fricking postmodernity's even ruining our beautiful language.
Alls I can say is: wen I recve it in txts it uslly mns lts o lve nt larf out loud.& I stil stnd by my orignl pnt of nt wrtng shrt hnd.
Matthews, I kind of get the feeling that we haven't grasped the enormity of this post.
Scriv, I didn't realise we have to buy AVG. I am truly gutted, this probably means that our PC hasn't been protected for some months.
Lovell, I did mean laugh out loud. If only I'd written in full this confusion would never have happened. And yes, I am slightly dissapointed with the uptake on the post. But then again, it's my fault for asking people to read a 22 page article. Live and learn.
jon you have till end of january, then the free one runs out.
the bought one is much better.
and you get rid of this word veri thingy. they are pointless.
Jon, If you're talking about the word verification thing on the blog (I'm not sure you are though, although I've never noticed one in AVG), then it is worth it. I put it in place after I started to get loads of spam comments advertising stuff a few months after setting it up.
errr.... no, that's what the post is for.
Sorry this is a bit late, I've been busy weeping at losing that "all-in" in the first hand of the poker game... And I still had to skim-read sections...
So it's certainly a persuasive argument and some of the facts are very powerful, particularly about the amount of money that passes through the church's hands being enough to deal with world poverty.
His ideas on changing the way we see the tithe really seem to stand up Biblically - I'm convinced of the logic - but I wonder how easy it would be for church leaders to persuade their congregations that everything they own belongs to someone else (most of it to the poor, the rest of it to the church). But that's probably just the sad state of the church right now.
And, not being a church leader, I suppose that's where my personal response comes in - in changing my attitude to what I own (or, more accurately, what I am a steward of).
It will be difficult for churches, that's why I like his honesty about his own situation and the struggles that his congregation faces.
Post a Comment