Stingy Christians, in more ways than one
On a recent trip to Home Depot, our 4-year-old Isaac asked his mother, “Why are we in here?”
“There’s a few things we need,” said my wife.
“Is it something we need, Mommy, or something you want?”
The great danger of teaching your children is that they might begin to listen. Reading Ron Sider’s review of Passing the Plate: Why American Christians Don’t Give Away More Money left me thinking about how much easier it is to ignore teaching when we are adults, and how easily wants become needs. The trends revealed by the book’s data on tithing are not new, but they are startling: A fifth of American Christians give nothing, and the average is 2.9 percent of income. Twelve percent of Protestants give a full tithe, and 4 percent of Catholics do the same. The authors estimate that if only the most strongly self-professing and church-attending Christians were to fully tithe, an additional $46 billion per year would be available for Christian causes.
Forty-six billion is chump change when you are a U.S. automaker looking for a government handout, but it’s serious money to struggling domestic and international Christian parachurch operations. We could do more, we future citizens of heaven, were we to give more from our earthly storehouses.
My experience is that the conversation tends to go in a couple of directions from here. The first is to run roundabout in a big circle, as follows: The data is flawed. Plenty of people call themselves Christian, but they don’t behave like Christians. That, of course, is precisely the point. Although this bit of circle-running allows objectors to salvage their image of the Church, it has the feel of someone cutting off rotten limb by rotten limb, disclaiming his or her membership in His body, and all the while declaring himself healthy.
The second argument is to seize on how much worse those other people are. Catholics give less than Protestants. Democrats give less than Republicans. Atheists give less than Christians. One-legged redheads give less than bug-eyed Virginians. It’s no more fruitful a discussion because that $46 billion foregone every year looms there like a corpse.
Which brings me to what I think we ought to consider, each of us, which is how our mental accounting works to distinguish needs from wants. I think, for example, that I visited Starbucks at least 100 times this year. I am pretty sure—though not completely certain—that I could forgo Starbucks without in fact murdering anyone. I think. Pushing further, it wouldn’t kill my family to forgo meat once a week. And what is a trip to McDonald’s compared to helping fund a missionary? All of us make these small decisions every day—precisely because they are small, because in the moment that five or 10 dollars seems so inconsequential.
Yet even if we were to get our accounting right, and start giving considerably more of our income, there is still this nagging sense that distinguishing needs from wants gets things all wrong. After all, Christ didn’t say for us to set aside everything we want, except insofar as it impinges on the basic necessities of life, and follow Him. He said to take up our crosses and follow Him.
This is the great and final need of man, and his greatest desire as well, converging on one point. It is the imperative that carries him unto death, following the God-man who said, strangely and clearly, come die with me that you might live. Compared to that, parsing needs from wants seems small-minded. And scarcely being able to hand over a nickel from every dollar we earn, in this the richest, safest, most pleasure-laden country on the planet, seems smaller still. In fact, if more of us were faithfully carrying our crosses—and I am at the top of that particular list of cowards—the less time we’d have to spend all that money that seems to be gone by the time the missionaries and hungry children come calling.




WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!



















back to top29 Comments to “Stingy Christians, in more ways than one”
“the less time we’d have to spend all that money that seems to be gone by the time the missionaries and hungry children come calling.”
the widows, the fatherless, and the orphans, and the needs go beyond food
Report comment as offensive
One-legged redheads give less than bug-eyed Virginians.
I’m not sure I believe this one. But that’s just based on anecdotal evidence of having known some generous one-legged redheads.
Report comment as offensive
I pledged to support a missionary in the communist Far East. It was only $60 per year. After a particularly rewarding year I cut her a check for $600. She sent a hand-written thank you note. I think if more Americans could “give directly” they’d be more inclined to give. You can actually get updates on how the money was used in that person’s ministry.
I’ve also had to re-examine my political giving. When RTL or some other PAC type group calls I tell them the same tripe has grown cold. If you wanna make a difference for a real, live human being and his/her mom, scratch off the proLife lobbyist or politician from your donor list. Take the money you would’ve given them and go buy baby wipes, diapers, onesies and donate them to the local carenet pregnancy center.
Report comment as offensive
it is easy to give to those far away; they cannot examine your lifestyle and you cannot examine their lifesyles
Report comment as offensive
Our pastor talked about giving yesterday (except that I think he said the average American Christians gives only 2.6%). I sat there thinking about our plans for the afternoon, and whether it was right to spend money on what we had planned.
Due to my husband’s work schedule (night shift), we don’t often get to do anything as a whole family. This weekend he had off, and there was a special deal at the museum we like going to - one of the few things we do all four enjoy. The IMAX movies we planned to see were educational - one on ancient sea animals and the other on the space station. And the other exhibits we would see were educational - one on predators, and the other on ghost hunting and how to evaluate the claims of people that they had found “evidence” of ghost activity.
But as good as all that is, can I honestly say it’s a “need”? The worship pastor (who recently adopted two children from Africa as a way to do his small part to help children in need) reminded us of the 4500 children who die every day because they don’t have clean water. How in the world do you balance your own children’s education against someone else’s kids’ survival?
We went, by the way, and had a great time. The movie Space Station 3D is fantastic! And I did recently sign up to support an orphan in Liberia. But I could always be doing more - I just don’t know how to figure out what is the right level of giving, when no matter how much I gave, the needs would always be greater than what I could do.
Report comment as offensive
I would be able to follow this more if Ron Sider (a rather liberal believer who is inconsistent in his biblical practices) weren’t being cited. He is a current social gospel practitioner, and striving to continue this practice in Gospel-believing church circles.
As for the finance issue, honestly, what else is new? I continue to see folks trying to get more money for schools and students, and I cannot recall the last time spending was actually cut or reversed…merely a smaller amount of increase. Yet somehow schools and students are still broke, despite the vast amounts of money we toss at them.
Can American believers give more? Sure, and we should probably cut out some of our luxuries. But I’m wondering if the authors (and Ron Sider) have any clue as to what they’re pushing. The Gospel changes things, and money does help this. But the Gospel as only a fraction of the equation (social transformation, etc.) strikes me as humanistic.
I also suspect that the American church (and the government) are very generous as well. And it’s somewhat irritating when progressive Christians say that our generosity just isn’t enough.
Any Bible reader should remember Jesus’ words: “The poor you will always have with you.” Reducing poverty is one thing. Eliminating it is impossible.
Report comment as offensive
Thanks for this post, Tony. I really like how you draw it back to Christian faithfulness to God and obedience to His Word, because that’s really what needs to motivate us.
Kennethos, Ron Sider seems to have reformed a lot since the original publication of “Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger.” You seem to be basing a lot of your criticism of him based on the ideas that he promulgated there, and you use this to dismiss the very good point that Tony brought up about evangelicals in America not putting their money where their mouth is, and instead putting it where their heart seems to be.
For example, in this interview he says, when asked about the most important issue facing Christians today:
“I think the absolute bottom line is Jesus. What I wish is that not just 20- and 30-year-olds, but everybody would daily look into the face of Christ and say: “Jesus, I want to be more like you. If you give me the strength, I’ll do anything you want me to do.” I think that means saying that I want every part of my life to reflect Jesus and biblical issues. It’s so easy to be seduced by surrounding culture. I think the greatest temptation of the Church all through history has been to slowly conform to surrounding culture. I wish that every Christian would, every morning, begin the day by looking into the face of Christ and say, “Please Lord, this day, help me to be more like you.” ”
What’s going on is that while we are generous, it isn’t enough when there are still 10 million kids dying every year of hunger and preventable disease. If only 12% of Protestants are tithing, that’s just not enough.
Report comment as offensive
Well, We can be almost assured that giving more to the Church will be much better spent than giving $25 billion the United Auto Workers Union health care plan - as hidden to the Big 3 supposed load today.
I think it is time to get the Marxists that control government give $25 billion to an array of Churches instead don’t you? The Union Members can go pray their jobs don’t dissappear there and the churches can help them out financially with aid and charity withoiut the Mafia taking a cut. Obama said he was all for faith based charities.
I say we call him on his possible lie and see if he thinks churches are as diserving as the unions are for TARP money. The collection plate was a little light these past few Sundays everywhere and Churches are hurtung too you know.
Report comment as offensive
Also, I get the impression (from books like “Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience”) that Sider would be just as happy with giving that supports evangelism, church-planting, etc. as he would with giving that supports more social justice causes.
Report comment as offensive
From Sider’s review:
If people gave more, these are exactly the kinds of projects the money would go to.
Which is a big reason people don’t give more.
Report comment as offensive
To me, there are many oxymorons living amonst conservative Christians. Conservatives applaud the free enterprise system (which has many positive points to it), but it is a system which applauds and rewards greed. Christians are somehow supposed to combine economic success and a lifestyle of self-restraint and personal generosity.
If these two contradictions reconcile with each other (and I am sure they do in some individuals) then we should not need much taxation and certainly not much government welfare.
In the long run, however, I doubt it holds up that well, and after a while the fig leaf no longer covers the Mercedes and the MacMansion that well. Also, the affection for personal giving not only leans so much to converting (as Night Train alludes to above), it also leans toward using charity as a way of browbeating people into believing.
Report comment as offensive
“Pushing further, it wouldn’t kill my family to forgo meat once a week.”
Kill you? It’ll probably make you live longer!
Report comment as offensive
Random - First, it is my theory/opinion that we (as in the whole human race, not only Christians) are all living, breathing oxymorons. Some are more “oxy-ic”, some are more “moronic”.
Second, most Christians (along with most non-Christians) do not own Mercedes nor McMansions. My family lives in the downstairs portion of a two-family home (which we bought when we were taking care of my mother-in-law - if not for that, we’d most likely still be in an apartment). Most people would say the size of our home is like a small house or large apartment. (Everything being relative, richer people would probably consider it a small apartment.)
I feel so grateful for this home, & am happy & content with what I have. (I felt the same way about our last apartment, too.) I realize that most people in the world would consider my home large & luxurious, & even most “poor” people in our country are “rich” in comparison to much of the world.
Third, as to “using charity as a way of browbeating people into believing”, I strongly disagree. The Christians I know truly have a heart to help people, whether with their money or hands-on help. We care about people & their lives, not merely adding to our numbers.
Random, dear, you have such a cynical, negative view. How sad. I have some close to me in my family who are like that, & they are not happy people. Very sad.
Try giving people the benefit of the doubt. You’ll feel much better!
(BTW, my husband is a cynic, too, & we have some lively discussions about our differing views.)
Report comment as offensive
I have noticed that for many Christians, it is easier to throw money at a perceived need than to actually get down and dirty by rolling up one’s sleeves and doing the work that is paid for by the money thrown at it. I myself have been most guilty of this offense.
In September, I began working in my church’s weekly soup kitchen. In the past, I have been one to donate food or money to such endeavors, telling myself that my area of ministry was elsewhere. Then the Holy Spirit nudged me through a series of events in my own family, and I began working there with an altruism that hit close to home. (My brother had been homeless for several months, and so my desire was to help the homeless in my community.) My notion of who ate at soup kitchens was completely adjusted by those served in my church’s neighborhood. There were few homeless people.
My church is in a changing neighborhood. That is to say, the residents tend to be Hispanic, unemployed and many of them are illegal immigrants. And this is where my conservativism and my Christian charity are at odds. While I am no fan of illegal immigration and would prefer to send most of these needy people back where they came from, the fact of the matter is they are here, and they are not leaving, and they are in need, and my church is poised to meet the physical needs of those in the neighborhood so as to reach out spiritually to these same people.
I have met these people. I have heard their stories. Most of them are good men wanting something better for their families than the fear of being shaken down by armed thugs in their own country, so living below the poverty level illegally here in this country is more palatable. The meagre pittance they make in this country (as illegals, when there’s work to be had) will feed a large family in their countries for a year.
I guess, all I’m asking is this: Is it easier to put 1/10 of my family’s income into the offering plate and walk away? Or is it better to give maybe a little less in the plate and roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty and learn what the real needs are, and then loosen the purse strings to meet those needs on a more individual basis?
Report comment as offensive
I think the real question is what have we done with the billions we have now? Maybe that’s why christians don’t give more? Tithing isn’t gonna solve the fiscal irresponsibility of our church budgets. Nor is it gonna feed the hungry, clothe the indigent, or shelter the homeless.
The Church is already the richest organization in the world, and we think that with a little more money we will have enough to stop spending money on ourselves, and finally give it to the poor? I would venture to say that a 46 billion surplus will hardly change a thing about the poor, sick, hungry, or homeless; because most of the Church simply does not feel a responsibility to pander to these issues. Church leaders won’t stall their own vision to give to the poor. As a matter of fact with more money, their vision will just get bigger. Greed never has enough.
-jared b
Report comment as offensive
Good post, Karen O.
Ol’ Random Name here peppers these threads with his call to elevate the level of discourse. We see that that includes calling Christians greedy browbeaters. The fact that he disclaims moral absolutes while going about making moral pronouncements makes those posts doubly lame. But he’s cloyingly folksy!
Report comment as offensive
JBB– could be you’ve got the wrong church leaders– or at least your church leaders have the wrong vision . . . see below for at least one real life church leader who did not . . .
Random,
I agree with you about the confusion so many make between an economic system and theology– a wholesale combination of the two can be quite disharmonic, to say the least. That being said, there are real people out there who embrace the Gospel wholeheartedly and give no thought for themselves; I’m ashamed that I cannot count myself among them. The following is just one tiny example:
St. John the Almsgiver was born into wealth on Cyprus c. 550 to the governor of the island. He married and had children, but was a widower when he was called to become patriarch of Alexandria. Immediately upon his elevation to the patriarchal throne, St. John ordered his clergy to make a list of what he termed “his masters”– the poor of the city– and catalogued over 7,500 homeless people living in Alexandria at the time. Although the patriarchal palace in Alexandria was lavish, he slept on a straw-less pallet in small room.
The patriarchate of Alexandria had at its disposal immense wealth in both money and commercial enterprises, including shipping, and John put it all at the disposal of the poor. St. John was not only liberal with the resources of his see, but with his own goods, which he gave to the poor. To someone who was astounded at his generosity, he recounted a vision he had seen in his youth in which Compassion appeared to him as a beautiful maiden and told him that she was the eldest daughter of God.
St. John is well-known for issuing a bold challenge to God– that God would be unable to supply more than St. John could give away. In one incident, St. John felt remorseful for accepting an expensive, richly-embroidered blanket as a gift and was unable to sleep until he sold it and gave the proceeds to the poor. The weatlhy donor saw the blanket for sale the next day in the shop and repurchased it for St. John. St. John and the donor repeated this cycle many, many times and, in this way, St. John became the means by which the rich man came to live the Gospel call to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. St. John also made himself available to anyone who had a petition, grievance, or request. In one case, one of his deacons noticed that someone was abusing the distribution of goods in John’s very presence, returning several times in different guises, but when he mentioned this, St. John ordered that this man’s portion be tripled, as the man might be Christ come in disguise to test him. In another case, he came to loggerheads with his friend Nicetas when the latter, concerned to contribute to the Emperor Heraclius’ war effort against the Persians, tried to appropriate some of the church’s wealth to that end, an attempt which John firmly resisted and which ended in Nicetas’ apology.
His care was not limited to his own flock in Alexandria, but extended to the people of Palestine in their sufferings during the Persian invasion and sack of Jerusalem. John sent convoys of essential supplies to Palestine and welcomed many refugees to Alexandria.
(Thanks to OrthodoxWiki for some of the wording, here.)
Report comment as offensive
I’m on a very quick break, thus sparing everybody of a longer reply. For those who replied with a better reply than my comment, then you win the race to the top. For those who replied with a worse reply than my comment, then you know what race you won. Good luck.
Report comment as offensive
#7, Menliketreeswalking:
Actually, I was agreeing with Tony to a degree, simply noting that citing a socialistic progressive believer in support of an otherwise good thing to do might not be wise. Of course, Christianity Today (not an enemy of progressive Christianity) had Sider do the review, so it was hardly Tony’s fault.
It would also be nice if folks could actually acknowledge the great things the body of Christ in America HAVE done, and THEN say, “and we can/should do more!” Instead, we get posts like this that seem to be saying (and I hope this isn’t Tony’s intention, of course), “Everything you’re doing just isn’t good enough!”
One thing I learned in grad school: in order to connect with people and make a valuable point, first highlight the positive, and then second make suggestions for change. That way we won’t feel walked on for actually giving 10% (and more) at church. (My wife, an accountant, keeps our books, and I prefer giving above tithe.) It’s not fun to feel slammed when you try to obey God.
Report comment as offensive
#19, Kennethos:
Sorry, in your original comment it was tough to figure out where you were coming from. I, too, give above tithe, and I imagine that Tony probably does the same. Lots of Christians (especially conservative ones) already self-congratulate themselves on the good things that Christians already do. WORLD had a whole cover story on this about a year ago, if I recall correctly. I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing to do; we need to hear about the good work being done in the name of Christ all over the world.
However, if we look at the Scriptures, there are only a few passages that say, “Great job so far guys, but let’s see what more we can do.” The prophets aren’t talking to the faithful about how they’re doing well, but they’re calling out the “cows of Bashan” who selfishly pamper themselves. Paul implores the Corinthians with a strong Gospel-centered argument to give. And I’m not sure that “great job, let’s do more” is what we need right now when there are 4 billion people headed to eternity without Jesus (1.8 billion of which have never heard of Him at all), 10 million kids dying every year of hunger and preventable disease, 40 million people with HIV/AIDS… the list goes on and on. Let’s be honest: if that’s what’s going on today, what we’re doing isn’t good enough. People need a wake-up call and I need to recognize that it starts with me.
The minority group of Christians shocked the Roman Empire with their countercultural, sacrificial way of living. You can complain that the world is biased against us today and won’t pay attention when we do good work, but our forefathers overcame that same problem with overwhelming love for the people around them and careful obedience to God. We have far more power and resources than they ever did; will our theology, conviction, and worship of our great God lead us to just give and sacrifice a little, or will be fill up what is lacking in the sacrifice of Christ (Col. 1:24) by taking it to the nations and our neighbors?
Report comment as offensive
There are a variety of posters here and a variety of points of view. The Christians are unhappy if they are stereotyped. Many, not all, are quite content to stereotype and apply labels such as “liberal” and “leftist” and to characterize people such as homosexuals in very superficial and stereotypical ways.
This is not necessarily typical of all posters here. Karen O, and Klasko, for example, in this thread.
ON the other hand, Ol’ Random Name here peppers these threads with his call to elevate the level of discourse. We see that that includes calling Christians greedy browbeaters. is a bit of a reach in paraphrasing what I say. Nor do I believe all the people who post here are people who own Mercedes and and MacMansions.
My point is that the uncritical elevation of free enterprise from a useful system of motivating people to work hard and to be creative to a form of idolatry is a contradiction within the values expressed here. I am sure that quite a few people here are better in their personal behavior and values than the type of discourse frequently practiced here.
I don’t know the solution. Conservatives are reluctant to criticize conservatives. Christian believers are reluctant to criticize Christian believers. Liberals are reluctant to criticize liberals. Atheists are reluctant to criticize atheists. Yet none of those groups are monolithic, not do any of them have a monopoly on intlligence or virtue.
Report comment as offensive
Random Name:
It may be that you just don’t realize it: your posts are full of cheap shots. Delivering them with Pepperidge Farm cookies and milk doesn’t mask their bitterness (pardon the mixed metaphor). Your first paragraph in #21 is typical. Is stereotyping good or bad? Make up our minds.
Where did I misread you? What’s the reach? You said, “Christians applaud…a system which applauds…greed.” So you’re not calling Christians greedy, only pro-greed? “The affection for personal giving…leans toward using charity as a way of browbeating people….” You’ve reduced the motive for Christian charity to that? And you’re the one always claiming the high road?
Report comment as offensive
“Free enterprise” seems to be regularly blamed for greed. Unfortunately, greed plagues any and every economic system. When those with lower incomes speak longingly of “redistributing wealth,” aren’t they coveting what belongs to others? That’s greed. And planned economies such as North Korea’s allow extreme greediness in the leaders at the expense of the people who don’t have enough to eat.
Report comment as offensive
As a missionary who is supported by the giving of God’s people, I hesitate to jump into this discussion. There are many projects and programs in need of funds and it is true that many who claim to be Christians do not let their Christianity affect their wallets.
Money can’t and won’t solve all problems though. Even if there were unlimited funds available, there will still be problems. Some missionaries/programs/projects shouldn’t be funded. They aren’t necessary bad, but the overall result of funding them may be negative.
Foreign funding of projects in the developing world often backfires because people don’t think through the long term results. For example, some organization funded a garden project in my village (in Africa). They dug a bore hole and plumbed the whole garden area so that every individual garden plot has a water faucet. They provided a HUGE generator to pump water into the large water tank. Now this has been turned over to the village and those wanting a plot must pay about $1.50 per year. Now with diesel costing $1.50/liter and that huge generator sucking about 5 liters an hour, how is this project anything but a waste?
So many times “help” doesn’t help, it hurts. This is not to say that Christians shouldn’t give and give generously, but money isn’t the cure-all.
Report comment as offensive
Here’s an interesting article that concerns Christians, the Bible, and the free enterprise system using the views of the Westminster Assembly as a guide. You’ll mind it here: http://christianobserver.org/capitalism-in-the-westminster-standards/
Report comment as offensive
Good link, Teej! Thanks for the heads up.
Report comment as offensive
#22 Yeah in criticism of my #21.
First, this blog is full of stereotypes of “liberals” and “homosexuals.” Some Christian posters refrain from including them in their comments. A number of Christians have told me that they avoid the “homosexual,” threads, but the discourse in those discussions sets the dominant atmosphere. There are a mixture of arguments based on “sin” and claims of fact, mixed together in a way I consider irresponsible.
In a similar fashion, words such as “socialist” and “liberal” are used as generic insults. These words have very little actual denotation as used here.
Many participants use stereotypical labeling all the time against other groups and then are outraged when they see it applied to them.
In regard to greed and free enterprise, no matter how I try to make a distinction, some commenters only perceive something along the line of He called me greedy because of free enterprise. My point is a more subtle one. Free enterprise as a system of economic organization has many virtues and strengths, but it also has many problems.
To praise the positive aspects of capitalism and to ignore the negative aspects of it is careless thinking. I don’t know much about you or how you make a living. I’ll assume that you are a decent, hard-working non-greedy, charitable, self-disciplined person. (This is not sarcastic.) Your individual virtues do not compensate for the problems of the system. That you get your feelings hurt when I point out the problems of the system, or I criticize the excessive rhetoric used by many here, is, frankly, your problem.
The greed of the heads of corporations inevitably stirs up class war and played a big role in getting Obama and other Democrats elected. It is very difficult for many people here to see how the collective behavior and rhetoric of the last eight years led to this happening.
I tried to write this comment as mildly and calmly as possible. I doubt that it will change your mind. What was your intention in writing to me? Are you trying to change my mind?
Report comment as offensive
Random - I agree that capitalism/free enterprise is not a perfect system. But it seems to be the best among imperfect systems.
As individuals we need to examine our own motives & behavior, & can only hope others do the same. People being people (fallen), there will always be some (or even many) who will abuse the system. But that is true of any system, don’t you think?
Report comment as offensive
Hi Random Name:
Uncanny. When you “criticize the excessive rhetoric” in these threads, it’s as the mild, wizened observer. I criticize your careless, insulting wording, and my feelings are hurt. That’s poor rhetoric–a cheap shot, as I called it above. See, if I let that assessment pass, it gives the appearance I that I concede my feelings were, indeed, hurt. Poor widdle me. If I respond that my feelings were unaffected (they were), I’m joining you in the “race to the bottom,” as that discussion is just petty. I suppose my intention in writing to you was similar to yours when expressing criticism of style. I don’t know. What is your intention when you do that?
IRT: free enterprise. Slowtospeak makes a good point at #23. Any system is prone to fostering greed. The link TJ provides demonstrates to some degree why Christians tend to a free market, namely, because of a respect for property rights as a manifestation of honoring the commandment forbidding theft.
I disagree with various aspects of your blaming free enterprise for our economic woes. I don’t have time to delve in there, but I’ll just offer one fact from which you might deduce my broader argument: the Federal Register is 70,000 pages long.
I, too, am writing this without any intention of stirring the pot.
Report comment as offensive