It is the dizzy height of gross, sheer, rank inanity for the world to label Christians who choose to give their money to the church as stupid. Like Jesus took a whip and charged on the detractors of the faith; in this article, I am going after what is no doubt the crass ignorance and gargantuan hypocrisy of the world.
Let it be known that Christians are not some toothless beings that people can always pick on and trample on their feelings with impunity and devoid of a dram of effrontery.
Every now and again, someone needs to hold a large mirror to the world, and suffuse with sense, a stubborn existence of vacuous reasoning. Indeed, there is a time for everything. There is "a time to keep silence, and a time to speak" (Ecclesiastes 3:7 KJV). Thus, the perpetual silence that allows curdling ignorance to actually solidify and crystallise is not a correct application of Scripture.
On occasion, I have heard, read, and felt the nauseating influence of withering judgement and stinging condescension of labels given to people who, in view of their commendable concern and fragrant desire for church growth decide to pump their money into its work. In fact, that untrained thought and crude conclusion that these people are somewhat delusional or gullible has got to stop.
When people prattle on, their ignorance blares out. It is obvious that they have not read the Bible, or they have read a part of the Bible and feel qualified to pass judgement on broad issues.
'Not part of the national budget'
Let's get this poignant truth: the money of Christians is not meant to fix world problems. The Great Commission is not to go out and end world poverty. It is the established duty of governments who collect taxes to fix the problems in their respective countries.
Indeed, the Great Commission has a focus on spiritual growth and preparation for a new life. "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:15-16 KJV).
The classic test in Scripture where some disciples thought the money of a giver should be used for the poor, was dismissed by Jesus Himself (see John 12:1-8).
If a responsible government does what it is supposed and mandated to do, there will be no need for a church to take care of the economic situation of a community. That is the correct use of taxes. The Church's tithes and offerings are not part of the national budget.
Thus, the argument that a church must use its money to do what government should do, is a porous and misleading argument. Yes, every church must exercise its choice to do as it pleases with its own money. And if it chooses to give to the poor, that is its prerogative—it is not an imposition. Moreover, it is not the duty of any church to solve world hunger, period. After all, the church is neither the IMF nor the World Bank. Right here, the world should give us a break!
Is it not rather strange that those who expect churches to help also disdain its members for giving to the church? How will the church feed the poor, help the homeless, improve education, or do other things when the church is barely able to survive financially?
Perhaps, we should ask: If you are poor, surviving on food stamps, other subsidies, or welfare; is it the church's fault that you are poor? Is the church supposed to eradicate your poverty? Is it not your government you should be taking to task?
No, the world loves the work churches do, but it despises its teachings. Let the church stand by its biblical truths and the world is in an uproar, but let it shoulder the responsibilities of failed government and corrupt states, and they will applaud.
Moreover, when one reads stories online regarding the church, it is increasingly obvious that many comments appear to be from unbelievers who feel they must comment on a religion they delight in mocking. Why are these people so concerned about the same church givers they very much despise anyway? Likewise, the same press that holds the church in derision also appears to act as though concerned about the members of the same organisation. Are they genuine? Are they truly concerned?
'Fools for giving to Jesus' ministry?'
The hypocrisy of people in the world who criticise the choice of members to give to churches must stop. After all, people in the world use their money for whatever they choose and it suffices, but when the church chooses to spend its money on what it deems fit, the world, yes, the secular media in particular, goes berserk.
The idea that people giving to the church are some stupid people is a weak argument. In truth, Jesus had people giving to His ministry and He never called them stupid or irresponsible. In fact, listed supporters (or financiers) of His ministry were actually women. Luke 8:2-3 records, "And certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities—Mary called Magdalene, out of whom had come seven demons, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others who provided for Him from their substance" (NKJV).
It is worth enquiring: Were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and many others fools for giving to Jesus' ministry?
It is a sign of unnecessary indolence if people can't afford to know the full truth, but will pick Scriptures to support their subjective views. Jesus, the example, these people usually reference, gladly accepted the giving that He received. Should a church not accept the donations of its members?
Apostle Paul equally had repeated support for his ministry. He declared, "Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only. For even in Thessalonica you sent aid once and again for my necessities" (Philippians 4:15-16 NKJV).
'Insane greed'
This article is neither a treatise nor apology for insane greed and senseless desire for filthy lucre that leads to massive exploitation of church members. As with all things in life, there are those who go overboard. Of course, I know some people have been pressurised to give—think about countless programmes organised simply to collect money. Yes, this "seed" and that "seed" till the giving time stamps a perpetual scowl and visible consternation on some members' faces.
However, the presumption of a synecdoche must be flung aside. A part cannot always be described as the whole. And in a vast number of cases, in my opinion, members are given a choice to donate, and they make their own informed decision. The minority that employ duress, if we may refer to it as such, and pile on subtle or brazen pressure on members while using credible Scriptural truth as well as twisted texts to facilitate their agenda for personal enrichment at the expense of the flock, should not stain this fragrant act and lead to church giving being referred to as a stupid act practised by gullible people.
How are churches going to be run, if members do not support? Will churches be given free accommodation, water, electricity etc. just because they are churches?
Moreover, for those who labour in the field, are they not to be rewarded for their services? Did Paul not write, saying, "Let the elders who perform the duties of their office well be considered doubly worthy of honor [and of adequate financial support], especially those who labor faithfully in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain, and again, The laborer is worthy of his hire" (1 Timothy 5:17-18 Amplified Bible)?
Following this truth, if part of the giving of the people is used to reward faithful ministers, what crime is committed? To suggest that members who initially gave are operating from some weak state of mind, and did not do so after thinking it through, is uncharitable at best and ludicrously puerile, if not infantile, at worst.
In one unreasoned and ill-thought article I read, the writer actually said, "It's time for people to wake up and stop being stupid." Where being stupid means giving money to a church. By this illogical yardstick, how stupid is the whole world then, considering the many things we all do with our money?
<<Print>>