Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Johann) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Use of God's money Message-ID: Date: 5 Apr 91 08:48:17 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Society for the prevention of cruelty to the male race. Lines: 68 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , johnw@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) writes: > The lack of envelopes sounds a bit fishy to me. Jesus said let your giving > be in secret (Matt. 6). However, in Jesus's day, they had a public collection > basket, or something, and Jesus actually watched people put money in it. > (Sorry, don't have the reference.) He said that the woman who put her two > pennies in it gave more than the pharisees who gave a lot more (numerically). > I guess it's safe to say that Jesus (i.e., God) has the right to watch. But > members of the congregation? I don't know. I agree with you. What we give should be in secret. The widow who gave her offering at the temple (I think it was Mark 12 v40 something, sorry I don't have my Bible handy) gave what she had. Simply because the Pharisees were tithing did not mean they were giving from their hearts. Notice, there is no mention as to whether or not the widow gave %10. I personally feel that God should hold us accountable for our sins, not other humans. That includes whether or not we are willing to be generous with his gifts. If you agree with this, than there is no need to worry about how much our neighbor is willing to give to the Lord. > > Does this mean that ministers, who should encourage people to give joyfully, > won't abuse the money you give? No, but the giving action is between you and > God; he knows your attitude. I agree with your main argument that unwillingness to give is a transgression between God and the individual. In this sense, I have no right to interfere. However, don't I have an obligation to be sure that God's money is being used in accordance with his will? If I knew my church was going to rent our basement to a group of Satan worshippers so they could carry on their rituals, I couldn't be silent. It would be unthinkable for me to allow God's house to be used in such a manner. Why should it be different for God's money? If my minister was using the Lord's money at the race track (as a previous poster used the example) I would not try to act like he had sinned against me. I agree, he did not make any bets with my money. HOWEVER, as I saw that he was using the Lord's money in a way inconsistant with God's will, I wouldn't give him anymore. I firmly believe this is what the Lord would want. I extend this theory further. Why is it so necessary for churches to build enormous spires into the sky with multiple stained glass windows and gold crosses adorning everything? Is it really to the glory of God? What would glorify God more, a gold cross, or one of his children who is no longer hungry, sick, in poverty, etc. To this end, when my church decides to spend $5,000 on a new set of chimes to be put in the rear of the sanctuary, it is time for me to start giving to a soup kitchen. I cannot believe that feeding the hungry is contrary to God's purpose. > >[When I was calling on members of our church, one indicated that in a > >former church (not Presbyterian), the amount of money given by each > >member was published. --clh] > This practice is also repulsive, and against what Jesus said in Matthew 6. I agree with what you are saying. However, I think it is more important that we look at the reason we are to give in secret. It is so we do not allow our pride to interfere with our relationship with God. If I know that I gave more than Mr. X last month, I could easily go to Mr. Y and say that I loved the lord more than Mr. X. This is clearly sinning. To avoid the temptation, it is better that we give/pray/fast/etc. in secret. This idea goes along with what I said above. Couldn't one church say that it glorified God more because it had a taller building? Or more stained glass? Why don't we eliminate the temptation altogether? Peace, -Jon Anderson