God
or Mammon?
Stephen
Terry
Commentary
for the January 20, 2017 Sabbath School Lesson
“Jesus
answered, ‘If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the
poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’” Matthew
19:21, NIV
Wealth during the time of the biblical patriarchs was
often expressed in terms of herds of animals, but even then money had become a
medium of exchange for some transactions. While often sheep, or milk or even
meat might be exchanged for other goods by the itinerant herdsmen, Abraham paid
in silver 400 shekels to Ephron for the cave at Machpelah to bury his wife,
Sarah.[i] Although silver was only a
shiny metal, it had come to be seen as a repository representing the value of
goods and services, and because it was much more portable than a sheep or two, especially
when minted into coins, it was more desirable for commerce. Being somewhat rarer
than sheep only added to its worth. No one knows who originally came up with the
idea of storing value in this way. The knowledge is lost to antiquity. It may
simply have been a natural evolution of the barter system as those making
exchanges gravitated toward items commonly perceived to have more value than
others and due to their portability might also be more easily secured and
protected from theft. Ironically these same qualities also made such mediums of
exchange more attractive to thieves, both then and now.
Much has been said by some that religion is the cause of
much of the warfare that has raged over our planet since the dawn of history.
However, a much more likely culprit has been the desire for wealth and the
power it provides. Religion may only have become involved as a means to the
acquisition of wealth. Its success in that vein may be seen in the billions in
real property owned by various religious institutions worldwide. Whether they
verbally preach the doctrine of a prosperity gospel or not, the lesson that the
pursuit of wealth is a worthy goal is modeled by many religions, including most
Christian denominations. Rather than simply moving forward in faith as in the
past, the church today must first appeal to the members for funds and if the
funds are received the agenda moves forward, if not then the agenda falls flat.
However, all too often, the agenda fails anyway because the money being raised
does not belong to those actually involved in the venture, so it is not like they
are losing their own money. As a result, huge sums of money evaporate, but it’s
OK, because it is tithes and offerings so nothing has to be repaid to those who
advanced the funds. Little is done to return the funds to the church coffers
either, ensuring that the temptation to engage in such theft, which likely
would result in prison in a secular setting, a low-risk enterprise for those
who give in.
Even the history of our own denomination is rife with
such thievery. The Davenport Fraud, the Harris Pine Mills Bankruptcy, The Shady
Grove Hospital incident, and the Robert Folkenberg affair are only a few of
many similar incidents[ii] in the North America
Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This does not even begin to
scratch the surface of similar incidents that are exposed from time to time in
other divisions of the global church. Is it any wonder then if the rank and
file membership loses perspective on a proper relationship to the temptations
of wealth? One may wonder how much these events have affected the willingness
of the membership to contribute to future agendas. Perhaps the current
quarterly on stewardship is indicative of a concern about this potential for dwindling
revenue streams. If so, it would seem that greater financial accountability and
proper safeguards would do more to reassure the membership than more preaching
about how good members really should be paying more.
Again, another irony is that the church does not seem to
realize that its desire for more money actually makes the membership feel it is
Ok for them to desire more money as well, perhaps even to the extent of not
putting it into the offering basket. Interestingly, I have often heard the
well-to-do use the same excuse the church uses: “If I have more money, then I
can do more for the Lord. Therefore the pursuit of wealth, which might be the
evil “love of money” in others, is holy and good in my hands.” But if wealth
can corrupt the church as has repeatedly happened, why should individuals or
families be exempt? Perhaps this can be a rationale for soliciting offerings, “Send
us the money so we the church can be tempted and you can be saved.” But
seriously, this is not a new problem for the Christian church.
The problem with the people seeing the church as a means
to personal wealth and power can be traced back at least to the apostolic era,
when Simon the Sorcerer sought to buy his way into power within the church.[iii] Because of his name, the
sale of church offices has come to be known as simony. The apostles condemned
this practice but it has nonetheless survived in the church to the present day.
It had become so widespread and accepted by the 15th century that it
was one of the faults of the Catholic Church that Martin Luther railed against.
Things had gotten so bad that the church even sold its members “get-out-of
jail-free” cards called indulgences to free souls from purgatory. Luther, who
was familiar with the Bible, knew that this was a ridiculous idea, but the
church preyed on the ignorance of the membership, who had long been kept from
access to the scriptures. In this, and several other ways, they kept a steady stream
of silver and gold flowing to Rome. Rome had become convinced that wealth was
the key to power here on earth and that power would allow them to refashion the
governments of earth according to the Catholic view of holiness. Therefore, in
the service of God, the pursuit of wealth was justified. They sold bishoprics
and many other church offices to those able to pay into the church coffers. The
church continues to do this, for church office, at least in the Adventist church
is only open to those paying money into the church. For instance, if someone
spent ten years maintaining the grounds of the church or even giving Bible
studies, if they did not pay tithe they could not be an elder for the office is
not free. It is for sale.
One cannot help but wonder when members and clergy
travel to Takoma Park, outside of Washington, DC, from the various divisions
and conferences around the world, how many similarities to Rome they find. Do
they come with a sense of pilgrimage as Luther did when he visited Rome? Do
they leave with a similar emptiness to the one he felt when he saw what Rome
was really like? Has God created better, more perfect potentates to head up the
church than He did for the Catholic Church? Or are they simply the same type of
sinful men we all are in spite of their belief that they are somehow more
righteous, more holy by virtue of their position and therefore not to be
challenged in their leadership? (We won’t use the word “infallible,” even
though some may act in that vein.)
Today, unlike those in Luther’s day, we have open access
to the Bible, for those willing to read it. But the church has found an answer
to that through selective proof texting. For instance, they love to quote the
passage from the obscure Old Testament prophet Malachi urging God’s people to
pay tithes to the temple.[iv] This passage promises
that God will pour out all manner of blessings to those who are faithful tithe
payers. It does not reckon with those who have paid tithe and not seen those
blessings. Of course the church has a failsafe response for that - their faith
was not adequate. In spite of Malachi’s invitation to test God in the matter,
no one, to my knowledge, has ever actually done a double-blind test to
determine if the provision is actually true. Also is it true for a single
instance, or sporadically, or always over time. Is it true for all tithe payers
or only some? Some may feel that this is ridiculous, but is it so when telling
an elderly person on limited income who can barely afford their rent, groceries
and medicine that they must pay ten percent of what already is not enough into
the coffers of the church so a pastor, who already makes more than this senior citizen
will ever see and lives in a nicer home than they ever will, can continue to
get paid?
Also of interest in this quarter’s topic of stewardship
is that they use the example of the rich, young ruler in Matthew, chapter
nineteen.[v] Not only does Jesus
indicate that it is impossible for a wealthy person to enter heaven if they
think that holding on to their wealth will allow them to do so, but tellingly,
when he instructs the young man to divest himself of his wealth, He does not
tell him to pay it in tithes and offerings to the church. Instead He tells him
to give it to the poor. Therefore, in spite of their selective proof texting,
in the hierarchy of needs, it appears that the poor being helped has priority
over the institutional church. Of course this is problematic for a church that
covets power, because they will no longer be able to control the flow of the
wealth of the members. But if the members giving up their funds is a remedy for
greed and selfishness, perhaps it is the same for the church.
