Stephen
Terry, Director
Offerings
for Jesus
Commentary
for the January 28, 2023, Sabbath School Lesson
"When the
Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his
glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will
separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the
goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
"Then the King will say to
those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your
inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For
I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me
something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes
and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you
came to visit me.'
"Then the righteous will
answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give
you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or
needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to
visit you?'
"The King will reply, 'Truly
I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters
of mine, you did for me.'
"Then he will say to those on
his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared
for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat,
I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did
not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in
prison and you did not look after me.'
"They also will answer,
'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes
or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
"He will reply, 'Truly I tell
you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for
me.' Matthew 25:31-45, NIV
This week we move from the Tithe
Contract to the idea of voluntary offerings. But the voluntary aspect again
comes into question when the result of not voluntarily giving your money to the
church results in curses and loss. How much free will is in that process? We
are not told that we were created to be loving and kind. Instead we are threatened
with eternal punishment if we are not. While this may seem perfectly normal for
a human despot, does it really harmonize with "God is love?" (1 John 4:8) Is
love to be motivated by fear, or should it arise naturally from a grateful
heart sated with blessings and comfortable in the arms of compassion and grace?
We are used to being forced by
governments to pay taxes or forfeit all we have. Do we then think this is how
God relates to us? Does he say to us that we had money, we didn't hand it over,
so he will teach us with a rod how to obey? We can hardly argue against the effectiveness
of such fear-based compliance. The millions upon millions of dollars that have
flowed through our own denomination's coffers is proof that such demands work
even if how they are used is questionable. We use euphemisms to disguise the
actual purpose and effectiveness of what is done with that money, even to the
point of covering up actual embezzlement. We call it "finishing the work" so
Jesus will return. The idea that we are holding up "the work" by not giving
enough is problematic, both theologically and practically for who has the power
to restrain God even through indolence or indifference. God will accomplish his
purposes. He is God. We are told we are robbing God if we don't keep the money
flowing. But we do not have the strength to rob him. God is God. We are not.
Some may feel that since God has
the power to simply take all of our wealth as was done with Job, the fact that he
doesn't proves that we have free will in the matter, but with all the threats
and curses if we do not keep the shiny metal rolling in, it does not sound like
a very free choice on our part. When we couple this with the thick opaqueness
of what is actually done with the accumulated treasure, the idea of what is
necessary to "finish the work" becomes muddled to the point where almost
anything can qualify. For instance, the denomination decided they would
distribute a billion hard copies of the largely plagiarized book, "The Great Controversy,"
by Ellen White globally to force the Parousia. Even if those books could be
printed for twenty-five cents each that is still a quarter of a billion dollars
for the printing, not including mailing and distribution costs. All of this to
distribute something already freely available to read online at no cost to the
denomination or to the reader. It begs the question. If not pouring ever more
money into the church brings curses, what does such a poor use of resources
bring? Does someone, anyone, have a fiduciary responsibility to exercise
competent stewardship of those funds, or does the fact that it is for a religious
purpose grant them a "get-out-of-curses-free card?"
At the time of the Reformation,
the churches had tremendous wealth and the common folk could do little about it
as prelates exploited the gullibility of the people, pushing them to contribute
anything of value that they might own to the church and promising ephemeral
blessings in return. But despite the constant flow of wealth from the destitute
to the church, the lot of the people did not improve. The church only grew ever
more corrupt with nepotism, simony, and profligacy. Because this was a period
dominated by the Roman Catholic Church, the blame is often fixed on that denomination
as it is in "The Great Controversy." Seventh-day Adventists love to point out
the battles fought for reform by the likes of Martin Luther against Tetzel's
sale of indulgences as though associating themselves with that fight exonerates
them from their own greed and corruption. It does not. If anything, it
highlights the failings of corporate religion, including Adventism, even more.
To be sure, despite our
profligacy, God is love. He cares for the poor even in opposition to our own
hard heartedness when we do not. But for every soul who sacrifices for inane
projects like "The Great Controversy" distribution, for each one who cannot
afford their medicine, an adequate diet, proper clothing, shelter from the
elements, we as a denomination have denied love to and replaced it with harsh
servitude to our warped agenda. While that may not be the denoted unpardonable
sin, a failure to love on that scale is tragic and must certainly fall close to
those precincts.
I once spoke with a wealthy local
elder of the church's constant desire for money for building projects and the burden
this places on the members to build as though we were planning on occupying the
earth for God instead of looking forward to heaven. He didn't see the problem
with it. I said the poor already have so little, they cannot constantly contribute
what they do not have. His response was that they can use shovels and give their
labor then. His point, though I doubt he understood it that way, was the
demands of the church will not cease, so everyone should "harness up" to finish
the work.
Since I have mentioned it
several times now, what does that phrase "finishing the work" mean? As defined by
many within the denomination, it means striving to become spiritually perfect
in order to be able to stand without Christ as intercessor during a period of
judgment prior to the Parousia. While this idea has been challenged repeatedly
within the church, we always seem to gravitate back to it. It arose as a
response to the Great Disappointment of 1844 to reconcile repeated failed date
setting for the coming of Jesus with the reality that he did not come. The shame
and distress of that caused the founders to consider their own reputations
before the people more than the implications of the theology they were
creating. As a result, they crafted a poison pill theology that prevents the
church from ever recognizing that Christ accomplished a completed work of grace
two millennia ago. This is the true tragedy concerning the never-ending demand for
more and more wealth to "finish the work." The work has already been sabotaged
almost from the beginning in the mid-19th century. It cannot be completed
because of that sabotage, and we are the ones to blame. So instead, we go
through the motions of "finishing the work" but are building ecclesiastical kingdoms
here on earth. We have become the image to the very denomination we have excoriated
for their corruption.
We have no clearer idea of how to translate earthly ecclesiastical power and
glory to the heavenly than they did. We create fantastical prophetic charts
with horrendous symbols and beasts, intricate timelines, and esoteric and
self-serving definitions, but in the end, we accomplish nothing as far as the
Parousia. That is as it should be, though. It is not in our hands. We have been
left as stewards in charge while the master is away. We are to be ready for his
return, though we are not told when that would be. So what are we to do? Raise
money? Begin massive building projects to honor our master while he is away?
Should we gather all the resources we can for one great push to get the master
back sooner? The answer is perhaps too simple for us to be willing to accept. We need only love one another and care for one another. Every time we take
care of the church instead of one another, we fail on that point.