I
See, I Want, I Take
Stephen
Terry
Commentary
for the January 13, 2018 Sabbath School Lesson
“If
you see the poor oppressed in a district, and justice and rights denied, do not
be surprised at such things; for one official is eyed by a higher one, and over
them both are others higher still. The increase from the land is taken by all;
the king himself profits from the fields.” Ecclesiastes 5:8-9, NIV
With the recent passage of the tax reform bill of
December, 2017 in the United States, many are concerned that the process
identified here in the book of Ecclesiastes will shift even more wealth out of
the hands of those lower on the food chain by placing more of the burden to
support the government on those at the bottom. Whether or not that proves true
will be seen over time. But money is a pretty important subject for most people
around the world. For some, the amount they have can mean the difference
between a new car and getting by with the one they already have a while longer.
For others it may mean the difference between taking a cruise or a flight to
another country and simply vacationing in the backyard, firing up the barbeque.
For still others it may mean the difference between purchasing the latest
fashion jeans and settling for the store brand at Walmart. But as important as
all of these difficult choices may seem, there are still others faced with much
harder ones.
Some, who are ill, must choose between paying for a
medical necessity or having heat in their home and food to eat. Others may be
forced from lack of funds to abandon their children to the child welfare gulag,
hoping eventually to have the means to retrieve them. While we don’t see them
much in the United States, today, as they have been replaced by the foster care
system, orphanages have historically been dump sites for children whose parents
could no longer care for them. This practice still continues in many places around
the world. Still Waters Ministry receives request for funds from many such
orphanages daily. Since we do not solicit donations and therefore have no
operating budget, we are unable to provide the financial support they seek. But
it has made us aware just how acute the plight of the poor is globally. We are
also aware that the problem is exacerbated by greed and selfishness that fails
to respond to dire human need.
Our lesson quarterly this week speaks directly to the
problem of greed and identifies the system of Christian stewardship as a
solution to greed. However, much of that system is based on paying tithes to
support clergy and administrators in the amount of approximately nine billion
dollars per year in the North American Division alone,[i] as well as billions in offerings
to support infrastructure and various non-tithe entities within the
denomination. This has resulted in the accumulation and construction of an
extensive system of real properties for the denomination which add to the net
wealth of Adventism. Perhaps a good method for examining how much of this went
to relieve suffering in our world would be to look at the amount budgeted by
The Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA), arguably our primary
outreach to the poor. For 2016, the most recent year available, ADRA budgeted
over five hundred and eleven million dollars globally with thirty-two million
of that being provided by the United Nations, leaving a net denominational
contribution of approximately four hundred and seventy-nine million.[ii] Without taking the extra
offerings into account because some of those offerings would have been to ADRA
so would duplicate figures, and using tithe figures alone for comparison, we can
safely say that the budgetary focus on meeting the needs of the poor amounts to
less than 5.3% of tithe and most certainly much less than 5% if we add in the non-ADRA
offerings.
Why is this important? It illustrates that the apparent
cure for selfishness the church is promoting is far more directed at enriching
the church than in helping those who are in dire need. But perhaps even more
importantly, this vast accumulation of wealth has created such a burden of
support and maintenance that the church has little ability to do more. Like the
rich, young ruler,[iii]
we find it hard to turn loose of these things even if it means the recharacterizing
of the church as a worldly business instead of as a mission outpost offering
grace and hope to a dying and hostile world. That young man came to Jesus and
asked how to be saved. Jesus told him to keep the commandments and like a good
Adventist of today, he assured Jesus he was keeping them. Then Jesus told him
to sell all he had and to give it to the poor and follow Him. That he could not
do. Perhaps he told himself, as many do today, that he could do more for God
with his money than without it. But for many this is a euphemism for a desire
to continue living the luxurious life style they have become accustomed to. Not
having to worry about paying for things can create a comfortable but false
sense of security. Life can change in an instant. Investments can crash. Health
can disappear with a diagnosis of cancer or some other debilitating or fatal
disease. We don’t know what eventually happened to the young man who came to
Jesus. After that brief encounter, he disappeared from the pages of the Bible
and history. One can hope he found his way to God, but in light of what Jesus
had to say about a camel passing through the eye of a needle the odds were
against it. Nonetheless, I doubt God gave up on trying to reach him.
What is intriguing about the encounter was what Jesus
proposed as the solution to his selfishness. He could have told him to give his
wealth to the temple, but He didn’t. Instead, he told him to give it all to the
poor. This is profound. We can justify giving vast sums to the church because, after
all, the stated purpose of the church is to save souls for heaven. Besides,
when we give to the church we receive recognition for our gift, even if it is
only a tithe receipt for the tax man. Though more often it is a position of
power and prestige, for non-tithe payers are not allowed to have a position of power
within many denominations and certainly not within the Adventist church. This
is such a strongly held conviction that denominational employees are not even
allowed to see their tithe. It is taken directly from their pay beforehand. Failure
to agree to this results in, you guessed it, loss of position. In this regard
there is little difference between tax collection for the church and that for
the secular government. This actually prevents individuals from redirecting any
of those funds to the poor or to ministries that might be more effective at proclaiming
the gospel than the institutional church is. The practice of giving church
office to those who contribute to the church was common in the Catholic Church
of the Middle Ages, with the office often going to the
highest bidder. That practice was called Simony. It was named for Simon the
Sorcerer who attempted to buy himself into power in the Apostolic Church. Unfortunately,
we still encourage that practice today. In my pastoral experience, it is not
uncommon for the person who is most financially supportive of the church to
seek the office of Head Elder, voicing rebellious disappointment if that does
not happen. If not placated, instead of humbly accepting the decision of the nominating
committee, they may work to undermine those elders who are selected. Such are
the results of allowing a system of simony within the church. Like in the Middle Ages when nobles could buy church office without the
slightest idea of what the religion was about, it is still possible for a person
to be a Head Elder who has never led a single person to Christ. That
experience, rather than tithe paying should be the primary requirement for such
office.
There is also a name for the church taking tithe from its
employees in order for them to remain employed. It’s called a “kickback.” If a
secular business tried to do that, they would find themselves in trouble with
the government, but under the 1st Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, the church enjoys singular protection from governmental
interference, at least until successfully challenged in court. The Merikay Mcleod
case[iv] of the 1970s threatened
to place chink in that armor, so the church’s desire to use the 1st
Amendment to hide nefarious practices may be vulnerable in the courts. Most
likely, the church would settle out of court, because once such a protection
was eroded by court decision it could set the precedent for all sorts of
challenges.
In 2010, the United States Supreme Court advanced the
notion in Citizens Untied vs. the FEC
that corporations may be considered persons in regards to the free speech
provision of the Bill of Rights. Perhaps the Seventh-day Adventist Church Corporation
may be therefore considered a person as well for the religious freedom
provisions. One might wonder then, if giving to the church is the cure for greed
for the person in the pew, what is the cure for greed for the corporate person
of the church. Would Jesus commend us for keeping the commandments but encourage
us to divest in favor of the poor? Would he be impressed by our less than 5%
budgetary support for those poor? Without a doubt, we will eventually find out.[v]
