You may recall that I posted a sermon a few weeks ago in which I get pretty shirty about tithing. Well, the brave folks at the Church of the Incarnation, Santa Rosa, invited me to contribute to their stewardship materials, thus putting their money where my mouth is. I hope I helped them!
Here's what I wrote.
***
I hate tithing. I don’t mean that I hate to do it; I mean that I think it’s a terrible way to determine giving. It’s so mechanical! So guilt-laden, too. But all my life, I’d heard people talk about the tithe as the Biblical basis of stewardship. It wasn’t until a few years ago that I thought, “Hey, wait a minute! People keep talking about tithing as Biblical, but I’ve never actually seen any of these texts!”
I was surprised by what I discovered. Did you know that tithing only refers to agricultural products? That’s why you hear Jesus talks about the Pharisees “tithing mint and rue and herbs of all kinds” (Luke 11:42) – they were keeping to the letter of the law down to the herbs in the kitchen garden.
But looking at the New Testament, what I see as the Biblical standard of giving is not tithing, or any sort of definitive rule. Instead, I see two traits that characterize faithful giving: generosity and mission.
Generosity: Unlike tithing, which is simply a math problem, generosity is a spiritual practice. I know many generous people who are tithers, but tithing on its own is simply about a transfer of goods or money from one entity to another. Generosity, on the other hand, is the attitude in which the tithing – or any giving – is undertaken. Tithing answers the question, “Have I done enough?” Generosity answers the question, “How can I contribute as much as possible?”
Mission: One of the things that most annoys me about tithing is that it is so disconnected to what happens to the money. But what I see over and over again in the New Testament is that giving is directed to some purpose: supporting Jesus’ ministry, helping one another in the church, caring for widows and orphans, or reaching out to the church in Jerusalem.
Mission is actually the question of generosity as it is answered by a community or organization: “How can we as a group contribute as much as possible?” When we are clear about our mission, it makes it clear why we are giving and what we are giving towards. Tithing eliminates any dialogue, expecting people to shut up and give because the Bible says so. But a call for giving based on mission opens the question of what it is we hope to do together and how can we get it done.
And so I would encourage the community of the Church of the Incarnation, Santa Rosa, to reflect on the mission of your congregation: how can we contribute? Talk about it with one another, and really come to grips with what it is you want to do together and how to accomplish that.
Then as individuals, take time to answer that same question: How can I contribute? If Incarnation has a mission that excites you that you want to support, what can you do to make that happen?
Paul, writing to the wealthy church in Corinth, challenged them to give to support the church in Jerusalem as the much poorer church in Macedonia had done. He summarized giving in a way that resonates with me, saying, “If the eagerness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has” (2 Corinthians 8:12).
I hope you are eager to see the great things you can do as the Church of the Incarnation, and I pray that you might be able to give generously to see that happen.
Hello! Have a good Thanksgiving, everyone in the U.S. or American citizens celebrating abroad? How about Black Friday? Or otherwise, a good end of the week? Well, good. I've got a few leftovers all ready for you to take home and eat later. Ready?
If you're in a profession that requires fundraising, here's information that might help you as we enter the race to the end of tax deductible donation season: 5 things charities do that turn off young donors. And, I might add, middle aged donors as well.
While we're on the subject of donations: get that Donate button up on your website!
Meanwhile, to appeal to the lefty-ness part of my nature, I thought this post on the Propaganda of Shared Sacrifice was powerful; and though I haven't finished watching it yet, this conversation between Infusion fave Ta-Nehisi Coates and Chris Hayes about Chris' book The Twilight of the Elites is extremely interesting. I'm going to have to add this book to my reading list.
And to finish up this compilation of Challenges to My Knee-Jerk Reactions, I loved this website for Radi-Aid: Africa for Norway. Set up by various aid organizations in Norway, the website asks, "Imagine if every person in Africa saw the “Africa for Norway”-video, and this was the only information they ever got about Norway. What would they think about Norway?"
What indeed? Watch the video and see what you think:
Seeing Father Tim's great post asking for music to put on a Stewardship Soundtrack made me realize I'd better get in quick if I wanted to get this off my chest:
It is just as inaccurate to talk about the Biblical tithe as proof you should give 10 percent of your income to the church as it is to talk about selected passages in Leviticus as proof that homosexuality is a sin.
I ask you: how many times has your church talked about tithing as the Biblical standard of stewardship? And that tithing means you should give 10 percent of your income away? In all that time, has anyone actually ever even shown you the passages where it says that? It was only a couple of years ago that I realized I'd never actually looked at the texts, and since then each year I've only grown more peeved at how we have abused the Bible to, frankly, no good end.
All tithes from the land, whether the seed from the ground or the fruit from the tree, are the Lord's; they are holy to the Lord. If person wish to redeem any of their tithes, they must add one-fifth to them. All tithes of herd and flock, every tenth one that passes under the shepherd's staff, shall be holy to the Lord.
Now from Numbers 18:11-13, 21
[The Lord spoke to Aaron:] This also is yours: I have given to you, togther with your sons and daughters, as a perpetual due, whatever is set aside from the gifts of all the elevation offerings of the Israelites; everyone who is clean in your house may eat them. All the best of the oil and all the best of the wine and of the grain, the choice produce that they give to the Lord, I have given to you. The first fruits of all that is in their land, which they bring to the Lord, shall be yours; everyone who is clean in your house may eat of it...To the Levites I have given every tithe in Israel for a possession in return for the service that they perform, the service in the tent of meeting.
And Deuteronomy 14:22-27
Set apart a tithe of all the yield of your seed that is brought in yearly from the field. In the presence of the Lord your God, in the place that he will choose as a dwelling for his name, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil, as well as the firstlings of your herd and flock, so that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always. But if, when the Lord your God has blessed you, the distance is so great that you are unable to transport it, because the place where the Lord your God will choose to set his name is too far away from you, then you may turn it into money. With the money secure in hand, go to the place that the Lord your God will choose; spend the money for whatever you wish—oxen, sheep, wine, strong drink, or whatever you desire. And you shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God, you and your household rejoicing together. As for the Levites resident in your towns, do not neglect them, because they have no allotment or inheritance with you.
Got that? Tithing applies to agricultural products. This is why Jesus talks to the Pharisees about tithing "mint and rue and herbs of all kinds." And if you preferred to do cash instead, well, it cost 20 percent more, according to the Leviticus reading above.
Seriously, can you take those passages above and make a case for saying "This means today that you should give 10 percent of your income to your local parish"? If we are serious about Biblical context for other Old Testament texts, it's rather sloppy of us to say there's an easy equivalence between these texts and the annual pledge drive.
Here's the context: Unless you owned land and had crops and flocks, tithing did not apply to you. What applied to you non-landowner types was offerings.
Take a look at Exodus as an example. In Exodus 25,
The Lord said to Moses: Tell the Israelites to take for me an offering; from all whose hearts prompt them to give you shall receive the offering for me. This is the offering that you shall receive from them: gold, silver, and bronze, blue, purple, and crimson yarns and fine linen, goats' hair, tanned rams' skins, fine leather, acacia wood, oil for the lamps, spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense, onyx stones and gems to be set in the ephod and for the breastpiece. And have them make me a sanctuary, so that I may dwell among them.
So here you see that gifts are asked of people--in no particular amount, but for the specific purpose of worship, "from all whose hearts prompt them."
But here's what's particularly interesting to me: in Exodus 36:2-6, we read
Moses then called Bezalel and Oholiab and every skillful one to whom the Lord had given skill, everyone whose heart was stirred to come do the work; and they received from Moses all the free-will offerings that the Israelites had brought for doing the work on the sanctuary. They still kept bringing him freewill offerings every morning, so that all the artisans who were doing every sort of task on the sanctuary came, each from the task being performed, and said to Moses, "The people are bringing much more than enough for doing the work that the Lord has commanded us to do." So Moses gave the command, and word was proclaimed throughout the camp: "No man or woman is to make anything else as an offering for the sanctuary." So the people were restrained from bringing; for what they had already brought was more than enough to do all the work.
So you've got two kinds of freewill offerings: the offerings of goods, and the offerings of services. And at a certain point, they had enough to do the work God wanted of them. It wasn't a set percentage based on income; it only had to do with the actual ministry and tasks to be performed!
Tithing is a quick and easy short-cut; 10 percent, done. You know you're set with God and the church for the year. But a) should we be bound by Old Testament law in the first place? and b) does setting the tithe as a standard do anything to help us examine either our hearts or understand our ministries? I would argue no, and no.
I feel that using the tithing short-cut actually damages our churches. Tithing sets up a disconnect between stewardship and mission, making giving all about "how much" and not what the gifts are supposed to do. In asking for a tithe, we ask church members to conform to an external standard rather than the more challenging work of coming to terms with God and one's own conscience. It encourages guilty giving rather than joyful and generous giving. How can we be generous people if all we know is the demand of a certain dollar amount?
I really wish churches would think about stewardship in terms of getting the resources to do mission that stirs people's hearts to give rather than targeting people to commit a particular percentage amount of income to the church. The case for the Biblical tithe is flimsy at best, to begin with. Given that as Christians, we are no longer bound by the Law, it's irresponsible to use the tithe as our standard of giving, even if it weren't applicable to agricultural products.
On the other hand, I do have some zucchini to share.
Got an email from a clergy colleague who knew me from my former life as a sign language interpreter. She forwarded on to me a message from another clergyperson with a Deaf congregant, wondering about resources for finding a cheap interpreter. The priest thought they couldn't afford to pay the professional expense the interpreter was asking. I wrote back with a suggestion of where to look, but also pointed out that the amount being asked was less than I got paid as a professional interpreter 20 years ago.
Here's what stuck in my craw: the question was not, "Do you know of any resources to find ways to pay a professional interpreter a professional rate?" It was not, "Do you know of any grants we could apply for?" It was, "Do you know anyone who will do it for less or for free?"
This "Where can we get it cheap?" attitude devalues work and devalues people. In this case especially it made me mad; why should the Deaf person get a cheap interpreter? What kind of quality do you think you're going to get? Don't you think someone should be paid for providing this service? This church has the opportunity to provide high-quality interpreting services and employ someone in a down economy. Instead, they want to half-ass it at minimal cost.
I know churches are strapped. But it also gets my goat that churches' first reaction often seems to be, "Where can we get a cut-rate version?" rather than "What do we need to do to pay someone a fair amount to do a good job as we provide a ministry to others?"
Here's a thought for you: if you can't pay people for their work, then maybe you are not ready to provide this ministry. Here's another: quit being so cheap.
You know that scene in a movie when someone is about do release the tiger (for example) and another character is shown in slo-mo saying "Noooooooo!" but can't get there in time? That's kind of how I feel watching the video for Kony 2012 go viral.
Invisible Children, a San Diego-based organization, has launched a huge campaign to support the arrest of Joseph Kony, the head of the Lords Resistance Army (LRA) in Northern Uganda. They have a video called Kony 2012 that they posted 2 days ago that now has almost 37 million views. I watched it and was appalled. Just appalled.
I posted something yesterday on my Facebook page in hopes of slowing down the virus, but by the afternoon at least three of my friends had rapturously shared the video and I'd gotten an excited text from someone saying, "Wouldn't this be great for youth group?" Nooooooo!
And I'll tell you why, in four parts: my personal experience, what others are saying, my observations, and some questions to ask yourself.
My personal experience
In 2008, I went to Uganda as a Kiva Fellow. The first organization I worked with had offices in Kampala (where I was) and Gulu, in Northern Uganda, the main city near where the LRA was operating. One day, I went with one of the loan officers to the Kampala offices of Invisible Children to talk to someone there who had received a loan.
I found out from the loan officer that when the head of Invisible Children first arrived in Gulu, they had begun a partnership with the loan officer's organization. But as time went on, IC (according to him) reneged on their original agreements and partnership, poached workers and donors and allies, and generally made it harder for this organization to do its work in Gulu, which it had been doing for years.
Now, I have to say, this organization also had its problems. However, it also sounded like Invisible Children took help when they needed it and then discarded locals when they had the resources to carry on on their own. *Please note this lack of respect for local organizations and abilities! This theme will return.*
The Invisible Children compound was in the most beautiful and wealthiest suburb of Kampala. That still doesn't mean what it means in the US, but it was strikingly different from any other NGO (Non-governmental Organization) office I saw.
There, about a half a dozen people were being paid to create bracelets to send to donors. These bracelets were not like anything I saw anyone in Uganda wear. They were a kind of hip accessory to go with an urban American outfit. It seemed to be a gimmick, at best, to get my money and make me feel I had done something. It's hard to convey exactly what it was like, but I was overwhelmed with the sense that this was a cash cow for the founders with a dollop of Good Deeds on top.
I left there feeling jaded, used, and angry. Although I hope they were doing good things on the ground, what I saw made me feel that they were at least as interested in perpetuating their organization through continually whipping up donors than in solving the problems that needed solving.
I am very grateful to Invisible Children, actually. It was seeing their organization in Kampala that opened my eyes to the fact that not all aid organizations are the same. At first, I was so disgusted by the disjunction between the messages of aid organizations and how they operate that I stayed away for a while. But I also began to learn more and (I hope) become more savvy, with the help of a lot of other people, to whom I'd like to introduce you.
What others are saying
First off, this article gives some more information on what is actually going on in Uganda today--much of which recasts (to put it kindly) the information in the Kony 2012 video including the fact that (as the headline says) Joseph Kony is not in Uganda.
The posts I think are most important for us to listen to are the ones by Ugandans themselves. Rosebell Kagumire, a Ugandan journalist, posted her own video response to Kony 2012, outlining how the video simplifies the situation and denies Ugandans their own voice about their own circumstances. In comparison to IC's 36 million views, Kagumire has 301. If life were fair, at least as many people would listen to the local perspective as that of someone recent to the situation.
TMS Ruge, also a Ugandan who works with those directly affected by the conflict in Northern Uganda, wrote a powerful post at Project Diaspora called Respect My Agency that deserves to be read in full. But here is one thing he says about IC and similar projects:
They are not selling justice, democracy, or restoration of anyone’s dignity. This is a self-aware machine that must continually find a reason to be relevant. They are, in actuality, selling themselves as the issue, as the subject, as the panacea for everything that ails me as the agency-devoid African. All I have to do is show up in my broken English, look pathetic and wanting. You, my dear social media savvy click-activist, will shed a tear, exhaust Facebook’s like button, mobilize your cadre of equally ill-uninformed netizens to throw money at the problem.
Cause, you know, that works so well in the first world.
Yeah, he's ticked. Please read the whole thing.
I won't go into detail about others, but on Twitter you can check out the hashtag #stopIC. Other articles of note:
My Observations
I watched the Kony 2012 video. Here are my problems with it:
1. It's all about what we can do, not how we can support those already doing the work
Early on, the filmmaker says to a boy whose brother had been killed by the LRA,"We’re going to stop them." But "we" never seems to include Ugandans themselves. Throughout this video, I never hear him asking Ugandans, "What is being done about this? What would you like us to do to help?" Instead, Invisible Children is going to come in and fix this. The West comes to the rescue of the poor benighted Africans. I'm sure they appreciate that.
2. It oversimplifies and distorts the situation
"Who is the bad guy?" the filmmaker asks his young son. Really? That's the information we as viewers need to respond to a situation that's been going on in Uganda for 20+ years? Who is the bad guy? It skips over any changes in the situation over the past 10 years, including how things have improved in Northern Uganda, how much less influence Joseph Kony now has, and what is currently being done. And it makes it seem as if it would all be better if only Kony were brought before the ICC.
3. It removes the Ugandan leaders from the equation
Invisible Children petitions the government...but just the U.S. government. Why did they not interview the Ugandan president or members of Parliament? Why not the African Union or United Nations? Invisible Children wants to involve culture and policy leaders...but not African culture and policy leaders. There are no Africans on their list of influencers. Justin Bieber? Really? Rather than have young Justin, there, tell the world that Joseph Kony is the bad guy, why not have Americans hear about that from Ugandan artists?
4. It is promoting ad hoc, a la carte military actions as justice activism!
Really? This is what we want to be promoting in our churches and youth groups? Really? We want to support putting pressure on the U.S. government to keep sending military advisors to Northern Uganda? That's what we think will help? That's what will solve the problem?
I could go on. I will just leave you with
Some questions to ask
If you watch the Kony 2012 video, ask yourself:
1. How are Africans portrayed?
Are they victims, villains, or heroes? Do they have power or are they powerless? What do they get to say for themselves? What actions do they ask others to take?
2. How is the West portrayed?
Again, victims, villains, or heroes? Do Westerners have power or are they powerless? What do they get to say about Africa?
3. Who gets to speak?
Pretty self-explanatory. But also note in what role people are cast when they speak and who gets to interrupt whom.
4. How does this video appeal to your emotions?
What techniques does it use to heighten emotions? When does it speak to you directly? What does this video tell you about you?
5. What does Invisible Children get out of this?
Not assigning any motives here, but what does this organization get if people participate? How does this campaign benefit them?
OK, I'm done now. Here's the video if you want to see it. If you do, please watch the video by Ms. Kagumire, which is immediately below.
Let's talk about numbers for a second, shall we? Specifically church numbers, one of the great heresies of our time.
I'm not merely talking about the, shall we say, flourishes in the annual reports. I'm talking about the underlying heresy that numbers represent some eternal truth about a church's faithfulness. A church that is growing is doing something right; a church that is shrinking is doing something terribly wrong.
I hear that all the time, but all that's about is the bottom line; it might or might not have anything to do with faithfulness.
And I think, when I hear people make this correlation between success and faithfulness, have they read the gospels? Not just selected pieces, but the gospels straight through. Because you will notice if you read the gospels that Jesus' following grows and shrinks throughout his ministry. Unless they are saying that Jesus is less faithful when people turn away from him, then there's something else going on here. Most of the time what it seems to be is, is Jesus telling people what they want to hear or not?
Please, please, please, can we stop this? I understand the need to have viable and sustainable ministries, but please let's stop condemning people as somehow not being true to God if turnout is low.
Image by Dave Walker at http://www.cartoonchurch.com/content/cc/numbers-2/
My goodness me, so much to share. I will try to restrain myself.
First of all, I have updated my blogrolls over to the left, there, to more accurately represent a) the blogs I read and b) the blogs where there's stuff being written regularly. A couple to highlight: Texas in Africa, "An academic blog about African politics, security, development, & advocacy," which sounds much drier than it is; and Cool Infographics, which makes my data-happy little head explode. I also can't believe I didn't have Seven Whole Days or The Divine Latitude on my blogroll before now. Quite shocking. And there are so many more good blogs out there but I am trying to keep the list to a manageable size.
I liked this entry from another very fine blog, Good Intentions are Not Enough, on the Do's and Don's of Holiday Giving. Very good thoughts on making your charitable giving effective.
Speaking of holiday gift giving, I thought this video was very funny. Yes, yes, it's an ad. Yes, it traffics in stereotypes. It still made me laugh. Make sure to listen to the announcements in the background.
Continuing the subject of how to interest young people in church, I appreciated my co-worker Kellor Smith's thoughts on this subject on the Confirm not Conform blog. My favorite line: “They just assume that I already belong; it wouldn’t occur to them to invite me back.” Good food for thought as grown-up children attend Christmas Eve services with their parents.
And finally, for something completely different, check out this article about the University High Cross Country Team. It ran (so to speak) over a week ago, but I didn't see it before last Friday. Get a kleenex.
I am reading so slowly these days! It's taking me forever to get to the next book on the pile by my bedside table. But this week, I can report on a new book which (so far at least) is fantastic! It's called The Lonely Polygamist by Brady Udall. I got it because someone, somewhere wrote, "You MUST read this book!" And, obedient soul that I am, I complied. And I'm not sorry.
I was worried it was going to be one of those self-important novels, but it's almost a farce. I can't wait to see where it leads.
Here's the teaser:
Now all three women had their backs to him and in the sudden silence of that room he knew that minty breath and tied bootlaces weren't going to make a bit of difference. The wives waited for him to say something but his tongue hung in his mouth like a hunk of old bread.
*** Previously, on Teaser Tuesday: I finished Leaving Microsoft to Change the World, which was wonderful! A really inspiring story and with some very practical thoughts about doing good and the fundraising required to do it. Room to Read is building libraries around the world (10,000 libraries, according to the email I got from them yesterday), and John Wood has paid a real cost to himself in terms of his personal life--one he seems willing to have paid. Here's an additional teaser on that very subject:
One frustrated woman opined that Room to Read was "your wife, your mistress, your child, your family dog, and your career." She then told me that nodding vigorously in agreement while grinning was not the proper response.
I highly recommend both of these books.
Teaser Tuesday is hosted by MizB of Should Be Reading where you can find all the details on this weekly event.
The wife of a Presbyterian minister and a graduate of Wheaton, Mary Emma Allison, along with her husband, "decided to come up with a plan, centered on Halloween, by which American children might help less fortunate ones abroad." The origin story is quite wonderful:
Shortly after Halloween some 60 years ago, Mary Emma Allison and her children came upon a parade in downtown Philadelphia that included children in dress from nations all around the world. They followed the parade, which led them to a booth inside Wanamaker's department store. At that booth, donations were being collected for UNICEF's powdered-milk programs.
And that was the seed of the idea.
So ironic that in many Christian circles today, Halloween is seen as something to fear and shun. I love the fact that this woman decided instead to make it an opportunity to share and be generous. "Mary Emma knew children already collected treats on Halloween, but she and her family were determined to turn that collection into something bigger, something that could help the kids all over the world still struggling to recover from World War II."
Trick or Treat for UNICEF has been going on for 60 years now and has raised more than $160 million. "All on account of a thoughtful young woman who, driving through town on a long-ago autumn, opted to follow a children’s parade."
A couple of days ago, I posted a quote from an article that basically says people in the U.S. can be more generous; non-profits should take a look at how churches do fundraising because religious services are really a form of marketing.
Hmmm...
OK, so my reaction is colored in part because I was laid off from a church position when the pledges from our annual appeal didn't cover my salary, so my appreciation for the church's fundraising abilities is somewhat tainted. But aside from that, this raises some questions. I'm still pondering all of this. I meant to write something today but still don't have it straight in my mind.
However, at the Anonymous Historian's urging, I will start by posting the comment I left on the article itself. Tell me if this sounds right to you:
As an Episcopal priest and someone who has worked both in non-profit development and microfinance, I thought I would respond. I'm still thinking about this, though, and know that this response is incomplete, to say the least.
I have to say, I'm not sure what a good job churches are doing at our marketing if the message you perceive we are sending has nothing to do with--you know--God. I was kind of hoping that "Love God and love your neighbor" would be our take-away. I don't think "be charitable" (in terms of money) ought to be the primary message of churches, but what's sad as I think about it is how clearly I can perceive this has been the case. Take, for example, the 700 club whose very name refers to the amount of money one contributes to belong.
One advantage I think churches have over most humanitarian organizations is that church leaders can claim, "God wants you to give money to this cause." The Bible in all its authority can be used, often in negative ways, to urge members to contribute their financial support. "God loves a cheerful giver" can be used to guilt trip (or "encourage" depending on your perspective) people not only to give money, but to be happy about it--with the implicit suggestion that God isn't pleased if you aren't happy about forking over the dough. We are told almost every year as pledges are collected that giving a tenth of one's income is the expectation God has of us.
In a lot of ways, the church has been incredibly abusive in its fundraising techniques. Just look at indulgences. Look at the popular prosperity gospel churches today.
Don't get me wrong: churchgoers are generous people and the church does train people in generosity. Lots of good organizations and worthy causes have benefited from this. Churches do a lot of good work. That said, as an insider and as a fundraiser, I think churches do a lousy job in fundraising, per se. I'm not sure that looking to churches as a good model is really how you want to go.
.JPG)
I am reading so slowly these days! It's taking me forever to get to the next book on the pile by my bedside table. But this week, I can report on a new book which (so far at least) is fantastic! It's called 
by Brady Udall. I got it because someone, somewhere wrote, "You MUST read this book!" And, obedient soul that I am, I complied. And I'm not sorry.
Previously, on Teaser Tuesday: I finished 
, which was wonderful! A really inspiring story and with some very practical thoughts about doing good and the fundraising required to do it. Room to Read is building libraries around the world (10,000 libraries, according to the email I got from them yesterday), and John Wood has paid a real cost to himself in terms of his personal life--one he seems willing to have paid. Here's an additional teaser on that very subject: