|
Critical Generosity I recently read an article and watched a news program that addressed personal finances in tough times. They offered the usual simple advice: pay your bills, take staycations instead of vacations, reduce trips, forego luxuries, drink less gourmet coffee and lattes, and so on. It is not a strain on any of us to do these things (except perhaps sacrificing lattes!). What caught my eye in both cases was their advice on money allocation in tough times. One of the experts suggested 50 percent for necessities and living expenses, 30 percent for wants, and 20 percent for savings. The other expert suggested 60 percent for necessities and living expenses, 20 percent for savings, 10 percent for leisure, and 10 percent to reduce debt. Online, I found that these distributions were widely representative of most counsel. Conspicuously absent from them all was generosity: giving, philanthropy, charity, tithing or benevolence. Generosity has seemingly been expunged from the conversation in “real-world” finance. Benevolence, to some, is too much to expect at times like this — perhaps at any time. Personally, I do not find much difference between pre- and post-crisis financial planning.
Historically and biblically, donor-directed giving played a big part in how God’s people gave. Almsgiving was celebrated and expected. Helping widows, orphans, the poor and indigent was normative. But, the foundation of giving was the consistent, commanded and expected general giving to priests, apostles and so on. Whether conventional Old Testament tithes and offerings (first fruits, wave, guilt, peace, etc.) or New Testament giving (widows mite, Acts 2-5 philanthropy, etc.), there was an understanding that priests, Levites or apostles would direct the use of the gift, as prescribed by law or by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. In fact, many of the same needs conventionally met by donor-directed giving were also met by spiritually gifted leaders entrusted with non-donor-directed giving (Acts 2 and 5). This shift represents a move from entrusting a church, leadership or ministry with our resources; it also indicates a heightened desire to control the gift — its use, beneficiary, cause and instrument of distribution. The potential for good is significant. The potential for inserting the self too heavily is equally significant. People may be seeking gifts in order to manipulate us, and imbalanced, emotionally driven philanthropy is common. There are many stories of misused funds from donor-directed giving. In a culture in which we are told we have complete control over the allocation of our personal funds, it is important for us to break from self-centered and self-governed giving, and from creating an unhealthy relationship between donor and recipient. We must always remember we belong to a community with Spirit-filled and trusted leaders, and that we need to give as God directs. And God has directed us to trust the church. My family does much donor-directed giving, but we are also committed to tithe to the church in a way that keeps us free from being in the center of the gift, cause, direction, application and outcome. It is a liberating, balanced way to approach giving that is consistent with Scripture, history and a love for Christ and His church. For sacrificial servants of Christ, I suggest the following alternative allocation: 60 percent for living expenses (including savings and debt reduction), 10 percent for personal enjoyment, 20 percent to Spirit-led donor-directed giving, and at least 10 percent tithe to the local church — entrusting its disbursement to godly, Spirit-filled leaders.
|
The church is still the greatest charitable institution in the world. Christians are still the most generous by far of all social groups. But, Christian giving has shifted recently. Whereas general giving to and through the church was once the norm, donor-directed giving is now (to many) the primary means of charitable giving. This trend is a subtle but noticeable shift in our attitude toward giving, the church, leadership, control and trust.