I think Jimmy and many others would agree that the fundamental problem in the American church that prevents it from moving forward is materialism. This is a problem that must be addressed at many levels.
First, there is the practical matter that American Christians have a lot of wealth and stuff, while people in other parts of the world suffer daily from their poverty. We’ll call this the inequality problem. Regardless of the reasons for this inequality, I believe that we have a mandate to use what we have to help others who have less. I could quote scripture to back this up, but I’m pretty sure that would be unnecessary.
Second is the more complex problem of consumerism, which has reached such extreme proportions that it has become normal for Christians in America to assume that they should spend all their money on themselves or give it to churches that basically provide goods and services to themselves. When consumerism is so rampant, the sole purpose of earning is spending, and giving drops off the radar. Of course it’s also good to invest, but the goal of investing is to have more to spend later. (There are other negative aspects of consumerism, such as the idea that most retail goods should be used for a short time and then discarded, but this environmental and ethical concern is beyond the scope of this post.)
With this attitudinal shift comes a third problem, a desire to protect what we have at all costs. We’ll call this the security problem. This is where wealth and consumerism become the most dangerous, and reach the level of idolatry. Not only do we insist on having a lot of stuff, and using it solely for our own benefit, but we are willing to go to great lengths to protect what we have. We even allow such protective desires to interfere with following the teachings of Christ, especially the Sermon on the Mount (which is worth taking a few minutes to re-read at this point if you don’t see the connection between materialism and Jesus’ teaching).
Now, I could have lifted the above paragraphs from any of a dozen good Christian books written squarely from within the evangelical, suburban camp. I could said these things at any church in the nation and gotten a room full of nods of approval and amens. But the problem of materialism doesn’t really sink in as long as we’re sitting down and talking about discipleship and mission. As long as poor people are external to us, as long as poverty is something other people have to deal with, we will never understand.
Leighton had a powerful post the other day in response to a Christianity Today article on the failure of evangelicals to act visibly different from the rest of the American public. Leighton says we have to do something other than try more of the same. We have to rethink church and rehear the gospel. As a case in point, consider the author of the CT article’s solution to the problem of poverty:
American Christians live in the richest nation on earth and enjoy an average household income of $42,409.17 The World Bank reports that 1.2 billion of the world’s poorest people try to survive on just one dollar a day. At least one billion people have never heard the gospel. The Ronsvalles point out that if American Christians just tithed, they would have another $143 billion available to empower the poor and spread the gospel. Studies by the United Nations suggest that just an additional $70-$80 billion a year would be enough to provide access to essential services like basic health care and education for all the poor of the earth. If they did no more than tithe, American Christians would have the private dollars to foot this entire bill and still have $60-$70 billion more to do evangelism around the world.
Do you really think that the poor would be better off if Americans gave more to their churches? What do our churches do with our money? They spend it on us, because we want them to. The fact that this point is lost on Ron Sider (the author) is exactly what I’m talking about - we have no idea how materialistic we are.
And yet, when it gets right down to it, I can’t go out and call someone else materialistic without being a hypocrite. I am certainly materialistic, and if you’re more materialistic than I am, it’s probably because you’ve had more time to practice. As we accumulate stuff, we develop materialistic tendencies, and this is not something I am taking lightly as we prepare to buy a house.
In short, I am scared that we will all be sucked in unless we do something radical. How in the world can we avoid being trapped in materialism like the rest of our culture, Christians included?
I am in overall agreement with your sentiments. Two points in response, however:
First,
Don’t overlook the relevance of this aspect of consumerism. It has infected practically all our relationships. For example, I believe that a large portion of the blame for divorce in America may be laid to the account of consumerism. Since relationships (including marriage) are expected to meet certain needs which I have, when those relationships fail to meet those needs, the rational consumer will discard them and find others which will satisfy.
I believe the same dynamic is at work with most Americans’ relationships to their churches. We acknowledge this in our language: we call looking for a church “church-shopping”. If we shop for it, it’s a consumer product, and when it stops meeting my needs, I’ll move on to another one.
Second,
Either you’re not very familiar with Ron Sider, or you’re making a joke which I didn’t catch when you imply that he is blind to materialism. He is calling the Church in America (individuals and churches alike) to act differently, to give to relief and development for the poor, and to world mission. How is he being thereby blind to materialism? The quote you cite of him doesn’t even specify to what entity the “tithe” would go to. I certainly don’t perceive him as saying, just be sure you give money to your local church, and everything will be magically better without any other changes.
Anyway, it’s either supremely ironic (or, as I said, a joke I didn’t get) that you select one of the foremost evangelicals speaking out against materialism as an example of blindness to materialism.
I think Jimmy would indeed agree with you in all this! [BTW, Jimmy has failed to congratulate you on your new house....Jimmy feels bad about that ... and about referring to himself in the third person!] I truly hope you and Amy enjoy your new house and find it to be a really useful tool in the life God is calling you to build in that community.
These are important issues to me, foremostly because I know how deeply embedded I am in all this, how complicit my lifestyle is. As my family and I begin to prepare for the changes we have to face, we are asking how we might live more simply (as opposed to just more frugally, an important distinction I think), more in a community of shared goods, more in sympathy with how our choices impact the world and others in the world. I do think it’s time for radical action. But we’re truly scared by the implications of all that.
I appreciated the fact you pointed out how giving to our mostly-wealthy American churches is simply reinforcing the problem, not fixing it. But consider also how our current political environment pushes us in this direction as well. Bush’s entire inauguration rhetoric about an “ownership society” is based on the belief that getting us all further invested in the system is a good thing.
But alas! I was recently told by a church leader that consumerism/materialism weren’t going to change, that I had no hope of “getting them out of consumerism” so I should stop being concerned about it, stop teaching, etc. I don’t work there anymore.
Jonathan-
I don’t know a lot about Ron Sider, but I do know he’s a prominent evangelical leader and spokesperson. If you read the article, you’ll see that he implies that Christians can be less materialistic by giving more to their churches. It’s also telling that he equates giving to the poor with giving to your local church. What would happen if our giving stayed at the same level, but we spent it on the global poor instead of programs and buildings for ourselves? Honestly, I don’t blame people for not giving more when they subconsciously know it’s just going to pay for self-serving programs. I’d be interested to know if Barna’s statistics include giving to charitable relief organizations such as WorldVision; Sider does not imply that they do.
Jimmy-
“Complicit” is exactly the word that comes to mind in this house purchase. Will I be using ministry as a justification for spending such a huge amount of money on myself? Will I call it an investment when it’s really just a spending spree?
I just spent two weeks’ salary on a refrigerator. It’s exactly, exactly what I wanted, but it was twice as much as more basic models that still perform the essential function of keeping things cold. Where does that place me in all of this? Can I do such a thing righteously, or do I have to go through moral gymnastics to convince myself that I’m in the right on such a purchase? I can see this coming up a lot afer purchasing a home.
It?s also telling that he equates giving to the poor with giving to your local church.
Can you point out where he makes this equation?
Perhaps for you the word “tithe” means “give (10%) to the local church”? For me, it means “give 10%” and doesn’t imply where it is given (beyond that it’s given toward Kingdom work). I don’t know for sure, but I think Sider’s concern is the amount of giving (which for evangelicals has consistently been found to be below 3%), not the precise entity which is the recipient.
This is a nice realization. Jesus and his initial disciples lived a very austere renounced life. They didn’t buy houses in the suburbs or SUVs - they travelled and preached. As Jesus told that young man - “Sell everything you have, give the money in charity and follow me”. It was a radical proposition, not at all the safe road of pious suburban life. It was revolutionary, and it was about self-sacrifice, something that is anathema to this world and its values. You can’t serve two masters, or as another saintly person put it: “An easygoing life and attainment of perfection in transcendental realization cannot go together.”
Can you point out where he makes this equation?
This paragraph:
Also, one of his references is “John L. and Sylvia Ronsvalle, The State of Church Giving Through 2001 (Empty Tomb, 2003).” I think “church giving” can only mean money that flows through a congregation or translocal structure of one of the fifteen denominations studied. Otherwise, it would be called “charitable giving” or something along those lines.
I agree with your broader definition of a tithe, but I don’t think that’s the way Sider is using the term.
Sorry about the tangent about Ron Sider, it’s really not particularly important.
To return to the main issue, how can we resist consumerism and materialism, as individuals, as families, and as churches?
One small thing I do is try to avoid advertising (both for myself and my children), in particular TV advertising, which I think is a particularly powerful enticement to dissatisfaction, envy, and greed.
I think the one passage that speaks most directly to me on this topic is:
Justin said:
This is what Justin said, which is what I was responding to in the previous post.
Do you really think that the poor would be better off if Americans gave more to their churches?
$200,000 / $1,500,000 = 13%
Adam - I would say your church is exceptional in the amount it gives to the poor, and for this I congratulate you.
On the other hand, though, where does the other 87% go? Professionals, buildings, utilities - things that serve the local members and other local non-poverty-related ministries. Compared to a relief organization, this is a huge amount of overhead that does nothing to help the poor. Compassion International’s overhead is about 27%.
This is what I’m saying - if you want to help the poor, don’t just give more to your local church, because even an exceptionally concerned church will only deliver about 13% of your contribution to the needy.
This reminds me of the time we gave our old car to the church. There was nothing wrong with it, we just had upgraded to a minivan (such is life), and so we didn’t need it any more. So I gave it to the church, figuring someone else could use it. I called them up the day after:
“So did you figure out where to use the car?”
“Oh, we’re still waiting for the used car dealer to come pick it up.”
“You’re going to sell it?”
“That’s what we usually do with cars that are donated.”
“Its not really worth that much cash. Can’t somebody use it?”
“What do you mean?”
“Doesn’t somebody need a car?”
Turns out there was, and it made a tremendous difference in somebody’s life. I’m just surprised that wasn’t the standard procedure when giving something to the church.
Some additional info from Barna (from 2001, but probably still roughly accurate):
“Among evangelicals, almost ninety cents of every donated dollar goes to their church. The proportion drops, however, as people’s spiritual intensity and commitment to Christ decline.”
“The younger a person is, the less likely they are to donate any money at all, to donate to a church, and the less money they donate when they do give.”
“One of the doctrines taught by many Protestant churches is that of tithing, which means donating ten percent of one’s income. In total, one out of every 12 adults (8%) had given away at least 10% of their income last year. That was marginally above the 6% registered in 2000. The proportion of tithers is higher among born again Christians (14% tithed) than among non-born again adults (5%).”
So it doesn’t appear to me that the explanation for the relatively low giving of American Christians is that they are giving to non-church charitable groups, since about 90% of all giving by evangelicals goes to their churches.
The last paragraph I quoted does not make it 100% clear, but it does appear that it is referring to tithing as “giving away 10%”, not necessarily to the church.
Ah, yes, I would agree that we do not give enough, whether it’s done through church or otherwise. I was simply saying that, if we are trying to give to the poor, giving to the church is not a good way to get the money to where it’s needed. But yes, the total amount we give is dismal.
I’m interested in persuing that fridge issue.
It’s interesting watching threads like these - so often the issue is steered away from things we can control in our own lives. (eg. let’s not examine ourselves, but point the fingers at the evangelicals)
How many of the big purchases we make are excessive? How do we justify them? Should I be buying a home entertainment system when there are kids starving? Or two weeks salary on a fridge? What about eating out at restaurants? What sort of car do I buy? Where do we draw the line?
WWJD?
Justin: 100% of money given to the poor through our church goes there, not 13%. Sorry if I was unclear. Let me explain. We allow “targeted giving”. 100%. And we see to it that 100% of that is specifically given where it was targeted. When someone donates $3500 for a school, the school costs $3500 in Honduras and $3500 of the original $3500 is used to build the school. Our philosophy is that only money that is nondesignated can be used to pay for overhead.
Also: the 1.5 million I described includes a restaurant, bookstore, and preschool operated by our church which collectively comprise about $60,000 worth of income, so it’s not exclusively giving in that amount. And upon further review, tne other factor I should have described is that $200,000 I listed is only designated for our international projects. In our local community, we do all memorial services free of charge, we have an expansive clothing ministry, and we feed many hungry people every week in our church’s restaurant for free, among several other local ministries in our community.
My point is that I believe in the church because Jesus believed in the church.
Why - WHY - do we persist in making things harder for the Body of Christ just because it’s limping? …because it isn’t perfect? …because it’s made up of selfish people? If it’s because of our own selfishness, fine! Let’s solve the selfishness problem. But don’t give up on the church.
Let me describe you a recent event that happened in our church that I believe illustrates the importance of this principle. We call it “Jessie’s Joy.”
In our church is a little 85 year old widow named Jessie. She is practically a saint. She was one of the first adults to encourage our founding pastor when he started our church over 40 years ago. She lives on practically nothing, but every week, she puts in the offering her social security tithe check plus $10 she gives sacrificially to our church’s programs in Central America.
One week, sitting next to her in church was a young businessman who that week was moved to give a gift of $20,000 toward a major water system we are helping our adopted village to build.
Through the church — as Jesus commanded in Matthew 5, both of these gifts to the poor are given in secret. The right hand knows not what the left hand is doing. Through the church, Jessie’s gift is just as precious as the businessman’s.
In a large mission organization, a gift like the businessman’s would earn acclamation, cheers, and probably a personal letter or a beautifully framed plaque from the president of the organization… perhaps even a personal visit from him or his executive staff.
What would Jessie’s gift garner?
Maybe they’d put her on their mailing list.
Which would Jesus honor? I think for anyone familiar with scripture, the answer is obvious.
Through the church, Jesus gets the glory, because it’s his hands and feet showing his love for the least of these. Through the international mission organization, it’s the wealthy donor who gets the glory, not Jesus. And it’s Jessie who gets the junk mail.
Curiously enough, last week’s sermon at Northpoint (Andy Stanley) was avoiding the “Mine” field. I haven’t listened to it yet (I’m still back on last May listening to an excellent series on making the church Irresistible), but I’m sure its good.
http://www.northpoint.org/sermonaudio