I read an article on an airplane and watched a news program the following day. They both provided answers to dealing with personal finances in tough times. The talk and advice on financial matters has abounded over the past year in the
U.S.
Both the newspaper and cable channel offered the usual banter and simple advice; pay your bills, stay-cation instead of vacation, consolidate trips in the car, forego luxuries for a time, drink less gourmet coffee and lattes, etc. It is not a strain on any of us to do these, except for some of my friends to observe the “no latte” commitment. That is true sacrifice in their minds.
What caught my eye in both cases was the advice of experts on how your money should be allocated in these times. One of the experts suggested allocating resources the following way: 50% for necessities and living expenses, 30% for wants and 20% for savings. The other well known media group hosted an expert who suggested the following variation: 60% for necessities and living expenses, 20% for investment and savings, 10% for leisure and pleasure and 10% to buy down debt. I went online, only to find a myriad of similar counsel on use of personal finances.
Conspicuously absent in every case was any conversation about regular giving, philanthropy, charity, tithing or benevolence. It has been quietly expunged from our collective conversation in the real financial world. Perhaps, in their thinking, giving is too much to expect at times like this. But, seeing how the new suggested allocation changes differed from the old, it didn’t play a part in the pre-crisis financial plan either. I suppose that those who make these formulations may not represent the whole. But, after reading and listening for a year or more of financial crisis conversations, I would imagine that they reflect a very common sentiment.
Of course, the church still is the greatest charitable institution in the world. Christians are still the most generous by far of all social groups. But, it is naïve and uninformed to assume that the greater culture has not impacted the church in these matters. Statistically, average member giving has declined over the years. I’m sure that many factors are involved. One that I hear more often than others has less to do with a passion for giving but much to do with the stark increase in interest for “donor-directed giving” as the primary or exclusive direction of charitable giving. That is a subtle but noticeable shift in our attitude toward giving, the church, our leadership, control and trust.
Historically and biblically, donor directed giving played a big part in how Christians gave. Almsgiving was celebrated and expected. Helping widows, orphans, the poor and indigent was normative. But, in the midst of all of that, there was consistent, commanded and expected “non-donor-directed giving” that was a foundational basis for all giving. Whether it was one of the conventional Old Testament tithes and offerings (first fruits, wave, guilt, peace, etc.) or the New Testament giving (widow with a few coins, Acts 2-5 philanthropy, Macedonian church sacrifice); there was an understanding that the priests, Levites or apostles directed the use of the gift as prescribed by the law or by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit through the Spirit-gifted leadership. In fact, many of the same needs that were met by donor-directed giving, were carried out also by the leaders entrusted with non-donor-directed giving.
The subtle shift is a move away from entrusting a church, leadership or a ministry with our resources and a heightened desire to control the gift- its application, beneficiary, cause and instrument of distribution. The potential for good is obviously significant. The potential for inserting the self too heavily into the process is equally significant. The potential for manipulating the giver, imbalanced and emotionally driven philanthropy is also very high. Cases of misuse of funds from independent donor-directed giving are a very high in many cases. In a culture where we are already being told that we have control of 100% of personal fund allocations and that we should be the beneficiary of 100% of our resources, it is nice to know that we can break from self-centered thinking and truly be a part of a trusted community of Spirit-filled and gifted leaders. We can give as the Spirit leads. We can also give and allow the church to be the church.
Marlene and I are personally committed to donor directed giving in several ways. We are also delightfully committed to tithe to the church in a way that keeps us free from being in the center of the gift, the cause, the direction, the application and the outcome. It is a liberating, balanced way to approach giving that is consistent with Scripture, history and a love for not only Christ, but His church; all while engaging in spontaneous and planned acts of charity as the Lord compels us. May I suggest an alternative allocation for the hearty souls willing to risk much for Christ and His kingdom: 60% for living expenses, 10% for personal enjoyment, 10% tithe to the local church, 20% to “Spirit-directed”, world-changing generosity.