Money. It drives almost everything in the world today, and yet it is also the thing that Jesus talked about more than anything else. The funny thing about that though is that in church you never really hear about money the way that Jesus talked about it.
It seems like most churches have the same agenda as any corporation: Get more money. When the rich man came to Jesus and asked how he could get to heaven, he said "Sell all your possessions and give to the... church"? Right? Is that not how it went? Matthew 19 and Luke 18 certainly tell a different story... but what about those disciples in Acts that sold any property, land, possessions, etc and gave it to any as they had need? Well, would that be the same thing as giving to a church today? Not really. For as far back as I can tell, "the church" in a worldly corporate sense has always been driven to add to their number in their one location. These days we have churches that are bigger than sports arenas. For hundreds of years the Catholic church has built huge buildings, including not just a sanctuary building, but housing, schools, almost everything imaginable. This made sense for them though, because they actually WERE a school in a sense. Many catholic churches were built to house the priests and nuns, giving them a place to live and learn in proper solitude from the outside world. When people do that today we call it a "cult compound"... but that's another issue entirely. Somewhere along the line though, churches became more and more ornate, more decorations, more art, more gold, more architectural significance, and the church leadership became more and more concerned with gaining wealth. I suppose it was only a matter of time before the Christian church took a lesson from what the Synagogues were doing for centuries as well.
Things were a little different before the corporate church took hold. People in the early years of Christianity didn't meet in a group building. Some of course met in the local temple, but for the most part that wasn't an option seeing as they weren't exactly welcomed with open arms. No, the typical "church" was a few people in a house. Maybe I got reminded of this with the story about the home in San Diego that got fined for having a weekly bible study that met in their house... but anyway, that is what it was about. Just people getting together in the street, in a house, wherever they happened to be they gathered around and heard about their daily message of choice. So back then, where did the money go? While it is true we do have ONE reference of people gathering money to provide for a teacher of the Word, most of the time it went TO THE POOR, DIRECTLY. There was no idea of corporation, no savings account unless you perhaps consider Judas being the "bank" of Jesus' crew... they pooled their money together, he held it, and they used it as they had need. Well, what would they have spent money on other than food? Some new sandals perhaps? Maybe new robes? It's possible. How about the church in Acts? Pretty much the same way. People sold their possessions, pooled the money, and for the most part it was used to provide for each other. The earliest form of Communism perhaps. Yes, people always hate it when I refer to it that way... but that really is what it was like. There were no funds toward a new roof, or new parking lot, or new choir uniforms, or anything else like we have today... there wasn't even a budget. There was probably no yearly stewardship campaign to motivate the people to loosen their purse strings...
So where did things change? Well I think it came with the idea of the church being centered at a consistent location. Once you have that ONE thing, everything else falls apart. When you build the building, then you have a place of operation for the orphanage, the school, the giant auditorium, the pews, the offices, the kitchen... don't get me wrong of course. I don't think any of those things are evil and worthy of full blown condemnation to hell. I just think it got the focus away from what it was all supposed to be about. Selling ALL PROPERTY AND POSSESSIONS AND GIVING TO THE POOR. If you run a charity today, the one thing that most people look at is how much of each dollar given goes to benefit the actual target of the charity. Most of the time it is less than 80 cents per dollar, but there are plenty of charities that are almost half administrative expenses. Well what about if we look at churches the same way. What percentage of each dollar given to the church actually goes to the poor? I think that is how we really need to start looking at how things are run. In my search for a "church home" I hope I actually start finding some that will divulge that information.
Well what about me? How does my life reflect all this? Obviously I am not perfect. I own a home, I have a car, I have furniture and technology and all that... but I do live pretty simply. I decided a long time ago that the acquisition of goods didn't really suit me. I have never bought a car new, I have never paid someone to build me a home, all the furniture I own fits inside my bedroom... it allows me to live pretty cheap. There is more to it than that though. Living cheap by itself doesn't mean a thing, and I will fully admit that in the last year I haven't given much of anything to anyone... but in the last year my salary has also been $0... at least since September. Before that I can pretty much account for where SOME of my money has gone. $16000 here, $7000 there (half of which was repaid), a car given here, a car sold there (with so far no indication of payment), a few hundred over there to help with rent, a few hundred here to help with a phone bill... I could almost say that I spend more money on other people than I spend on myself. Almost. Things change a bit when you are unemployed, but when I did have money I can safely say that I did pretty well with things.
What most people ask me about when I tell them any part of this, and they always ask it, is if I felt like I was getting taken advantage of. It almost makes me laugh to think about it because of all the implications that come with that question. Do I feel like someone takes advantage of me because I give them money and the spend it? Not really. For that I would have to put some value on money, which other than providing for myself to eat and sleep and have a shelter I really don't. For the most part I wouldn't even blink an eye at someone stealing from me or mugging me. People question that I don't even lock my car or front door... the same implications. I am not that attached to anything I own. I give freely, expecting nothing in return, and expect nobody to share the same view that I do on possessions. Somewhere along the way we all seem to have lost the idea of living as a community and giving to others freely, and have fully embraced our global ideals of capitalism and accumulation of wealth. We put value, even sentimental value, on things that hold no real relevance in the grand scheme of things. I think more than anything in this entire diatribe on the state of our greed and lack of concern for the reality existing outside of our own walls, this one thing is what bothers me the most about how far we have come in two thousand years.
Many seem to think it is okay to just allow the government to take care of those in need, which flies in the face of the original idea, at least in a Christian sense, of how we are told to live our lives and use our money... but when I look at the fact that the government gives about 20% of it's budget to Medicaid and welfare, it's hard not to make a comparison to the amount that churches actually use on similar things... or even individuals... although there is the issue of the fact that a huge chunk of that money would go to administrative expenses rather than the actual program, far worse than any of the charities... even the bad ones. I know that if I give a dollar to a homeless person (or apparently homeless in any case) at least 100% of that dollar goes to them, even if it does get spent on alcohol or drugs.
And there is more... there is tons more. A lot of what is in my head can't even really be converted to language, but I think the idea is clear. If this were any sort of an official document I would probably trim half if not more of what is in here, but I can't be bothered to proofread or edit.
You know, if this were a sermon, in spite of all the extraneous stuff, it would probably be titled "Widows and Orphans". Yeah, I know I never mentioned that specifically, but that's pretty much what it is all about.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment