« "Something wicked this way comes..." | Main | Life outside the Bloggernacle... »
Standards and goals
I mentioned last week my desire to explore to a greater extent the differences between the LDS Church and the RLDS Church (now Community of Christ). I don't intend to do a point-by-point comparison, only to look at an issue here or there and see what general principle we can derive from it.
First up: tithing.
The LDS principle of tithing, as expressed in a primary saying:
What is tithing?
I will tell you every time.
Ten cents from a dollar
And a penny from a dime.
The formula is pretty simple: 10% of your 'increase'. Doesn't matter if you're poor or rich--just move that decimal point over to the left one spot and there you go...
On the RLDS/CoC side, while cognizant of the traditional 10% definition of tithing, they also state (emphasis mine):
The spirit of generosity is not about formulas but about thankfulness. Therefore a disciple's generous response asks, "How much tithing can I hope to give?" rather than, "How much should I give?"
(taken from newly released CoC president W. Grant McMurray's 2002 CoC World Conference address on "Discipleship Goals", found here)
The two philosophies are similar...yet different. One is fairly strict, absolute, and unforgiving--while the other is more lenient, flexible, and 'people-friendly'.
Let's suppose, now, that the LDS Church decided to adopt this 'people-friendly' view of tithing: deemphasize the 10% numerical aspect, and adopt a more unstructured policy, like the CoC's "Give as much as you feel like" philosophy. Church members would still be free to give large amounts if they liked, but they would have more flexibility in deciding what amount to give in relation to their family budget.
This would be wonderful news for the percentage of Church members today that have already adopted the philosophy of "I'll be glad to pay tithing...after I take care of taxes, mortgage payments, food, 401(k) savings, insurance and such, and then (provided I don't have a car or credit card payment due) I'll be glad to donate to the Church from whatever I have left (if anything). If not, then--you know--I'm sure the Lord understands that I have more important things to spend my money on. Maybe next month...?" This new philosophy would be great from a popular standpoint--no more guilty feelings or frenzied calculation with a financial spreadsheet--just give whatever you feel like and don't worry about it...
Now (skipping over the obvious question of what God's will actually is) here's the real question for discussion: Do you think adopting this new philosophy will result in more or less tithing (in absolute dollars) being paid by Church members compared to the current system?
It seems blindingly obvious that the total amount of tithing collected would go down under the new system--by several orders of magnitude, in fact. Considering all the many options we have in this modern age to spend money, taking 10% off the top is a big adjustment to make for just about anyone, regardless of income. Paying a full 10% requires great commitment and sacrifice, and causes you to take a hard look at your priorities and your personal budget. (Some would say that's the point...) While there would still be some who give large amounts to the Church and other charitable causes under the new system (and, of course, the current tithing system neither prevents nor discourages them from doing so now...), the idea that the majority of active Church members would 'feel like' donating anywhere near the 10% level of their gross income once all other spending options are considered is very far-fetched... Without that abstract ideal placed before us--without the imaginary line etched in stone above our heads--we would find that, while our 'spirit' of giving would be willing, the financial 'flesh' would be weak.
That, in essence, is the purpose of goals and standards. While the raw percentage calculation of tithing is strict and unyielding, it represents a clear--albeit difficult--standard to strive for and by doing so causes us to reach further than we obviously would have chosen to do so had we been told just 'go as far as you feel like'.
Take another example: the daily schedule of a full-time missionary in my time went from 9:30 in the morning to 9:30 at night, with hour breaks for lunch and dinner. (It appears to have been changed for missionaries nowadays to 10 to 9. Weaklings...) Suppose we changed it to the more liberal, "missionary-friendly" philosophy of "share the gospel for as long as you want during the day". While there would still be lots of missionary work done (since the majority of missionaries really do care about introducing the gospel to people), do you think the average companionship would end up spending ten hours each day doing it? Almost certainly not...
How to judge the setting of strict, unflexible times in this instance, then? Sure, missionaries don't like it, and it requires more effort than just proceeding at your 'own pace', but...more missionary work gets done. And isn't that sort of the point? Having the standard leads to greater effort to meet the standard. And greater effort leads to greater achievement--more than you would have accomplished had you not had that specific standard or goal in front of you.
So, in the end, we have two different philosophies of tithing--one of which I'm sure is vastly more popular than the other. But should we be surprised to learn that one Church is financially well-off and one is struggling? Beyond the money angle, though, is the higher lesson. Having high goals and standards is a means of progression--which is ostensibly why we're here on Earth in the first place.
In my Faith and the Triangle Offense essay a while back, I compared Jesus Christ to our 'coach' in an eternal sense. The sporting world has "players coaches" who are laid-back and let the players do what they want without getting in their way, and the "hard-line" coaches who set high standards, work the players hard, and demand great things from them. When all is said and done, which kind of coach do you think builds a better team? The hard-liners probably aren't popular, but they're respected and if you ask the players afterwards, don't you think they'd say they were glad their coach pushed them to higher standards of performance?
Setting firm standards aren't fun, but they're what get results and in the end that's what really matters. I know I have always been free (as everyone is) to pay as much or as little tithing as I want--but having the 10% as the standard (for now--lower law, remember...) gives me that absolute target to meet, and the added spiritual benefits the effort to meet it brings...
December 8, 2004 in LDS Church News | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1514435
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Standards and goals:
Comments
On tithing I agree with you. If tithing were "optional" I probably wouldn't be paying it right now, being a poor graduate student and all. As for missionary work, I'm not so sure. In my mission, the general consensus was "do as much missionary work as you feel like". Sure, this sometimes meant "breaking the rules" but it didn't stop many people. All it did was create a degree of guilt. As I reflect on my mission, I have realised I would perhaps have been *more* effective if I had been a little more relaxed. All the anxiety to be the perfect missionary was, I believe, counter-productive.
Posted by: Ronan | Dec 9, 2004 7:34:37 AM
Amen. Fabulous post! It is wonderful to see the Kingdom rolling forth, and in large part due to our willingness to be faithful tithe-payers. It is such a testimony-builder to me to see how this Church is unlike any other in the world, and to know that it's success is because it is the Lord's Church.
I am grateful to have true standards to guide us.
Thanks for making me think about this.
Posted by: Peggy Snow Cahill | Dec 9, 2004 6:42:49 PM
I think you might want to know a little more about Tithing in the Community of Christ. Tradtionally the Community of Christ has held that the tithing paid to World Church, should be 10% of your increase (That amount you have after the neccesities of life, food, shelter etc.) it was also understood that you should try to give equally to both World Church and your local congregation, and also give to other worthy causes.. for some they saw it in a way 10% increase to WC, and that that + other giving should be at least 10% of total income. Thus there were formulas to figure out how much to pay, and forms that were sent in yearly stating how much tithing you owed, how much you paid... With the current understanding, there is still the idea that total to all worthy causes should be 10% of total, and the largest share of that should be to the Church, divided between local and World Church levels. But that filling out the tithing form is no longer seen as a requirment, and the calculations of attempting to figure out how much is your increase and what is 10% of that is no longer, and the focus is rather than "I must give" to "If I am truly to respond to God's call in my life, then I am called to give of my excess, how much can I give" or being told to give to wanting to give, and to give all that I can.
I can tell you taking the formulas out can make it easier on some, and it makes sense, as one year when filing my tithing statement, I actually came out with a negative number on how much to give, and so I jsu rounded it to 0, and gave what I could even though by the formulas I owed nothing. Our new understanding moves from formulas and procdures and being told, to the desire to give, and to give abundently
Peace be with you
Posted by: Lyle R Anderson II | Dec 23, 2004 9:41:50 PM
Correct, the CoC has not completely abandoned the 10% figure, only deemphasized it. I looked up three different documents on tithing doctrine from the CoC official website and two of them (including the one linked above) never mention the 10% figure at all.
Again, I have the same question, though: Sure the new policy is much easier to comply with (no filling out of forms or calculations as Lyle mentioned) but which policy will result in more tithing money?
If tithing is really paid AFTER the 'necessities' of life (as many people maintain), what happens when you pay for food, house payment, car payment, credit card payment, etc... and then have nothing left? Lyle himself breaks with the 'formula' and finds something to give anyway, but I doubt the average Church member will be that charitable. Doesn't paying the Lord last show you view the other things in life to be more important?
Posted by: The Baron | Dec 24, 2004 7:53:42 AM
It's not paying the Lord last, in your list of examples only part of them are necessities. A Credit card payment is not, unless the only thing on it is basic food, clothing shelter... Car payment some would say yes, some would say no, I would say it depends on the type of car and if it is the least expensive way for you to transport yourself to and from work, church, school in a reliable means. If your making payments on a $40000 car when a $5000 car or a buss pass would do it's not a necessity. Maybe a small fraction is, but not the entirety. Tithing is on the increase. That which you never receive (taxes) is not increase, that which you need to survive (basic food, clothing, shelter, that needed in order to have it[transportation to and from work]) is not increase, that which is above and beyond that you might spend on fancy clothes, nicer cars, homes, toys, computers, dinning out etc. is increase. If income=or < the basics, I'm pretty sure a loving caring God would not want you to starve, or have to live under a bridge. Which is what would happen if you gave of your total not your increase in those times, and that would impact your ability to be a good steward over the rest of your resources, time, and talents and potentially harm the ministry you have to offer in the world, and may even harm your faith.
The removing of the requirement for the forms will for some who were put off by them will allow them to feel more at ease with giving. The push toward giving all that one can will comfort those who can give little, and encourage those who can give more than 1/10 to do so. As long as people understand the need and that the majority of their giving should be to the church, and then other giving to other worthy causes.
Also if the word tithing is used, technically the 1/10 figure is being stated as tithing means to give one tenth of something.
In the LDS church and under is structure, maybe this system would not work, but in the Community of Christ and it's stucture it has great possibility if embraced fully and with understanding by the membership
Posted by: Lyle R Anderson II | Dec 28, 2004 9:30:56 AM
I feel there is still a fundamental difference between paying tithing and then adjusting the rest of your budget to fit what's left, and the opposite: paying other things first, and then adjusting the tithing amount to what's left (if anything).
The problem (which Lyle mentions) is that even the 'necessities' of life can take a varying amount of money. House and car payments are fairly set in stone...but the choice of whether to buy an expensive house or car is variable. A family of four could be spending $100 a month on food...or $300 just as easily--while still counting as 'necessities'. A person can easily use their entire budget on just the house, car and food and claim to have nothing left to give the Lord...but is that really true?
Whether this is pleasing in the Lord's eyes or not is a whole other issue, though, and beyond the scope of my original post. The REAL point is that regardless of how this philosophy of tithing ranks in terms of righteousness, it's virtually guaranteed to create much LESS tithing funds for the Church, which is significant. How is the CoC doing financially?
Posted by: The Baron | Dec 29, 2004 11:58:05 AM
