Stewardship

The Generous Church - Part 2

2009-11-10T13:02:58-06:00

It has probably been occurring a lot longer, but fifteen years ago was the first time I was a witness. It was a Sunday morning and I missed church because I was sick. Spread out on the couch while the rest of the family goes to church was not fun, so I turned on the television to watch others go to worship. I tuned to a channel that was broadcasting a large congregation in our neighborhood and I was eager to see how they did church.

I was especially interested when they announced that it was Stewardship Sunday since I was just beginning my ministry with churches in this area. As the pastor walked to the pulpit to speak, I was prepared for a great sermon. Instead, what I got was an apology.

The first words out of the preacher’s mouth were expressions of sorrow and regret that this was the one Sunday each year that he felt that he needed to preach on money. He promised the visitors that if they would come back next week they would not hear him talk about money or giving. He would deal with more practical and spiritual matters.

Since that day, I have heard similar statements by many preachers. I have heard and read in church publicity that potential visitors are promised that they will never be asked for money if they attend church. I have listened to pastors brag about the fact that they never talk about money. Even as I am being introduced to speak to a Sunday morning crowd, I have heard the pastor say they are grateful that I am there to speak about money so they will not need to do it themselves.

While listening to the pastor apologize for talking about money, I realized the church has a serious problem. The problem is that we have taken the wrong approach to the issue of money and stewardship. In contrast, Jesus tackled the subject head on.

When the young ruler came to Jesus asking the spiritual question about salvation, Jesus told him what to do with his money. When everyone else wants to make giving a private matter, Jesus sat down "opposite the treasury" so he could observe how everyone gave. As we prepare to be judged on the basis of what we avoided, i.e. drinking, swearing, smoking, improper sex, etc., Jesus reminds us that judgment will be on the basis of what we do, i.e. providing food, water, clothing, and comfort to the outcast (see Matthew 25:35-40). While we tend to show preference to the rich and famous, Jesus had the highest praise for sacrificial givers.

How did the church change from this description - And all those who had believed were together, and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need, (Acts 2:44-45) – to a common opinion today that "all the church really wants is my money!"

I have never believed for one moment that the church is only interested in people’s money – that statement is blatantly false. Yet, as often as it is expressed and repeated, it must be the opinion of many. Rather than having a reputation of generosity, of giving to meet the needs of others, the church now has a reputation of greed, of needing money to keep programs running and staff members paid. When people have a financial need, their first inclination is not to turn to the church but to the government.

In order to become known once again as a place of generosity, it is important for church leaders to understand how we arrived at our current state. I make no pretense to being a church historian and some of you, much smarter than me, can help us understand how these conditions arrived, but I want to suggest three characteristics of today’s church that have contributed to our loss of generosity.

First is a failure to teach and provide practical leadership in generosity. Frequently, I have been asked by church laymen to encourage their pastor to preach on the subject of giving. Occasionally, this is even after the pastor has already told me that he often teaches on the subject. I am also of the opinion that many who claim to teach giving and stewardship do nothing more than an annual "tithing" sermon, a once a year tip of the hat to a doctrine that barely scratches the surface of what the New Testament says about giving.

It is not enough only to teach generosity, it must also be modeled. After an unusual week when I had already been approached by two or three "beggars" seeking help from the church, another one appeared in my office at the conclusion of the Sunday morning service. After listening to his story, I led him to the front door of the church where several of our men were still visiting. I introduced my new friend to the men, gave a quick recap of his story, and asked if they would like to help him. I am aware that I put them on the spot, but isn’t that the way we learn some of the best lessons in life?

Another problem that works against generosity in the church is the sense of narcissism that permeates society and has also become a problem within the church. For the sake of brevity, I will not discuss how things got this way, but these are some of the common characteristics of today’s church. In many ways, the church has become "seeker driven," which means that we cater to the desires of individuals. We structure church in a way that meets people’s needs. The subtle message is that it is all about us and our needs.

When the church does teach stewardship, the majority of the teaching sounds more like thriving in a capitalist economy than biblical stewardship. For example, one of the leading programs used by churches features participants who call in to a radio show and shout about being debt free. The strong emphasis on being debt free is often seen as the goal of good stewardship. When the sum total of our stewardship education is money management, people conclude that good stewardship means having a good net worth.

Many churches feel the pressure to offer the "best" of everything. It might be building space for children’s activities and events, state of the art video equipment used for large crowds, a coffee bar that rivals the best in the neighborhood, or a pastor who can mesmerize a crowd for forty minutes every week. These resources are very expensive and often leave a church struggling just to make the payments.

A third problem is our unwillingness to give our time for service to the church, which creates another financial problem. The number of paid staff members has increased dramatically in my lifetime and the reason is that we are all too busy. Consequently, when the church needs workers, the simplest approach is to hire more staff rather than seek out volunteers. It is not unusual for staff salaries to consume as much as sixty percent of church income.

All of these factors, and probably a few others, combine to make it very difficult, if not impossible for most churches to be generous. Maintenance requires too much and there is little left to give away. When the church lives with a barely surviving mentality, it is not surprising that individual Christians also adopt that same attitude. I understand when the pastor apologizes prior to asking me to give. It is because he realizes that he is simply asking me to help pay the bills which have been incurred because of the way we do church, and that is not exciting for anyone.

The Generous Church - Part 1

2009-11-04T16:10:17-06:00

There are many things the seminary does not teach prospective pastors that are important to know about the church. I loved my seminary experience, but when it was finished, I felt better equipped to handle the classroom than a church office. Fortunately, I had another resource. My father had been in church work for nearly thirty-years when I first started. On more than one occasion, I called home to ask for help.

He taught me two valuable lessons about church finances. The first is that there is no need to ask to see the giving records of church members. He assured me that if I paid attention, it is easy to separate the givers from the non-givers. I did pay attention and this is what I learned.

Givers:

Seldom talk about their personal financial situation
Appreciate sermons and Bible studies that deal with money
Support the work of the church with their words and presence
Do not worry about the church running out of money

Non-Givers:

Like to discuss their personal financial situation and it does not matter if it is good or bad
Are uncomfortable when the sermon addresses the issue of money
Tend to criticize church programs and efforts
Hold the church back because a ministry is "too expensive"

I realize these statements might be simplifications, but if you will pay attention to folks in the church hallway or at the coffee shop, you will seldom be surprised by their giving to the church.

The second lesson my father taught me is that there was no need to protect a person’s wallet. He assured me that they would protect it themselves. In other words, do not be afraid to ask people to give, they will never give too much. Although the church frequently is accused of asking for money too often, I am afraid that we do not ask people to give often enough. It is a shame that we ever allow people to miss the blessing of giving.

A third lesson was taught to me by the first church where I was pastor. It was a great church. By that, I mean great people! They took a chance on a young man with a serious physical handicap and allowed me to serve for thirteen years. However, when I first started, I would not have been surprised if my term would end after a year because it seemed like the church would be financially broke.

The church was located in the Texas panhandle, commonly referred to as West Texas. I have never understood the directional designations used in Texas. We lived in West Texas but in order to get to El Paso, we had to travel 400 miles west. We were less than 50 miles from the furthest northern border of the state, yet, after we moved four hundred miles to the south, we then lived in North Texas.

Our church was made up of farmers and I am a city boy, raised in Denver, Colorado. I knew nothing about farming and farmers, but I was their pastor. As I listened to these farmers talk about the economy, it became obvious to me that they were all living on borrowed time. One missed rainstorm or one too many steers dies and the whole economic system of the panhandle would collapse. I often wondered why they invited me to join them when it appeared that I would have to return home in disgrace once the church doors were closed.

One week the Church Treasurer stopped by my office to report that the church bank account was overdrawn by three thousand dollars. I do not mean we were behind budget; we were actually in the hole, owing money to the bank. Personally, I had been overdrawn at the bank before, but never by more than a few dollars. At my young age, I do not think I had ever had three thousand dollars at one time.

On Sunday morning before church, I gathered the Deacons to share the terrible financial news and to get some guidance on what to do. They acted as if it was no big deal and told me just to get in the pulpit and make an announcement that we were behind at the bank and not worry about it. I did. The money came in, and everything was fine once again.

After church, I told Sharon that I was not going to do that again. I had simply reinforced their belief that giving to the church is to be done when there is a need to pay the bills. I had promoted crisis giving which is not a good way to do church finances. So I began to teach giving and stewardship as a regular part of ministry. Folks understood that giving is a spiritual issue, unrelated to meeting needs. Fortunately, during the next dozen years we never had to do another crisis offering.

The truth is that the little country church in the Texas panhandle actually became a very generous church. Although our community consisted of only a few hundred people, our church gave more dollars to the national denomination’s mission program than several mega churches from the big cities. (I don’t mean just percentage, but actual dollar amounts.) We took on a major building and remodeling project and raised five times our annual income in less than two years. According to a statewide survey concerning pastoral salaries, I was the highest paid pastor among small churches in the whole state of Texas. As I said earlier, it was (and still is) a great church.

This kind of generosity should be the normal experience of a church. A church does not have to be wealthy to be successful, but it does need to be generous. Sadly, it is not happening often enough. Stories of churches that are barely hanging on, needing to cut back on ministry and mission opportunities because there is nothing to give, are common.

This is the first of a series of articles on the "Generous Church." I want you to think through this subject with me. I value your comments, so let us know what you think. Next, I plan to discuss the reasons the church is not experiencing generosity and it has nothing to do with the economy.

Halloween and Hypocrisy

2009-10-28T17:34:05-05:00

Sharon and I were sitting in the living room a few nights back when the dogs started barking incessantly. It was the tell tale bark that someone was actually coming to the house, not to be confused with the similar bark they utilize when a leaf blows across the front yard. Within a matter of seconds, the front door burst open and I could tell someone was in the house.

It is not unusual for a number of people to enter our house, without knocking or unannounced. However, this time as I looked up, I saw a large man wearing a dark pinstripe suit. He had broad shoulders, the size you might see on a football field on Sunday afternoon. His face was huge, similar to Sal Bonpensiero from the Sopranos. The intruder was rough looking, like the kind of guy you would expect to meet if you are unable to pay off your gambling debts. Everything about his appearance shouted stay out of his way.

However, my concern about the possible home invader lasted only a second as I quickly realized it was my son Matthew, obviously on his way to a Halloween party of some kind. It was a great costume! I don’t know, but I would not be surprised if he won a prize of some kind. When he left the house to go to the party, he was carrying a baseball bat to lend a little more authenticity to the mobster facade.

Halloween has become a really big deal for many people. Stores display supplies several weeks ahead of time, more and more people are decorating their yards each year, and costumes have become much more elaborate than the simple throwaway plastic mask and paper thin clothing we wore as children. Exotic haunted houses and jubilant parties fill the late evening for many after the kids have completed the trick or treat rounds.

Halloween was always my least favorite holiday. Although I like to eat a small amount, I have never been a true candy connoisseur. It never took very long for me to pick out the candy pieces I would eat when we spread the contents from the sack on the dining table. When I was young, it was a much more innocent time so it was quite common to receive fresh fruit or homemade goodies. Now, if you even think about distributing something that is not professionally sealed at a candy factor, they will haul you downtown for questioning and your name will start appearing on child molester lists.

The reason I did not enjoy Halloween is because I could never find a good costume. The purpose of a costume is to hide your identity. I have been in a wheelchair or walking on crutches all my life. Try to hide that reality with a costume. Regardless of how good the outfit, people would always look at me and say, "Hi Terry!"

We like to wear costumes so we can pretend to be something we are not. Hiding behind a mask opens up numerous possibilities for us. We can do things we would never do normally, but since no one recognizes us, we can be more free.

In ancient Greek theater, the actors wore masks to give them a new identity. They took on the role of the face of the mask. A man might actually become a woman if it was dictated by the mask. The term utilized to describe this actor, wearing a mask and pretending to be someone else, is the same word we use for "hypocrite." Thus, a hypocrite is someone pretending to be someone else.

Halloween is a good time to think about hypocrisy. If you have ever invited friends to attend church with you, then you have probably heard someone say no because "the church is full of hypocrites." We have heard it so long that we are in danger of believing that it is actually true.

I do not believe the church is filled with hypocrites. This criticism usually comes after a Christian is caught red-handed in some type of sinful activity. The implication is that Christians think they are perfect and then when they are exposed as sinners, it means they are also hypocrites. However, I don’t know of any church member who believes that Christians are perfect. The church is filled with sinners, not hypocrites.

That is the beauty of admitting our sinfulness. We do not need to pretend to be perfect. Notice I used the word "pretend," because we cannot be perfect. When we sin, we are not surprised. However, the difference between followers of Jesus and non-followers is that we are forgiven. Perhaps the world sees that as a claim of perfection, but it is not.

Last summer during the baseball season, Texas Ranger Josh Hamilton was exposed for being involved in a drinking party in Arizona. It would not be newsworthy except for the fact he has a well-known drug and alcohol problem. He has also been very outspoken about his faith in Jesus to help him through the personal struggles. When word got out about his fallen evening, people began quickly to label Hamilton a hypocrite. `

However, he had already confessed this sin to God, his wife, his team, and everyone else who was involved with him personally. In all the times he had shared his testimony, he never claimed to be perfect, only a sinner saved by grace. Once everything was understood, it was apparent he is not a hypocrite, but just one who has found forgiveness.

We had many laughs the other night with Matthew and his mobster costume. As much as we enjoyed the costume, we much prefer the real Matthew underneath. We know him and love him for who he truly is, not some pretend character. The next time you are tempted to put on a façade in order to impress someone, try to allow the real you to be seen. You will probably be surprised that they like the real you better than the pretend you.

Killing for Jesus

2009-10-20T17:36:03-05:00

The Civil War provides a fascinating study for military historians. The Union forces of the North were much larger than the Confederate Army. In fact, there were more than one million Union soldiers compared to approximately 200,000 Confederate troops. However, one of the most serious weaknesses of the Union forces was a succession of Generals who were not aggressive enough to attack. They always waited for the enemy to begin the battles.

One of these early Generals was George B. McClellan. President Abraham Lincoln described McClellan as "a superb organizer. He has good points, but he won’t fight." Later, he referred to his army as "the personal bodyguard of General McClellan."

Finally, in disgust, Lincoln wrote to General McClellan and said, "Would you please loan me this army if you don’t intend to use it?"

This picture of the Union army reminds me of the church. The church has a massive army of powerful combatants but is losing ground to the enemy every day. In the past forty years, since Richard Nixon used the phrase, we have turned the "Silent Majority" into a strident minority. In many arenas, the church is considered an irrelevant relic in spite of the fact that many Christians are becoming louder and louder.

I believe the church has a large enough army to share the Gospel to all nations, feed the hungry, protect the unborn, and fulfill all the other tasks God has called us to do. But, there is a problem that is keeping all of these good things from happening.

If you will allow me to continue with the military theme, the problem begins with the fact that we are attempting to fight the wrong battle. It seems that many Christians are engaged in a conflict to protect a culture that no longer exists. Some are of the opinion that it was the culture of our nation’s founding fathers that we must protect. Others, not wanting to return to the 18th century, are fighting for a culture from the middle of the 20th century,the "Father Knows Best" era.

The church is not to be about the business of defending any culture. Christianity can thrive in any environment. In fact, historically the church has probably done much better in the midst of hostile cultures than friendly cultures. While we have spent the past twenty or thirty years fighting for the culture, the center of Christianity appears to be moving to the Southern Hemisphere. We need to stop wasting our resources fighting a war that we have not been called to wage and get about the task of what God has called His church to do.

I also think that many Christians are fighting with the wrong motivation. They are at war in order to maintain their lifestyle. We all want freedom, a strong economy, the opportunity to get a good education, and the security of living in a place that is away from crime and immoral influences. However, as worthy as all of these goals might be, they are not the task of the church. The church has the higher calling of helping people find salvation that is far superior to anything culture can offer.

One of the reasons for the weakness of the church is that we want what everyone else wants. I listened to a friend recently lead a conference and he spoke about the difference in lifestyle between believers and non-believers. There is no difference, was his conclusion.

Our motivation for speaking out against sin is so that sinners can be saved. Our motivation for getting involved in the health care debate is so we can help the poor have their illnesses treated. Our motivation to fix the economy is not so we can have a comfortable home in the suburbs, but so that the poorest of the poor can be lifted up. Our motivation for being on the frontlines of the abortion battle is not to identify those who are going to hell, but to comfort those who are hurting. When sinners are saved, the poor are fed and lifted up, and the hurting are comforted, the attitude of the world toward the church will change radically.

Not only are we fighting the wrong battle with the wrong motivation, but we are also utilizing the wrong method. Our approach to the world can better be described as anger rather than love. We may not think we are angry but just expressing the judgment of God against sin. Sometimes my wife reminds me that I sound angry even though that was not my intent. If we are not careful, we can say good things in a way that communicates dislike.

The world has heard our anger, but they have not felt our love. When they are asked about Christians, they will use terms like angry, hateful, judgmental, and condescending. I grew up loving the church. The place was filled with people who loved me and took care of me. I had no doubts that the people of the church were flawed, but it did not matter because they always loved me.

I was contacted a few days ago on Facebook by an old friend from high school days. It has been at least thirty years since we had contact, but I soon as I saw Steve’s name I was transported back to those great memories of church. We sang in the church choir together and we could drown out the rest of the choir with our great tenor voices. We both stood in the front row of the Billy Graham Crusade choir in Denver. One Sunday night Steve dropped me down the stairs as we heading to the church basement for Training Union class. We spent countless hours together at church.

As a teenager, I knew there was nothing I could do nor any problem I could cause that would keep those church folks from loving me. I was never embarrassed to bring my friends to church because I knew they would be loved as well. Those who most need the church today will not turn to the church for fear of being judged or criticized.

The church is a powerful army with the potential of making a significant impact in the world. However, we are preoccupied with the wrong war, inspired by the wrong motivation, and employing the wrong method so we are in danger of being of little value to those who need the Gospel.

Lest you think I am wandering in a field that has nothing to do with stewardship, remember the Apostle Paul referred to the way he handled the Gospel as a stewardship entrusted to him, and then launches into that great passage about becoming all things to all people so that he might win some (see I Corinthians 9). As stewards, we will be judged on how well we managed our relationships to all those for whom Christ died.

Hating the Sin Because We Love the Sinner

2009-10-11T22:02:11-05:00

Years ago, a young woman who was a member of our church and her boyfriend asked if I would perform their wedding ceremony. I expressed my willingness but advised them that they would first need to meet with me for several counseling sessions. I did not know the young man and the girl attended church very rarely.

They came for counseling and after a couple of sessions, it was apparent that they were not ready for marriage. I have always felt the church was too lax by just performing a wedding ceremony for anyone that comes along, so I decided to take a stand. I advised the couple that I would not perform the ceremony because I was confident the marriage would not last six months. Tact has never been one of my strengths.

They found another preacher and got married anyway. I was wrong! The marriage lasted seven months.

I have always taken marriage very seriously and considered divorce a total failure that should be utilized only in extreme circumstances.

At about the same time, I noticed the adult Sunday School classes had a Bible study lesson on divorce. We were a small church with two adult classes, one for older and one for younger adults. After the lesson, I asked several from each class about the study. To my surprise, the older adults were much more forgiving and accepting of divorce than the younger ones. I quickly surmised that the older adults were more experienced with life, and they had more first-hand encounters with the reality of divorce. It was not so easy for them to be dogmatic.

My lesson continued when a family member went through a painful divorce. It was a difficult time for the whole family. He worked hard to make the marriage work. I remember one evening sitting next to him at a restaurant and telling him it was time to give up, it was not going to work. He replied that he could not give up, and he did not for many more months.

As our family walked through this experience, we learned a great deal. Malachi 2:16 says, "God hates divorce…" In my younger days, I probably had the tendency to claim this meant that God hates divorced people. However, as I matured, I realized God does not hate people; He hates the sin of divorce. Now, after even more years of experience, I realize the reason for God’s hatred of divorce. He hates it because of what it does to the people He loves. Divorce is very painful for everyone involved. Like God, I hate divorce because of the pain it caused my loved ones.

A common phrase I hear from Christians is that they "hate the sin but love the sinner." It sounds good when you first hear it, but then as you see how it is lived out, the words do not seem so appropriate. Our actions often say that we hate the sin and we simply tolerate the sinner.

Take for example the sin of drunkenness. It is easy to hate that sin, but it is very difficult to love the sinner. It means when he is passed out drunk in the street, we must stop and pick him up. If she chooses booze over her children, we must provide for her as well as her children. If he shows up at church on Sunday morning, hung over and disheveled, we must greet him as a friend and offer to sit with him.

Instead of loving the sinner, often we simply tolerate him. We excuse ourselves from helping because "until he wants help we are just wasting our time." We will provide for her children but leave her to fend for herself. He is welcome at church, but probably should sit in the back by himself.

Loving sinners is messy work. If you don’t think so then you need to take another look at Jesus. He loved sinners and He was constantly criticized, condemned, and accused as someone who accepted sin.

When you look at Jesus, kneeling beside the woman who had been caught red-handed in the sin of adultery, you know He hated the sin. The reason He had such hatred is because of what it was doing to everyone. It was ruining this woman’s life, forcing her to expose her shame in the middle of a busy street. He hated the sin because He loved the woman.

It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to truly hate the sin until you have actually loved the sinner. Once we get this process in the proper order, the change will be dramatic. First, we love the sinner. Then, because of what it does to the one we love, we hate the sin. Now, instead of throwing stones at the sinner or shouting angry slogans at the sin, we will be about the business of picking up the sinner and encouraging her to sin no more.

I lost a friend last week who was concerned that I had not shown enough hatred toward a particular sin. We were trying to work out a business arrangement where we could partner together, but he was afraid that someone might notice that I had refused to be angry enough toward a particular sin and it would cause him embarrassment. In spite of the fact that we had identical theology, he was unwilling to risk his reputation.

I guess I should have forwarded more emails or shouted more slogans or joined more organizations. But you know, the amazing thing is that when you are trying to love sinners there really is not enough energy left for campaigning against sin. The truth is that I need to work at loving sinners more then I think my hatred toward the sin will take care of itself.

I Am My Brother's Keeper

2009-10-01T15:36:55-05:00

Genesis 4:1-9

Cain and Abel were the first sons and first siblings. They grew up together, depending upon one another because there were not a lot of other kids in the neighborhood. We are not told if their relationship was close, or if it was marred with sibling rivalry. Because of what happened, it seems that there might have been a great deal of tension between them.

We don’t know how much information they possessed about God. We do know that God was accustomed to spending time with their parents in the Garden, before the great fiasco called sin. It seems likely that they would have passed on this knowledge of God to their two sons. We do know that Cain and Abel possessed a desire to offer sacrifices to God. That is where the problem started.

Able was a shepherd and Cain was a farmer. Both were noble professions. It seems natural and right that a shepherd would offer a lamb, and a farmer would offer grain, as their sacrifices. Although Cain and Abel did not have the advantage of reading the book of Leviticus, both lambs and grain were acceptable offerings to God. There does not seem to be anything about the offering itself that caused a problem.

Therefore, if the gift was acceptable, the problem must have been with the giver. This is one of those places where we wish the Bible provided a little more information. I would like to know why the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard.

The Bible is very clear that God often has respect for specific individuals and we are not always told the reason. When God despaired that He had ever created humans, we are told that Noah found favor with God, but we don’t know anything about him. God frequently demonstrated favor to Joseph, but from what we are told about his childhood, most of us would call him a spoiled brat. Samson was greatly blessed by God, which seems totally inappropriate considering his lifestyle.

The only consolation is to realize that God knows much more than we know about one another. God sees the inner being; He knows the heart. Noah, Joseph, Samson, and all the others proved to be useful to God. In the same way, Abel had been singled out by God.

Cain did not like being second fiddle, since he was the first-born. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell . The "countenance" refers to a person’s face. To say that a person’s countenance fell is a graphic description of what is seen in their face, their expression. Cain was angry and it showed on his face.

He was angry enough that even if God did not know Cain’s heart, He could tell that his countenance had fallen. God offered him the opportunity to explain his anger. Perhaps this is the first example of therapy. Picture Cain, lying on God’s couch, and God says, "Tell me about your anger, why are you so mad?"

Cain left his session with God and went straight to his brother Abel. We don’t know if he went to apologize or to continue to vent his anger. We are not told about Abel’s response. Was he understanding? Supportive? Frightened? What did he say? Whatever it was, it was the wrong thing. The next time they were in the field together, Cain rose up and killed his brother Abel.

The biblical writer would never make a good fiction author. He is too matter-of-fact. As we read the story, we are in hopes that Cain and Abel can work out their problem. Especially after speaking with God and unloading his anger, we would hope that things would be better between them. Then, all of a sudden, he killed his brother.

Human history is filled with murders. They are the source of great fascination. A novel or a television drama seems incomplete without a murder mystery. Even in real life, a dramatic murder always captures our attention. No doubt, you have heard of O.J. Simpson and Scott Peterson. Murder has been a problem since the beginning of time.

When God arrived at the first murder scene, His investigation began with the penetrating question to Cain, the lead suspect. "Where is Abel your brother?"

Like any good suspect on television’s Law and Order, Cain denied his involvement, "I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?"

He quickly discovered the answer to his question. He is definitely his brother’s keeper. We are all keepers of our brother (and sister). This is the lesson that Adam needed to learn as well. In order for the human race to multiply, it was imperative that he assume his position as keeper of the brotherhood.

Authentic stewardship requires that we care for one another. We do not live in isolation. From the beginning when God saw that it was not good for man to be alone, community was imperative. At first, it was a community of two. However, the community quickly multiplied and eventually split into multiple communities.

What Adam learned from the failure of his first two sons is that we are responsible for one another. An isolated hermit is not a good steward because he avoids being his brother’s keeper. In our time, when communication and travel push us toward becoming a global community, this concept is especially important. Because I can communicate with someone on the other side of the planet means that I can also affect their life for good or evil. The ability to travel from the top to the bottom of the earth in a matter of hours means that my neighborhood is very extensive.

Authentic stewardship means that we expand our area of concern far beyond our immediate family and next-door neighbors. We are global citizens. The lifestyle choices I make for myself create a ripple effect that can circle the globe.

Remember when you were young and your mother placed a meal on the table that did not qualify as one of your favorites. After picking through the vegetables and moving the meat around on your plate, you were finished. However, your mother, who was concerned about your diet, knew that you did not eat enough. If you resisted long enough, you might hear a comment like this – "Clean you plate because there are kids in China (or name another third-world country) starving to death!"

I was always smart enough to know that stuffing my face with meatloaf was not going to pacify a hungry child in China. I am also confident that my mother was not trying to solve the world hunger problem. She was simply trying to motivate me to eat.

However, there is a real sense that what I do makes a difference around the world. When I over consume the world’s resources, there is less available for others. Yet, it is also true that when I purchase goods and services, it puts money and resources into the pockets of others. It is a very delicate balance.

Since we have defined authentic stewardship as living in a healthy relationship with God, that means we are interconnected with one another. As we are related to God, we are related to one another. We are family. Families have responsibilities to one another. Healthy families fulfill these responsibilities; unhealthy ones do not.

Stewardship Is Who We Are, Not What We Do

2009-09-23T13:19:58-05:00

In times past, if I were reading a book and the author quoted a long Scripture passage, I frequently skipped over it. It seemed only reasonable because I had read it before and if you tell me what the story is about, I already know it. Then one Sunday, God taught me differently. As he began his sermon, the pastor indicated that he was using a long passage for his text. Since time was short and he had a lot to say, he announced that he was not going to read the entire text.

It struck me that the pastor thought his words were more important for me to hear than God’s Word. It seemed arrogant to think he had more to say on the subject than God. Then I realized that I was doing the same thing when I skipped Bible passages in my reading. I have since changed my ways.

Then reason I relate this experience is because my article this week has a long quote from the Bible. I want you to read the entire text because it is the real point.

Good stewardship begins with who we are, but most of our stewardship teaching has focused on what we do. I plead guilty. I spend a great deal of time showing people how to. . . budget their money, get out of debt, clean up their credit, give to their church. . . the list is endless. In doing so, I have discovered that "how to’s" do not change lives. Stewardship is more concerned with who we are than what we do.

Stewardship is the result of a relationship. A good steward is the person who lives in the proper relationship with the owner. The foundational truth of stewardship is that God owns everything. The Psalmist declared, "The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains" (Psalm 24:1). There is no doubt, in spite of our frequent actions, that we do not own anything. It all belongs to God.

The word "stewardship" means responsible management of someone’s property. When we are stewards, we are not owners; we are managers. One of the clearest pictures of stewardship is found in the parable of the talents told by Jesus in Matthew 25.

For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves, and entrusted his possessions to them. And to one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey. Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents. In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more. But he who received the one talent went away and dug in the ground, and hid his master's money. Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. And the one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, "Master, you entrusted five talents to me; see, I have gained five more talents." His master said to him, "Well done, good and faithful slave; you were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things, enter into the joy of your master." The one also who had received the two talents came up and said, "Master, you entrusted to me two talents; see, I have gained two more talents." His master said to him, "Well done, good and faithful slave; you were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master." And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, "Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed. And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground; see, you have what is yours." But his master answered and said to him, "You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I scattered no seed. 'Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest. 'Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents." For to everyone who has shall more be given, and he shall have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. And cast out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

It is unfortunate that English translations of this story use the word "talents" to describe the possessions entrusted to the servants. The origin or our English word "talent" was derived from the Greek word used by Matthew. The word sounds like our word "talent," but it refers to a denomination of money, not an innate ability. The story is not about three servants who were given the ability to sing or paint, it is about three servants who were entrusted with the master’s money and possessions.

They were stewards because they had the task of managing the master’s stuff. They were stewards because of their relationship with the owner. Two proved to be good stewards, and one proved to be a worthless steward; but they were all stewards.

The difference between the two good stewards and the one worthless steward was their relationship with the master. Everything said about the master implies that he was a generous, trusting man. The word used to describe what he did with his possessions is "entrusted." He handed over all of his possessions to these three men. This appears to be a great act of kindness and an expression of trust. If he did not have confidence in these men, he had other options. We know that he could have put his money in the bank (see Matthew 25:27).

The two servants who were good stewards responded to his trust by seizing the opportunity. They made wise use of the master’s money. They honored the master’s trust and wishes.

The third steward, the bad steward, seemed to have a different relationship with the master. When confronted with his failure, the first words from his mouth were, "Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed. And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. . ." Others knew the master as kind and generous, this man thought the master was hard, unfair, and frightening.

The failure of his relationship resulted in the failure of his stewardship. He was a worthless steward because he did not have a healthy relationship with the master. This is a common biblical theme. Abraham had a faith relationship with God so he could divide his possessions and give the best options to his nephew Lot (see Genesis 13). David was a man who was frequently called, "my servant" by God Himself, which allowed him to give an offering worth billions of dollars (see 2 Chronicles 29:3-4). Zaccheus discovered acceptance from Jesus and he gave away half of his possessions (see Luke 19). The widow with only two coins completely trusted God, so she gave the most exemplary offering ever given (see Mark 12:41-43).

In contrast, the rich ruler loved his money rather than God so he departed Jesus with sadness (see Luke 18:18-24). The Pharisees were known as dishonest lovers of money because they did not receive Jesus (see Luke 16:14-15). The Roman ruler Felix had no respect for the man of God, Paul, and simply used him to try to get money. Good stewardship is a stranger to those who lack a healthy relationship with the owner.

Therefore, authentic stewardship begins with a proper relationship with the owner. This relationship will change us from the inside out. Stewardship is not a set of rules we keep or actions we take, it is an expression of who we are in relationship with God, the owner.

I had a conversation recently with a man who asked what I did. When I responded that I try to help folks live generous lives he replied that with today’s economy this was a bad time for that kind of work. He indicated that he himself had lost a million dollars and he seemed somewhat bitter. It seems to me that if he had a million dollars to lose and is still remaining solvent, then he should have been thankful for the ability to lose that much. If I had more time to talk, I might have suggest that God might have simply taken back some of what He had entrusted to him since he seemed to be doing little with it. Our stewardship says a great deal about who we are and our relationship with the owner.

Disrespect - A New Political Strategy

2009-09-10T15:38:28-05:00

Last week, during the public posing and political posturing of parents being encouraged to keep junior home from school because the President was going to speak, I made a statement that elicited some friendly discussion. I wondered about the loss of respect for the President in this country. The debate continued for a couple of days on my Facebook page, and all of us had the opportunity to make our case clearly. I was satisfied and ready to leave the subject.

My original point was that it seemed disrespectful to refuse to allow our children to listen to the President. I thought about all the Presidents I could remember from my past. I recall that whenever the President spoke, it was always a big deal. Our family would stop down whatever we were doing and listen.

Political debate was never an issue in our house until I got old enough to argue about the legitimacy of the Vietnam War. I can vaguely remember my parents expressing concern about President Kennedy being Catholic and the fear that he would be open to orders from the Vatican. However, that did not happen and reports of his lifestyle indicate that he was not a very good Catholic. We were still taught to respect the man and I can clearly recollect the genuine grief felt by everyone on the day he was killed.

My politically formative years were dominated by the Presidency of Richard Nixon. Those who start their list of worst Presidents with either Bush or Obama have quickly forgotten about Nixon. He left office with the claim, "I am not a crook!" My dislike came from having to say goodbye to many of my high school friends who were marched off to Vietnam under Nixon’s command. Some of them did not come back, giving their lives for a war we never understood. However, if Nixon would have addressed the schools, every one of us would have listened with no thought of boycott.

We see and hear the President speak much more frequently today, so when he makes a speech it is not such a big deal. I will not change my schedule to hear what he has to say since I can listen to it later at a more convenient time. But, keeping children home from school lest they hear the man is nothing but disrespect. This new disrespect goes far beyond boycotting a speech and is seen in the way people talk and the attitudes expressed about the President. What happened to our admiration for our President?

The primary response I received was that people claim they still respect the office of President but they do not respect the office holder. I have tried, but I cannot make any sense out of this argument. This is like an abusive husband saying I respect the institution of marriage but I can’t stand my wife.

My point is that it is impossible to show respect for the office and disrespect for the office holder. For example, let’s say that President Obama comes to my house for a visit. I greet him at the door, wearing some of my best stuff and invite him in. I will even put the dogs outside. He can have the best seat, we might even serve the best meal my wife can cook (she made some great pork chops and rice the other day), and we will speak to him using our best diction. I would do the same thing for any President (even Nixon) and I hope you would as well.

If our conversation included a subject on which we disagreed, we would talk civilly. I would not call him a liar (more on that later). When the evening was complete, I would shake his hand and thank him for honoring us with his presence. If you or your brother-in-law were the President, I would do the exact same thing. The only way that I can show respect for the Office of President is to show respect for the office holder.

As soon as I show disdain for the man then I show that same derision for the office. I may not like the man, I may disagree with everything he says, I may be opposed to everything he supports, I might even be appalled by his lifestyle, but if I am going to show honor to the office of President then I must not treat him disrespectfully. There are appropriate ways to show my true beliefs and feelings without being ill-mannered.

When mom and dad tell Junior that he is not going to school because a bad man is speaking to the students, they are doing much more than making a political statement to their friends at church. I was taught that when the President speaks to sit down and listen. These children are being taught that they only need to listen when it is a President they like and agree with. So much for respecting the office!

At the outset, I indicated that I was finished with this subject. I was until last night and the President spoke to the nation. About halfway through his speech, a congressman shouted out in response to a specific statement made by the President, "You lie!"

All of us, including the President, were taken by surprise. This kind of thing does not happen when the President stands before Congress and speaks to the nation. It is fine to applaud or withhold applause, write an opinion piece for the local paper, speak out on CNN in opposition, face the President in open debate, or work to defeat the President’s plan, but not to call him a liar.

In the same way, it is fine to talk with our children about why we disagree with the President, indoctrinate them in our way of thinking, show them how to be involved in the political process, but not to keep them home from school because the man is speaking. I think we should teach them to respect the man in office and if we do not like that man, show them how to work for change. That is one of the great benefits of being a citizen of this nation.

I have always been a person with strong opinions, which I don’t mind sharing when appropriate. I also have a thick enough skin that I don’t mind when others disagree. For many years I was attracted to political thought and discussion because I enjoyed debate and discussion. However, in the last couple of years I have lost interest in the political process because our debate and discussion has denigrated to little more than angry diatribes.

In a time when information is readily available, we choose to spread rumors and gossip rather than facts and evidence. We want to label people as quickly as possible so we don’t have to take them seriously. I refuse to watch cable news because I don’t have time to waste listening to people scream at each other and at me. From what I can tell, all sides are equally guilty.

This is my final paragraph and I write it fighting back tears of sorrow. The most serious problem with this entire mess is that it is often Christians who are leading the way. It is no wonder the world no longer takes the church seriously when they see church leaders and members filled with anger, calling their opponents names, unwilling to listen to any position but their own, and looking more like hate than love. We need to return to the business of loving the lost instead of castigating the opponent.

The Forty-Eight Dollar Band-aid

2009-09-02T16:18:41-05:00

The healthcare system in this country has some problems that need to be fixed. I don’t think it needs a complete overhaul, but it does require more than just a few tweaks. For example, I visited the doctor recently with an infected sore (it was not a pretty sight). While reading the itemized bill, I noticed they charged me for the band-aid and for putting it on. The strip of plastic cost $48 and the labor for putting it on cost $18.

This was not some type of specialized band-aid developed for rapid healing. This was the same kind of band-aid I was wearing when I went to the doctor, the kind you can buy at the Wal-Mart for $5 a box. The skill of putting it on did not require special medical training. There was not even any topical ointment.

I don’t know why it costs so much to slap on a band-aid. Perhaps they noticed on my insurance card that I had good coverage so they went for it. What my card says is that my co-pay is zero, but it does not reveal that I have $1,000 deductible. In other words, I will be paying for the band-aid.

I do have good health insurance, but it is expensive, even with the high deductible. Not everyone can afford expensive insurance. In fact, 47 million Americans do not have any kind of health insurance and are at the mercy of public medicine and the fortune of good health. Although I would rather not pay $48 for a band-aid, I will survive. It is those folks without any health coverage who need help.

Not only am I aware of the need for a change, the government is also on top of things and a bill has already been introduced in the Senate. It has been the subject of a massive amount of debate, on radio, television, print, and the Internet, as well as conversations at the coffee shop. Several have even asked me specifically for my opinion on the subject (if you have really good insurance, that attitude might be covered as an illness). So, I decided to wade into the health care waters and offer my perspective.

The logical place to start is to read the bill that is being debated in the Senate. Please don’t make me do that. It is more than one thousands pages of legalese and political jargon. Besides, it is not necessary to read the document before forming an opinion. I get bombarded with opinions from folks who I know have not read a thousand pages in their lifetime, much less these pages.

Since I am not willing to pay the price to become an expert on the government plan, I decided to take a look at the comments about the plan. As I began to make a list and put them together in categories, I discovered some interesting things about those who are opposed to health care reform. I have divided the opposition into three categories that can help us better understand their reasoning.

The first classification I have chosen to describe a group of concerns about health care is selfishness. I hesitate using that term because it makes us sound wicked and evil. However, I think it is an accurate term. Listen to the objections that I have placed in this category. Many are opposed to change because they are afraid they will lose benefits or that the benefits they currently enjoy will cost more. Essentially, they reveal an unwillingness to give up anything, even if it will allow 47 million more people to have something. There will never be a plan that will provide adequate coverage for everyone and still allow those presently covered to keep everything they have and not pay anything extra.

Another form of selfishness is being overly concerned that medical services will not be as convenient as they are now. There is an expressed fear that we will have to wait months, or even years to get necessary tests and treatment. Those who fall under this classification often refer to the Canadian or British systems as evidence that public insurance is slow and inadequate. I have a friend who reminds everyone of the time he lived in Canada and his experience with a sluggish system. What he fails to point out is that he lived in Canada twenty years ago. Hopefully they have arrived at some solutions in the meantime.

By the way, I am not sure our current system is any more responsive. The $48 band-aid was not applied by my regular doctor. She was busy and I could not get an appointment to see her for several days. Since I needed to tend to the problem sooner than that, I went to a clinic that does not require appointments. It is kind of like an emergency room without an attached hospital. That is probably one of the reasons they charge so much. I paid for the convenience of getting in sooner.

A second category of those opposed to the proposed health care plan can be labeled skeptical. Their argument is that the government is not capable of running anything efficiently. To give elected officials the power to control such a massive undertaking is only asking for failure according to their reasoning. I admit that I have used this argument over the years and most people simply agree without giving it much thought.

But, is it true? Has the government failed at every undertaking? This is certainly not the forum to discuss government involvement in business, but there are examples of very successfully run government operations. Perhaps the best example is the United States military. Is there a better operated enterprise than our military system?

On the other hand, private enterprise does not always prove to be better at business than the government. How about General Motors or American Airlines? What about American banks for the past few years? My point is that being operated by the government is not automatic failure, nor is being a private enterprise an automatic success.

I am not a big believer in government getting involved in most situations. I have often thought that one of the best reasons for living in Texas is that our legislature only meets once every two years. However, I am not sure the current health care system will change without some pressure from the government. It is doctors and free market health insurance that have put me in a situation where I am paying $48 for a band-aid.

The third category of opponents to changing health care is those who use scare tactics. The primary tactics they use are abortion and euthanasia, threatening danger to those on both ends of the age spectrum. The argument is that health care reform will allow the government to provide funding for abortions and put Uncle Sam in position to deny health care benefits to the aging. Certainly, I am opposed to both of these possibilities, but I am confident we can find a way to change health care without allowing either of these situations.

Having said all of that, let me now try to help us move toward a solution. The reality is that health care is such a huge expense that it requires government and private business participation to work together toward a solution. However, there is another key piece of the puzzle that I think provides the possibility for the best solution – the church.

The church is not a new participant. In fact, the church has been in the health care business from day one. The founder of the church, Jesus, listed one of His primary objectives was to provide healing to the sick. During His three-year ministry, Jesus was best known as a healer. As His church, we are certainly in the healing business.

For the most part, the church has abdicated this responsibility to the government and private industry. In this country, the church has quietly faded out of the health care business. I have considered myself a Texas Baptist for many years. Our denomination has numerous institutions in Texas, but only seven hospitals or health care systems. The youngest of these was founded in 1968, more than forty years ago.

I admit that I do not know what the role of government should be when it comes to health reform. Neither do I claim to have any idea about private industry. However, I do know that the church must be more involved in health care needs, especially of the poor. If the non-profit world took charge of health care, it would probably not cost $48 for a band-aid. If we could provide options for folks then private insurance would have to become more reasonable. If Christians were willing to take care of the poor, then we could allow government to be about its business in other arenas. I am confident that the church could solve this whole problem with a willingness to take ownership of our health care.

As I say that, I have no confidence that it will happen. In order to have the necessary resources, churches would probably need to build state of the art health clinics rather than state of the art child care facilities that are only used a couple of hours a week. Christians would need to drive $20,000 vehicles rather than $50,000 SUV’s. We might need to swap our 2,500 square foot homes for 1,500 square feet. Health care is expensive, and the most I have heard anyone say in the current debate is that they might be willing to pay a little extra in taxes. To be honest, a little extra in taxes will not be enough.

Lest you think you are on the safe side of this issue, let me remind you that sixty percent of bankruptcies in 2007 were primarily the result of medical bills. The real scary part is the seventy-five percent of these families had health insurance. You and I might be just one major illness away from financial collapse. How wonderful would it be if families found, not just affordable health care from the church, but also financial salvation.

Listen to the words of Jesus as He began His ministry and realize how appropriate they are still today:

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovery of sight to the blind, To set free those who are downtrodden, To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord."
(Luke 4:18-19)

Thirty-five Down and Thirty-five to Go

2009-08-26T16:51:09-05:00

Thirty-five years ago, my father officiated at our wedding ceremony in the sanctuary of First Southern Baptist Church in Northglenn Colorado. I remember two things about his involvement that day. As you would expect in the moments before a wedding ceremony begins, there was a substantial cloud of tension. Just before he led the groomsmen in the procession to the front of the auditorium, he turned to me and said, "This is your final chance to back out." I think he was trying to tap the relief valve and reduce some of the tension in the room. I have used that same stupid joke several times myself to coax a chuckle from a groom who was overly stressed.

The other memorable part of my father’s participation has to do with the Unity Candle we lit at the conclusion of the ceremony. The bride and groom take two candles and light a third candle in the center, symbolizing how the two now have become one. However, Sharon and I forgot to extinguish the two original candles. For years, my father would comment that the two became three. Well, the two did become three a few years later, and then four, and five, and now all the way to eight.

Many significant events have transpired during the past thirty-five years. We have listed ten different addresses, located in three states, as our home address. We have owned ten vehicles, if my memory is correct, not counting the cars the boys bought while they were still living at home. We have owned more pets than I care to remember, including fish, hamsters, guinea pigs, birds, cats, and more dogs than we should have. Among the pets were many that were the unintentional kind that boys would expect to bring home, like tarantulas, lizards, snakes, and turtles.

When we took the wedding vows, Sharon assented to take me for better or for worse. I am sure that in the past thirty-five years, she has received the worst of me and I hope some of the best I have to offer. We have also endured through the sickness and health thing as well. According to the vows, we have done the poor thing and it is still possible we will experience the riches, although I am not holding my breath.

These thoughts were triggered in my thinking by an article I read that indicated young people are taking the plunge into marriage at a much older age than in the past. Depending on the survey you read, it seems that men are waiting until nearly twenty-eight for marriage, and women until age twenty-five.

Sociologists explain that the delay in marriage is the result of several factors. Many are waiting until they finish their education, some delaying the marriage until all of the student loans have been repaid. Others are holding out until they are established in a career. They want to own a house and a nice car before they begin building a family. Some have suggested that young people arrive at maturity at a much older age than in the past. This is probably because they have been pampered by over indulgent parents.

Regardless of the reason given, everyone seems to think that being older on your wedding day is a good thing, an improvement over the way things were done in the past. While I am sure there are some advantages to postponing marriage, I am not sure it always the best thing. In fact, delaying the commitment of our lives to another person might be a big loss.

Make note that I defined marriage as committing our life to another person. I don’t mean marriage that is defined as changing our name or putting all of our stuff together. To me, marriage is all about commitment. You can have marriage without commitment, or even with a weak commitment, but I doubt if it will survive thirty-five years.

I was twenty-three years old when Sharon and I married. When you drag out the photo albums, it is hard to believe I was even that old – I looked like a fourteen-year-old child. Even though I was young, I knew that marriage was all about commitment. On that summer afternoon in Northglenn Colorado, Sharon and I gave ourselves completely to one another. In the years since, neither of us have ever even considered separation or divorce as an option. We have had disagreements, arguments, differing opinions, and stubborn stalemates, but both of us knew we would find the solution. We never allowed ourselves to have any other option.

I think our commitment has been stronger because I worked the first year so she could finish college and she worked several years so I could get an advanced degree. Our marriage is stronger because we learned to live with essentially no money, scraping to get the basic necessities. Compensating for one another during times of serious illness has been another strengthening factor. We had to build a strong marriage because it was our only means of survival.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I am concerned if young people wait until they have every need met and every eventuality properly planned before they allow another person into their life. It might cause them to miss the experiences that produce thirty-five year marriages.

Sharon and I were talking the other night and she was not sure we would live long enough to have another thirty-five years. I don’t know if we will either, but we’re going for it!