Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.
Luke 6:38 (NIV)
Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
God loves it when people give to him. So much, he gives more back. So God is a good investment. At least, that's the stance of the Beaver Church of Christ. They've started a series on "Stewardship" on Wednesday nights. The only reason I had to go was that I got off work early enough for it, and as part of the conditions for me living at home with my parents, I have to attend church when I'm not working.
I, of course, feel that I must object vehemently to their perspective on charity and giving. Their stance is that one should give before one has taken any for oneself, and that generosity should always be returned with greater literal wealth. This can be concluded from these two scriptures used in the "lesson" (if spreading falsities can qualify as such), even if one was not present for the actual lesson.
The preacher said, "this might test your faith somewhat." Well DUH! I should think so. It makes no fiscal sense, and it can be downright dangerous.
The great shock of the night came just a few minutes later, however. After the "lesson," my father brought the "message" for the night. He talked about how his faith had been challenged some on this issue. It seems that many years ago, when he was attempting to build a farm, he had been very generous with his donations to the Forgan Church of Christ. Much more so than the typical 10%. I believe he said it ranged from 30-40% gross, pre-tax income.
Now, the Church of Christ in Forgan is a large, dieing congregation of elderly ladies and barely enough men to even have a "church leadership." They have no local programs, and don't contribute to many charities at all. Who can blame them, really? Most of them are the wives of dead farmers, with barely any retirement at all. It's sad, but it's true.
Not only that, but my dad literally went bankrupt trying to farm. Perhaps if he had just taken the money, re-invested what he needed into the farm, and saved the rest, he could have made the farm work. Or, at the very least, have had a seed fund for later in life. Or maybe he'd have just had enough to pay off the debt and avoided bankruptcy.
Of course, my dad had to spin this to fit his belief in the supernatural. He said he had many wonderful things come into his life as a result of getting out of farming. He got to spend more time with his sons. He was able to be involved with the Boy Scouts. He was able to go to foreign countries to do mission work. Etc. Wonderful though these things are, it doesn't change the fact that it's a post-hoc analysis (which are typically regarded as only a way form a hypothesis, not to create a firm theory), and it doesn't change the fact that these are not quantifiable, intrinsically valuable things, as these two scriptures would imply. And it also doesn't change the fact that these sort of things might have happened anyway, had the farm become successful, and he could have had a hired hand for breaks.
On the way home, I had to bite my tongue. I wanted to ask how he could be so stupid. But, the thing is, I know how. I've been there. Faith is a powerful force. Terrifyingly so. Otherwise intelligent, lucid people can force themselves to see the world in a way completely contrary to reality. That's why I fight it. Nothing else can make people so blind.
I had to tone down my response somewhat. Instead of negatively arguing against his point, I decided to positively argue for a secularist view on charity. I noted that Lance Armstrong, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett are all very charitable individuals. They all also happen to be atheists. And they all also happen to have invested their time and money wisely to make sure they had their own lives safe and secure before they donated to charity.
This is the major difference between Christians and secular humanists when it comes to charity. Christians say "give it all to God" (whether God be a homeless man, Focus on the Family, or Kent Hovind's creationist museum effort, before he got busted). They say "hold none back for yourself." Secularists say, "give to a worthy cause" (whether that be cancer research, habitat for humanity, etc., but certainly not Focus on the Family). They say, "make sure you don't become in need of charity yourself before you decide to give to others."
I have nothing more to say for now. I have to get some sleep before work. But, do feel free to comment.
5 comments:
Religion being a bad investment aside, it doesn't make sense for him to have been donating when he was trying to earn more money. If he had invested that 30-40% in farming or anywhere else really, then perhaps he would have had far more to give the church later on. I would like to donate to some organizations, but what would they do with my measly little sums of money? It makes more sense to use your money to make more money, and then donate when you're doing pretty well. If I started donating right now I would never get anywhere.
I was reading about Warren Buffett the other day, and apparently he really held off on donating to charity until recently because he could make so much more the longer he kept his money. So now he can give them something like 30 billion.. yeah, I think he knows what he's doing.
Lance is not an athiest. He just has mixed feelings about organized religion.
Faith is a powerful force indeed. There is another thing that is just as powerful, and destructive, as faith. Dogma! In fact faith is a special kind of dogma. Unfortunately, i have known people who are atheists, but dogmatic. Trust me they're not any easier to deal with then your average religious person. People tend to get too emotionally attached to somethings, and no amount of reason and logic will make them sway. That's why critical thinking is so important. We must learn to surrender in the face of a valid argument, even if that means being unhappy with the result.
To The Beholder:
Thanks for the comment. I think you may have made my point more succinctly than I did! Though, I think it's important to note that religion is what drove his decision to be so generous; not a personal pleasure in altruism. He actually said he thought it would make him rich.
The point about Warren Buffett is also good... that was actually the form of charitable donation I was encouraging on the way home.
To Anonymous:
I really appreciate your comments. I do not know whether your are atheistic or theistic (or agnostic), but I'm inclined to think you are theistic. Nonetheless, I'm very pleased that you choose to point out potentially incorrect information I may post. However, I'll have to disagree about Lance. At the very least, he seems philosophically agnostic, but atheist in practice. I'll drop a few quotes from him here:
"I asked myself what I believed. I had never prayed a lot. I hoped hard, I wished hard, but I didn’t pray. I had developed a certain distrust of organized religion growing up, but I felt I had the capacity to be a spiritual person, and to hold some fervent beliefs. Quite simply, I believed I had a responsibility to be a good person, and that meant fair, honest, hardworking, and honorable." -- From his book, "It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life."
Here he would seem to say, "To who or what do I pray?" Prayer is not organized religion, so it's not because of his distrust in OR that he chooses not to pray.
In an interview with TIME, Armstrong said: "I don’t have anything against organized religion per se. We all need something in our lives. I personally just have not accepted that belief. But I’m one of the few." He does seem somewhat ambivalent towards OR here. Still, it sounds more like something an atheist or agnostic would say than a spiritual theist.
And finally,
ET Magazine quoted Armstrong saying “If there was a god, I’d still have both nuts.”
This quote seems almost too good to be true, so I'm considering it potentially apocryphal. But I'm going to take a stand, and say cancer is not good! In fact, it's bad.
Also, as a note, it's actually spelled "atheist." In this case, "I before E" is wrong. No idea why, though.
To The Thinking Man:
I almost agree! Dogma is worse than faith alone. Faith alone means one is naive and gullible, believing in things like fairies and unicorns without reason. Dogma, however, turns faith dark. Dogma teaches the faithful to do things like hate homosexuals, consider all atheists immoral fools, or spend ones scarce and important money injudiciously.Dogma is taking the relatively harmless false beliefs of one, and spreading them among many, greatly increasing their potency.
Before going further, I should state that I consider critical thinking the opposite of faith. What is the absence of critical thinking? Blind belief or disbelief. Blind belief is faith. Blind disbelief is (in my mind) nihilism. Neither are good, and neither are the product of critical thinking.
But, without faith, dogma is impotent. False beliefs have no way to spread if a rational individual can hear a false belief, and determine its validity or invalidity, like a critical thinker would. Without faith, dogma becomes a passionately held view of reality. And one should be passionate about what one sees in reality! Nothing matters more than to protect the ability of society to comprehend reality.
Nonetheless, I will agree that there are dogmatic atheists. I haven't ran into any myself, but it may be that I have avoided their social circles, or whatever. Most have been intelligent, thoughtful, and highly honest individuals. A few have been total ditzes, others mildly malicious. None of them have been dogmatic. Some have been quite passionate, and to those who disagree, this may be considered dogmatic. Nonetheless, I admire them for championing the standard of observation and critical thinking.
"Though, I think it's important to note that religion is what drove his decision to be so generous; not a personal pleasure in altruism. He actually said he thought it would make him rich."
Ah, good point. It's really just like throwing pennies in a wishing well, then..
Post a Comment