One subject that’s always good for a little controversy is a discussion of whether or not a pastor should have access to congregational giving records. Years ago I was a proud card carrying member of the “I-don’t-know-who-gives-what” tribe. But I changed my mind after being challenged and realizing that . . .
- I had a hard time explaining why a pastor is any different from other ministry leaders (think missionaries, parachurch ministries, Christian media, seminaries, and the like).
- I had a hard time explaining why capital campaigns are different. No one seems to object to the pastor knowing about large commitments and gifts to a building project. So how is this different than gifts to the general fund?
- I found nothing in the scriptures supporting my viewpoint. Frankly, all the verses I used to support staying in the dark could just as well be applied to missionaries or anyone leading any ministry - even the church treasurer – something that no one I know of advocates. The idea that a local church pastor is somehow different is simply not Biblical.
- Even though I took pride in not knowing, I still made subconscious assumptions. I couldn’t help it. It’s human nature. But once I had the facts in hand, I was amazed at how inaccurate most of my assumptions were.
A while back, I was discussing this with a group of pastors at a gathering I was hosting. The very next day I had an experience that showed once again why having the facts is always better than making assumptions – and how having the facts radically changes (and should change) the way we deal with individuals.
Our church was being picketed by the carpenters’ union. Their huge “Labor Dispute – SHAME ON NORTH COAST CHURCH” sign showed up during the week and during our worship services in an attempt to “motivate” us into firing a non-union subcontractor we’d hired to work on our new campus construction.
After the first weekend of picketing, we received an email from a concerned parishioner. He informed us that after prayer and reflection his family would no longer be giving their “first fruits” to our ministry. He said he would still give the Lord what was His, but it just wouldn’t be to North Coast – at least not until the issue with the union was resolved.
He then went on to say that though he didn’t particularly care for the methods the union was using, he felt our church had a moral obligation to support companies that provide a living wage in order to show the community that we care about people and not just the bottom line. He concluded by thanking us for the way our ministry and teaching had blessed his family and promised that his entire family would continue to pray for us as we worked to resolve the issue.
_____________
If you were in my shoes, how would you respond?
Not just what would you say or write; but how would you feel?
Based on content and tone, it’s clear that the writer is a union member, but he’s also a strong Christian, fully committed to the church, praying for it regularly, and supporting it with his “first fruits.” My bet is that you’d wonder if other families like his were thinking the same thing – and if they were; what they might do in response.
_____________
Here’s how I responded.
I asked my assistant to get me some facts. Who was this gentleman? What was his attendance pattern, involvement in our small group ministry, AND his giving record?
Here’s what I found out.
He’d attended our church for a couple of years. He’d never been involved in a small group. His “first fruits” giving the previous year was all of $500. Year-to-date, it was zero.
_____________
Now come on. Let’s admit it. That changes things a bit, doesn’t it?
Frankly, for me, the facts changed everything. Rather than crafting a response appropriate for a strong Christian, highly committed to our church, I needed to put together a response designed for a big hat, no cattle Christian making an empty threat about cutting back his non-existent financial support. It needed to be addressed to someone who talked a good game, but whose deepest loyalty ran far more with the union movement than his local church.
Once I had the facts in hand, I realized the best way to respond would read something like this:
Dear _________
Thank you for sharing your concerns about resolving the issue with the protestors. I fully understand in light of your union loyalties why you might be hesitant to give God’s “first fruits” to a church that hires non-union workers.
Perhaps that’s a sign that we are not the best church for you or your family at this time; especially since we’re likely to continue to use our donated funds to hire the lowest qualified bidder on this and other projects in the future.
In light of your concerns, I have asked our finance department to return to you all the “first fruits” gifts you have given to our church so far this year so that you can forward them on to a ministry you can fully support. Unfortunately, we couldn’t find a record of any such gifts.
Rest assured, if we find any, we will send them to you posthaste. In the meantime, may God guide you and your family as you search for a church worthy of your full support.
Sincerely,
Pastor Larry Osborne
_____________
Now, did I really send it?
That’s between him, me, and the Lord.
In the meantime, what would you have done once you knew the facts? And how might that differ from what you would have done with nothing but some assumptions based on his email?
Tim Stevens and Tony Morgan talk about this in their book Simply Strategic Stuff. A concern they brought up is that when an engaged member begins to disengage, the first thing they change is their tithing habits. It would be important to know that so the shepherds could engage the problem before time lapses. It would be important to know not necessarily the amount of tithe but to be aware if there was a sudden stop in giving.
It’s a hard call. People have no problem with accountability until you talk about money. Sadly, an access way to the heart is too often through the wallet.
That being said, I don’t know what my congregation is giving. It’s a hard sell unless the leadership is unified and on board with it. I do love how you handled it though.
I came to a similar revelation as well. When Jesus saw the relatively insignificant gift of a widow woman, He stopped and praised her heart. She “as far as Jesus was concerned” had given the greatest gift. The truth I realized was that financial giving is one of the greatest indicators of a persons faith in God.
The objections I received concerning knowing a members giving habits were often motivated by guilt over not truly trusting God.
Imagine my surprise, then, when I discovered that some key leaders who were giving the church a fit, didn’t give a dime to support the work of the church.
We changed the leaders that didn’t change.
Reading this makes me feel very uncomfortable and is exactly why I don’t like, or support, organized religion. How in the world do you know that the “union member” wasn’t unemployed and had just enough money to feed his family and was upset because maybe he could have work if a union shop had been hired? (I am very much against unions also, but I can see people’s side of things.)
Is it a pastor’s job to analyze how much someone gives and determine their situation from an assumption based on a number in a log book? You don’t know people’s situations.
A couple of quick responses – I’m not “against” unions. And I did know the situation and he had a steady job. The whole reason to know financial facts is to avoid assumptions.
I appreciate that you “knew” the situation, in this instance. I just feel very uncomfortable when I hear a religious leader saying that they desired a parishioner go someplace else, because their giving level didn’t warrant an operational church opinion. Whether you sent the letter or not, you chose to put that attitude out here to the whole world. It’s a big place out here.
For me, Matthew 25:31-45 comes to mind in the context of the way that the least are treated, so will you be.
As an example, I am not a churchgoer. I used to be the strictest of churchgoers and would be right next to you examining the giving books to determine the level of faith each person had. I could be the best judge of other people {sarcasm}, but then I started to change myself and others started judging my actions and they were wrong. It started to dawn on me that their perception of me was based on the information they believed they had access to in order to avoid assumptions. I shifted my entire viewpoint of churchgoing and what Jesus really expects of his followers.
I do go to church on occasion, with my family, and we visit different churches. Each time we go, we donate a substantial amount of money to that church. It’s not on the books or even known where it came from and the amount is not tied to the amount of faith that we have, it’s tied to the ability to help that church take care of its members and charitable works.
Our primary tithing activity is charitable donations to those who really need it.
So, when I read your post, I just remember many years of judging others from a position of influence in the church and the realization that judging is often wrong and misplaced. I don’t believe that Christ has given you permission to judge others, you are to be a shepherd of the flock, not the executioner. What if your words and your publicity of the event on the Internet had such an effect on the least of your brothers that their faith was affected, due to your actions and response to their input? Have you displayed leadership through humility? Is faith really tied to the amount of money that someone gives to your church? Are you sure that they are not tithing through another charitable avenue? Can your judgments hold up when you are called to answer?
It seems to me that you are jumping to some conclusions that are rather inaccurate. I did not say that I judge anyone’s spirituality by their giving to our church. In fact, if you read the post again you will realize that my response was to his statements that he and his family would “no longer” be giving to our church when in reality they had not given a dime during the year.
In other words, he was making a “threat” in the hopes that we would hire only union workers on the job (which by the way, most of the subs on the construction site were). Only by knowing that he was blowing smoke was I able to give a response appropriate to someone who claimed to be doing one thing while actually doing another.
This is a well written story. Thank you.
Like J.D. I feel uncomfortable with the idea of the senior pastor looking into giving. Part of my concern is that it is an anonymous/impersonal way of checking on someone. In contrast, pastors can’t check on someone’s prayer life by accessing the data base. Nor can the computer or the administrator tell us how loving or patient or knowledgeable a person is. All of those important questions require a conversation or a relationship
Secondly, I don’t understand why the response to the parishoner should vary depending on their level of giving. North Coast was being a good steward of their money. They were not violating any biblical command. If the church was confident of their course of action why should the response to a large giver be any different than the response to a small or non giver? Would North Coast have reconsidered their choice of contractors if a bigger giver had e-mailed?
Lastly, I think Tony’s example of the ‘widow woman’ cuts the other direction. If the widow woman sent and e-mail (or a scroll) how would her comments be taken when it was discovered she didn’t attend small group and had only given 2 pennies this year?
Thank you for a stimulating discussion.
Again, I think the main point is missed. The parishioner in question claimed to be a strong financial supporter of the church. He threatened to withhold his tithes if we didn’t do as he wished. Knowing his giving record exposed him as a liar (rather Ananias like if you will). Without that knowledge, his false pretenses would not have been exposed – and the response would not have spoken to the real issue of his hypocritical pretending.
Being a Canadian it is really hard to think this way. We are very separated from the funding of the church. I have never even known what my wife gives to the church let alone someone else. Your blog has given me a lot to think about. Because I am in a smaller church I think that there are other indicators that I look at to gage my response to people and their criticism. do I always get it right no. But I think that overall we may end up in the same place. The direction that God is calling us in is more important than saving anyone from leaving. I do believe in blessed subtraction. I do ask if a person is a regular giver and giving at the level that we think they are capable of. We expect all leaders to be tithers or moving toward that goal within a year.
If we were to grow to a 1000 I may have to change my views and maybe I need to change the views now so that we can grow to a 1000.
Finances are only a part of discipleship. But they are important enough that I’d rather have facts than make assumptions; especially when someone boasts of a certain level of financial commitment. What happened to Ananias makes me believe it’s a big deal to pretend in this area.
It may be a big deal to not pretend (or quite frankly, lie) in this area, but I’m not sure that the story of Ananias examples that pastors should look up what people give. The story does not say that Peter had foreknowledge of the total sale of Ananias’ property. So, perhaps God revealed it to Peter for Himself.
And your argument that keeping tabs on what people give allows you to not make assumptions seems pretty weak to me. So, instead of just not making assumptions, you look up what people give so you can make accurate judgments?! How about you just not make assumptions in the first place? Problem solved.
From what I see in Scripture, giving (and the heart behind it) is something very personal between God and the giver. For example, 2 Corinthians 9:7, or the story of the widow (she gave a small amount, but Jesus saw her HEART – something you can’t see by looking at a spreadsheet – and was pleased) or even Ananias, as God (not Peter) killed him on the spot! How is it that you feel you have the authority to put yourself in the middle of such a personal decision? People in your church may end up giving out of compulsion because they know the pastor is looking. Being a spiritual authority places you in a position of great influence in people’s lives, whether that’s fair or not and you need to be careful not to play a role that wasn’t intended for you!
Your church was doing nothing wrong by making the decision that it made, and I agree with your written response in the first two paragraphs. I wish you had left it there. I agree, the man was making himself to appear as something he wasn’t, but you should have taken the higher road and responded accordingly. You weren’t going to change your actions (of hiring non-union) no matter what the man gave (right?) so why did you have to make it so personal and stinging?
You wrote: “Rather than crafting a response appropriate for a strong Christian, highly committed to our church…” and that showed me two things – you were judging the depth of his Christianity (maybe this was a sore spot for him and he was struggling to act maturely) and it mattered to you how financially (and otherwise) committed he was to your church. This could certainly cause people in your church to either leave, or become overly committed in more than one way out of fear since they know the pastor is watching. Seems like a lose-lose situation to me.
I’m afraid I have to disagree with you in regards to what scripture says and teaches. While you are partially correct when you claim that giving is supposed to be a private matter between God and man (2 Corinthians 9:7 does say that we are to give as led of the Lord and not under compulsion), it’s a huge and unwarranted leap of logic to assume that this also means that God wants our spiritual leaders to be kept in the dark as to what we give or don’t give.
In fact, at the beginning of this same section of scripture the Apostle Paul tells the Corinthians that he will judge the sincerity of their love by the level of their gifts (1 Corinthians 8:8). That’s a pretty strange thing to say if he regarded giving as a private matter and an inaccurate measure of spiritual commitment.
And don’t forget that later on in the same letter (I Corinthians 16) he commands everyone to give systematically based upon their income level – not based upon some ethereal sense of “how God leads me.”
Frankly, this idea that our financial stewardship is supposed to be kept private between God and us alone is a common but erroneous assumption made by many American Christians – and it’s based upon our American cultural values far more than scripture.
One of the greatest current American values is the so-called “right to privacy.” It’s so ingrained that our courts now read it into the constitution. But the scriptures know no such right. In fact, the early church fathers would have regarded our notions of spiritual privacy and keeping our spiritual leaders in the dark as rather strange. It’s far more in line with writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson than Ignatius of Antioch.
Just look at the case of Barnabas in the book of Acts. His generosity was well known. Everyone called him by his nickname, Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement) because they all knew that he had sold a field to give the proceeds to the poor.
As for the story of Ananias and Sapphira, there is no indication that there was something wrong (or even unusual) with the Apostles and church leaders knowing what they gave. What stands out as unusual and evil is their lying in order to make it look as if they were giving more than they actually gave (an ironically similar situation to the angry letter in my original story).
I’d also point out that the three main verses we American Christians tend to use to support keeping spiritual leaders in the dark about our financial contributions are taken completely out of context – and then interpreted through the cultural lens of privacy as a sacred right.
1 Corinthians 8-9 gives instructions about deciding how much to give when presented with a special offering for those in need. It says nothing about our responsibility to support our spiritual leaders or a local ministry. And it also says absolutely nothing about keeping the amount we decide upon secret from our spiritual leaders.
James 2 addresses the sin of favoritism, especially the evil of treating the rich better than the poor. But once again, it says absolutely nothing about keeping spiritual leaders in the dark as to who gives what.
Matthew 6 points out the hypocrisy of giving, praying, and fasting to impress others. The context of the entire chapter makes it clear that Jesus is not admonishing us to keep our spiritual leaders in the dark as to when (or if) we give, pray or fast. He himself did all those things publically. But what is abundantly clear is that if we give, pray or fast in order to receive the praise of men, we will get exactly what we aim for – the praise of men – and nothing else.
Bottom line: If my accountant, the church treasurer, the missionaries I support, the president of the seminary I attended, and every other ministry leader can rightfully know what I give to support their ministry, there’s no good reason why my pastor, church elders or anyone else with spiritual leadership and authority in my life should be kept in the dark.
While we can come up with all kinds of reasons to rationalize secret giving (believe me, I’ve heard them all and once bought them all), the one thing we can’t come up with are clear scriptures to support such nonsense. Which, ultimately, is why I changed from being a card-carrying member of the “I’ll-never-know-anything-about-anyone’s-giving” to an advocate of genuine glass-house living and giving.
But oh well, that’s one man’s opinion. Now it’s your job to see how well all this aligns with scripture (Acts 17:11).
Love your response and the teaching… you are absolutely right, Tithing is in direct relationship to faith and it is the responsibility of the pastor to keep a finger on the pulse of the church and its leaders.
I am a regular attendee to north coast church and i believe the lord is doing amazing things here. Somewhere in all these Blogs i think it has been forgotten that **all** people are god children. I am a licensed non union general contractor and it could have just as easily been me vying for this work. As members of gods church their should never be a preference in the church one way or another who should be able to do the work as long as it is consistent with the local laws. and to suggest a pastor should pay more for services, when there is some one just as qualified coming in at a better price is frankly bad business. And as member of this church i expect my pastor to be a good steward of the lord finances.
If all sub on this project were union should i have sent a email to my pastor and said i am pulling my financial support of gods work because they wont hire non union professionals.
It just really shouldn’t matter
(union or non union is not in god plan at all just people )
The blessing behind this whole things is a lot of people were put to work during a time where construction is sparse.
This being i will quote what my pastor has shown me and has proven to be sound advice from the bible
when making decision
1. find out the facts
2. seek wise council
3. make a decision
4. Adjust if needed
Reading his first comments i believe he put this into practice.
God bless all who view this and god bless you pastor Larry and continue to stay humble in his services.
Really appreciate this article. I had a secretary who was opposed to one man being on the board. For two years I didn’t know why she grumbled about him, and finally she admitted it was because he didn’t tithe. Well, that was a question asked of him during the selection process and he lied. Now do we boot him off for lying or keep him on because we’re not supposed to know what he gave?
Would you leave the church if someone challenged you about how much you prayed, how much you share your faith? No, but many walk out if challenged about their giving.
How do you record cash tithing?
We only record it if it is given along with a name. Otherwise it is lumped in as CASH.
That’s interesting. I am not going to debate private or public giving, BUT does anonymous tithing not count? If one does not attach a name does that mean the tithe has not been given?
Of course it does. But there is actually very little “cash” that we receive – perhaps due to the desire for a tax deduction and the fact that few people under 40 carry cash with them these days.
The main point of the blog is that church leaders should know giving as a part of a matrix that reveals how members are doing spiritually. I agree with that.
But how I would respond to the immature brother threatening to withdraw his money wouldn’t be impacted by how much he gave. I would instead be concerned with his carnal focus on control and threatening to get his way. (which attendance and giving might help reveal.)
I would want to sit down and hear his story. Then help him understand that as a church we aren’t a “union” or “non-union” church. And part of being a member is supporting the leadership even if you don’t agree (not over core doctrine of course.) And invite him to repent and rejoin in love.
Larry I also just realized you misrepresented my email saying I claimed to be a “strong financial” supporter of the church threatening to withhold tithes if the church didn’t do what I wanted.
a. I never claimed to be a strong financial supporter as the link to the email shows.
b. I didn’t demand anything.
Are you going to allow my posts to your blog and take responsibility?
I would bet real $$$$ you won’t.
I have to say that finding this blog entry shocked me. I happened upon it just by chance as I was perusing North Coast Churches website as I was interested in seeing how the church was growing as a former member. I wish I had found it earlier soon after the original posting but perhaps God felt it wasn’t the time.
I am the sender of the original email which Pastor Larry refers to. I am the “big hat no cattle Christian” that apparently Larry feels “makes empty threats”, “talks a good game” and “is more loyal to his union than his church”.
First of all, I find it very interesting that Larry’s first reaction to my email was to qualify the sender and “wonder if other families like his were thinking the same thing – and if they were; what they might do in response”
It wasn’t to examine the content of my email for merit and consider the moral, biblical and ethical issues I addressed but rather to immediately determine how much money the church would be losing and whether or not other families might follow suit.
Here is the original email I sent:
http://members.cox.net/jimo/north%20coast/Original%20Email%20To%20North%20Coast.pdf
Then once he felt he determined the “facts” of my apparently meager contributions, he felt he could immediately judge me as not being a strong Christian, or committed to the church! Remember, this judgement was based solely on the amount of money he thought I had given. Not from talking to me, corresponding with me, or any other face to face or personal communication.
What Larry did not realize is that in trying to “not make sub-concious assumptions” by supposedly getting the “facts”, he made many other false assumptions.
Lets look at a few of them:
Larry felt that $500 was not enough money for my concerns to merit any serious consideration. Well, what Larry apparently doesn’t realize is that sometimes couples don’t always use the same checkbook when they give to the church. Sometimes one spouse writes the check, sometimes the other…but in our case it definitely comes from the same pot of money! Had Larry been more thorough in determining his “facts” he would have found that although “only” $500 had been given under my name, an additional $2550 had been given under my wife’s name for a total of $3050 in 2008.
Here’s proof:
http://members.cox.net/jimo/north%20coast/2008%20Giving.pdf
Had Larry known this I wonder if it would have been enough for me to move up his Christian strength meter? From the JV Christian to the Varsity Christian team? Regular Christian to the Gold Club Christian member? If not, then how much money would it have taken for him to “craft a response appropriate for a strong Christian, highly committed to our church”, instead of to the “big hat, no cattle” Christian he judged me to be? What dollar amount would be sufficient to merit ANY consideration? I’m sure Larry’s parishioners would love to know! Why do I need to achieve a certain threshold of giving to receive a response based on the merits of what I am trying to address?
It might also surprise Larry that instead of having given $0 by March 2009, at the time of his detective work, we had actually given $900 up to that point. This also in my wife’s name.
Here’s proof:
http://members.cox.net/jimo/north%20coast/2009%20Giving.pdf
The truth is that my wife and I have given and continue to give to many Christian charities including our church. However, up until this point, how much we give, when we give and to whom we give has never been used to judge and qualify our faith! That year we also gave over $1000 cash directly to families from NCC church whom we knew needed help. This would not show up in his spreadsheet and until this point had been a secret between us and those families. The point being, how can he judge my Christian faith based solely on numbers on a spreadsheet, calling me a liar, hypocrite, Ananias, big hat no cattle Christian?
Does Larry not realize that using hurtful language like this based on ASSUMPTIONS is very hurtful and is the very reason people are afraid of the Christian church? My wife is a sweet spirited Godly woman and she was DEVASTATED by his words and was in tears after she read it. I was hurt as well but frankly more angry about it. The Lord has once again reminded me that we are all human and subject to his grace, but boy it was hard to stomach!
What was really lost in this whole issue was the original premise that I was trying to convey in my email. That Churches should be leaders and set good examples in their community by caring more about people than bottom line dollars. It was not a Union issue but a people issue…a Christian issue! What message does it send to the community if the local church uses contractors that don’t pay their employees a living wage? North Coast Church already sets a great example by their “church has left the building” community outreach. It’s a wonderful program in which my family had participated on several occasions: building womans shelters, cleaning downtown Vista, and helping the homeless.
Hiring workers for a proper wage would seem to be a natural extension of outreach and leadership in the community.
At the end of Larry’s blog post he shares his imaginary letter to the “big hat, no cattle” Christian that conveys his wish for me to find another church home and use my donated funds elsewhere. “Whats the loss, he didn’t give us anything(money) anyways”, right Larry?
This is perhaps the part of his post that saddens me the most. That ANYONE would be turned away from the church by its head pastor based on their perceived level of monetary giving is unconscionable, unchristian, and simply not something Jesus would ever do. Its no wonder that many non-christians hate the church! Most don’t think they can afford the price of admission!
The decision to leave North Coast Church by my family was made back in March 2009 at the time of my email but it is only now that I have found that my former pastor didn’t want us to stay anyways!
I would, however, love to take Larry up on his offer in his imaginary letter where he states:
“I have asked our finance department to return to you all the “first fruits” gifts you have given to our church so far this year so that you can forward them on to a ministry you can fully support. Unfortunately, we couldn’t find a record of any such gifts.
Rest assured, if we find any, we will send them to you posthaste. In the meantime, may God guide you and your family as you search for a church worthy of your full support.”
I have shown documented proof here Larry that my family had given $900 up to that point. Please feel free to send me a check for that amount so I may give it to our current church. I would be happy to provide proof of this should you want it.
I always intended to keep the identity of the gentleman who sent me the email about union picketers to remain anonymous. But now that he has come forward and posted both his identity and a response to my blog, I guess the cat is out of the bag. It’s no longer just God, him, and me who know whether or not I actually sent out my letter. Now you all know that it was written but never sent.
Since this is a moderated blog, after reading his post, some of you may be wondering why I didn’t just refuse it and let the issue die as a post on his own blog. But somehow that didn’t seem fair or right. Especially since he was quite clear that he wanted the post published. So I’ve posted it along with my own response below. While I have no intent (nor the time) to answer every one of his accusations and assumptions, I have responded below to those that I see as the most significant misunderstandings and inaccuracies.
Unfortunately, this turn of events changes the focus and tone of this thread. Instead of remaining a theoretical discussion about what a pastor should or should not know, followed by an anonymous illustration of how knowing the facts changes everything; it has now become focused on the sender and his response to a letter I never sent.
So for that reason, this will probably be my last post on this topic. This thread goes back well over a year. It’s been fully debated. Now it’s time to move on. To continue further with a back and forth (or to have others weigh in on one point or another) will simply further sidetrack the discussion and take it far away from the main point of the original post – that pastors and church leaders should not live (or be kept) in the dark as far as congregational donations are concerned.
So here goes my response.
(1) The writer seems to miss the point that the ONLY reason his giving record was looked into was because he brought it up and made it an issue. When the first three lines of a correspondence speak of no longer giving to the church and then threatens to continue to do so “until this issue is resolved” it seems rather reasonable to check into his giving record to see what he is referring to. I did it then. I would do it every time.
Here’s how the email began.
Dear _________
I spoke with you briefly today about the union protest in front of the church. After some prayer and reflection, my family has decided that we will no longer be giving our first fruits to NCC until this issue is resolved. We will still give unto the Lord what is His but just not to NCC.
By the way, we did have a couple of other folks who raised concerns about the union protestors. But none of them framed their questions or concerns in the context of withholding their financial support until we responded to their satisfaction. So none of them had their giving record checked as a part of our response.
(2) The writer completely misunderstood and mischaracterizes my initial response to his email. He says that Larry’s first response “wasn’t to examine the content of my email for merit and consider the moral, biblical and ethical issues I addressed but rather to immediately determine how much money the church would be losing and whether or not other families might follow suit.”
That simply is not the case. Of course I wonder when a critical card or letter comes in if others feel the same. Every leader asks that – and should. But I can’t think of a single time when my first response to a critical email or letter has been, “I wonder how much money we’ll lose if we don’t do what this person wants?” That would be sick.
As mentioned above, the only reason his giving record was pulled up before responding was because that’s the card he played first and prefaced his concerns with. Otherwise no one would have known or cared how much he was giving (or how much he might stop giving if we didn’t follow his advice).
As for failing to carefully consider the validity of the issues he raised, the fact is all of these issues were carefully considered – months before when I was warned that that if we didn’t hire this one particular union shop they would probably picket our church and worship services.
At that point, after considering the moral, biblical, and ethical issues involved, we decided that it wouldn’t be good stewardship of donated funds (nor God’s will) for us to pay an extra $180,000 for dry walling at our new campus.
Now I realize that the writer believes that we made the wrong decision and should have taken the higher bid as part of our “moral obligation to support companies that provide a living wage and benefits.” He has the right to his opinion. But I beg to differ.
(3) The writer mistakenly also assumes that giving records somehow determine who we listen to and who we ignore – and had his giving record been properly accounted for, he would have had a different response.
This is partially true. Had we accurately coupled his gifts with his wife’s gifts, the last three sentences at the end of my letter (the ones referring to non-existent first fruits) would have obviously been scratched. But other than that, my response would have been pretty much the same.
As anyone who has been around me or North Coast for long knows; threatening to take your giving elsewhere unless we do what you want is a great way to guarantee that we never do what you want. Just ask some of our former “big givers” who learned the hard way that we never determine God’s will based on the checks people write or threaten to stop writing.
Had his giving record been more accurately conveyed, indeed, I would have responded differently. Instead of addressing the empty threats of a big-hat no-cattle parishioner, I would have addressed the genuine threats of a take-my-cattle-and-go-home parishioner.
My letter would have read something like this:
Dear _________
Thank you for sharing your concerns about resolving the issue with the protestors. I fully understand in light of your union loyalties why you might be hesitant to give God’s “first fruits” to a church that hires non-union workers.
Perhaps that’s a sign that we are not the best church for you or your family at this time; especially since we’re likely to continue to use our donated funds to hire the lowest qualified bidder on this and other projects in the future.
In the meantime, may God guide you and your family as you search for a church worthy of your full support.
Sincerely,
Pastor Larry Osborne
(4) Finally, contrary to the writer’s contention, no one has ever been “turned away’ from North Coast for not giving. The writer says, “Perhaps the part of his post that saddens me the most. That ANYONE would be turned away from the church by its head pastor based on their perceived level of monetary giving is unconscionable, unchristian, and simply not something Jesus would ever do. Its no wonder that many non-Christians hate the church! Most don’t think they can afford the price of admission!
I couldn’t agree with him more. It would be unconscionable to turn someone away because of their perceived or real lack of giving. But that’s not what was done – or has ever been done. My response (had it been sent) simply suggested that based on his inability to support the church and the decisions of the leadership it was probably a sign that North Coast was not the right church for him and his family.
That is what we always tell people. Whether it’s North Coast or another church, if you can’t support the leadership, find a church you can support and go there. Interestingly enough, that’s exactly the same conclusion the writer and his family came to on their own within a month of sending his email – and, of course, without ever having received my unsent letter.
So I’m not sure how my advice can be characterized as “turning someone away.” It’s more like giving someone permission to go elsewhere if they don’t like it here. After all, North Coast is just one Sunday school class in God’s great church in San Diego.
At North Coast it has never mattered whether someone gives a little or a lot in terms of whom we welcome, minister to, or serve. Each week we minister to hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have never given us a dime and never will. It’s no big deal. It’s what we’re here for.
However, whenever someone wants to serve in top-level leadership or attempts to influence our decisions by making statements about their generosity (or threats about withholding their generosity) then their pattern of giving to the church does matter – not in the sense of deciding who to listen to or who to ignore – but in the sense of knowing how to appropriately respond.
In the case of those who are generous but try to use their generosity (or withholding of it) as a lever to control our ministry, their need is a strong rebuke and a clear message that money (or the withholding of it) won’t buy influence.
In the case of those who talk big but have nothing to show for it, their obvious need is to have their bluff called, lest God calls it and they end up as a modern-day Ananias and Sapphira.
Unhappily, in this situation it seems that two regrettable mistakes were made.
First, if the writer didn’t intend to threaten the withholding of his gifts “until” we resolved the issue to his satisfaction (and I believe him when he says that was not his intent), then his choice of words in the beginning of his original email were most unfortunate.
Second, if we had more carefully double-checked and discovered the donations under his wife’s account we would not have come to the erroneous conclusion that he needed the big-hat, no-cattle response, and I would have used another example (of which I have many) in my blog to illustrate how to respond in a big-hat, no-cattle situation.
Yet bottom line, I find it ironic that both of us actually ended up doing what we would have done had we gotten it right the first time. I chose not to send the letter (which would have clearly been the wrong letter) and he chose to take his family to another church where he could support the decisions of the leadership team (rather than withhold his financial support until we resolved the issue to his satisfaction).
So now it’s time to move on and bear with one another as the New Testament tells brothers to do.
Larry
This is an amazing lesson for me as a pastor. I love Pastor Larry’s humble manner. Clearly, the debate over whether or not a pastor ‘should’ know people’s giving record is hot off the fire.
Two thoughts;
1) If a pastor doesn’t know a person’s record of giving, individuals are permitted to lie about their charitable contributions. Someone might say, “Yes, but that pastor should trust God to ‘tell’ him when someone is lying.” I would say that while all pastors should ‘trust God’ about each issue in the local church, this blog shows one pastor who had a board member who didn’t tithe for a period of 2 years. I could give story after story of this happening in churches.
2) If the individual named above wanted to leave, why did he have to mention his giving unless he did in fact want to substantiate his importance to the local body he was leaving. If he didn’t mean to bow out his chest, he should have just said, “I’M LEAVING. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME WE HAD TO SERVE TOGETHER.” Nope, he had to speak about his ‘first fruits’ in giving.
That’s why I’m glad to protect and serve the flock of God by knowing where people are at in their giving. Many people think that pastors who ‘know’ people’s individual giving are hunkered over an excel spreadsheet each Sunday night analyzing who gave what. That is just not the case here. IT IS SO CLEAR that Pastor Larry DID NOT know until after he checked which speaks of his motivation in knowing a person’s giving – TO PROTECT THE LOCAL CHURCH AND BUILD THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST.
Yes, we SHOULD know giving especially when there is a need to clarify the difference between the truth and a lie.
Thanks Pastor Larry.
If I was a Pastor of a church, I would make it my number one priority to “personally’ know each member of my congregation. Therefore, I was immediately disappointed [while reading your Post] when you asked someone “who” the person was, because if “he’ had been a member for several years, then it seems to me that you would have taken the time to know each shhep in your flock.
Your article really disappointed me.
North Coast is a church of over 9,000. That makes it kind of hard to know everyone. : )
There is a difference in tithing vs giving to a missionary, parachurch organization or seminary. If I am giving $100 a month to a missionary I support or $500 to the seminary where my husband graduated that is a very different relationship vs my relationship to my home church.
My husband pastored a church for 4 years and neither he or myself would ever want to know what people are giving. That is between them and God– I think knowing would gave created an unfair bias one way or the other. In the case of assuming things about people based on how much you think they are giving is something you need to take to God. In either case our response to the flock does not come down to dollars and cents. We should be continually filled with the spirit, seeking wisdom from our father in heaven and in his Word, and looking to Christ as our example. We will certainly make mistakes but our God is gracious. I think it is petty and wrong to look into your flock’s giving. I hope you’ll change your mind on this.
Larry,
Since the “cat’s out of the bag”, did you return the $900 he had (under his wife’s account) given up to that point in 2009 like you said in your blog that you would do?
You’re free to disagree. Not much more I can say than all that I’ve said above. But it does seem to me that the early church had no such qualms about keeping everything secret, as we do here in the states. The right to privacy has even worked its way into our legal interpretations of the constitution.
Perhaps that’s why so any Americans seem to read it into their spiritual life (My walk with God is between me and God – and the details are no one else’s business).
Yet nowhere in the Bible do we find that kind of thinking. And when it comes to how we use our money, there’s not a lot of “privacy.” Jesus actually called out the widow’s mite positively, the Apostles called out Ananis & his wife negatively, and Barnabas got his nickname (Barnabas means Son of Encouragement) because everyone knew he’d sold a field and given the proceeds away to help the needy.
Actually, he made a bet that I’d never print his reply. He lost. So he suggested we call it even.