Shaun Groves
A third of Americans now label themselves “born again Christian.” The term comes from a story in the bible in which Jesus tells a religious leader named Nicodemus that he must be “born again” in order to see the kingdom of God.
American Christians in the sixties – some say as early as the fifties – began labeling themselves “born again” believing it was impossible to be a true Christ follower and not be born again – spiritually reborn.
But being born again is not the only thing Jesus said his followers must be.
For example, one day a man asked Jesus, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” and Jesus answered, “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
How come a third of Americans don’t label themselves “sell everything” Christians? How come being “born again” is a prerequisite but selling everything to help the poor is extremist?
Are some commands of Jesus not as important as others?
Ron Woods says:
I totally agree with your point. However I think you have to mention that when Jesus was talking to the rich guy He was hitting him in his area of weakness. Jesus was saying “you have to be a bondservant to Me, not to money.” He was giving THAT person a directive because He knew what that THAT persons god was.
Jesus talks quite differently about being born again. In John 3: 3 He says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” That is directed at everybody.
And now I feel like a total jerk that is trying to protect his bank account and that’s not what I’m saying at all. I just think you have to paint the entire picture.
Or I could be wrong.
David says:
What Ron says raises a larger question: Does every command that Jesus gives a specific person in the Bible (and by extension, commands given by Paul and others in the epistles) apply to all Christians for all time? Or do they apply to specific people in specific situations?
If it’s the former, then we’re all busted. But that would be pretty extreme. If it’s the latter, then we have the temptation to write these things off and say, “Oh, Jesus was just talking to that rich guy, I’m not rich, so this doesn’t apply to me.” And I can see why a lot of your more conservative types who take a much more literal approach to the Bible would be uncomfortable with an interpretation that gives us the right to hand-wave and say, “That command’s for some other person. *I* don’t have to do that.”
The reality is probably that the specific command was given to one rich man, but the principle behind it applies to us all. Do we have to sell ALL of our possessions? Maybe not. Should we consider carefully what we hold onto and how our resources could be given away/sold to help those in need, who Jesus loves? Absolutely.
What I get from the “rich young ruler” story is that there’s a difference between having and hoarding. Having isn’t always bad. If the rich dude was never rich, he’d never have that stuff to give to the poor. But holding onto it, hoarding it, at the expense of those who are in need, would likely result in the hardening of his heart and a failure to connect with who Jesus really is and what sort of stuff He cares about.
So what I gather from this is not that it’s bad to have stuff, but that is IS bad to get too attached. Enjoy what God gives you, recognize where it came from, and be willing to give it up when He calls for it.
Texas in Africa says:
Jesus also only told one guy he needed to be born again.
Of course we cherry-pick our commandments. A woman who cuts her hair and wears pearls on Easter Sunday is quite certain she’s not sinning, even though there are specific Biblical prohibitions against doing so. We live, after all, in a different place and time in which having short hair or wearing pearls is not an indication that one is a prostitute. But bring up something ELSE having to do with human sexuality, and, well, we have to take the Biblical words literally, chapter and verse, regardless of historical context.
Even with choosing which commands we like to follow, some people come to the opposite conclusion, that, actually, how you treat the poor is a whole lot more important than whether you meet an ambiguous set of requirements that mean you’re “born again.” Just sayin’.
dean says:
shaun… the whole encounter starts out with the ruler asking “what good deed must i do have eternal life?” working from the assumption that we all agree that it is by grace we are saved through faith (eph 2:8), the only way this guy could have been saved by good deeds was to have kept every single law and command… he had to have been perfect. even though he claimed that he’d kept all the commandments, that was no doubt a bunch baloney, but Jesus knew where to get him, as ron pointed out. he told the ruler he had to do something he wasn’t willing to do, pointing out to him and to us that the guy wasn’t perfect after all, and could therefore not enter the kingdom based on his own works.
being born again, saved, whatever, comes by faith in Christ by God’s grace, and the good deeds – taking care of the poor and oppressed, etc – are what we do as a result of that.
btw, isn’t “born again Christian” kind of redundant? is there any other kind of Christian?
Stretch Mark Mama says:
Exactly.
I miss my teens/20s where I had all the answers. Nothing makes sense to me anymore.
Shaun Groves says:
What if Jesus didn’t just say “sell your stuff” to this one guy? What if he also said it to a bunch of other people? Would that make a difference in our thinking?
Zach says:
Whoa. Deep thinking question. Not sure what to say – your blog provides much room for discussion on things that are sometimes hard to discuss when not in person. I like it!
Amy @ My Friend Amy says:
Who knows? Not me, certainly, so I just do the best I can. It seems the most important commandments are to love God and love neighbor….and it seems both of these lovely issues fall under that umbrella.
dean says:
while Jesus may not have said in so many words, “sell your stuff,” He did say in matthew 25 that those who would inherit eternal life are the ones that fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, welcomed the stranger, clothed the naked, and visited the sick and the imprisoned. in the context of the entire passage, i believe he did tell many people what was expected of those who wanted to inherit the kingdom.
and THAT right there should make a difference in our thinking. but those things are the evidence of our salvation. we without a doubt need to be doing these things, but it isn’t what saves us. the source of our salvation still remains… grace, through faith.
dad2aandj says:
Didn’t Jesus say exactly this to more than one person? See Luke 12:33. This was a different instance than the one referenced above which is in Luke 18:22. And then what about Acts 2:45?
Shaun Groves says:
Bingo, dad2aandj! You beat me to it. He said this not only to one rich guy but to a bunch of not-so-rich people. So, does that change how important we take those words to be?
dean says:
I frankly thought those words were important no matter how many times Jesus said them. The question was: “How come being ‘born again’ is a prerequisite but selling everything to help the poor is extremist?”
Well, being born again IS a prerequisite to being saved… well, more to the point, it IS what saves you. Selling your stuff doesn’t save you. In Acts 2:45, those folks were already believers.
I think what we’re dealing with though is the Western brand of Christianity, which as far as I can tell doesn’t resemble biblical Christianity a whole lot.
Jenn says:
Let’s get sellin!
Ron Woods says:
I still think Shaun’s point is 100% dead on. Nobody would disagree with the intent of Christ that we are to divest ourselves of “stuff.” You don’t have to even go to the New Testament. Just start with the 10 Commandments and you learn that coveting is sin. The stuff goes if you are going to be a sincere and obedient Christ follower. I’m to love my neighbor as myself and that means if my neighbor isn’t able to eat then I ought to take care of him before plunking down money for an ipod. But I notice that we are all posting these comments online … which requires a very expensive piece of equipment called a “computer.” And it’s plugged into my wall which means I own a building and it’s wired and I pay an electric bill. Oops. I’m busted. I’m just sayin …
Shaun Groves says:
Dean, isn’t selling your stuff an incredible act of faith? Doesn’t it require faith? So, in that doesn’t it (or the faith required by it) save?
And to Jenn…no. You guys are supposed to be talking me out of selling out stuff!! Think harder, people. There has to be a way around this ; )
Texas in Africa says:
Dean, according to Matthew 25, how you treat the poor is also what saves you.
Shaun, I’ve got nothing for you. I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that we’re all called to live as simply as possible and in close community. Sorry for the bad news.
dean says:
Absolutely… selling one’s stuff requires incredible faith, especially if you’ve gone at least part of your life with plenty.
So I’m thinking that when Ananias and Sapphira sold their land but kept back part of the proceeds, they were struck dead… but were they truly Christians or not? The bible doesn’t tell us what happened to them eternally speaking, but the rest of the church was seized with fear, which leads me to believe that A & S were believers and went to heaven, but either their lack of faith in God’s provision, or their blatant dishonesty caused them to lose their physical lives.
So can we separate the “facets” of our faith… the faith we have in Christ to save us, from the faith we may or may not have in Him at different times to provide day to day.
And if we gave away our computers, how would we even have this discussion?
dean says:
T in A (man, that doesn’t even sound right!)…
according to ephesians 2:8 grace through faith saves us. how shall we reconcile the two? i believe the list of things in matthew 25 are the results of our saving faith… and that makes them no less important for us to accomplish as people of faith.
Ron Woods says:
Shaun, faith without works is dead. But you have to get them in the correct order. I’m to simplify because of my faith … I don’t have faith because I simplify. I know you are playing the devils advocate but it’s dangerous to imply that selling our stuff saves our souls. When you said, “So, in that doesn’t it (or the faith required by it) save?” you are illustrating with opposites and indicating that they do the same thing. “That” and “the faith required by it” cannot be the same thing. Better stated, one is the cause and one is the effect. If you get them out of order they no longer work.
Shaun Groves says:
What if the stuff in Matthew 25 IS faith?
I truly mean that as a question. I don’t know. I’m just thinking this through with you guys.
“Works” seem more essential than “result of” language makes them out to be. That makes them sound like electives for some people to choose. What if works are the manifestation of faith, faith made visible? What if works ARE faith like a smile is happiness and a stomach growling is hunger- an idea with skin on? Inseparable. But more than “the result of.” More essential, required, foundational, non-elective.
Thomas says:
I can see in the near future class warfare between those who sell everything to give the poor and end up living in poverty and those who do not sell everything to give to poor and end up living a more comfortable life. I wonder who is going be the more judgmental between the two groups.
It seems to me we the body of Christ are becoming more divisive amongst ourselves. For many years my friends tried to convince me that I needed to go to church. I refused to because I said you cannot agree amongst yourselves what the Bible really teaches. Maybe you all got it wrong. Now as follower of Christ, who is now a member of a church, I still at times wonder if we got it all wrong.
Shaun, how many children will lose the chance to be sponsored because you sold everything and you lose the ability to reach an audience to share about compassion and the work they do.
Thomas
brooke says:
– Everything I have belongs to Christ and I am the one who cares for it, guided by Him. My parents did sell everything and go to the mission field. I never suffered for it (even though I ate oatmeal with bugs in it… I never knew). God provided. It was a wonderful experience for them that God asked at that time. I think the ultimate principle is … who is the ruler of my checkbook? Who really rules it? What God has granted is not really mine. I am to use it for His glory. We try to examine every purchase and we rely on God to show us where to give and where not to give. Whether I sell it all or not … who is the Owner of it? God uses believers to give in many different ways. We know the selling of all is a principle because Jesus also tells us that we should make more money with what we have or at least gain interest on it. Ananias and Sapphira were not in trouble for owning property, but for lying about the selling price. The account in Acts tells us what the believers did, not what was commanded. Throughout Scripture, the principle is the love of money or the love of God – greed or the opposite. We have to match it up with all of Scripture.
As far as obedience, it is not optional. The obedience does not gain salvation, but the believer will be changed to be more and more like Christ. While our bodies groan for release from their fleshly desires … while we are still in this world … we will still lack obedience to God’s principles and commands. Thank the Lord for his amazing grace and mercy that He didn’t just forgive my sins up until my salvation day, but ALL. Yes, obedience is intricately tied to salvation … it is proof of salvation and a very serious thing. We should not trample on our freedom. It is not freedom to disobey. It is a beautiful, beautiful thing that we are forgiven — sobering and gratefulness inducing.
brooke says:
Oops … I meant that the selling of all is not a command … but shows us an overarching principle. Sorry.
Texas in Africa says:
“What if the stuff in Matthew 25 IS faith?”
Yeah, Dean, from you’ve said, your understanding is that caring for the poor and other good works are a result/evidence of salvation. Right?
That’s what I used to think. But I’ve come to believe that they’re one and the same. What you do is what you believe, and vice-versa.
Grovesfan says:
Very good discussion.
I think Jesus was speaking of sacrifice when He was talking to the rich young ruler. As believers, we should be willing to sacrifice ANYTHING and EVERYTHING for the kingdom. Of course this requires faith. We must have faith enough to believe that God will provide for our EVERY need according to HIS great design and His sovereign will.
The rich young ruler was certain that he’d kept all the commandments and that should give him the right to enter God’s kingdom. He wasn’t keeping the first commandment however because he chose his money over God. His riches were more important and hence, his true God.
While I for one could certainly do much more to serve the least of these in our world, selling everything wouldn’t serve that purpose if I did so thinking THAT would be what got me into heaven. I think God has gifted me to serve in other areas and through different means at this time. Doesn’t mean I won’t be called to to that at some other time however. If and when I am, I hope I will have the faith it requires to do so, and NOT respond as the rich young ruler did.
Shaun Groves says:
Thomas, I’m not planning on selling everything I have. What I’m thinking through though is why? Why don’t I think/feel that I need to but yet I think/feel I should obey other commands of Jesus? I don’t know. But this discussion is a good one for me so keep it comin’. I’m learning.
Ron Woods says:
If Jesus showed up in your face, Shaun, and said, “Hey, I’m talking to YOU. Go sell everything you own on ebay and give the money you make to the poor” you’d probably do it. I mean, it would hurt and your wife might try to put you in shackles but you’d do it. So why DON’T you? Because He hasn’t done that. He gave you what He gave you so that you might use it in the best possible way to bring Him glory. Sometimes that might mean selling stuff and adopting a 3rd world child with the bucks.
sometimes it might mean keeping it (while remaining unattached to it) so that you might use it for the Kingdom’s sake. Tony Campolo (before he got everybody mad at him) use to tell an interesting story. He needed a car. A car dealer friend offered to sell him either of two cars for the same price. One was a beater that got horrible gas mileage. One was snazzy … I don’t know what kind but sporty and got great gas mileage and would not need repairs for a long time. His question was, which one should he take? The beater because it illustrated his frugality or the very nice one because it was actually the best deal. That’s a bit of the conundrum we find ourselves in. We need some of our “stuff” in order to live our lives … hopefully lives we use to bring glory to God. So do we give it away in order to LOOK like we are obedient and Christ-like? Or do we follow the moment by moment leadership of the Holy Spirit concerning our stuff and our actions? In Acts all of the believers sold their stuff, pooled their money, and lived in community. Do you think God intended it to stay that way? Personally, I don’t. I think those were the directions for that day. Otherwise what do you do about the woman who poured the expensive perfume over Jesus? Why didn’t He rebuke her for owning it? What do you do with David who owned the entire Kingdom and God said he was a man after His own heart? Or Job who lost it all AND GOD GAVE IT BACK?
Again, I agree with your point fully. I just don’t think Jesus ever gave a mass order to sell everything. What He did give us is the Holy Spirit and we would do well to listen to Him more closely on a moment to moment basis concerning our “stuff.”
Ron Woods says:
Geez, I feel like such a money grubbing pagan. For the record I’m eating dirt for supper tonight and sending $20 to a homeless shelter.
Don’t you judge me …
dean says:
Shaun and T in A…
I don’t know that what we’re saying is all that different. When I read what you’re saying (“works are the manifestation of faith, faith made visible” and “what you do is what you believe and vice-versa”), I am in agreement with those statements. Maybe it’s just my stilted vocabulary.
But what I think I’m seeing in the differences you’re trying to draw between what I’m saying and what you’re saying is that works are at least part of what saves us, and I can’t agree with that. Yes works are an essential part of our faith (faith without works being dead and all), the manifestation of our faith… I called it the result of our faith, and the evidence of our faith. I don’t see a whole lot of difference in my terminology and yours.
In any event, I don’t see that every one of us is called to sell everything and give to the poor. For one thing, it would be kind of a one shot deal, whereas people who are not called to get rid of everything have the means to help the poor and oppressed in an ongoing manner. Jesus by and large depended on the kindness and hospitality of others for His day to day existence (He had no place to lay His head). What if Martha, Mary, Lazarus, and others of His followers had sold everything. How would they have provided for Jesus’ needs for 3 and a half years? What about the believers in the churches that Paul visited when he took the collection for the church at Jerusalem? If they’d have already sold everything and given the proceeds away, they wouldn’t have had the means to help the Jerusalem church. I just don’t believe that Jesus’ command to the rich young ruler was meant to be applied to every last believer, just as we all don’t receive the exact same spiritual gifts. In Romans 12:6, Paul writes “We have different gifts according to the grace given us.” and in verse 8 Paul lists giving as one of those gifts: ”…if it is contributing to the needs of others let him give generously…” So we all are not necessarily called or given the grace to give as generously as those who are granted that gift.
I believe that when Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell it all, He was pointing out to him that he had not kept all the commandments as he had claimed, and that he wasn’t going to honor that command from Jesus, which pointed out his imperfection, and therefore he was not able to enter the Kingdom in his own power, as none of us can.
Also, what you’re suggesting assumes that all believers are well off, or at least comfortable. What about the believers that are already destitute? If Jesus’ command was for all believers, then the believer who has nothing to sell is not able to be obedient to this command. Where does that leave them?
Because our left hand isn’t supposed to know what our right hand is doing, I’m not going to go into a bunch of detail, but my wife and I, living and ministering at a children’s home, do live in community with other believers (I’d dare say it’s basically a commune), and have pretty much (but not exclusively) just the bare necessities to our names. Not bragging, and not complaining, but the more I contribute to this discussion, the more I fear that I sound like I want to protect my little cut of the creature comfort pie, so I guess that’s my disclaimer for my position on this discussion
Amanda says:
Chicken or the egg…
We’ve watered down faith to this ethereal feeling we get. We connect belief to mental ascension to a fact…however the truth is that Jesus came to bring His kingdom and the saving grace is to a new life that begins now, not in the hereafter.
So, in my humble opinion, being born again is not just a metaphysical thing Jesus was talking about. It is to a whole new way of living under the present rule of God upon our hearts, wills, lives (whatever you want to call it). You cannot disconnect one from another. We are not saved by works, but works are not merely a manifestation of our salvation, they are what we are saved to, praise God! I can’t do any of the things He requires of me without Him, and that is how I am saved, by Christ in me.
So, as the song goes, Savior, keep saving me!
Amanda says:
Although….
It does seem specific to the rich young ruler because if we look at Luke 19:1-10 the same command is not given to Zacchaeus:
(New International Version)
Luke 19
Zacchaeus the Tax Collector
1Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. 2A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 3He wanted to see who Jesus was, but being a short man he could not, because of the crowd. 4So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.
5When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” 6So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.
7All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a ‘sinner.’ “
8But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”
9Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.”
Shaun Groves says:
Amanda, I heard a guy teach once that Zaccheus lost everything because 1)he gave half to the poor and 2)gave the rest to pay back those he’d swindled. THis guy believed Zaccheus could have been left with a net worth of jack squat. I don’t know. But you brought it up and it jogged that memory – for what it’s worth.
Ron, I’m tracking with you. You’re a good teacher, my friend. Thanks for being here.
Dean, I’m not saying I disagree with you but your position requires at times some mental gymnastics so I’m still processing. Thanks for posting in such detail.
T in A, I’ve always admired your passion here. It re-inspires. Thanks for that.
Texas in Africa says:
Dean, thanks for the good discussion. Why does selling everything and giving it to the poor mean that you would no longer be able to serve the poor? Financial help isn’t the only way of serving others. I think there’s something to be said for living in community WITH the poor that is an act of service and a testimony that the life of simplicity gets rid of a lot of the cultural noise and stuff that blocks us from full communion with Christ. Of course we need the basics to survive, as did the rich young ruler. Most of us, though, are living WAY beyond the basics.
You’re right, the discussion here does mostly assume that Christians are well-to-do. That’s because in the United States, most of us are, especially compared with the world’s poor. But we know that poor Americans give away a much higher percentage of their incomes than do wealthy and middle class Americans. Outside of the US context, in my experience (mostly in Kenya and the DR Congo), the destitute poor are still much more generous with the little they have than I am with my relative wealth. I lived with a poor family in Western Kenya for awhile about ten years ago. One of the things the father of that family said to me has stuck. He said, “You [meaning white Westerners] share from your leftovers. We share from the beginning.” He was -and is – right.
Thanks, Shaun, for your kind words, and for a good space to think about these questions.
Amanda says:
Very interesting, Shaun. I went looking a bit and found this “article” http://www.gracevalley.org/sermon_trans/Jesus_Finds_Zacchaeus.html.
It’s long, but speaks to exactly what you said, that basically Zacchaeus was offering everything to God and then the author explains why this was not foolish as far as being “destitute.”
Goes right back the beginning of why do we take certain things to be hyperbole?
dean says:
shaun…
i guess i did muddy up the waters a bit by trying to address different concerns within one train of thought. i got a little excited there. sorry about that. i guess if i had to condense it all down, it would go back to the comparison i made to spiritual gifts. all believers are not all given the same gifts. the body of Christ would become one dimensional if that were so. by the same token, i don’t believe God calls every believer to the exact same faith experience (we’re ALL supposed to sell everything). we’re all gifted and equipped in different ways in order to carry out the many different tasks required of the body. it is absolutely true that believers must give, but according to 2 Cor 9:7, each man decides in his heart what he should give, and give it cheerfully. for some that may very well mean giving everything. for others it may mean almost everything, and so on down the line.
T in A…
I agree with you that American Christians definitely have it better than our brothers and sisters around the world. In one of my much earlier comments, I said something to the effect that Western Christianity appears to have very little resemblance to biblical Christianity. Way too much emphasis on bigger buildings, more “stuff” and the mentality that the poor people among us are poor because of their politics or their laziness, and are therefore undeserving of our help. And as you said, the poor are more generous and give away higher percentages of income, but in regards to Jesus’ command to the rich young ruler to give it ALL away, for the poor and destitute believer to comply with that, his percentage would not just have to be high (or higher), it would necessarily have to be 100. In the end, each one of us has to listen to what the Holy Spirit is prompting us to do, and be obedient to that. THAT (being obedient to whatever the Spirit tells us to do) I believe fulfills the “what you do is what you believe” statement you had made last night… not necessarily zeroing in on one instance of Jesus telling one person what He expected him to do in order to follow Him.
I appreciate the opportunity to hash this out among fellow believers, in a place where no one has to worry about being torn down or torn apart over our different points of view!
Shannon says:
Shaun,
I can understand your desire to help “the least of these.” I share your thoughts and Compassion for others.
It is true that in Revelations Jesus asks if we fed the poor, orphans, widows, etc. However, I am a single mom w/2 small children to raise without any help at all. I just don’t believe God would want me to sell all that I own to give to the poor. Don’t get me wrong…I do tithe and my kids and I sponsor children through Compassion International. But if I even gave up every spare penny I had…how would I be able to take care of these kids. 1st Timothy 5:8 says “If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever,” (RSV). So while I believe some may be called to give all, I can’t believe it a universal command to all believers. If it were I believe God would have made it more clear…as he did with the 10 commandments. Just a thought. I enjoy your blog. God Bless.
Shaun Groves says:
Shannon, I get where you’re coming from. Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 8 that he didn’t want the giving of the church in Corinth to the poor church in Jerusalem to cause anyone in the Corinthian church to do without. He simply wanted equality – he used that word. He wanted Corinthian giving from to come from their excess (whatever’s left after daily bread is consumed) to supply the needs of the Jerusalem Christians.
The thing is, I don’t think there are many Americans living on only daily bread. I’ve worked with our welfare recipients, for instance, for short stints of time – enough to know that our “poor” often have cable and money for alcohol and tobacco, ice cream, Coke, etc.
So, I think God wants us to have daily bread (though I’m not sure the widow who gave her last mite did) but I’m not we’re to hold onto more than that. I’m assuming – please forgive me – that in spite of your present financial difficulties, you’ve got more than your daily bread and have therefore been blessed with the opportunity to give to someone who has less than you. And it is a blessing. A gift.
Now, what I continue to think through and pray about is what on earth it looks like to live on only my daily bread, to give everything else away, and still live in suburbia with a wife and three kids. Is that possible? This post is one more stab at thinking that through with you all. Thanks for all your insights so far. It’s helping.
Shannon says:
Shaun,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I respectfully disagree that we (I) should be living on “only on my daily bread.” The car is paid for but old and is in constant need of repair, the kids have medical bills that just keep coming, and impending storms are brewing on the horizon (that I hesitate to get into as it is not the point of this discussion). If I give all except my “daily bread” then I will become one of those who is dependent on others for help instead of someone who is capable of supporting my family while still helping others.
In other words, I have to have an emergency fund squirreled away and be prepared to care of my kids, myself , and the needs of others as they arrise. Living on just “daily bread” is just not wise for everyone.
That being said I tithe first and foremost (no matter what)and teach the kids to save, spend, and GIVE. I try to model caring for others in both monetary and non-monetary ways.
Just a side thought, and I am not sure if I should mention it, but one way to approach this topic is to ask God to speak to both you and your wife about this. If you you both have a strong word from God (seperately but in agreement) then maybe it is the path for you to take. ….I hope you don’t mind the thought.
God Bless!
dean says:
Shaun…
Here’s a thought prompted by Shannon’s last comment. Over the past few years, my wife and I have made a concerted effort to get the last of some debt out of the way, and each time we eliminate another monthly payment, we’ve applied that money toward supporting missionaries (at home and abroad), and picked up a second Compassion child. This past month we paid off another one and planned to put those monthly funds toward either a third Compassion child, or increase our support to the missionaries we’re already supporting.
Alas, my wife ended up having to have surgery last Wednesday, and I may be looking at surgery in a few weeks myself. That money we just freed up that we were going to apply to more ministry is now going to, for the foreseeable future, be paying what insurance will not.
The emergency fund that Shannon mentioned comes to mind in this case. While we didn’t really have an intentional emergency fund, the newly freed-up money is now going to be our emergency fund. While I initially was bummed about having to change the plans I had for that money, I’m now thankful that it’s going to be there to pay these medical bills over time. But if we had put ourselves in the position of only living off of what we need to provide our daily bread, I wonder where that would have left us with the surgeons and hospitals?
And more than that, if the only money we had at our disposal was the money for daily bread and the money we use to support our Compassion kids and our missionaries, we’d have had to use that money for medical bills, leaving the missionary families short of what they need to live on, and the Compassion kids without sponsors.
A while back I found myself vilified by a number of friends on church staffs because I felt like, by and large, many American churches were more concerned about bigger buildings, flashier programs, etc., than they were with ministering to the poor. I even went so far as to wonder aloud why the local church couldn’t work off the Compassion model (80+ percent to the kids and the rest to administrative costs, instead of the other way around). I discussed this with my advocates relations manager at that time, and he said that while he thought that was an unrealistic goal for a local church, he did know of a number of churches that gave 50% or more of their income to missions. After that email exchange, I got convicted about my personal finances and decided I had no business speaking about about the church’s finances until I got it in gear on a personal level, which was the beginning of our push to give as much of our disposable income to missions and ministry as possible.
We intend to cut even more corners and free up more money for that, but so far, I’m not getting the sense that the Spirit is calling us to give it all away, and I’m not getting the sense that He’d call every believer to that, either.
I know it sounds like lack of faith in God’s ability to provide if we were to give it all, but I believe that God’s provision can take many forms, including the knowledge and ability to generate one’s own income. It may not be possible to live off only the daily bread and remain in suburbia, but maybe that isn’t what God is calling you to.
And now I’ve also violated my “left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing” clause…
Carole Turner says:
Great discussion. I just want to say that the more I give, even when it takes everything, the more God provides miraculously for us. Every month we make more steps to give more and live on less, it’s a work in progress, But I do believe it is how God wants us all to live. I also know HE works wonders on the heart and provides what we need the more we live that way.
Seth Ward says:
I think Born Again was another way that the Lord was preaching what he preached more than anything else: Repent, or “change the way you think”
But “born again” most certainly appeals to our Greek-out-there-in-the-gnostosphere tendencies. Especially for us protestants, it as far away from a work as we can get. However, I don’t see Jesus meaning born again as something separated from following him, believing in him, or feeding the poor, or selling of your possessions if he so asks… It is all about the repentance and obedience. “If you love me, obey me.”
If I’m not mistaken, he said two things more than anything else: 1. Fear not, 2. Repent.
I prefer “believer” to “Born Again Christian”
I have the same problem with being called “evangelical.” There are many spiritual gifts and the gift of evangelism is just one. Why not “teachical”?
I don’t have the gift of evangelism and neither do a bunch of Christians who think they do and they do and do more damage than good because they’ve been guilted into passing out fliers when they should be cooking their sick neighbor a good meal or teaching a sunday school class.
Brooke says:
What a great discussion!
I think that if God convicts someone to give away money or items that they NEED … He’ll provide the need back in some way (and often more to bless you or share with others). But in general, to be good stewards of what is given us, we are to provide for our needs with what we have while we rely on God for every expenditure. We’ve always felt that the raises my husband receives or other ways of obtaining more money don’t mean applying it to the budget. We only apply it if we feel it is still needed for our family. We felt it was wisest to keep paying off our house and give more to others. That’s how God guided us and the freedom it has offered has been exactly what God’s plan was for our family at this time in our lives. If He had led in other directions, I hope by God’s grace we would have followed.
I think it’s a grave responsibility to have more than we need. It’s a blessing that we must rely on God to know what to do with it. It doesn’t have to go to everyone person on every corner or in every desperate letter that shows up in your mailbox (in fact, I’ve felt that God has guided me to NOT give to someone on the corner until further notice … we support those people in other ways).
Each person, each gifting (spiritual and physical), each life, job, neighbor, opportunity is so different for every person. Everyone who re-evaluates what they are doing with their resources and is continually recommitting those resources to the Lord and His guidance is in a good place. We love giving and we never miss the money. And we’re thankful for all the extra gifts we’re given.
We’re also thankful for the times when we were clearly the ones in true need and were gifted to by others. God is a good God. We have striven to follow the principles and commands regarding giving in the Bible … give generously, often, and cheerfully … follow the Holy Spirit for how much and to whom … we think that 10% is only a good guideline … probably not enough in most cases. We actually don’t believe the Christ continued the 10% rule in the NT … we believe He did as He did with all the commandments … explained how it’s not a matter of numbers or checking off a list, but a matter of the heart, a matter of much more than a percentage …
… okay, enough from me,
brooke
MamasBoy says:
Why is being “born again” a requirement, but not “selling everything” and giving to the poor?
I have three off-the-cuff reasons, though, I’m sure they are inadequate for such a question.
1) Because Jesus didn’t just say, sell it all. He said sell it all and then afterward come follow me. Selling everything makes one poor. What does one do then? People don’t know what to do afterward, so they never take the first step.
2) Because selling absolutely everything and living like Jesus did is incompatible with providing for one’s wife and children.
3) Because the only state of life that allows such radical action, the consecrated single life, is not seen as realistic option by the vast majority of Christians in this country, no matter what Paul said about it.
I believe if most Christians had someone whom they had contact with who lived the consecrated single life, serving Jesus in the poor around them, then that example would serve as a powerful attraction and transform Christian society. Living examples of literal Christ-like poverty have done so in the past. They can do so again.
MB