My response to those with current criticisms about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its method of tithing its members: I think it’s a good idea to question, and I wholeheartedly agree with the notion of Socrates that “The unexamined life is not worth living.” For those of us who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, this membership constitutes so much of our lives that consistently evaluating it and our participation in it is our duty. In short, I think that questioning to reveal truth, start a necessary conversation, and advocate for necessary change is good. However, the process of this questioning can be biased or unbiased and biased processes aren’t to be trusted because complicated arguments are reduced to sound-bites and motivations aren’t always as truth-seeking as they claim. If your purpose is to reveal truth and cause needed change, current arguments don’t work because the expectations upon which they are founded are flawed. 1st: Problems existing in the church’s system of tithing are presented, but examples are taken out of historical and cultural context. Here’s an example: we know that the church relies almost entirely on an unpaid ministry. The leaders at the very top are offered salaries to recompense for labors far in excess of full-time work. Usually, these salaries are refused and, again, the leader represents unpaid ministry. Because the church does not have a paid clergy, position-holders shift often and are non-expert. These facts are common knowledge, yet those most critical of church systems seem to expect that they run perfectly. Further, they attach a threatened rejection of the truthfulness of the Gospel and/or an outright rejection of the church’s efficacy to anything less than perfection. This expectation is obviously unreasonable given the context of the lay ministry. The church has actually tried to be responsive as it has grown larger by pulling tithing money into central accounts, so as to make a more accurate accounting, before releasing it back into local control. This allows for better stewardship of funds, especially when local leadership changes so often and when local leaders aren’t vetted for accountancy skills. 2nd: Although the line of questioning presented seems to desire change, it argues against change most stringently. Tithing requirements have changed throughout church history, as has been noted. The argument seems to be that these changes should not have been made, that once church policy has been established, it should never change or adapt. This is another unfair expectation, especially since voices now call for the church to do exactly that – change and adapt. We can’t have it both ways. Either the church is responsive and adaptable on points of policy (and, to a more limited extent, on points of doctrine) or it isn’t. I think most of us understand that adaptability is the reality and it’s good. As far as tithing, how can the percentage be expected to remain static when the church’s circumstances don’t? Currently, there are more members outside the U.S. than within it, and many of these members reside in 3rd world countries and conditions. The church uses its resources to ameliorate these conditions by providing food, shelter, clothing, irrigation/wells, farming equipment/techniques, education, employment, and church buildings. This is a good thing – a great thing! However, it does come at enormous cost. It requires not only our 10%, but our generous fast offerings, AND the church’s own programs of providence (foresight for future contingencies). These programs of providence come under heavy fire because they increase resources using corporate ownership and investment. These are time tested and result tested methods to increase resources and the church has wisely adapted to use them as our expenses have increased exponentially. We should applaud and uphold these efforts instead of placing upon the church the unfair expectation that it do its work without the necessary resources and that it fail to plan for future contingencies by adapting to current economic practices. 3rd: A large part of the argument centers on abuses and alleged abuses of tithing funds, as well as disagreements about how funds should be spent. First, let’s remember the context of the church’s inexperienced lay ministry. Is it reasonable to expect that errors never occur in such situations? No. Is it reasonable to expect that every person who holds a calling dealing with money is competent to do so? No. Is it reasonable to expect that every person who holds a calling dealing with money is perfectly honest? Sadly, no. The church is run by human beings and error, ineptitude, and even dishonesty will be found. However, when presenting your argument, make sure to include evidence for both sides. Instead of just presenting examples of poor stewardship, present the successful stewardship and good works the church accomplishes. If both sides arent presented, the argument is biased and unfair, but also illogical because it “stacks the deck” in the arguers favor. Second, you may not agree with how the church spends the money we give it. If this is the case, it is absolutely acceptable to make your feelings and opinions known. However, it is unreasonable to expect that your opinion and the change you desire will be or should be accepted by the church as a whole. It is also unreasonable to expect that your opinion and the desired change will meet with an immediate response. Those of us participating in the church on a local level have a local perspective. Those with a broader perspective may see details and exigencies that make the policies in question necessary and preferable. Should we not allow for this difference in perspective? Surely that would be most reasonable. We should also allow for a reasonable amount of time for response. To use an analogy, I can expect to be able to move a pebble by kicking it, but I can’t expect to move a boulder in the same way. To move a boulder, I might need to call an expert for help, schedule with them to do the work, wait for the scheduled day, and wait for the work to be done. The results, although time-consuming, would be most accurate and professional. Or, I could kick the boulder repeatedly, expecting it to move, and only hurting my own foot in the process. Critical voices demand change now, now, now! This expectation is not reasonable if only that the size and scope of the church organization make immediate response a virtual impossibility. Change in large organizations requires time – sometimes lots of it. Anyone who has worked within such organizations knows this to be true. 4th: Demands for change, as well as criticisms of church policy and practice never seem to include personal responsibility. Responsibility is always shifted to the highest levels of leadership. Ghandi said, “Be the change you want to see in the world.” If you want change in local tithing expenditure, develop a more worthwhile service project or plan and present it to your local leaders. If you feel the poor in our midst are not being cared for, organize a relief effort. I guarantee that local church leaders will make funds available for it. If you feel money is being spent unwisely on a local level, first get all the facts to make sure the situation is what you believe it to be before voicing criticisms. Here’s an example: youth groups often go on a big boating/waterskiing activity once each summer. The kids get transportation to and from the lake, a meal and snacks, and boats with drivers to take them out on the water. This might seem to be a huge expenditure of sacred funds – an outing that would easily exceed $1,000 – until the facts are known. The transportation costs to and from the lake are almost all donated (value: $200, cost: $50); the boats are borrowed and the drivers are volunteer (value: $900+, cost: $0); the gas for the boats is only partially reimbursed (value: $300, cost: $150); the food is provided (cost: $100). When the facts are known, it becomes clear that funds have been used wisely for this annual event. This is a small, local example, but one totally within each member’s sphere of influence. Last: Let me state my own position and process of questioning. I am a church member and have benefited over and over again from that membership, as has my family. The connections we make in our congregations, the opportunities for personal and spiritual growth offered by the church and its structure, and the sense of well-being and security we receive from our participation are beyond price. However, they have come at the expense of local leaders who serve us with their time and effort. They have come at the expense of financial outlay from funds collected through tithes and offerings. Because of my positive experience, I elect to give the organization of the church the benefit of the doubt when I have questions or concerns. This does not mean that I keep my mouth shut when I think there’s a problem. It means that I do my own due diligence in questioning all issues instead of allowing others to do it for me. No voice, no matter its eloquence or charisma, should take the place of our own research of the WHOLE issue, not just aspects that create controversy. I urge you to apply the same level of questioning to the critical voices and the expectations they hold as you are currently applying to the church.
Posted on: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 18:36:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015