Confusion about quotas – From time to time questions and discussions arise among us about our churches’ “quota” system of giving. In some areas the failure of a church or c1assis to meet its “quotas” seems to be regarded as a kind of delinquency. I was surprised and a little amused at the apparent consternation that recently greeted a classical treasurer’s announcement that the churches were 6% in arrears on their quotas, for in other areas of the denomination, notably in some of our Canadian classes there is a tendency to regard raising 50 or 60% of the quotas as about all one could reasonably expect from the poorer, immigrant churches, whose incomes arc on the average somewhat lower and whose living costs are generally higher than those in the more affluent “States.”
In observing these discussions one soon becomes aware that this traditional system of per-family quotas determined by classes and synods is coming to be rather widely regarded as a kind of tax which every local church member or family is, if at all possible, morally obligated to pay. If these quotas were really such a tax they would be one of the most unfair and indefensible methods of raising money that could be devised. 1s it not perfectly obvious that the incomes of our members and families differ widely, and that such fixed amounts, which for some are very easily given, would be for others burdens or even impossibilities? What civil government would consider such a method of raising money? Should the churches be less considerate of the individual needs and circumstances of their members than the civil authorities are?
What does God’s Word teach? – Nowhere in God’s Word is there any command or encouragement for such a “flat-rate” method of “giving.” In the Old Testament, although there were nominal assessments which were the same for all such as the half-shekel poll tax (Ex. 30:11–16; Matt. 17:24–27), even the offerings prescribed for a mother were less for the poor than for the rich (Lev. 12:8) and the regular requirement for the worship of the Lord was a tithe or tenth of one’s income.
When we tum to the New Testament, where do we find any indication that such a law as that given for the temple still applies to the support of the church? One can only argue with a measure of plausibility that if in the Old Testament a tenth of one’s income was to be expected from God’s people for the support of the temple, in the New Testament, an era of far more abundant revelation and greater responsibility, including that to bring the gospel to the whole world, the Christian should not be expected to do less.
This giving of the Christian, however, is never put on the level of taxation, much less laid down as a “flat-rate.” The New Testament teaches us to give “as we may prosper” (I Cor. 16:2) and each “as he hath purposed in his heart: not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver” (II Cor. 9:7). It always places the emphasis on the relationship to and concern for Christ and his people which must prompt the giving.
Quotas are not “Assessments” but averages – In the earlier years of om church’s history, the classes and synods spoke of “assessments,” but in 1939 the Synod observed that this term had no place in the churches’ giving and should be dropped and that “with respect to all the work in God’s kingdom, for which we as a Christian Reformed Church are jointly responsible, we use the term ‘quota’ to indicate the amount per family recommended by Synod to the congregations” (Acts 1939, p. 72).
It is to be feared that although the term “assessments” has been dropped for thirty years, the idea it expresses still lingers or is returning. The only way in which our quota system can be justified is by recognizing it as what it was intended to he, a statistical average to inform each mem
ber of the average amount which must be contributed throughout the denomination if the churches’ common educational, missionary, and other labors are to be carried out at the level planned by the Synods. If that average is to be met, obviously some will have to give more, much more, because others, less affluent or in smaller, more heavily burdened churches can only be expected to give less. Any effort to make of it a flatrate, taxation scheme is to degrade it into an abuse—unworthy of the church of Christ and its worship of its Lord.
The abuse of quotas – If we try to look at this matter of giving in its proper, biblical, spiritual perspective we must observe that the motivation that prompts us to give for “quota” causes must always be our consciousness that they are actually serving the cause of Christ and his gospel in such a measure that our love for him demands that we give them our support. The motive for giving must never be allowed to degenerate into the idea: “Synod has commanded! you must pay up!”
There are indications that the latter is what is happening; and, when it docs, Christian giving may be perverted into the kind of abomination God’s prophets taught us he hates. When the Synod or a classis allots a quota for matters which cannot command the support of the churches or their members because they are not plainly promoting the cause of the gospel (or for causes which may even be interfering with the progress of tho gospel), no one has a right to try to press a church or a member into paying them.
Someone might say: “But our synods and classes would never do such things!” Have you read the Acts of Synod or the minutes of your classes lately? Just consider a few recent decisions. Our 1970 Synod placed a $73,000 item for a “Race Committee” under the Home Missions Budget for which our families are asked to contribute a $40.50 quota. in the April issue of TORCH AND TRUMPET I pointed out at greater length the impropriety of calling such projects as studying racial inequalities and trying to improve housing in slum areas, regardless of how desirable such projects might be, “home missions.”
Under Foreign Missions the work in Nigeria is by far the largest we are carrying on. Not only does our medical and educational work there now far exceed our evangelism, but in that field we are also now committed to fully supporting a union seminary which does not and cannot teach exclusively Reformed doctrine, and our last Synod again denied the request of the Tiv Church for help to establish a truly Reformed seminary.
In connection with Calvin College our last Synod has approved the development of a graduate-study program which is not to be under church control, but at least at the beginning is to be partially financed by church quotas.
The Synod’s dealing with a request from the United Calvinist Youth organization is of particular interest. Two years ago that organization appealed to our young people’s organizations and our churches for money to build an extensive administration building but could not arouse enough enthusiasm for the project to carry it out. Last year it requested the Synod to be placed on the list of accredited causes, but this effort too did not arouse sufficient support. Now it has requested that the Synod levy a “quota” of $1.00 per family per year for three years for this purpose. This request the Synod obligingly granted and now the building is going up. How can one justify the Synod resorting to quotas to support a project over which it exercises no control when it has been demonstrated for two years that that project could not gain the support of the young people and the churches on the basis of its own merits? Is this not a perversion of the whole principle of Christian stewardship?
To take one more example from the decisions of a classis, Classis Grand Rapids East at a recent meeting decided to loan $15,000 of classical building funds to a Pentecostal church for its building just because that church happened to be made up of black people. Objections to sl1ch misuse of funds for churches teaching non-Reformed doctrines while denying them to needy churches within the classis were ignored.
Responsible giving needed – When such actions are being taken by Synod and classes does it not become the duty of each consistory and church member to face the question whether or to what degree each can and should out of loyalty to Christ continue to contribute to such causes? Someone may object that these cases I have mentioned are exceptions, that many activities are continuing which merit our full support. That may be true, and we want to continue supporting them.
But does not the existence of an increasing number of questionable or objectionable decisions make it necessary that we begin to give responsibly, where loyalty to Christ demands it and not just give blindly where the Synod or Classis may allot a quota?
Rev. Peter De Jong is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan.
In observing these discussions one soon becomes aware that this traditional system of per-family quotas determined by classes and synods is coming to be rather widely regarded as a kind of tax which every local church member or family is, if at all possible, morally obligated to pay. If these quotas were really such a tax they would be one of the most unfair and indefensible methods of raising money that could be devised. 1s it not perfectly obvious that the incomes of our members and families differ widely, and that such fixed amounts, which for some are very easily given, would be for others burdens or even impossibilities? What civil government would consider such a method of raising money? Should the churches be less considerate of the individual needs and circumstances of their members than the civil authorities are?
What does God’s Word teach? – Nowhere in God’s Word is there any command or encouragement for such a “flat-rate” method of “giving.” In the Old Testament, although there were nominal assessments which were the same for all such as the half-shekel poll tax (Ex. 30:11–16; Matt. 17:24–27), even the offerings prescribed for a mother were less for the poor than for the rich (Lev. 12:8) and the regular requirement for the worship of the Lord was a tithe or tenth of one’s income.
When we tum to the New Testament, where do we find any indication that such a law as that given for the temple still applies to the support of the church? One can only argue with a measure of plausibility that if in the Old Testament a tenth of one’s income was to be expected from God’s people for the support of the temple, in the New Testament, an era of far more abundant revelation and greater responsibility, including that to bring the gospel to the whole world, the Christian should not be expected to do less.
This giving of the Christian, however, is never put on the level of taxation, much less laid down as a “flat-rate.” The New Testament teaches us to give “as we may prosper” (I Cor. 16:2) and each “as he hath purposed in his heart: not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver” (II Cor. 9:7). It always places the emphasis on the relationship to and concern for Christ and his people which must prompt the giving.
Quotas are not “Assessments” but averages – In the earlier years of om church’s history, the classes and synods spoke of “assessments,” but in 1939 the Synod observed that this term had no place in the churches’ giving and should be dropped and that “with respect to all the work in God’s kingdom, for which we as a Christian Reformed Church are jointly responsible, we use the term ‘quota’ to indicate the amount per family recommended by Synod to the congregations” (Acts 1939, p. 72).
It is to be feared that although the term “assessments” has been dropped for thirty years, the idea it expresses still lingers or is returning. The only way in which our quota system can be justified is by recognizing it as what it was intended to he, a statistical average to inform each mem
ber of the average amount which must be contributed throughout the denomination if the churches’ common educational, missionary, and other labors are to be carried out at the level planned by the Synods. If that average is to be met, obviously some will have to give more, much more, because others, less affluent or in smaller, more heavily burdened churches can only be expected to give less. Any effort to make of it a flatrate, taxation scheme is to degrade it into an abuse—unworthy of the church of Christ and its worship of its Lord.
The abuse of quotas – If we try to look at this matter of giving in its proper, biblical, spiritual perspective we must observe that the motivation that prompts us to give for “quota” causes must always be our consciousness that they are actually serving the cause of Christ and his gospel in such a measure that our love for him demands that we give them our support. The motive for giving must never be allowed to degenerate into the idea: “Synod has commanded! you must pay up!”
There are indications that the latter is what is happening; and, when it docs, Christian giving may be perverted into the kind of abomination God’s prophets taught us he hates. When the Synod or a classis allots a quota for matters which cannot command the support of the churches or their members because they are not plainly promoting the cause of the gospel (or for causes which may even be interfering with the progress of tho gospel), no one has a right to try to press a church or a member into paying them.
Someone might say: “But our synods and classes would never do such things!” Have you read the Acts of Synod or the minutes of your classes lately? Just consider a few recent decisions. Our 1970 Synod placed a $73,000 item for a “Race Committee” under the Home Missions Budget for which our families are asked to contribute a $40.50 quota. in the April issue of TORCH AND TRUMPET I pointed out at greater length the impropriety of calling such projects as studying racial inequalities and trying to improve housing in slum areas, regardless of how desirable such projects might be, “home missions.”
Under Foreign Missions the work in Nigeria is by far the largest we are carrying on. Not only does our medical and educational work there now far exceed our evangelism, but in that field we are also now committed to fully supporting a union seminary which does not and cannot teach exclusively Reformed doctrine, and our last Synod again denied the request of the Tiv Church for help to establish a truly Reformed seminary.
In connection with Calvin College our last Synod has approved the development of a graduate-study program which is not to be under church control, but at least at the beginning is to be partially financed by church quotas.
The Synod’s dealing with a request from the United Calvinist Youth organization is of particular interest. Two years ago that organization appealed to our young people’s organizations and our churches for money to build an extensive administration building but could not arouse enough enthusiasm for the project to carry it out. Last year it requested the Synod to be placed on the list of accredited causes, but this effort too did not arouse sufficient support. Now it has requested that the Synod levy a “quota” of $1.00 per family per year for three years for this purpose. This request the Synod obligingly granted and now the building is going up. How can one justify the Synod resorting to quotas to support a project over which it exercises no control when it has been demonstrated for two years that that project could not gain the support of the young people and the churches on the basis of its own merits? Is this not a perversion of the whole principle of Christian stewardship?
To take one more example from the decisions of a classis, Classis Grand Rapids East at a recent meeting decided to loan $15,000 of classical building funds to a Pentecostal church for its building just because that church happened to be made up of black people. Objections to sl1ch misuse of funds for churches teaching non-Reformed doctrines while denying them to needy churches within the classis were ignored.
Responsible giving needed – When such actions are being taken by Synod and classes does it not become the duty of each consistory and church member to face the question whether or to what degree each can and should out of loyalty to Christ continue to contribute to such causes? Someone may object that these cases I have mentioned are exceptions, that many activities are continuing which merit our full support. That may be true, and we want to continue supporting them.
But does not the existence of an increasing number of questionable or objectionable decisions make it necessary that we begin to give responsibly, where loyalty to Christ demands it and not just give blindly where the Synod or Classis may allot a quota?
Rev. Peter De Jong is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan.