Confusion About Quotas

From time to time questions and discussions arise among us about our churches’ “quota” system of giving. Whereas in some areas of the Christian Reformed denomination it has long been considered normal that poorer churches and classes contribute only part of the “quotas,” in other areas the failure of a church or classis to fully meet them is being treated as a kind of delinquency comparable to failing to pay ones taxes. It is evident that the traditional system of per family quotas determined by classes and synods is coming to be widely regarded as a kind of tax which every loyal church member or family is, if at all possible, morally obligated to pay.

A little reflection on the matter would compel anyone to observe that if these quotas were really a tax they would be one of the most unfair and indefensible methods of raising money that could be devised. Is it not obvious that, in view of the wide differences in income among our members and families, giving such fixed per–family amounts as our quotas would be very easy for some families and very burdensome if not impossible for others? What civil government would consider such equal assessments on everyone as a satisfactory primary method of raising money? Should the churches be less considerate of individual needs and ability of members to pay 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.” 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 t he rich (Lev.12:8), and the regular requirement for the worship of the Lord was a tithe or tenth of ones income.

When we turn to the New Testament do we find any indication (unless perhaps indirectly in 1 Cor. 9) 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 ones income was to be expected from God’s people for the support of the temple, in the New Testament era of fuller 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” (1 Cor. 16:2) and each “as he hath purposed in his heart; not grudgingly, or of necessity; for God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 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 year s of our churches ‘ 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 1999, p. 72). Notice especially the term “recommended” which means to “advise,” “counsel” or “suggest.” It cannot be construed to mean “order” or “command.”

There are many indications that although the term “assessments” has been dropped for 40 years, the idea it expresses still lingers or is returning, and in some cases is even being defended as proper church order.

The only way in which our quota system can be justified is by recognizing it as what it was intended to be, a statistical average to inform each member 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 reached, obviously some will have to give more, much more, because others, less affluent or in smaller, more heavily burdened churches can properly be expected to give less. The effort to make of it a flat–rate, taxation scheme degrades it into an abuse unworthy of the church of Christ and its proper worship of its Lord.

The Abuse of Quotas

Regarding the matter in its proper, Biblical, spiritual perspective, we must observe that the motivation to give for “quota” causes must be the conviction that they are actually serving the cause of Christ and his gospel so that our love for Him demands that we give them our support. That motivation for giving must never be perverted into the idea: “Synod has commanded! What it does with the money is none of your business! You must pay up!” There are indications that the latter notion is gaining ground, at least in practice. Two overtures to our last synod (Numbers 2 and 9) attempted to get the denominational agencies to inform the churches what they are doing with their money. One of them (Number 9) observed that a 1978 synod instruction to have denominational boards report on salary schedules was being widely ignored.

Not only do church members have a right to know what is being done with their gifts. They need to know this if they are to be properly motivated in giving. When this principle is lost from sight church “offerings” can be perverted into a form of extortion (cf. 2 Cor. 9:5 ASV). Money collected “on command” violates the whole spirit of worship.

When the churches are not only kept uninformed about what is being done with their gifts, but quotas are also designated for purposes which are either not plainly promoting the cause of the gospel or for causes which may even be interfering with the progress of the gospel the evil becomes compounded.

Someone might object, “Our classes and synods would never do such things!” Have you been reading the acts of synod or even looking carefully at the decisions of your own classis? I am not questioning the good intentions of our church assemblies or the general honesty of our institutions. Thank God for the many dedicated Christian people who labor in both. A little closer acquaintance with the record, however, will turn up a number of examples, some of them of long standing, which show, to say the least, that the proper principle that church quota giving should always promote and not compromise our Reformed commitment to the gospel of Christ is being lost from sight.

One thinks of our synodical race committee (SCORR), dedicated to the laudable purpose of removing race discrimination from the church and the world, and the fact that for a decade over half of its quota has been used to run the office and the other to support the work of other agencies in ways which discriminate in favor of members of some minority races over others! One recalls our classis’ decision a few years ago to loan $15,000 of classical building funds to a Pentecostal church for its building just because it was made up of black people. Doctrine appeared to be unimportant when a racial concern appeared. On our big African mission field our denomination has for years been supporting a united seminary, the Theological College of Northern Nigeria, which is committed to teaching a variety of doctrines including particularly some of the ver y doctrines which we in our form of subscription have promised to try to keep out of the churches. And the Tiv churches’ Reformed Theological College, now a going concern, was discouraged.

   

The Calvin Quota

Undoubtedly the quota which is getting the most widespread criticism is the large one for the support of Calvin College and Seminary. No one seems to be questioning the college’s generally high academic standards, or, I trust, the dedication of many of its Christian teachers. Many of its students can assure us, however that higher critical views of the Bible are being freely and publicly taught in both college and seminary to the point at which a student who dares to challenge such a viewpoint may encounter some discrimination. Add to this fact the presenting of notoriously immoral and even blasphemous movies on the campus, and the student dances about which our synods have been arguing, in order to understand why many of our members and some of our churches are asking whether they can in good conscience continue to give the per family quota support to these institutions. We hear of churches which have gone to the length of refusing to put this quota on their budgets. We hear of more which, while they have not taken such a drastic step, are convinced that they must honor the conscientious objections of their members against having their church offerings go to make up this quota.

Aren’t Quotas “Settled and Binding?”

When the matter surfaces at classis meetings someone is sure to bring up the principle of Article 29 of the Church Order, that “The decisions of the assemblies shall be considered settled and binding. . . .” Doesn’t that settle the matter? Church members or consistories who do not obey the decisions are guilty of mutiny and ought to be disciplined! Then the assembly needs to be reminded that we may not forget the rest of that article of the church order—the necessary qualification, “unless it is proved that they conflict with the Word of God or the Church Order.”

As long as our assemblies remain faithful to the Bible, our creeds or “Forms of Unity,” and our Church Order, we have agreed to honor and support the decisions which they make, but when they in their decisions begin to ignore that fundamental condition of our denominational fellowship, their decisions may have to be resisted, and the assemblies themselves become responsible for destroying the unity of the churches.

Our Confession about Quotas

Present confusion about this problem of quotas suggests that we need to look at what our churches have been and are confessing in our oldest Reformed creed, the Belgic Confession (Article XXXII on “The Order and Discipline of the Church”). “In the meantime we believe, though it is useful and beneficial that those who are rulers of the Church institute and establish certain ordinances among themselves for maintaining the body of the Church, yet that they ought studiously to take care that they do not depart from those things which Christ, our only Master, has instituted. And therefore we reject all human inventions, and all laws which man would introduce into the worship of God thereby to bind and compel the conscience in any manner whatever. Therefore we admit only of that which tends to nourish and preserve concord and unity, and to keep all men in obedience to God.”

This important word of caution against churches, on their own initiative, trying to “bind and compel the conscience in any manner whatever” is underscored by an earlier distinction between the “true” and the “false church,” highlighted in Article XXIX. Characteristic of the “false church,” we confess, is the fact that “it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ” and that “it relies more upon men than upon Christ, and persecutes those who live holily according to the Word of God and rebuke it for its errors, covetousness, and idolatry.”

One can hardly find sterner denunciations in the writings of the Old Testament prophets than those issued against the actions of religious officials who, like the sons of Eli, manipulate the offerings of God‘s people for their own convenience or advantage (1 Sam. 2:12–17; Micah 3; Ezekiel 34). I am not suggesting that matters have reached such a stage among us, but the first and biggest step toward such flagrant abuses of church office and authority is the loss of sensitivity to the fact that Christian offerings are a worship of the Lord. When that sensitivity is lost the church is open to the medieval church abuses that called for the Reformation, or the current abuses of church authority which are triggering mass secessions from the United Presbyterian Church today. A look behind and around us suggests that we need a Biblical Reformation, also in our handling of church offerings and quotas.

Note: This article is a revision of one under the same title which appeared in the Torch and Trumpet in November, 1970.