Any acceptable method of giving should preserve and promote the stewardship rights of the individual believer and member of the Church. Read II Corinthians 8 and 9 and ask yourself if the Quota System as it is understood and practiced in the Christian Reformed Church acknowledges or violates the stewardship rights of the believer outlined there.
Right #1 – Generosity
Our first right is to be generous. In II Corinthians 8:1–7 the Apostle Paul uses the Macedonian churches as THE model for all churches. Their joy, despite their extreme poverty, prompted a generous response to the needs of the gospel ministry and the kingdom.
Apparently, no prescribed or dollar amount was necessary. They generously and voluntarily gave beyond their ability, pleading for an opportunity to share in the ministry of the gospel!
Does the quota method, as commonly understood and employed, encourage generosity? Absolutely not! In practice, it stifles generosity for many and creates a hardship for many others. Institutions and agencies should applaud the day that quotas are abolished. Not only would it bring our giving practices as Churches and denomination closer to the Scriptural pattern, but gifts would undoubtedly increase. As long as quotas are perceived as a bill, or assessment, people will naturally absolve themselves of their duty by paying the minimum. After all, when was the last time you sent the gas company an extra $5 just because they were doing such a great job? Bills are bills and gifts are gifts. The idea of a free-will (Spirit constrained) gift encourages the believer’s right to give to the work of the Lord generously.
Would the Apostle Paul have given the Macedonians and Corinthians a dollar amount per family without first and foremost informing them of their rights and responsibilities as believers? Of course not. First of all, it is doubtful that the Apostle would ever have employed a quota method. Secondly, it is unthinkable that he would have them give blindly towards a dollar figure. Every gift should be for a published cause along with information concerning the purpose, activities, and particular needs of that cause. In II Corinthians 8 and 9 Paul is describing such a particular cause.
Far from compelling to give, no matter how lacking the Corinthians were in giving, the Apostle Paul himself would not command them to give. “I am not commanding you (to give), but I want to test the sincerity of your love” (II Cor. 8:8). Compelled, coerced, required giving was not in the Apostle’s vocabulary. Believers cannot be Scripturally compelled to give to any cause. That is our right in spite of the decisions of popes, councils, and synods. It is our right, because it was given to us through the Scripture by Christ. That matter belongs in the realm of “the conscience before God.”
Right #2 – Equitability
Our second right is to give in an equitable manner. Fairness is essential in giving. Churches differ from one to another as dramatically as do individuals, in their economic ability. The one thing the Apostle Paul wished to avoid was to lay a burden upon a church or individual that constituted an economic hardship. He says, “Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed but that there might be equality” (II Cor. 8:13).
An annual denominational quota approaching $500.00 a year is hardly an equitable arrangement. In most churches parents are already paying thousands of dollars a year for Christian education and a thousand or so for the running of the local church. As an “average” member told me after reading the average income of a CRC household, “Whose average? It seems that the Christian Reformed Church is turning into a rich man’s Church.” Another man, when told that he didn’t have to pay his full quota, said “What do you think I am. A charity case? I’ll pay.”
Generous and willing gifts are what God expects. We have the right to expect a system of giving to be equitable. If, through our own generosity, we experience a hardship, that should be our decision and blessing. Even though quotas are “recommended amounts” they still express an expectation that is understood by most to be a requirement. You pay your quotas or someone else will. But does the quota system, as presently understood and employed, promote and preserve equitable giving? Not in its present state. Synod, to its credit, has recognized the presence of certain individuals and churches, who because of their economic inability, are at a disadvantage in meeting quotas. Student families, lower income families and single parent families, when they are found in significant numbers, may be exempt from quota requirements.
But this does not adjust to the inequity of recommending the same dollar amount per family. Why should any family be absolved of the opportunity and responsibility of giving towards denominational causes? That is a decision that should not and Scripturally cannot, be made for them. It is their right to give, not to a bottom line, to a cause as the Lord has laid it upon their hearts and has provided.
The quota system, as presently understood and employed, violates both the believer’s right of generous giving and the right of equitable giving. One man’s generosity is another man’s stinginess. All economic classes should be encouraged to give in a generous and equitable manner toward the causes and needs presented to them.
Right# 3 – Accountability
Our third stewardship right as believers is accountability. The Apostle Paul assures the Corinthians that they “want to avoid any criticism by the way we (they) administer this (the) liberal gift.” This accountability consisted of both doing what was right in .the eyes of the Lord and the eyes of man. Paul realized the important principle that must be kept in mind in all giving: “Where the buck starts is where the buck stops.”
This accountability must go far beyond the provision of a detailed, duly audited financial statement listing receipts and disbursements. The believer exercises a sacred trust when giving to causes. In the Christian Reformed Church, that trust is exercised on their behalf by boards and assemblies. We trust boards and assemblies not only to be fiscally responsible, but more importantly, doctrinally responsible. These are the two “bottom lines” for which churches, agencies and institutions must give an account. How did they handle their financial riches and bow did they handle their spiritual riches? The two are inseparable.
If boards and assemblies are not holding Churches, agencies and institutions accountable, then the trust placed in them by the believer and giver has been broken and the believer must exercise his right in the pew by not perpetuating the error with an uninterrupted flow of financial support. In a confessionally united Church, gifts are to be directed toward the purpose of fostering and honoring that confessional unity. Money is not a disembodied symbol. It is one of the ways we give ourselves in service. We should no more give money to an institution working at cross purposes with our creeds and confessions that we should roll up our sleeves and assist them in their endeavor.
When ministers, assemblies and members allow institutions to work at cross purposes with the stated doctrinal and practical purpose of the Church, it affects the stewardship unity once enjoyed by all. A quota system, once only unbiblical, now becomes nearly impossible.
In a confessional Church, when there is a breakdown in doctrinal and practical unity, giving becomes an extremely personal matter. There can be no more “general funds” from which come all local and denominational expenses. Local budgets and causes have to be separated from classical and denominational budgets and causes, because the right and the responsibility for giving ultimately resides with the individual believer ..Most churches already run a two-track system in which the first offering is for the general fund and the second for designated causes. The present development requires only that we be consistent, establishing the local operating budget and designating a second envelope or offering towards a specific classical or denominational cause.
I grant you that certain people would exercise their right not to support some institutions and agencies. That is their right, for good reason or bad. That is their right, even ifa quota system is in place. But, the present understanding and employment of the quota system violates that right of the believer to exercise accountability in Christian stewardship.
If the Christian Reformed Church wants to tolerate a plurality of biblical and theological, doctrinal positions and practices, then it must tolerate and provide for a plurality of methods of giving.
Refusal to do so places the believer or Church in a position of not giving at all, devising a system which allows for the expression of the believer’s scriptural rights, or of leaving the denomination. It is wholly unconscionable that a denomination would place it’s members in the position of having to leave because it’s method of collecting funds violates the believer’s rights at every point.
Often when the believer exercises his and her office responsibly, they are accused of breaking faith and unity. They are, however, duty-bound to give only from Scriptural principles, never out of loyalty, custom, or ignorance. The truth of the matter is that the only guilty parties are those who gratefully receive the support of a confessional body and then use that position and privilege to promote their own practical and doctrinal agenda. Punishing the believer who cannot give because of scruples of conscience is like spanking the child who is trying to pick up the pieces of a broken vase and allowing the culprit to get off scot free.
Right # 4 – Willingness
Our fourth right of stewardship is to give willingly. Paul says that “ if the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what one does not have” (II Cor. 8:12).
Calvinists don’t like the word “free-will.” When applied to salvation it means one thing. When applied to giving it means quite another. Call it “Spirit compelled” if you wish. The idea is the same. Believers have a scriptural right to resist compelled giving and an obligation to willingly give.
Does the quota system as presently understood and employed promote and preserve even this most basic of stewardship rights? No. Quotas are understood as a bill, an obligation, in many cases taking priority even over the health and welfare of the local Church. A local Church may need a new building, a computer, a part-time secretary, an additional staff member, a youth worker, or an expensive new program, but quotas come first and so inflate the bottom line of the Church budget that the local Church cannot objectively consider its needs. “We can get along. But, you know, they need another secretary in the fundraising department of the Board of such and such.”
When the denominational machinery gets virtually everything it asks and, as a result, the local Church is demoralized and paralyzed, something is badly out of whack. There must be another, better way. Even if a person does wish to give above the local and denominational quota, the local Church takes the excess and pays the quota of someone who isn’t giving. Ironically, the only way for the conscience-bound believers to get around quotas, since quota causes are not presently designated in second envelopes or offerings, is to give only to designated offerings and to forward separate gifts to agencies and institutions of their choice. That is the only way to reduce the total of the general fund so significantly that, in the end, the local Church will have to pay its bills first and the denomination will get the rest.
This present practice is unfair to the local Church, because if members could look at their local ope rating budgets minus quotas, they would be encouraged to plan more aggressively and give more generously. It is also unfair to many agencies and institutions. All of them now suffer a shortfall because the quota system Will not allow the believer to give “without compulsion” to causes he deems worthy or unworthy.
Right # 5 – Personal Responsibility
Our fifth right of stewardship is to be personally responsible for the management and disbursement of God’s gifts. We are responsible and we must take responsibility for where and how our gifts are spent.
The Apostle Paul does not tell the Corinthians to throw all of their money in a pot and then to let the elders and deacons decide how much goes here or what goes there. He says, “Each man should give what he bas decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (II Cor. 9:7).
That little phrase “each man” is extremely important. Not only did Paul not want anyone to give with even the hint of reluctance or compulsion, but he recognized that every believer is responsible for what each gives to, and bow much each gives.
Does our present understanding of quotas and the way the system is employed promote and preserve the principle of personal responsibility? Only if we allow it to. If we are giving to a money figure, a dollar amount, without being conscious of the cause and the need, we are violating this principle. If the system does not allow us to designate our gifts to specific causes and allow us to “decide in our hearts,” then the system should be immediately changed. Ignoring of a better and more biblically faithful way, if known, constitutes personal and corporate disobedience. “To the one who knows to do good, and does not, to that one it is sin” (James 4:17).
I don’t believe that those who invented the quota system realized what it one day might become. To them it was a simple and convenient way to solve a complicated problem. They could not have foreseen the dramatic escalation of denominational causes and their ever increasing “needs”! They did not anticipate the increasing toleration of doctrinal and practical plurality in their confessionally unified Body. They did not realize that one day the system designed to preserve unity would be the reason why many people are finding no option but non-payment of quotas or leaving the denomination for conscience sake.
We are often reminded that our quota system is the envy of many other fund raising organizations. Yet, I don’t see them lining up at the door to adopt that method for themselves. Many people know that very few Christians would tolerate such a system for very long.
Yet in the CRC this is the only way we know. It is the way with which we grew up, and that makes it right. Wrong! It is right, not if it works, but if it is according to the Word of God. In II Corinthians 8 and 9 God instructs the believer that in giving, he has rights and responsibilities too! Let’s find a way that preserves our rights to give generously, equitably, accountably, free-willingly, and with personal responsibility.
Stephen M. Arrick is the pastor of the Calvary C.R. Church at Lowell, Michigan.