“Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. And, I suppose I should add, it is traditionalism that gives tradition such a bad name.” -Jaroslav Pelikan
[UPDATE: link was broken, now fixed] I don't often directly link to other people's posts (this site is a personal place to give expression to my own ruminations). However, one of the reasons I keep the RSS feed on the home page is because of finding articulate gems like this one from Ed Stetzer: "The trap of Tradition". I found myself saying "Yes! My church has a measure of that." My church sits in a complex context of a multi-racial inner-city culture, and mostly seems to expect them to find us and come to love our tradition of expression - to take a time-trip with us to yesteryear. There are always a few who will do that, but therein lies the rub: "a few". Have a read: HERE
2 Comments
This post may get updated 2015 in South Africa (Source) Whatever your faith (including that most difficult of faiths, atheism), we all wrestle at some point with the issue of social responsibility and balancing our spending with tax and debt. How much do YOU (should YOU) give away, if at all, and are you comfortable with that? Or, in words of a friend, how much should you keep (as that question reveals more about our attitude)? Note: the questions of how we use what we keep, where we give, even should we give, are separate discussions.
This blog post is not about whether I'm good or bad at giving, but about trying to benchmark what I do (because I'm not very organized!), and is my first real attempt at formally establishing a baseline set of principles for the future. You may disagree (I'd love to hear why, if you do), but I have to start somewhere (sadly so many people are averse to discussing money - even here I'm doing it mostly under a pseudonym). As a couple we've been wrestling over the past year or so with what we give, and trying to frame guidelines (not rules). There are so many perspectives; from the erroneous biblical perspective of "10% and alls ok" (a.k.a Ted Cruz's flat Tax), to "I earned it, it's mine", or even John Wesley’s famous advice “Gain all you can, save all you can, and give all you can.” Then there's the example of my father who left only a small monetary inheritance because he'd given so much away. In this era of inflation, global uncertainty, and broken sense of community, how do I decide what to give, what to spend, and what to save? I sit firmly in the middle class category by global standards - academics are never really "rich" (financially speaking); but in my nation I'm in that notorious category of the 1% - the upper class. This means I live in a society where I have privilege and advantage; what does that say about my "responsibility"? Of course every individual who has made it off the bottom rung of society has some measure of privilege and advantage, and so the question is not one of absolute numbers, but is about principles of proportion and exercising this as part of my moral responsibility (hopefully rooted in genuine compassion for others). I'm going to break down my current perspective (it has always, and will continue to evolve) into the following categories: (1) Tax (yes, it should be considered), (2) pledge giving, (3) ad-hoc giving, (4) indirect giving, (5) interest-free loans or forgiving debt, and (6) giving by dying. These are my current guiding principles (and I'm interested in yours). 1. Firstly, and stretching the definition of giving, is the question of tax. Ok, it's forced giving, but especially in my country this should not be ignored. People like Ted Cruz like to argue that the Biblical 10% equates to a representative flat tax. Unfortunately the Biblical patterns of tax are really much more complicated. However, one cannot deny that tax supports the poor and needy as well as the basic infrastructure of society. In my country the 1% or so pay 61% of the national income tax bill; by comparison in the USA the 1% pay about 37% of the national income tax bill. One can argue the rightness or wrongness of the percentages, but the point is that I do carry a hefty tax burden that, to a large degree, underwrites the cost of addressing poverty. So I'm "giving" a healthy sum; but it's forced and not a gift of the will, it's not me freely giving out of compassion for others. 2. Pledge giving is where I commit to regular support of activities I deem of value. As a Christian I see 10% as a starting point - whether of gross or nett earnings is often a point of contention among Christians (I choose gross), but that is a secondary issue compared to the question of whether I choose to give sustainably. I choose to give some to my home church, and some to support organizations and individuals working directly or indirectly in Christian-related activities. These latter categories largely relate to those who are supporting the people below the poverty line. 3. Ad-hoc giving. This is difficult to track because it varies so much from month to month and situation to situation. It's also plagued by complications whereby one may dangerously create a culture of dependency. I am averse to creating an expectation that I'm a soft touch because I create a dangerous expectation for the beneficiary in the long term. I split this giving into two categories: spontaneous according to situation, and giving to individuals that we have a relationship with. What percentage of my income it forms I don't really know; I don't really keep track. I think that in some ways this form of giving is most critical to maintain as it keeps one's compassion sensitized to the situations of others. 4. Indirect giving. By this I mean giving in terms of my time and skills. I'm not very good with this because my life is so busy. I have in the past given considerable time to the formal church institution (and still do), but if you've read recent blogs posts you'll know I'm wrestling with some aspects of this. I also give voluntarily in other ways such as befriending, helping others work through difficult problems, doing public talks, outreach activities, media interviews, capacity building, and voluntary engagement in external organizations that benefit society. The reason I call this giving is that it costs me something, either in exposing myself to situations where I'm vulnerable, or because by choosing to do one thing it means I cannot do another. Sadly time is not as elastic as I'd wish. 5. Interest-free loans or forgiving debt. It is the nature of my situation that I encounter many people who find themselves in a financial hole and in need to bridge the gap. So they come and ask for a loan. We try to be careful about this and not get into a situation of creating dependencies. Thus we explore the need, and try to stipulate clear repayment criteria as we feel that responsible repayment is part of getting back on one's feet. Its interest free. Now, as a new principle we are adopting a guideline that our loans should not include more than about 5 people at any one time, that we need to be in some form of ongoing relationship with them, and that we will keep the total level of outstanding loans to ~5-10% of my nett income. In addition, I am keen on debt forgiveness - either in totality or in part - in accordance with the repayment responsibility shown by the person involved. 6. Giving by dying. This is a recent discussion we had that goes beyond the obvious of leaving a legacy for some institution or other (I'm not a fan of leaving money to institutions). The new idea is to write into my will that all outstanding debts owed to me are automatically forgiven. This would be pro-rata to the individual debtors up to some maximum percentage of my estate. The executors of my state can, of course, choose to forgive more, but I feel I need to reserve a proportion for my daughter. However, knowing my daughter, I suspect she will take liberty and forgive debt and give generously of the inheritance. So that's my giving principles, for now - they're guidelines, and exceptions are of course part of the real world. You may think I'm a fool, you might think that's great but not for you, you may feel convicted, and you may even think I'm not giving enough. All reactions are good, because it means you're thinking. If you feel totally unmoved, that's the saddest of all responses. |
Why?
Probably the best therapy is to express yourself. Why do you think psychiatrists make you lie on the couch and talk, while all they do is murmur "hmmm", "uhuh", or "go on"? Archives
May 2017
|