Tim Dalrymple discusses recent surveys on giving in American churches in an article in the November 5 issue of World. According to Empty Tomb, Inc. tithing to mainline churches has reached its lowest point in 41 years, and of the amount that churches are receiving, a smaller percentage is going to serve the needy outside of the congregation as churches must retain a higher percentage to cover the cost of maintenance and paying staff salaries. Empty Tomb is an Illinois-based agency that provides “financial discipleship strategy and information about church giving patterns on a national level” (www.emptytomb.org). According to their study, data on evangelical and Roman Catholic churches’ giving patterns was not available, but the authors suggest that the trends among the mainline denominations included in the survey should be indicative of those American churches not included.

According to the Empty Tomb report, Christians in the denominations included in the study (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and others) tithed 2.38 percent of their income in 2009, down .05 percent from 2008, and those churches then spent less than one-sixth of their budget on ministries that fell outside of the congregation itself.

Dalrymple notes that Empty Tomb could be accused of taking an alarmist approach to its research, but I would agree with him when he notes that, “the statistics are alarming enough if they are even remotely close.” I would like to think that if the churches not included in the study were to be surveyed we would see a higher percentage being tithed to the local congregation, but it is unlikely that it would be overwhelmingly higher, and even if it were double, that would mean only 4.76 percent…hardly anything to get excited about.

There is also the possibility that individuals are including organizations and ministries other than their local church in their tithing, giving directly to missionaries and other para-church ministries rather than having that support funneled through the local church. My wife and I have done that in the past. When we were members of a wonderful, Bible-believing, Bible-teaching church that had an approach to missions that we did not completely agree with we gave part of our tithe to our church, and part of it went directly to fund missionaries we know and support around the world. As much as I would like to think this is the case, though, I have to be honest and say that it is unlikely that the “missing” 7.62 percent of the tithe (assuming one holds to the idea of tithing equaling 10 percent, and the responsibility of the Christian being to tithe) is being contributed in such ways.

Dalrymple correctly points out that the obvious culprit for the decline in giving would seem to be the current state of the U.S. economy. However, according to Empty Tomb, church giving has not always declined when the economy has been, shall we say, sluggish. So there may be other reasons to consider, as well. What concerns me more, however, is the larger picture. Regardless of the reason for the .05 percent decline from 2008 to ’09, lets look at something more troubling. Empty Tomb reports that the .05 decline was the largest year-to-year decline in giving in the past 40 years. So while that is cause for concern, it reveals to me that giving has remained relatively stable…and, therefore, relatively scant.

Dig around on the Empty Tomb web site and you will find lots of interesting facts about the giving trends in the U.S. Of note, Protestants were giving 2.9 percent of their income to churches in 1916. In the midst of the Great Depression in 1933 they were giving 3.2 percent. In 1955, it was still 3.2 percent. By 2007, it was 2.5 percent. What happened to income over that same period? Compared to 1933, even taking taxes and inflation into consideration, Americans in 2007 were 582% richer. Yet giving had gone down. Per member giving in 2007 averaged a pathetically low $863.80.

So, what difference could this make? Well, according to the study, if American churches had given the same percentage of their budgets to benevolence ministries in 2009 as they did in 1968, an additional $3.1 billion would have gone to those in need. What’s more, if American Christians had tithed a full ten percent on their income in 2008 the resulting increase for the church would have been $172 billion. In both cases that’s billion…with a “b.” And I don’t care who you are, that’s a lot of money. So much money, in fact, that according to the authors of the study that would have been more than enough to “send missionaries to every unreached people group and all but eliminate the deaths of small children because of starvation and disease.” Notice that that says and, not or. In other words, if each member tithed ten percent–which comes out to an increase of slightly more than $200 per month based on 2007 per capita income–there would be enough resources available to eliminate childhood starvation and reach every known people group in the world. That is not to say that would happen, of course. Churches may choose to utilize that money in other ways if it were given. But think of whatever is most important to you or whatever you would love to see your church be able to do more of, and imagine what a full tithe could translate into. No child would be prevented from attending Christian school for financial reasons. No crisis pregnancy center would be unable to provide ultrasounds to mothers considering abortion. No orphaned child would be left with inadequate care. No elderly person would be deprived of respectful, honorable care. None of the more than nine percent of unemployed U.S. workers would be unable to pay their bills or feed their family. No one would be unable to access quality health care. Fill in the blank with your own vision….

So, back to an earlier question, why is the percentage of income that American Christians tithe to their churches so low? It’s not the economy. It is a failure to acknowledge that their income is not their income. It is God’s money that He has entrusted to them. Unfortunately, many are failing to be good stewards of that money, either because they do not know how, or because they do not care. They would rather spend the money on things they want, and give God what’s leftover. Remember, too, that when we look at averages of anything we must keep in mind that to get that average figure, some give much more while some give much less. I cannot think of much that would be more depressing than to think that there are many professing Christians who tithe much less than 2.38 percent of their income.

I am reminded of the biblical account of the three individuals who were entrusted with some of their master’s money when he left on a long trip. Two of the three doubled their master’s money in his absence, while one, afraid of a failure to measure up to the master’s expectations, simply buried the money and then gave it back to him upon his return. We find in that account that when the master received his money back from this third individual he called him “wicked and slothful” (Matthew 25:26, ESV). That individual was then cast into outer darkness. It gives me pause–and I think it should you, too–to imagine how much more upset the master in that story would have been had that third individual returned to the master only one-fourth of what he had been given and explained that he had used the remainder to pay bills, go out to eat with his family, buy some designer sandals, and take a vacation to the coast. I cannot help but picture this fool smilingly presenting this meager return to his master thinking it would surely be enough since the master had, after all, given it to him. Couldn’t he do with it what he wanted?

In his excellent and convicting book Whose Money Is It Anyway? John MacArthur writes this: “By God’s grace we can always find a way to give, because even the worst circumstances should never hinder our devotion to Jesus Christ and our desire to obey His commands on giving. … [G]iving is not righteous unless it’s accompanied by sincere, heartfelt joy. That’s because joy will supersede any motivation that causes you to give merely out of duty, pressure, fear of punishment if you don’t, or simply for the sake of a reward.” Towards the end of his chapter entitled “The Characteristics of Biblical Giving,” MacArthur writes, “You can give without loving (that’s merely legalistic, required giving), but you can’t love without giving (true affection leads to generosity).”

I’m not going to tell you that you have to tithe ten percent. I don’t think that’s my place, and I am not even convinced that the ten percent tithe is New Testament requirement. But tithing is a requirement, and I would ask you to prayerfully reflect on your priorities, as I reflect on mine. 2 Corinthians 9:7 says that, “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” If you’re cheerfully giving God your 2.38 percent, that’s between you and Him. But I do wonder if your joy might abound even more…if you decide to give Him more.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy was all over the news yesterday, and for reasons I suspect he would have preferred to avoid. At the G20 Summit last week President Sarkozy called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a liar in a conversation with U.S. President Barack Obama. What Sarkozy and Obama did not know was that the conversation was being overheard by several journalists in another room. Sarkozy and Obama were already wearing their microphones and a few journalists had already put on the headphones of their translating device–even though they had been told to wait until the news conference started to do so.

This is certainly not the first time something like this has happened. During the 2000 presidential campaign, for example, George W. Bush identified a reporter from the New York Times and in no uncertain terms told Dick Cheney what he thought of the man. This exchange was picked up by the open mic on the stage.

What these instances bring to my mind, though, is the need to guard our tongues. Presidents and other world leaders are in positions where their comments can have very real and potentially very serious consequences around the world. I am not in a position to impact international diplomacy with a carelessly expressed opinion, but that does not mean that my words are any less powerful or that I need to be any less careful. The book of James makes it unmistakably clear that the tongue is in an incredibly potent force. Like a spark igniting a forest fire or a rudder steering a ship, the tongue is small in size but almost unequaled in power and influence.

In looking at the situation with President Sarkozy it is tempting to sit back and think, “How stupid! You’re wearing a microphone, about to go into a news conference. Wouldn’t you be a little more careful in choosing your words?” I have to resist that temptation, though, because I am well aware that I, too, make foolish word choices at times. I suspect that Mr. Sarkozy was expressing an opinion he genuinely holds, and was expecting it to be a private exchange between himself and Mr. Obama. But should that matter? When I am having a confidential discussion with someone I feel I can trust, should I feel free to say things I would not be willing to say elsewhere? Should I say things I would be ashamed or embarrassed to have announced to the world or broadcast on the Internet?

Several years ago, I heard a fantastic illustration about words from my friend and former pastor, Dr. Joey Anthony. He was talking about words, and how careful we need to be with how we use them. He asked a volunteer to empty a tube of toothpaste onto a paper plate. After the individual had squeezed out all he could, Joey said, “Now, put it back in the tube.” Of course the individual looked at the toothpaste, looked at him, and then said, “I can’t.” I suppose it would be possible with lots of time and effort to get some of the toothpaste back in, but the point was well made: once our words leave out mouths, we cannot “put them back in.” We can never get them back. We may try to explain them away, apologize for them, even retract them, but we can never really get them back. Every word we utter is like the bullet of a gun; once we pull the trigger, it’s too late.

One of the greatest lies ever perpetrated on mankind is the old children’s rhyme, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” On the contrary, the damage inflicted by sticks and stones will heal with time and proper care. And while the damage done by words can heal, it may never completely go away. I suspect you, like I, can remember some specific words someone said to you at some point in your past that hurt you. You may have “gotten over it,” and you may have forgiven the individual who uttered the words, but the pain that you experienced is likely easy to recall when prompted.

In his book Controlling the Tongue, R.T. Kendall says that the scariest verse in the Bible in his opinion is Matthew 12:36, which reads, “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak.” That is a sobering thought, isn’t it? We are each equipped with a tongue, a powerful tool that we can use to build others up, or tear others down. We can encourage others, or discourage them. We can point others to Christ, or drive them away. With such a potent tool at our disposal, I’d like to suggest that we exercise much discernment in choosing our words. Maybe we should think about it this way…what if everything we said was picked up by an open mic?

In his book How Should I Live in This World? R.C. Sproul addresses why Christians often tend to legalism and fall prey to the tendency to major on the minors. Christians, Dr. Sproul writes, want to be recognized for their growth in sanctification and righteousness, so they like to develop or insist upon “rules,” because the keeping of these rules make easy measuring rods for our growth.

The Pharisees are perhaps most well known for this behavior, but they are by no means the only ones guilty. Have you ever used a record, literal or figurative, positive or negative, of your behavior–I do not go to the movies, I do not drink alcohol, I do not work on Sundays; or I tithe ten percent of every dollar I receive, I read one Proverb and one OT and one NT chapter every day, and I attend church every Sunday without fail–as a means of justifying your spiritual development? Do you ever use such measuring rods to compare yourself to others? I have to admit that I am guilty.

Dr. Sproul makes the point that we tend toward this kind of behavior because it is easier and, in many ways cheaper, to abstain from certain behaviors or to practice certain habits than it is to invest our lives in the pursuit of justice and mercy, to develop the fruits of the Spirit, to conquer pride in our lives, or covetousness, or anger, or gossip or greed…. “We tend to give God the cheapest gifts,” he writes.

You may never have thought of it that way. I do not think that I did. None of us would ever intentionally be so presumptuous or arrogant as to offer God the cheapest rather than the best, would we? Yet we may do exactly that when we satisfy ourselves with keeping the rules rather than humbly and consistently pressing forward, acknowledging our sins and seeking the face of God.

A while ago now I read in a news magazine that a study of the admission patterns of fifty of the top colleges and universities in the U.S. reveals that it is very difficult to get admitted to one of these schools if a student is both poor and white. Why? The study, done by two Princeton professors, shows that “most private colleges don’t want to waste limited scholarship money on students who don’t enhance the racial diversity of a campus: ‘Poor whites are apparently given little weight as enhancers of campus diversity, while poor non-whites count twice in the diversity tally, once as racial minorities and a second time as socio-economically deprived.'”

The article went on to point out a further conclusion of the study: “Participation in Future Farmers of America, ROTC, and 4-H Clubs, especially at the leadership level, is the kiss of death for kids with Ivy-colored dreams.” It is no secret that these activities are more prevalent in so-called red states and that the participants in such activities often are raised with a greater level of patriotism exhibited in their homes and communities and are more likely to live in communities where church attendance is high. It is a sad reality that most top schools in our country are concerned with only a certain kind of diversity, much like the politicians and politically active civil rights organizations in our country tend to promote only a certain kind of tolerance. This diversity and tolerance is increasingly used to limit exactly what it supposedly exists to promote.

Political concerns and discussions aside (I do not have the time or space to go into all of that right now) this article reminded me of the admissions criteria for a far more important and “prestigious” group than America’s top colleges and universities. Aren’t you glad that the family of God does not have such ridiculous screening procedures? If God admitted us into His family based only on what we could bring to the table or what our ancestry, race, socioeconomic status, etc. could do for His “image” I would be in serious trouble–and so would you. Because when it comes to the family of God we do not have anything that He needs. We cannot possibly, at our best moment on our best day, offer anything that would come close to meriting His attention or His acceptance. Thankfully He has only one criteria for admission, admission is open to anyone willing to meet that criteria, there is no limit on the grace and mercy He has available, and there is no cap on the size of His family. Aren’t you glad?