Giving and Money

If you will allow me I want to state that you probably should do some press ups before reading this post because I am saying some things off the normal.

Do you realize that money was the reason Ananias and his wife died? That had money been removed from the equation their story could have turned out otherwise?

You see, they had given their parcel of land for God’s use without reservations.

It is possible that the apostles advised them to sell the land as the church then did not have need for the land or the logistics of disposing the same. You realize deacons were chosen later.

The dynamic of greed and deception came in when they held the wads (or whatever their money was held by) of cash after selling the land.

Then the same people who had willingly and freely given their piece of land started seeing opportunities, new opportunities that never existed when they were giving the land.

Of course the devil saw an opportunity to bring in deception that resulted in death.

Who then was at fault here? Could we really wholly blame the couple?

I think the church leadership should take a lot more blame for the death of the couple than the couple did. I am not saying they were guiltless. And I will give a verse to explain what I mean.

And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. (Acts 5:8)

It means that they had had an earlier agreement that the couple would sell the land. Were it not for the revelation of the Holy Spirit Peter would not have known that greed had overtaken them.

What am I saying?

I am saying that were it not for the fact that the couple was asked to sell their land and bring the money to the apostles, there was no way greed could have overtaken their generosity. Money was the catalyst to that greed.

In short, giving and money are not very compatible.

As a farmer will tell you, it is easier to give someone a chicken or goat than the money you get from the sale of the same. It is much easier to give someone a plate of food than give them money for them to buy the same.

Money is sticky to its holder. Things rarely are except to the stingy.

Attaching monetary value to things is therefore is an easier way to make people stingy than asking and expecting the things as they are.

People who would normally not spare a thought for you as far as money is concerned do not have any problem giving you a very expensive piece of furniture when they buy another one. People who think giving a dollar as support to a minister may not have an issue giving everything in their garage when asked for the same. And people who may call a minister a leech when asked for money may very freely give out their very expensive washing machine and cooker after buying new ones.

I believe money is a tool from the enemy just like many other weapons. And it is a tool he has used with the greatest impact over the ages.

Sadly, the church has not seen the need to deal with the same, I think because the leadership benefits greatly from the error manufactured by that tool. The wielder of the purse may have a difficult time knowing the dangers the contents of the purse hold for the rest of the people.

I will not be surprised if I learnt that Judas’ desire to sell Jesus was developed by his control of the purse since his departure to the priests came immediately after Jesus defended the pouring of that very expensive ointment on Him. It is even possible that he started pilfering the contents of the purse after realizing that nobody cared or even noticed.

In short it is possible that Judas was corrupted by the purse, or the money in the purse.

Do you realize that in the Old Testament all giving was in kind? That even in the event the designated place was far someone sold his livestock and went and bought others?

No one in the Bible tithed money. They simply tithed whatever they dealt with.

In short giving is never an issue if we remove money and monetization from the picture.

It is when we monetize food (sugar costs x, milk costs y, flour costs z) that our hospitality develops cold feet.

You also realize even in the social sphere that marriage became difficult when we started monetizing dowry and bride price.

Exchanging or giving livestock was a joy in the past. One side gave and the other side gave and there was joy all around.

But when a price was attached to a cow and a goat and a sheep a girl simply became a commodity that was bought, many times going to the highest bidder.

A cow from the in laws was treated special because it represented a relationship. Where my wife comes from the first cow I gave was given a special name which would always remind them of their son in law. And in many places such livestock was guarded better than the rest because of the ties they represented.

But money does not behave anywhere close to that.

Young people get to love each other and their relationship is monetized when they want to actualize it. Each of them is treated as a commodity and their relationship treated as a liability by one side and an asset by the other.

To add pain to the injury, they are told that even their celebration of marriage (wedding) should also be monetized. 

It is no wonder that marriages are breaking at breakneck speed nowadays. You see they have become a merging of two commodities as opposed to the uniting of two people desirous of making a life together.

I divest. I was talking about money and giving, especially to ministry.

Modern ministers are so foolish as to expect someone would generously give money to ministry when they are not submitted completely to God and will therefore pamper them to hell without realizing that they are increasing the capacity of hell.

However, some know what they are doing and would not mind a hell heading crowd supporting their ‘ministry’ since it also is heading there.

I shared a post recently, showing that there are two causes of generous giving, actual worship or free flowing freedom from the same. But whichever way, money rarely comes easily.

A person totally submitted to the Lordship of Christ has no problem giving money as we see with Barnabas. And a person in a seeker sensitive church has no problem giving as it pampers his ego as we see with the golden calf in the wilderness.

As I always say, people submitted to the Christ I serve will have no problems supporting me even without knowing what I do as Christ will direct them.

Incidentally it is impossible to convince anyone about my orders from Christ as I also have issues understanding some of them since lordship is more about obedience than understanding.

No wonder Paul said we are fools for Christ as some of the orders we receive make us doubt our sanity or even thinking capacity.

That is why it is impossible to convince money to follow Christ’s orders.

If someone who had freely given his piece of land could ‘hide’ some of the proceeds when he sold the land, how do you expect someone give their money just like that? Or have you forgotten Christ’s statement about the camel and the eye of the needle.

Yet it is not all doom. God still has people submitted to Him that their money is completely subject to His Lordship.

Read Job 31 to find one such person.

Allow me to close with this verse

And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. (Luke 16:9)

Money can only serve God’s purpose when the one possessing it is completely submitted to that purpose.