Is it with the word ‘money’, or ‘more’, or ‘you need’?
Here are a few questions for critics – those who oppose the notion of having enough finance to be able to meet the needs of our dependents, and help others with theirs.
Helping more by having more
You see, you may see this as sin, but we would like to have more money because we think we could help more people if we had more to give, and we do give what we can, but we seem to barely get by financially, being on a wage below the national average, and, despite being debt free, rarely having anything left over to be able to assist those who are doing it tough.
I actually include in my prayers that God will provide for my family, both financially and by meeting needs. I thank God that He has promised that He will take care of us and that we need not worry or be anxious about making ends meet. I trust and take Him at His word that He will provide seed to the sower, both bread to eat and seed to sow, into the kingdom and to those in lack, so that our abundance causes us to be more fruitful to the abounding of many.
We are content with where we are, and not complaining, even if we are sometimes abased, but would be glad to abound, and prefer the times when we are in abundance because it gives us the opportunity to sow more into our local church, which has a good missions giving perspective, and into other people’s lives, especially family with needs. Is it wrong to prefer abundance and overflow over poverty and lack?
Is it wrong to ask for more?
Is it a true statement, or is it mistaken to suggest that a person should actually admit to requiring financial assistance to get through life, to ask for more, to even require more? I’m thinking of the genuine poor here.
What did Jesus mean when he said we should ask and we would receive? Does that include our needs met through finances? I’m not talking about being super-rich, but sufficient in all things, and not a burden on anyone. When it is suggested that we meet the needs of the poor, do we give to those who ask for more, or those who do not?
When Oliver Twist, in the Dickens novel, asked for more food, was he wrong, or was he exposing the poverty of spirit of the system he found himself in which lacked generosity and left him still hungry when there was enough to satisfy his hunger and that of all the other children?
Should a person in actual poverty through no fault of their own, for instance, be considered normal for agreeing that they really do need more money, or are they wrong to want to get out of poverty?
Should we encourage them in this, and help find ways for them to be aspirational towards self-sufficiency through adequate work-for-money means, even to the extent of helping them find employment, or the relevant welfare agencies to assist them, or charity, or should we chastise them for daring to dream that they could at least aspire to being on or around the national average wage?
Should we criticise people for being uncertain about their future when they are on minimum award wages? I know cleaners, in fact I spoke to one yesterday, who are doing the job they do for very low wages because they at least want the dignity of working for what they get to feed and clothe and shelter their family, and yes, they would definitely say they need more money.
Is money more of a factor for us today than in Jesus’ time, when it would have been more common to barter and trade goods, livestock and crops, rather than use cash?
Are we still a cash driven society, or are we now a credit rating driven society?
Although I am debt free, and have a steady job, I was refused a credit card I needed, as a back-up for travel purposes on standby to book into hotels and the like, because I have a low credit rating with the banks here, not because I am a debtor, or do not pay bills, but because I am debt free! If you have no debt, apparently you have no credit! You can only have a credit rating if you have debt.
So those of you who are up to the hilt in credit debt to the banks and lending societies, and criticise people for thinking they need more money, what will you do if you lose the means to repay your existing debts? Say you are made redundant, or a sudden huge expense takes you by surprise, or an illness stops you from working, will you then admit that you need more money?
Would you be being dishonest if you were to say, as critics seem to imply, that you don’t need more money?
If that is the case, why does anyone show up at work on Monday morning? If you don’t need money, critic, how do you take care of your rent, mortgage, shelter, food, gas, electricity, clothing, taking care of children, spouse, extended family, travel, taxes, rates, etc.? Nothing much is free in this life. Don’t we all need more money?
What did Paul mean when he said that if a man didn’t work he shouldn’t eat, or that we should be gainfully employed to supply to the needs of our families? What happens when that man works? He is paid. What? Money. It is a token of his effort and employment. It in turn is paid to those who sell produce so he can serve his family and support them.
Paul himself said he would not receive offerings during a certain period in his ministry because he would earn his own keep and not be a burden. Did he need money? Of course he did or he would not have worked.
The Bible is not against money, or even abundance, but against greed, hoarding, selfishness and the love of riches which interferes with our worship of God and serving people with the gospel.
Why do we need a welfare system which is much lauded and considered charitable which gives out money to those who have none if they, and therefore we, as a society, do not need more money? I thought the whole purpose of having a treasurer and treasury was to equitably distribute the various taxes people pay to sustain the growth and prosperity of their nation.
This tells us that the very system we depend on needs more money. Europe certainly has a lack of money because it is trillions of dollars in debt. As is the US. Mammon has the world in its grip and is telling the whole of civilisation ‘you need more money’ to pay off the creditors.
But how did the world get into this debt mess in the first place? We, like most people, were sucked into it for a while, and it took longer to get out of it than to get into it, just as it takes longer to shed weight if you are obese than it does to stack it on, and the pain of it is greater. It hurt to get debt free, but I’m glad we did.
How many of the critics of this book title have some kind of debt structure governing their lives? Are they paying off the principle or the interest? If they have one dollar of debt they need more money. They may not say it, or admit it, but they do. Jesus said to whom you owe anything you are a slave. How do you get out of this bondage to money-lenders if you do not need more money?
If the banks crash you all crash. If the financial institutions go down you all go with them. Unless you are debt free and not dependent on their cash, or their credit, or their system.
What is the secret of the critics’ survival?
Presumably, those who state that it is wrong to suggest that some people need more money have some other means of supporting themselves. How is it that, if they truly believe we do not need money, they do not share with the rest of us how they get by without it?
Why are they keeping this to themselves?
What is the secret of the critics’ wellbeing and sufficiency if they do not think the rest of us should have money, or, in some cases, more money, if you keep in mind the situation of those who do not consider they have enough to support themselves or their dependents?
And, if you already have enough, critics, why is it you do not need more money to help people who do not?
Not about get-rich-quick schemes
This isn’t about creating wealth for the greedy, or riches for the lazy, or promises of gain through giving, or religious appeals to holiness through success.
It is an assessment of the validity of the title of a book by Brian Houston, ‘You Need More Money’, which he took off the racks well over ten years ago because of the flack he received for the title, and yet is still being used as an example as if the book remains on the market, even being used on the TV program which recently savaged him and his church for basically being successful.
So the old adage, never judge a book by its title, has gone out the window with this one. People have converted the title of a book which is no longer on the shelves into their own imaginative preconceived ideas of what they would like it to say so that they can criticise their own interpretation of their own criticism of what he might have said had they been able to buy the book, which they can’t be cause it is no longer available, and hasn’t been for a decade or more.
Reverse idolatry for money
It is not money that is the root of all kinds of evil, but the love of money, and it is possible to have such a hang up about money that your idolatry for it shows even when you claim you do not need money, and criticise those who admit they do.
There are different ways of revealing a religious craving for financial recompense from those who do not have an issue with money, but simply use it well or invest well, or know how to be a distribution system for finances which helps others and brings equity into their lives through wise practices.
It’s not the love of money which propels them towards their liberality, but the love of people which causes them to be a positive filter system for a supply of their sufficiency to others, which then leads to personal increase and more to give. The Bible calls it the gift of liberality.
This is a request for an honest appraisal of a book title which speaks earnestly of most people’s need of more finance for a more effective lifestyle, whose author is being criticised for telling the truth about a few words that go through most people’s minds, or a simple phrase which is uttered by the majority of us at some time in our lives.
Can you truthfully say that there have never been times when, for your own needs, or for the needs of people you have met or seen, you have not considered that more money in your hands would be a good thing?
Posted by Steve