The story is too common, but I hear such stories repeatedly. My most recent conversation was with a church leader where an affluent church member offered to make a large contribution to the renovation of the worship center. He had one stipulation: the worship center had to be named in memory of his late mother. The leader politely declined. The affluent member did not make the donation. To the contrary, he began withholding all of his gifts to the church.
Almost every pastor and church leader has some story about members withholding their financial gifts as an act of protest about the direction of the church and its leadership. I have never known such a situation that had any positive affect. Such is the reason I offer nine concerns about this practice.
- It assumes that we are the actual owners of our finances. That is unbiblical thinking. God gives to us everything we have. We are the stewards of these gifts. Such is the reason we use the word “stewardship.”
- No church is perfect. If every member protested about an imperfection in a local congregation, no church would ever receive funds. This selfish act is not the way to resolve concerns.
- This practice is divisive. One of the most precious resources of any congregation is unity. The withholding of financial gifts is an act of disunity and divisiveness.
- It is controlling. The church member who withholds financial gifts seeks to get his or her way. Such is not the spirit of Paul’s words in Philippians 2:3: “Do nothing out of rivalry or conceit, but in humility consider others as more important than yourselves.”
- It is self-serving. When Paul penned 1 Corinthians 12, he emphasized how we are to function in the body of Christ. Our motive for serving is for Christ and others before ourselves.
- It is demoralizing. Paul wrote in Romans 14:19, “So we must pursue what promotes peace and builds up one another.” This practice has the opposite effect.
- It backs church leaders into a corner. Leaders have one of two options. They can yield to the church member and thus affirm a sinful practice. Or they can refuse to yield and continue the conflict that was started by the member. It is a lose-lose situation.
- If the church member truly has serious disagreements with the direction of the church, he or she should pursue other paths. They can address their concerns with leaders in the church directly. If members still have serious concerns and no resolution seems possible, it may be best to go to another church. It is much healthier to give to another church than to withhold from your present church.
- This practice never has a positive outcome. Even if the member gets his or her way, unity and trust are broken at many levels. The body of Christ is always wounded by this practice.
This topic is both sensitive and challenging. I certainly am not the fount of wisdom. Let me hear your thoughts and ideas.
Posted on February 4, 2015
With nearly 40 years of ministry experience, Thom Rainer has spent a lifetime committed to the growth and health of local churches across North America.
More from Thom
83 Comments
In frustrations over a chunk of our membership hording money in the church bank account, we have struggled with giving money to a church where it’s not being used. There is enough in the bank to cover an entire year’s budget.
My wife and I have started sending our tithes to people that are being the church in different areas. It pains us to do it. But our tithes are to be used to further his kingdom, not stored up just in case something bad happens with the building.
The pastor seems to be trying to change this mentality. But this chunk of members (enough to control the votes) celebrate when the money in the account is mentioned. They see it as a sign of a God-blessed healthy church.
In my opinion a healthy church where the spirit is moving is less effected by this…If its struggling this can be very harmful to that body of Christ.This is a matter of the heart…Individuals with large resources that are tithing need to be encouraged just like everyone else…Tracking is done for tax purposes at a min…An occasional reminder of thanks during service to everyone and privacy being paramount.Why we tithe and how its an act of faith and surrender…Why punish the body just because you have a axe to grind with the pastor.People want recognition and this can be an issue with volunteers as well….Volunteering should be encouraged with those well gifted financially….Maybe we can marry them with a particular ministry…If that individual is more envolved than just a check,and is encouraged to work along some of the volunteers they are likely to feel a sense of ownership to something bigger than themselves.Saying no to a gift but yes to someone willing to give all seems like the right path.Example ,lets say you have a mission in Belize….This benefactor may refuse to travel there..But meeting with him or her and spelling out the needs and goals and providing pictures and personal testimonies …..well hopefully they will see their value as a member of the body..a emphasis on their spiritual growth being more important then their bank account sounds like a sound investment..for the church,and for the body of Christ.
This may sound harsh but the church is the bride of Christ and not a whore that can be bought. Giving is a act of worship and is best expressed through the ministry of the local church. If people are using their funds to manipulate the church into satisfying their own agenda, then I don’t see much difference than what a person would do in order to use money to satisfy their own desires on the streets. The church belongs to Jesus and is his bride. With that being said, I don’t think we have to give to every ministry of the church (either locally or beyond). The call is to give cheerfully to the ministries we feel led to give. But this is different than threatening to withhold money or to attach strings to it by saying we won’t give if we don’t get our way. Such an attitude cheapens the grace of God toward his bride and treats her like a whore.
If enough people withhold donations for a period of time in order to get the attention of the leadership which has perhaps gone derelict in its duties, then it should be acceptable. I would consider it an action of last resort.
As I think about this, the more I think that protest withholding only works if the church leadership knows who gives what. As a pastor I don’t involve myself at all with the giving and I only know how much is given when I read the monthly treasurers report. If someone withheld giving out of protest it would fall on deaf ears because I have no idea who gives what.
That’s a good point. When the pastor has no idea who gives and who doesn’t, then withholding your tithe is a peculiar way to punish him.
I agree fully with the information that you have presented, but what if the leaders ie. Deacons made a decision that should have been brought before the church but wasnt? Not all deacons were for the decision and now one is withholding his tithe. I feel that the decision was made and that it was totally wrong, but there has to be a “get over it” and move on stage. We cannot live in the past and we must learn from history. What are your thoughts.
What is your policy on majority voting? Was the issue rammed through the deacons meeting? If the deacon who dissented were in the right, then why must he be told to “get over it” if the others decided to steamroll him? If I were there, the second time something like that happened, I would be tempted to make it public and take it to the entire congregation.
Did the decision involve a moral or ethical issue, or is it simply one with which others disagreed? If it’s the latter, then I agree the dissenters should get over it. I’ve not always agreed with decisions at the Southern Baptist Convention, but when the majority speaks, integrity demands that you yield.
One of my former churches received a contribution by a certain family to name a structure after their father. I shared my faith with this man several times and as far as I know he never accepted Christ and never darkened the doors of the church. But his name is prominently displayed on the church campus today. Hopefully he accepted Christ but at his funeral nothing was said to lead people to believe he was saved.
There is a significant reason to add: It hurts the giver. I was a staff member who believed I was not being paid enough and so “made up the difference” by not giving. I was the one impoverished, not the church. I don’t think they ever noticed. The real concern here needs to be placed on the giver’s spiritual condition, not the threat to the organization. Giving is one way we practice sacrifice and giving ourselves away. If we don’t learn it as we go, we’ll be unable to do it when it counts. It’s where discipleship leads.
Bravo!
Anyone interested in this topic should watch the Christmas classic: The Bishop’s Wife. It’s a great illustration of this topic.
I do not believe there is ever an “acceptable’ time to withhold tithes and offerings. (Malachi 3) As believers and members of a local church body we are to give cheerfully. If we withhold our tithes and offerings we are not robbing the church but God and we will have to give an account for that. On the flip side the leaders are responsible to be good managers of the tithes and offerings and will be held accountable for how monies are spent. It is a slippery slope with eternal consequences when we try to hold the bride of Christ hostage.