Are we willing to pay the financial cost of Faith….or not? What's answer say about what we value?

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | September 15, 2013 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[NYer]

There is an interesting, albeit at times concerning, article over at Marketwatch.com that reports the simple fact that being a member of a believing community “costs” you something. And while the article is directed to a Jewish context, its implications reach all of us who believe and belong to the Church.

Underlying the article and those it interviews is a not so subtle premise that it is somehow wrong for faith to “cost” much. Never mind that just about anything in life costs something, involves tradeoffs and that the things we value are often where we chose to spend more. Somehow the implication of the article is that faith should be free, or less demanding financially.

Here are few excerpts from the article by Charles Passay with commentary from me in red and more substantial comments. The full article is here: The Financial Cost of Religious Faith

With the onset of Yom Kippur this evening, Jews will begin a day of fasting, prayer and reflection — all key parts of this holiest of holy days on the religion’s calendar. But this Day of Atonement often comes with another ritual of sorts — namely, a pitch from synagogue leaders for contributions….[It] may strike some as distasteful, but it underscores the reality that faith of any kind — Judaism, Christianity, Islam — often has a literal price. Houses of worship solicit donations in order to pay the bills…..

True enough, there are real costs to maintaining buildings and staffs related to houses of worship. But why should it be any more “distasteful” that a house of worship has costs and bills than say, a public school, a local recreation facility or city stadium, such that we are taxed to pay for their upkeep? The simple fact is that things we value have costs that need to be covered, churches are no different except that we are not forced to pay for them like the government does with taxes.

Beyond such fees, various religious practices, from adhering to certain dietary laws to avoiding certain types of investments, also have costs associated with them….The Jewish practice of keeping kosher — that is, adhering to a way of eating in which meats have been butchered and prepared a certain way, among other dietary matters — can translate into a 20% increase in a family’s food costs, according to one study….Some of the faithful say the financial burden has become harder to bear, especially in light of the slumping economy of late.

But again, it also costs money to go to a football game (often a LOT of money). And that money could be spent elsewhere too. But for people who value football, it is (apparently) a price they are willing to pay, along the the “privileges” of standing in long lines, sitting out in the cold rain on some game days, and paying 15 dollars for a tiny beer and hotdog. But people line up for it.

It’s about what people value. If I value my faith I accept that there are going to be some costs and inconveniences associated with it. If I want to keep my beautiful church open and in good repair, I accept that I will be asked to contribute to that, and will not have that money to spend on a movie or something else. If I want to be a true Christian, I am going to be generous to the poor and needy, and that means I can’t spend my money of some other things.

But If I love God, I value what he values and I want to do it. It’s called tradeoffs, and most people make them everyday for things they value. For Jewish people Kosher is important, and like anything important, it has some costs and tradeoffs associated with it. Welcome to life, filled with tradeoffs and with the need to decide what you value most. You can’t have it all, and almost none of it is free.

“I wish it wasn’t so expensive,” says Judy Safern, a Jewish resident of Dallas who runs a strategic consulting firm. In the past couple of years, Safern has cut back on what might be dubbed her “religion budget,” pulling her two children out of a Jewish day school in favor of a public one (a savings of $16,000) and foregoing membership to her local synagogue (a savings of $1,800). Safern’s hope is that she can maintain her faith without emptying her pocketbook. “I refuse to continue to be squeezed,” she adds.

While it is true that all of us might “wish” that things weren’t expensive, insisting on such wishes is not really a sign of maturity. A football fan might wish that the tickets in the nosebleed section behind the pillar weren’t $450 a piece, but (mysteriously) that is what the market will bear and he has to decide to pay it or not, whatever he wishes were not the case.

It is a worthy consideration, as Ms. Safern implies, to ponder if every expense is necessary. But at the end of the day faith does have costs in time, treasure, and tradeoffs. Does she value her faith so as to bear this cost…or not? From her remarks it seems doubtful that she values her faith much, since the “cost” is not worth it.

Regardless of the religion, Safern is far from alone in expressing such sentiments….A 2012 study by the Barna Group, a market research firm, found that 33% of Protestants and 41% of Catholics had reduced their contributions to churches or religious centers because of the economy….. Actually, Barna Group Vice President Clint Jenkin says it may be more than just the economy at play. He argues that a new generation of the faithful sees religion in an entirely different — and decidedly isolationist — way. “Faith is becoming much more something you do privately rather than something at an institution,” he says.

Exactly. Money and other resources are ultimately about what we value and what we do not value. The complaint about cost is not really all that much about money, it is about faith, it is about what we value. Many have devalued faith and decided that it isn’t “worth” much.

And, as the article suggests, one can try and reinvent the faith into a “private” matter. But at the end of the day it is clear that the driving force behind most theological syncretism and designer religion is not deep faith at all. It is about making faith less demanding, less costly, more convenient, more about “me” and what pleases me.

A few concluding thoughts. At one level, faith need not cost much at all. We could just meet in a local park on Sundays, expect that clergy be volunteer, and that very few implements such as books, bread and wine, candles, etc be used. But of course such an attitude seems foreign to people who value their faith more than that.

Traditionally it has been the instinct of the faithful to honor their belief with substantial buildings, and dignified implements. Further, since the faith is something weighty, the faithful do not simply depend on rookies or volunteer clergy for the most central matters of teaching the faith and leading the faithful in worship and governance. Rather, given the respect due to Holy Faith, clergy are expected by the faithful to be well trained. (I spent five years of post graduate and attained to two Master’s Degrees, then spent almost ten years in the internship of being a vicar rather than a pastor). This is par for the course and, yes, its costs money. But this is the instinct of the faithful.

So, faith, just like everything else we value does cost. And while there are legitimate discussions to be had about whether every cost is necessary, at the end of the day it is going to cost. If you want to find out what people value, find out what they spend their money and time on. In our increasingly secular and faithless world, many (including some believers) lament what faith “costs” even as we spend exorbitantly on many other things.

As I write this, it is a Sunday afternoon and quite literally billions of dollars and millions of hours have been spent today in an obsession known as “football,” a game having to do with the movement of a bag full of air on a field. Some fans (short for fanatic) spend as much as four to eight hours glued to the screen, or in loud uncomfortable stadiums. Hundreds of dollars are spent on tickets or parties. And yet many of these same people scoff at the “cost” of a Mass that lasts more than an hour, and would, if they went at all, consider themselves generous contributors if they put five or ten dollars in the basket.

Yes, Sunday is a day of great contrast.

What should faith cost? It is clear that the answer to this is for us to decide.

In the end however, the “lament” of the cost of faith reported in the article above is not about the money. It is about faith and what we really value. Everything “costs” it’s just what you decide to spend your money on that reveals what you most value. Do you value the faith? You decide, and you show it by what you are willing to pay. Where a person’s money and time is, there is their heart.

Video: the immigrants to this country were poor. But they combined nickels and dimes to build beautiful churches. Why? I suspect because they valued their faith and thought the cost to be worth it.

[Dutchboy88]

"The provision for worship in the initial tent of meeting was not done with the law. They were willing heart offerings:"

Not so, my FRiend. The Mosaic Law was given in Ex. 20 and included the provisions for a tabernacle whose specific and demanding details were not optional. Gifting levels may have been optional, but the demand was there.

But, when the New Covenant came, everything changed. The first agreement (temporary as it was) came at Mt. Sinai. And, it intentionally was full of sound and fury. Judgment, requirement, law was to drive the Jews to ask for mercy. That Mt. is gone.

Heb. 12:

18 For you have not come to a mountain that can be touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind, 19 and to the blast of a trumpet and the sound of words which sound was such that those who heard begged that no further word be spoken to them. 20 For they could not bear the command, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it will be stoned.” 21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, “I am full of fear and trembling.”

The New Covenant is out of Mt. Zion, and full of grace (Jer. 31:31ff). It is here to stay...for those called.

Heb. 12:

22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of [h]angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

The Law is gone. Grace has come.

The value of the Law is to convict one of his brokenness, but not to give them life (I Tim. 1:8ff, Gal. 3).

[Raycpa]

The tent of meeting was different. Please read again.

[Dutchboy88]

"You misrepresent Paul. He denied that he was telling Jews to depart from Moses, to cease circumcision, or to cease keeping the traditions (Acts 21:20ff) and kept those "trappings" himself--even the optional ones, like Nazrite vows (Acts 18:18). Many of those so-called trappings are the cultural elements that make the Jews, well, Jews: Sabbath, Feasts, kashrut, clothing, etc. To say that those are gone is to say that Paul intended that there cease to be a Jewish people and Jewish culture."

Sorry, my FRiend. You have not read the entire story. Paul's letter to the Hebrews is about the superiority of Jesus, the Lamb provided by God, to all of the sacrificial activities involving bulls and goats. Jesus is superior to the High Priest order, as Melchizadek pre-dated and is thus superior to Levi. Jesus is the end-all of the Law and Paul's argument is for believing Jews to resist the pressure of the community to return to that Law. They are to pay attention to this important change, lest they "slide right by" it the way the Jews in general have.

Once grace has come, the Law's work as a tutor is done.

Galatians 2 & 3 addresses your misunderstanding. It has actually always been "faith" infused in believers...not legal requirements. Here is 3 in total:

[a]You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of [b]the Law, or by [c]hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun [d]by the Spirit, are you now [e]being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you [f]suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works [g]miracles among you, do it by the works of [h]the Law, or by [i]hearing with faith?

6 [j]Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. 7 Therefore, [k]be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God [l]would justify the [m]Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with [n]Abraham, the believer.

10 For as many as are of the works of [o]the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” 11 Now that no one is justified [p]by [q]the Law before God is evident; for, “[r]The righteous man shall live by faith.” 12 [s]However, the Law is not [t]of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live [u]by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a [v]tree”— 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might [w]come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Intent of the Law

15 Brethren, I speak [x]in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s [y]covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds [z]conditions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. 17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is [aa]based on law, it is no longer [ab]based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

19 Why the Law then? It was added [ac]because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the [ad]agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. 20 Now a mediator is not [ae]for one party only; whereas God is only one. 21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness [af]would indeed have been [ag]based on law. 22 But the Scripture has shut up [ah]everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a [ai]tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is [aj]neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you [ak]belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s [al]descendants, heirs according to promise.

Check Acts 15 and the argument about whether circumcision should be includable to Gentiles. Even Peter said, "We Jews have never actually accomplished the Law anyway (neither us, nor our ancestors), why put this upon the Gentiles?"

No additional circumcision was ever advocated for a Jew by Paul. It does not negate their identity (descendants of A, I, J), but it does stop the incorrect understanding that "works" rescues a man.

And, the "building" thing is a fabrication of traditions, not the New Covenant. Find support for it in the Epistles and we're listening.

[Dutchboy88]

The tent of meeting was a temporary tabernacle.

[smvoice]

Beautiful. Thank you!

[RitaOK]

Let us all know when you find Him. For the time being, let me kiss you off. Time for you to return to your mirror and reflect yourself, fairest of all.

Happy landing to you, too.

[Buggman]

We agree that Messiah is superior. A backhoe is superior to a shovel--that doesn't mean that the shovel now has no purpose or that you're sinning against the backhoe by using the shovel to work your garden. Likewise, the priesthood of Messiah in the Heavenly Temple is superior, but that doesn't mean that the Levitical priesthood now has no purpose, let alone unrelated cultural commandments like the Sabbath, kashrut, etc.

I started to write out a long response to the rest of your post, but before I get into TL;DR territory here, let me ask you a single, simple question: Is it honestly your intent to argue that God sent the King of the Jews to the Jewish people, having prophesied of Him by Jewish prophets in the Jewish language, and then sending out Jewish apostles first to the Jew and only then to the Gentile, to tell Jews to stop being Jewish?

Shalom

[Dutchboy88]

"A backhoe is superior to a shovel--that doesn't mean that the shovel now has no purpose or that you're sinning against the backhoe by using the shovel to work your garden."

Okay, this may be one of the most shocking statements I have read on FR. When Jesus, the Son of God, the Messiah from Israel, the Lamb of God, One of the Triunity God of Heaven is likened to a backhoe, there is nothing left to say. We have no discussion here, my FRiend.

[Dutchboy88]

"This is what God wants from us....

Romans 12:1-2"

Excellent...

[Dutchboy88]

"Let us all know when you find Him. For the time being, let me kiss you off."

More importantly, that we be found by Him. The Gospel is God reaching to lost men/women, undeserving (no, worse, deserving death), and granting them grace, infusing them with faith to trust in the Messiah of Israel, alone. No accoutrements, no additions, no anything but Him. I'll consider myself kissed off. However, when that day arrives, recall that we spoke of this Gospel of grace.

[metmom]

Nobody ever suggested that anyone tell the first Jews to stop being Jewish.

That’s just ludicrous.

The Levitical priesthood is no longer needed as Jesus, the final, perfect sacrifice obtained forgiveness for all men for all time.

The whole purpose of the Law was to point to Christ. It never was intended as a means by which people could be saved.

[Buggman]

That’s just ludicrous.

Okay, second question: Do you honestly believe that you can separate "being Jewish" from the "trappings" of the Torah? Take the Levitical temple service off the table for the moment. Do you believe that you separate Jewish culture from circumcision, the Sabbath, the Feasts, kashrut, etc.?

Shalom.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “The Levitical priesthood is no longer needed as Jesus, the final, perfect sacrifice obtained forgiveness for all men for all time.” <<

.
The Prophets Ezekiel, and John, writer of the Revelation. both indicate that it is not so. Yeshua will build the Millenial Temple when he returns, and the ‘nations’ will be required to “come up” to Jerusalem for the feasts (yes, the feasts are for all of the nations).

For the nations that do not, there will be no rain.

Those for whom Yeshua’s perfect sacrifice has been effective in the first 6 millenia will be resurrected “at the last trump” to meet him on the sea of fire and glass. They will be with him in his triumphful return to Earth.

That fact does not cancel a single sentence of Yehova’s prophets.

The “law” has several purposes, depending on who you are.

For his elect, it is written on their hearts, and they delight in pleasing Yehova through their obedience. Yeshua gave us the key to his Torah, and it is based in love for Yehova, and for his sheep.

For the rest it is an accusation unto the second death, as they despise Yehova, and his law is anathema to them.

Yeshua meant every word he spoke during his 70 week ministry on Earth. Do not parse his message, saving only the pleasing parts.

[metmom]

Hebrews 10:1-4 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Hebrews 11:11-14 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

[metmom]

Okay, second question: Do you honestly believe that you can separate "being Jewish" from the "trappings" of the Torah?

Genetics......

[Buggman]

So to clarify, you're perfectly fine with someone who happens to have some Jewish DNA in them, but you want the Jewish culture to vanish from the face of the earth?

How exactly does that not come right back to saying that a Jewish Messiah came to stop Jews from being Jewish?

[editor-surveyor]

Off topic!

Are you saying that Paul called Ezekiel a false prophet?

You’re just not reading what Paul is saying. There is far more than covering sins. Yeshua told us that we are to follow his commandments, and that he who breaks a commandment, or teaches another to break one will be least in the kingdom.

Are you running for “Least in the kingdom?”

Do you feel no desire to be obedient?

The verses that you posted do not address the issue that you wrestle with.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “How exactly does that not come right back to saying that a Jewish Messiah came to stop Jews from being Jewish?” <<

.
I think that you're headed in the right direction with that question.

The Roman Catholic church was founded in rejection of the worship that Yehova presented at Sinai, and sent his son to fulfill.

The Way leaves no room for the catholic pagan priesthood, or praying to dead humans, or statues of Zeus renamed Peter, and those that have come out of that mess just can't seem to adjust to the position that has been prophesied for Israel, as the spiritual leaders of the millennial kingdom.

Many Calvinists also retain Rome's antisemitism.

[Buggman]

I largely agree, but I think we need to be careful to show grace ourselves here. Yes, there are antisemitic assumptions buried in a lot of Christian theology regarding the covenants and grace vs. law, but they are buried. Our Sunday-brethren (a term that I mean sincerely, not as irony) aren't being intentionally antisemitic; they simply have never had a reason to question certain assumptions. We need to be gentle and loving in how we put forth those questions.

If someone wants to say, "Hey, I'm a Gentile, so under Galatians I don't have to keep the ceremonial laws," I'm fine with that. My objection is telling Jews that they're supposed to stop living as Jews in order to be saved under the Gospel.

Shalom

[editor-surveyor]

Mostly true, but under Galatians, all that anyone is free from is the Takanot and Ma’assim, not the Torah that Yeshua promised that he would not alter untill all is accomplished.

Nobody has to obey, but if one loves Yehova, why would they not wish to obey his commandments? Quite a conflict there.