Should Pastors Know How Much Church Members Give?

No.

To argue churches are more financially secure when pastors know what parishioners give is like saying crime is less a problem when government is more autocratic.

If giving is a mandate of scripture for NT believers, then yes, pastors ought to be involved in that part of church life too.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

If giving is a mandate of scripture for NT believers, then yes, pastors ought to be involved in that part of church life too.

A suggested approach:

• Photocopy all that you send to the IRS every April: W2(s), 1099’s, etc. Might as well include some bank statements
• Whatever you send to the IRS … send to the Pastor too!
• He may need to see recent medical records as well … like a video of the colonoscopy the 50+ members endure

Just to make sure he knows everything in your personal life!

It’s a good question. While I don’t think it’s wrong to know, we have a policy that the elders don’t know how much members give. I prefer not to know. It certainly prevents any temptation toward favoritism on our part, and that has proven very helpful in some sticky situations over the years. While we can teach the necessity and value of New Testament giving, leaving the amount between them and the Lord builds that relationship, and leaves it untainted with temptations to be seen by men. It also helps big donors spiritually, in my view. They know their money will not buy them a level of influence beyond their poor brothers.

And then there’s Matthew 6:3, which, although focused on giving to the poor, seems applicable to what one gives to the church.

On the amusing side, we visited a large inner city congregation one time, and the pastor (quite well known) actually had in his hand a list of what everyone gives. The whole church was given the list. He made comments like…”Oh, my…look at some of these names…”

[Chip Van Emmerik]

If giving is a mandate of scripture for NT believers, then yes, pastors ought to be involved in that part of church life too.

How do you ascertain whether someone is giving appropriately?

I would not want to know at all. I would probably, either consciously or unconsciously, wind up catering to the people that gave more (or less).

[Chip Van Emmerik]

If giving is a mandate of scripture for NT believers, then yes, pastors ought to be involved in that part of church life too.

First, let me say, no one actually answered the question I posed with my initial post. Is giving a requirement (command) for the NT believer?

@ Dave - I don’t have a problem with the members knowing how much the pastor gives, though I think that information fits better with the elders in the paradigm I have suggested.

@ Jim - I’m not aware of any NT commands regarding colonoscopys, so I don’t think that information needs to be passed on to the pastor. However, since NT giving is part of the commanded church life of the believer, I don’t see any biblical grounds to exclude the pastor from this information. That would be like volunteering to teach a children’s SS class, but telling the pastor he is not permitted to see the class or ask about the material you are teaching. He just has to trust your personal relationship with God on that matter.

@ others - I didn’t say the pastor should have all financial information, dictate how you spend your money, tell you how much you should be giving, or call for church discipline based on the amount of your giving. The question was, should the pastor know how much people give. I think he should so that he can be involved in counseling them in this required aspect of church life. It’s part of the undershepherd/overseer responsibilities.

Re: colonoscopys …. hyperbole

Upon further reflection ….

I think churches should have a privacy statement in their constitution. Would address:

• What information is shared with whom.
• And if a church feels that the Pastor should have access to giving records, it should be spelled out.

Barry L’s point above is that how much someone gives is only part of the financial giving picture. Without knowing the givers’s income the amount given is less valuable. Additionally how much one gives to the church may be a percentage of total giving because said giver may donate directly to a missionary, bible college, et cetera.

So what does the NT say in regards to giving?:

“Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” (2 Cor. 9:7)

“On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come.” (1 Cor. 16:2)

So from these NT admonitions, how exactly would a pastor determine what is or is not appropriate for any given individual? From the first reference, what would be the motivation to even try?

Actually, when I first saw the question and planned to type a quick response, I read Wayne’s and saw that he wrote almost exactly what I would have written. I guess great minds think alike! LOL! (Or is that equally demented minds?)

I would only add that I don’t know who any of those quoted “experts” are in the article, but I did notice that none of them were listed as pastors. Kind of makes you go, “Hmmmm….?”

Chip,

I agree that the New Testament mandates giving for believers, but I don’t see how that entitles the pastor to know how much they give. The New Testament also tells the married people in my congregation not to deprive one another sexually, but that doesn’t mean I am entitled to know how often they have sex, does it?

Keith

Keith,

You have apples and oranges commands. Giving is part of the NT church life and part of the overseer’s responsibility to oversee, conjugation is not.

Right. Good point, Chip. You did ask, “If giving is a mandate of scripture for NT believers, then yes, pastors ought to be involved in that part of church life too” (italics mine).

I still don’t think pastors have to know the specific amounts their people give, however, and I see no Scriptural warrant for assuming that they must. In fact, I think it may also be unwise, since I could see a number of potential problems stemming from their knowing — some which have been mentioned already and some which haven’t. To each his own, I guess.

If I had a nickle every time I’ve had this conversation/debate in one of my classes, with colleagues or even among our elders, I would not need to worry about who gives what to whom when.

I personally tend toward letting the pastor know for the following reasons:

1. A policy of “not knowing” elevates money to a near idol status. Why should money be so “special” and sacred that it gets it own security detail? It’s JUST money. Would we also want the pastor to be ignorant of who volunteers their time? Who teaches SS? Who helps at the homeless shelter? Who sings on the praise team? (I actually had “in the choir” down, but I changed it to “on the praise team” largely because I like to cause trouble wherever possible.) It’s just one small facet of what we should be giving to the Lord and not necessarily that big of one — unless we make it a big deal.

2. It assumes the worst of the pastor/elders. Lord knows that they can be trusted with the details of one’s previous marriage, the condition of one’s family, the consequences of folk’s past, the presence of personal struggles, the addictions to alcohol, drugs or porn — but let’s not get crazy here and let him know about anyone’s finances! What are you? Naive? He’s likely to show someone favoritism. Seriously, if your pastor is inclined to show someone favoritism over money or gifts or free lunches or complements or whatever — he’s got a spiritual problem that should not be ignored. Don’t put blinders on him — deal with the real issue. Why can the financial clerk be trusted with that info, but not the pastor? Does he have a criminal history or something?

3. The only people that generally have a problem are the people who don’t give or who are cynical toward the pastor. You can print what I give in the bulletin every week for all I care. I’m not proud of it and I’m not ashamed of it. I give because God is good, not because I’m good. I’m trying to be obedience and a blessing. But it’s not about me.

4. Anyone who has an issue of wanting privacy, can have privacy. Give it in cash. End of problem. If you are giving because you want the tax write off, then you are giving for the wrong reason. If you want the tax write-off, then someone gets to know. Pretty straight up decision.

5. It helps the pastor make wise decisions. Do you really want an elder, deacon, Bible study teacher or some other ministry leader who doesn’t give?

6. Pastor’s routinely know if a person is faithful to church, has a good family, has a job, loves the Lord, shares his faith, etc…, so why separate money? (See points 1,2 and 5.)

7. It assumes the pastor is stupid (as well as corrupt.) Hello — take a look at what kind of car they drive, where their house is located and how big it is, where they vacation or simply their job description and you’ll get an idea as to how wealthy they are or aren’t. A corrupt pastor will gravitate toward that whether or not they are giving to the church. If they aren’t — he’ll be trying to figure out out to hit that jackpot personally or for the church. If they are — he probably already can figure it out. We tend to make a bigger deal out of what other people give than the person actually doing the giving.

8. The worst critics are often people who don’t give. Any pastor who has known what people give will have noticed that the loudest and often most obnoxious gripers are far more often not giving than are. Why would I allow someone who doesn’t give of his time, treasure or talent to the local church and the Lord’s work have a disproportionate voice in feedback or future vision simply because he/she is loud and/or demanding? That’s not favoritism…that’s plain ol’ discernment.

9. Finally, if a pastor struggles with showing favoritism or simply doesn’t want to know — then he should simply say, “I don’t want to see it.” I don’t think that makes him particularly noble, but if its necessary — then its necessary. There are some things I don’t do that aren’t sinful, but they are just not spiritually healthy for me. So if it’s money that is someone’s Achilles Heal, then why risk it. It really IS only money.

And yes, I’ve had access to the records of giving every where I’ve served as a pastor. I rarely accessed them — but I could have. I just didn’t need to all that often. Usually when it was deacon or elder consideration time, I’d have someone check. I’m the one who handles the financial records in my current role and that was decided by the elders who hold to the position that no other pastor/elder will know who gives or not. I disagree with their rationale, but it’s not really that big of a deal. But as such, they are just names and numbers to me….I don’t remember much about it beyond the couple of hours it takes me to enter the info into the database.

But it IS fun to debate. Kind of like music styles and Bible versions. :-D

[Jay]

I would not want to know at all. I would probably, either consciously or unconsciously, wind up catering to the people that gave more (or less).

Not sure I’d want to trust a pastor who was so easily convinced to cater to people. Sounds like a character issue to me.

:-p

Dan, I appreciate your putting out some good things to think about, especially for those in one of your classes, but after 20+ years in ministry you might not be surprised to find that I have already thought about such issues. Here are some of my own thoughts concerning each of your points:

1. I suppose your point that “A policy of ‘not knowing’ elevates money to a near idol status” would be a very good one if my reasons for preferring not to know were such as you assume. However, as my following responses might reveal, I am not entirely in agreement with your take on the matter.

2. I think you raise a very good point when you argue that “It assumes the worst of the pastor/elders.” And I would tend to agree that we shouldn’t allow the attitudes you identify here to drive what we are doing, but your criticism here appears to assume that the policy of not knowing is forced upon the elders by the congregation because they cannot be trusted. However, at Immanuel it is the elders themselves who have adopted the policy. You are quite correct when you say that we are “trusted with the details of one’s previous marriage, the condition of one’s family, the consequences of folk’s past, the presence of personal struggles, the addictions to alcohol, drugs or porn,” so why, then, would we want to add yet another potential burden/temptation to our load when we don’t have to? And why would we want to add another temptation to the flock, some of whom may assume that we could or would show favoritism based on who gives more — but this is not as likely if they know that we don’t have this information. You see, the policy is out of concern for them as well, as Wayne has already noted above.

3. I would not assume that everyone in my congregation would be so free from temptation as you seem to be. And I don’t think Jesus would assume so either. After all, He is the one who warned us about not giving to be seen by men. He knows we may have such a temptation, and I want to follow His wise instruction in the matter.

4. Couldn’t agree more on this point, although who knows what is given is more limited in our policy.

5. When you argue that “It helps the pastor make wise decisions,” I think you raise another good point, but I would argue that, if a man being considered as a Deacon, for example, doesn’t practice giving to the church, then such a selfish attitude will generally show in other ways as well. So I’m not sure it is as necessary a thing to know as you might assume, especially if we as the Elders already know the person very well. I also can’t remember Paul listing a focus on how much a man gives financially to the church as among the requirements for office.

6. You have argued, “Pastor’s routinely know if a person is faithful to church, has a good family, has a job, loves the Lord, shares his faith, etc…, so why separate money?” My response is partly similar to that in point five above. First, if we know all these other things about them, then the specifics about how much they give really aren’t so important after all, are they? I mean, if we know them and see strong Christian character in every other aspect of their lives, then why wouldn’t we assume they give as well. Second, preferring not to know what people give to the church is not the same thing as remaining completely ignorant of how they handle their finances. At Immanuel we find that we know quite a bit about how our people handle their finances because so many of them talk to us about it, even if they usually don’t mention any specifics about what they give to the church. I have also found discovered that we almost always find out if a man doesn’t hjandle his finances well, and more often than not from his wife when the marital issues begin (if not sooner). Third, knowing the specific amount someone gives to the church can be misleading, for it may often fail to reflect the complete nature of their giving anyway. For example, although not a typical case, I once had a young couple (whom I know very well and trust) confess to me that they hadn’t been tithing to the church (even though I never asked). They explained that while they were in school and traveling a lot from church to church for a few years with no consistent church home, they had started giving their tithe to a couple of missionary families who were in great need. But then they came back home to our church after about five years and found themselves unable to give to the church as much as they would like. So they continued giving what they had promised to the missionaries and began to give what they could to our church until one day they hoped it would even surpass a tenth. In such a case what they gave to the church each week didn’t come close to telling the story. And, by the way, they represent a numbe rof people who have opened up to me about thier giving patterns in order to get Scriptural advice, and they did not becasye they trusted me and becasue it was their own choice, not becasue they had to.

7. You argue that a policy of the pastor not knowing “assumes the pastor is stupid (as well as corrupt.)” Again, this might indeed be the case if the congregation had demanded to policy, but at Immanuel we elders have decided on such a policy ourselves, and none of us thinks the others are either stupid or corrupt.

8. I am quite sure you are correct when you assert that “The worst critics are often people who don’t give. Any pastor who has known what people give will have noticed that the loudest and often most obnoxious gripers are far more often not giving than are.” But do I really need to know what they are giving in order to know if they are “obnoxious gripers” or to be discerning enought o watch out for them?

9. I hope you can see by now that our reasons for preferring not to know what people give don’t boil down simply to our feeling that we might be tempted to show favoritism. In fact, we are more concerned that some in the congregation might think that we would show favoritism if they knew that we knew what everyone gives. And, as Wayne so apltly put it, we are concerned with thier spiritual health in this area.

Keith