Fidelity is one of the most prominent duties involved in Christian stewardship; nor is our God a hard master. His demands are infinitely reasonable. He asks of us nothing but his own. His claim to that which he requires can never be invalidated. The lapse of days, and months, and years strengthens it. We may disregard this claim and thereby incur guilt; but we cannot nullify it so as to exempt ourselves from the obligation it creates.The position having, as I think, been established that we are the Lord's, and that all we have is his also, it accords with my purpose in these articles to present some considerations on systematic giving as the Lord prospers us.
It is unquestionably true that the love of money increases with the increase of property. The poor are anxious to acquire a competency - those who have a competency are desirous to become rich - and the rich are solicitous to augment their stores. The man of moderate fortune imagines that if he was placed in what the world calls independent circumstances he would be satisfied; but let his wishes be realized, and he sees a point before him, far in the distance, at which he supposes the advantages of wealth may be enjoyed. That point, it is true, is invested with a delusive luster, but he forgets that it is delusive. Let him reach it, and he is destined to feel the bitterness of disappointment. He finds that "distance leads disenchantment to the view." Tormented with the restlessness of ungratified desire - feeling that the possession of thousands does not render him happy, but only increases his love of money - his next object is to accumulate millions, and if he gains his object he becomes almost insanely anxious to multiply those millions. Wretched man! He is in urgent pursuit of happiness. He believes that happiness and gold long since allied themselves in eternal union. He therefore seeks gold, and as he seeks, inquires where is happiness? Where? Echo, as if to mock his vain pursuit, answers, where? - but he is still enamored of the shining metal and considers himself miserable only because he has not secured that amount of it which is essential in the production of happiness. Such a man illustrates at every step in the journey of life the truth of Solomon's declaration: "He that loves silver will not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loves abundance with increase." [Ecclesiastes 5:10] This saying has been verified in eveny generation. It is a sad thought that so many have lived and died under the influence of covetousness, and now feel the intensity of that anguish which arises from a consciousness that their acquisitive propensities must remain ungratified forever.
But it may be thought that these remarks apply only to men of the world who have their portion in this life. Would they were not applicable to multitudes in the Church! Would that the Church on earth was more like the Church in heaven! Judas, Ananias, and Sapphira, Simon Magus and Demas were professed friends of Christ. Many Church members have spent less time in counting the cost of the Christian profession than in counting their pecuniary gains. It is a solemn reflection that professors of religion are in peculiar danger of becoming covetous. The reason is, as Andrew Fuller well expresses it, because covetousness is almost the only crime which can be indulged and a profession of religion at the same time supported. Christians should take care lest they love money inordinately. The love of money increases with the increase of property. This will be the case with saint as well as sinner, unless pecuniary beneficence is systematically practiced. Let the point be settled by Christians that a certain proportion of their income will be regularly appropriated to the cause of the benevolence, and they will not be likely to love money extravagantly. They will see that the chief value of money arises from the fact that it may be employed in accomplishing God's purposes of grace in reference to our guilty race - that it may be made promotive of the world-wide enlargement of the kingdom of Christ. No man who, in estimating the worth of money, makes its utility the in advancing the Redeemer's cause the basis of his calculation, can make gold his idol. He cannot become a miser. He is incapable of the miser's feelings. He values money not because it can minister to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, but because it may be used in doing good. Doing good is the object aimed at, and money is means of its accomplishment.
Here then is a method by which professors of religion may effectually guard against that love of money which is the root of all evil. Let them give according to system, and the love of money will not increase with the love of property. I have sometimes thought that employments, honorable in themselves are suffered to betray men into covetousness. This may be reasonably expected unless a course of systematic beneficence is adopted. For example, professedly Christian fathers engage in honorable vocations and God smiles upon them. He gives success to their business exertions - they amass property - and they feel that they ought to do more for the cause of God than they are accustomed to do. Their consciences testify that their donations for benevolent objects should increase with the increase of their property. They find it difficult to sever the idea of augmented responsibility from that of augmented pecuniary resources. But they rest not till they invent some method of tranquilizing the remonstrance of conscience. They avail themselves of a species of logic by which they are led to the conclusion that their pecuniary benefactions are sufficiently liberal. They think of their children and easily persuade themselves of the superiority of filial claims. They speak fluently of the strength of parental obligation, and when they are reminded of the declaration of our Lord, "He that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" [Matthew 10:37] - they neutralize its influence by referring to language of Paul, "The children ought not to lay up for their parents, but the parents for their children." Thus conscience is stupefied, and the deluded father applies himself more diligently to the accumulation of wealth, "laying the flattering unction to his soul," that he is providing for his offspring, and that in so doing he is obeying God." Thus he vainly supposes that the performance of one duty releases from obligation to perform another. This is strange theology, but it is the theology of multitudes. Does not the most superficial observer perceive that in this case the principle of covetousness is actively at work? Who does not see that the father, under pretence of providing for his children is indulging his love of money? In nine instances out of ten if such fathers were left childless they would invent other excuses in justification of their penuriousness. Ah, how possible it is for those engaged in pursuits, in themselves laudable, to be betrayed into covetousness. But there is a way of preventing this. Let pecuniary offerings, equal to the ability of the one offering, be cast regularly into the treasury of the Lord, and the inordinate love of money is precluded. - P.
============== [From the Tennessee Baptist, December 17, 1859, p. 2, from CD edition. Scanned and formatted by Jim Duvall.]
More on J. M. Pendleton
Baptist History Homepage