Give...or save for retirement?

[MsMediator]

This is a hypothetical question. Let's assume you can only do one or the other, give (to the church and/or Christian charities) or save (for retirement, or other necessities like a home or car), what would you do? For purposes of this discussion, you only have 10% or less of your income that you can allocate towards giving and/or saving. Both are the traditionally recommended amounts for giving and saving for retirement. I know some will say, you should give first and then worry about bills and other obligations. In this case, let's assume that regardless of whether you give (or save) on the front-end or back-end of the month, you have the same amount.

What does God expect us to do in this situation?

 

[Poinsetta]

save

 

[Lynx]

This is a hypothetical question. Let's assume you can only do one or the other, give (to the church and/or Christian charities) or save (for retirement, or other necessities like a home or car), what would you do? For purposes of this discussion, you only have 10% or less of your income that you can allocate towards giving and/or saving. Both are the traditionally recommended amounts for giving and saving for retirement. I know some will say, you should give first and then worry about bills and other obligations. In this case, let's assume that regardless of whether you give (or save) on the front-end or back-end of the month, you have the same amount.

What does God expect us to do in this situation?

Why only one of the other? What is the hypothetical scenario that requires this choice?

Even if you only had 20 cents, you could save 10 and spend 10.

 

[Gideon300]

This is a hypothetical question. Let's assume you can only do one or the other, give (to the church and/or Christian charities) or save (for retirement, or other necessities like a home or car), what would you do? For purposes of this discussion, you only have 10% or less of your income that you can allocate towards giving and/or saving. Both are the traditionally recommended amounts for giving and saving for retirement. I know some will say, you should give first and then worry about bills and other obligations. In this case, let's assume that regardless of whether you give (or save) on the front-end or back-end of the month, you have the same amount.

What does God expect us to do in this situation?

I wrestled with this for a long time. I was a reluctant giver, at least in part because I grew up in a home where money was always a problem. With encouragement and exhortation, I began to give more. My financial situation improved out of sight. I am now debt free, I have some money in the bank and a good enough car.

I have proven God's kingdom principle to be true. Give and it shall be given to you. I do not believe the prosperity preachers. I fell for that early in my Christian life. All I got from that was broke. And I'm glad. Otherwise, I would have been promoting a false gospel. Like all the best lies, there is just enough truth to make the false palatable.

 

[Seeker47]

Why only one of the other? What is the hypothetical scenario that requires this choice?

Even if you only had 20 cents, you could save 10 and spend 10.

You are correct, this is not an all or nothing scenario. Assuming that the 90% is truly spent on the necessities of life (it's usually not), I would suggest the ratio is save 18 cents and give at least 2 cents.

 

[JaumeJ]

My understanding from the Word about tithing is that we ae to pay 10% of our year's profit or gain of wealth, not 10% of all we have.

I would be a burden to mankind were I not to have put away savings for this time of my life. As it is, I must budget myself very y much in order to exist here in this age.

 

[MsMediator]

Why only one of the other? What is the hypothetical scenario that requires this choice?

Even if you only had 20 cents, you could save 10 and spend 10.

You are correct, this is not an all or nothing scenario. Assuming that the 90% is truly spent on the necessities of life (it's usually not), I would suggest the ratio is save 18 cents and give at least 2 cents.

This is under the assumption we should be giving 10% or more. Many Christians have that set in their heart.

In any case, the posts above show that saving is prioritized over giving.

 

[Lynx]

This is under the assumption we should be giving 10% or more. Many Christians have that set in their heart.

In any case, the posts above show that saving is prioritized over giving.

But why are we assuming either/or? What prohibits dividing between the two?

 

[seoulsearch]

My understanding from the Word about tithing is that we ae to pay 10% of our year's profit or gain of wealth, not 10% of all we have. I would be a burden to mankind were I not to have put away savings for this time of my life. As it is, I must budget myself very y much in order to exist here in this age.

I love this point about being responsible for our own way when considering giving.

Many years ago, I knew someone who was new to the faith, very excited and on fire for God, but giving to the point where he then needed assistance himself. However, he didn't want to stop giving because he said that as a Christian, he needed to. But then he was causing other people to need to bail HIM out as well.

While of course we're not to be extravagant, I appreciate the emphasis here that we're not much good to others (in fact, we just increase the burden,) if we can't live responsibly ourselves.

As for me, I have to agree with those that have said they would split the amount between giving and saving. I understand the inquiry behind the thread being either or, but if I had $1, I'd put half into saving and half into giving.

And if had a penny, I'd have to wait until I had two pennies so I could put one in each category.

I know in today's world of extravagance and billionaires flaunting their wealth, we often feel like the widow who gave her last two mites to the offering at the temple.

But God reminds us:

1. Jesus said this woman gave more than all the wealthy because she gave all she had from the heart.

2. Whenever I feel like my meager nickels and dimes don't matter towards anything, God always reminds me to think of what He did with just a few fishes and loaves (fed 4,000 and 5,000 people.)

Sometimes, when budgeting for this or that, I think to myself, "Ok, God. Here's a crumb from a loaf... And here's a scale from a very small fish... Let's see what you decide to do with it."

 

[MsMediator]

But why are we assuming either/or? What prohibits dividing between the two?

One might argue that it is better to just devote to one thing than to split money, talents, or time between multiple things.

 

[Lynx]

One might argue that it is better to just devote to one thing than to split money, talents, or time between multiple things.

One might argue many things. I would disagree with this particular thing.

 

[maxwel]

One might argue many things. I would disagree with this particular thing.

This post made me actually laugh out loud.
Well done lol.

 

[Lynx]

This post made me actually laugh out loud.
Well done lol.

Well... I mean... There's not even a REASON given for the incredibly contrived and forced decision.

Usually these made-up ethical questions at least give you a reason why you are having to make them in this scenario. "You are given a vial of a cure for cancer, and the task to drive it across the country to where they can study and duplicate it. Your brother is in the town where you start, dying of cancer, with two days to live. You can either use the cure to save your brother now or let him die so you can get the cure across the country." I have sooooo many questions: Who trusted ME to do this job, why did the genius who invented a cure for cancer only make ONE vial of it, why is the place where they study it so far away, what's wrong with laboratories on this coast that they are so much worse than the ones over there, am I on good terms with my brother or do I think it would be better off if he died...

But at least there's a reason given for making this choice.

This one, either give to the poor or save, all-or-nothing, there's not even a scenario given to explain why we are making this hypothetical choice. Money can be divided right down to the cent. There is NOTHING to explain why we have to choose "Give it ALL or save it ALL, no split allowed."

 

[Cameron143]

We should ask the money Nazi.

 

[Billyd]

Before I get my paycheck, my gift to God is taken out, and my savings are also taken out. Before I retired the savings went into my retirement plan and my emergency fund. Today, the savings go into my emergency fund.

I budget my lifestyle on the basis of my paychecks. I live within my budget. Most of the time I have money left over at the end of the month. It is always great to be able to help someone in need.

I've lived paycheck to paycheck and usually ran out of money before the end of the month. I had more debt than the government. That stunk. I got into a debt repayment program and learned just how effective a budget management program can be.

My advice is simple.

Take your retirement and gift to God off your paycheck before you receive it.

Get on a debt repayment plan that requires you to shred all your credit cards.

Get on a budget.

Start today.

 

[MsMediator]

Well... I mean... There's not even a REASON given for the incredibly contrived and forced decision.

Usually these made-up ethical questions at least give you a reason why you are having to make them in this scenario. "You are given a vial of a cure for cancer, and the task to drive it across the country to where they can study and duplicate it. Your brother is in the town where you start, dying of cancer, with two days to live. You can either use the cure to save your brother now or let him die so you can get the cure across the country." I have sooooo many questions: Who trusted ME to do this job, why did the genius who invented a cure for cancer only make ONE vial of it, why is the place where they study it so far away, what's wrong with laboratories on this coast that they are so much worse than the ones over there, am I on good terms with my brother or do I think it would be better off if he died...

But at least there's a reason given for making this choice.

This one, either give to the poor or save, all-or-nothing, there's not even a scenario given to explain why we are making this hypothetical choice. Money can be divided right down to the cent. There is NOTHING to explain why we have to choose "Give it ALL or save it ALL, no split allowed."

I should have limited this post to people who felt compelled to give 10% or more, but face hesitation. If you don't feel this way, then I agree there is no reason.

 

[maxwel]

Well... I mean... There's not even a REASON given for the incredibly contrived and forced decision.

Usually these made-up ethical questions at least give you a reason why you are having to make them in this scenario. "You are given a vial of a cure for cancer, and the task to drive it across the country to where they can study and duplicate it. Your brother is in the town where you start, dying of cancer, with two days to live. You can either use the cure to save your brother now or let him die so you can get the cure across the country." I have sooooo many questions: Who trusted ME to do this job, why did the genius who invented a cure for cancer only make ONE vial of it, why is the place where they study it so far away, what's wrong with laboratories on this coast that they are so much worse than the ones over there, am I on good terms with my brother or do I think it would be better off if he died...

But at least there's a reason given for making this choice.

This one, either give to the poor or save, all-or-nothing, there's not even a scenario given to explain why we are making this hypothetical choice. Money can be divided right down to the cent. There is NOTHING to explain why we have to choose "Give it ALL or save it ALL, no split allowed."

I think it's fine if people want to discuss this topic.

But most ethical dilemmas are false dilemmas.... as you show above.

.

.

 

[Lynx]

I think it's fine if people want to discuss this topic.

But most ethical dilemmas are false dilemmas.... as you show above.

.

.

Yes it definitely needs to be discussed, in many churches I personally know of, for exactly the reason seoulsearch stated.

I just can't wrap my brain around the all-or-nothing aspect. I can't find a reason for it.

 

[maxwel]

Yes it definitely needs to be discussed, in many churches I personally know of, for exactly the reason seoulsearch stated.

I just can't wrap my brain around the all-or-nothing aspect. I can't find a reason for it.

That's why it's good to discuss things, sometimes people don't see alternatives.
We also live in a very polarized world where almost all dissimilar things are jammed into a false dilemma.
It's just what we see done around us, constantly.... seems to be part of the zeitgeist.

For anyone reading who wonders why there's a problem with a "dilemma", I mean a "logical dilemma."
A logical dilemma gives an either/or proposition, with only two possible choices.
This is expressed as "A or not A."
A false dilemma sounds like a dilemma, but actually leaves room for other choices.
This is expressed as "A or B."



Maybe that helps someone.
Maybe not, lol.


Have a great week everyone.
.

 

[Burn1986]

This is a hypothetical question. Let's assume you can only do one or the other, give (to the church and/or Christian charities) or save (for retirement, or other necessities like a home or car), what would you do? For purposes of this discussion, you only have 10% or less of your income that you can allocate towards giving and/or saving. Both are the traditionally recommended amounts for giving and saving for retirement. I know some will say, you should give first and then worry about bills and other obligations. In this case, let's assume that regardless of whether you give (or save) on the front-end or back-end of the month, you have the same amount.

What does God expect us to do in this situation?

Well, tithe first obviously. Put the other ones t on the test. For example, if you start giving a certain amount to an organization/ person, and all of the sudden you start coming up way short in everything else (or it seems there’s holes in your pockets) then you need to stop giving to that organization/ person.