Bloomsbury
Central Baptist Church
Acts
4.32-35 Now the whole group of those who believed were
of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions,
but everything they owned was held in common.
33 With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the
resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not a needy person
among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the
proceeds of what was sold. 35
They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had
need.
Psalm
133.1-3 How very good and pleasant it is when kindred
live together in unity! 2 It
is like the precious oil on the head, running down upon the beard, on the beard
of Aaron, running down over the collar of his robes. 3 It is like the dew of Hermon,
which falls on the mountains of Zion. For there the LORD ordained his blessing,
life forevermore.
Now the
whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one
claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was
held in common
When I was
a child, I brought up on the adage
that I should always try to ‘live
within my means’,
which
meant that if I wanted something, I should save up for it,
and only buy it when I had enough
money.
Of
course, this meant that if I hadn’t got the money,
I needed to earn more, to work
harder,
and to go without until I could afford it.
And
so it was that at the age of thirteen I took a job
working for the paper shop opposite
Sevenoaks station,
starting at 5am every
morning
before catching the 8.05
train to school;
and
so it was
that I bought my own motorbike when
I turned sixteen,
with money I had saved up myself.
And
broadly, this has remained my approach.
Of course, I borrowed a lot of money
when I took out a
mortgage to buy a house,
but apart from that, I’ve never been
one to live, ‘on the never never’.
There’s
an old song, which I think I learned at Boy’s Brigade,
that enshrines this adage of
prudence…
Perhaps
you know it too?
I've got
sixpence
Jolly. jolly
sixpence
I've got
sixpence to last me all my life
I've got tuppence
to spend
And tuppence to
lend
And tuppence to
take home to my wife.
The
values here are clear:
prudence, investment,
spending within your
means,
and taking care of your
own,
are the ingredients for a happy
life.
And,
of course, there is much here that is good,
much that is sensible,
and much that many of us still need
to hear.
I
don’t regret the years we have spent paying off our mortgage,
I don’t regret the years of cheap
camping holidays,
even though friends who
were prepared to borrow
were going abroad twice
a year.
But
I do wonder if this is all there is to be said
about the question of how we should
be with our money…?
Thinking
somewhat beyond the level of the individual for a minute,
this is the question that the
financial crash of 2008,
and the subsequent
global recession,
has posed for many countries, our
own included.
Is
it sustainable to live with a deficit?
Is it prudent to spend your way out
of debt?
Do all debts need to be repaid?
What are the responsibilities of those responsible for money?
If
there are choices to be made about what we will spend our money on,
and there always are,
then who gets to take those choices,
and on what basis do
they take them?
Where
are our spending priorities going to lie?
And where are we prepared to live
with cuts?
Are
we content to commit to renewing Trident?
Are we committed to universal
healthcare?
What
about the social security budget?
What about overseas aid?
These
are not simple decisions,
and yet they form the backdrop to
much to the election-wrangling
that is dominating our news media in
the run up to the May 7th.
And
that’s before we even start getting onto the question
of how the different taxation
policies of the various political parties
are going to affect different
segments of the population.
Did
you know that on the Conservative Party website,
you can put in your personal income
details,
and
they will tell you how much better off you are
as a result of their taxation
changes.
So
I did it, and apparently, I’m on course
to pay £770 less tax on my income
this year,
than I would have done if I had
earned the same amount in 2010.
There
was then, naturally,
an invitation to donate some of that
money to their campaign,
so
that, as they put it,
‘we can keep cutting taxes and keep
securing a better future’.
I
assume they mean a ‘better future’ for me, and others like me,
who are fortunate enough to have a
regular taxable income.
But
we won’t get into that particular diversion here and now.
However,
it raises for me an interesting question,
which takes us into the realm of our
Bible reading this morning
from the book of Acts.
And
this is the question of, whose money is it anyway?
Listen
again to Luke’s words:
Now the whole group of those who believed were of
one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions,
but everything they owned was held in common
Is ‘the
pound in my pocket’ really mine?
Or is there another way of looking
at this?
I
prefer to think of my money as being mine ‘on trust’
rather than mine ‘absolutely’.
It
may be mine at this moment,
but that doesn’t mean I am free from
obligations in what I do with it.
Some
of the money that is currently mine,
I
have on trust from the government,
and when I have filled out my tax
return,
and calculated my
obligation to the state,
I’ll have to give it
over to them.
So,
by proxy, we might say that my money
is mine on trust from the cancer
patient,
whose therapy will be
paid for out of taxation,
or the child whose education will be
state funded,
and
so on, and so on…
For
others of us, we might say that some of the money we have
is on trust from our
children, or from other dependents,
and we are not at liberty to simply
spend it all as we wish,
lest they go without at
our hands.
One
might indeed raise the question
of whether our money is ever truly
ours,
even
when it is sitting in our bank accounts?
Or is it merely ours ‘on trust’ for
now.
This
language of ‘trust’ with regard to money is an interesting development,
because it takes us away from the
idea of ‘me and my own’
and into the world of corporate
responsibility.
So,
charities have ‘trustees’ whose role is to ensure
that the funds of the charity are
used in accordance
with the trust deed that set it up.
Here
at Bloomsbury,
our deacons and ministers are designated
the ‘trustees’ of this church,
and
as such they have a responsibility to the current church members,
and also to those who founded
this church 167 years ago,
to make sure that we do not misuse
the
money that comes in each week,
whether through the cash or cheques
given via the offertory plate,
or through the monthly
standing orders
that an
increasing number of us use
for our giving to the church.
It’s
all a matter of trust.
And,
here’s the thing that I think it boils down to:
I think our money is only ours on
trust from God,
and I think that what we do with it will
tell us quite a lot
about how much we trust
one another,
and about how much we
trust God.
Look
with me for a moment, if you will,
as this challenging little story
from the book of Acts.
Luke
tells us in v.32 that:
the whole group of those who believed were of one
heart and soul,
and no one claimed private ownership of any
possessions,
but everything they owned was held in common.
And
he goes on in v.34
There was not a needy person among them,
for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and
brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35
They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had
need.
Can
you hear the politically loaded soundbites?
Phrases which could have come
straight from the manifestos
of our current political
parties?
‘private
ownership’, ‘possessions’, ‘held in common’
‘needy person’, ‘ownership of lands
or houses’,
‘proceeds of what has
been sold’
‘distribution to each as
any has need’
This
is a political text, every bit as much as it is an economic text,
and whilst it directly addresses the
financial situation
of the earliest
Christian community
as they tried to work out together,
in real terms,
what it meant to be
followers of Jesus Christ,
it
also speaks to a wider and more contemporary context
of fiscal policy and monetary dogma.
Clearly,
for the early Christians, discipleship did not simply mean:
prayer and worship, and singing and
communion,
and
other such spiritualised practices.
Rather,
the scope of conversion to the path of Christ
had implications for every area of
life,
not least the way in which money and
possessions were handled.
But
this verse has also had financial and political implications
for Christians down the centuries between
then and now.
Including,
notoriously, our own forbearers, the Anabaptists.
Did
you know that the thirty-nine articles of the church of England
include the following injunction:
Article 38.
The Riches and Goods of Christians are not common,
as touching the right, title, and possession of the same; as certain
Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things
as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.
This
argument about communism of goods,
and whether it is right for Christians
to seek to impose such a policy
by
means of political force
is not a new one.
And
current debates around Christian responses to capitalism and socialism,
to issues of big state or big
society,
need
to be heard in the context of the historic attempts
by some Christians to demand, by
virtue of compulsion,
that
which others have believed
should
be a matter of voluntary conviction.
The
Christendom alliance between church and state,
against which the Anabaptists took
their stand,
held
that it was the duty of each citizen to give tithe to support the church:
Under Christendom, church support
and state taxation were conflated.
The
Anabaptists argued that this was a misunderstanding of scripture,
and that, rather, each believer should
be free to commit themselves,
financially
and in other ways,
to the gathered community of
believers
of
which they chose to be a part.
My
own conviction is that communism of goods
is not something that should be
compulsory,
and
that to attempt to make it such
is to fall into an analogous lure to
that which Christendom offered.
I
do not think that Christian values and state legislation are interchangeable,
whether it be the compulsory tithe
to support the state church,
or the mandatory communism of goods,
or indeed any other attempt to
construct an enforced fusion
of
voluntary conviction and state responsibility.
Taxes
are taxes,
what is due to Caesar is due to
Caesar,
and what is due to God is due to
God.
And
so we find ourselves back at our text from Acts,
with its tantalising fusion of
money, politics, and theology.
And
it seems to me that there are two key principles at play here in this story,
which come together to effect
practical change.
Firstly,
the group are united in their devotion to God:
Luke says ‘the whole group of those
who believed
were of one heart and
soul’ (v.32)
And
secondly, no-one regarded their possessions
as being under their own control.
In
many ways, these two aspects directly reflect the saying of Jesus,
that the whole law and the prophets
could be summed up
as pointing to love of neighbour,
and love of God (Mk. 12.30-31 //s)
And
here we encounter a theological principle which I’ve already alluded to,
which is, that the way we handle our
money and possessions,
will be determined by both our
attitude towards our neighbour,
and our attitude towards
God.
Do
we love our neighbour as we love ourselves?
Do we trust our neighbour?
Do
we love the Lord our God
with all our heart and mind and soul
and strength?
Do
we trust God?
Let
me put this another way…
If
our money and possessions are simply ours on trust from God,
then our willingness to part with
them as part of our discipleship
will be directly dependent upon the
extent to which we trust God.
However,
the question of the extent to which we are willing to trust our giving
to the community of disciples of
which we are a part,
will be dependent upon the extent to
which we trust one another.
If
we are united in love, both our love of God and our love for one another,
then giving to God through the
fellowship of his people
is no problem at all.
And
here I’d like to bust a key myth:
The church does not need your money.
What
I mean by this, is that the ‘church’, and specifically, in our case,
Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church,
is
not a charity that needs anyone’s support.
This
might sound a strange thing for me to be saying,
given that my monthly stipend is directly
dependent
on the congregational giving of this
congregation.
But
I really mean it.
We’re
not a charity seeking supporters,
and we’re not a worthy organisation
seeking funding.
We’re
something far more wonderful than that:
we’re a community of
Christ-followers,
committed
in love to one another,
and to the God of love that we
encounter through Christ,
and,
like the first disciples in the book of Acts,
we’re trying to work out what it
means to follow Christ
in a complex and confusing world.
‘The
church’ is not an organisation that we support;
rather, ‘the church’ is us.
And
the institutional side of the church,
is simply that which arises to help
us live out before God
the life of discipleship that we are
called to.
So,
if we believe, after prayer and discernment
that what God would have us do with
his money
is
to sustain a central London witness to the inclusive gospel of Christ,
then that is what we do.
If
we believe, after listening together to the gentle whispers of the Spirit,
that it is right before God for us
to call ministers
to
serve this congregation and to facilitate its ministry day by day,
then that is what we do.
If
we believe that it is right for us to feed the homeless,
care for the vulnerable,
speak truth to power,
and declare the word of the Lord in
our generation,
then
that is what we do.
And
these things are our church,
they, and so much more, are
Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church.
But
all this is a function of our discipleship,
it is an outworking of the
commitment, trust, and love,
that we have towards one another,
and towards God.
So,
I would want to suggest,
we shouldn’t determine our giving to
the church
on
the basis of what we think the church needs from us
at any given moment.
Because
when we do that,
we reduce the covenant community
that is the people of God
to the level of a charity that needs
our support.
Rather,
we give to God, faithfully and sacrificially,
month by month, or week by week,
and
we surrender that giving to our sisters and brothers in Christ,
so that together we can discern
what
God would have us do with his money.
If
we say to ourselves,
‘Bloomsbury has a nest-egg in the
bank,
they don’t need my money, so I’ll
give it elsewhere.’
We
are, in fact, rather missing the point.
It
is true that Bloomsbury has a nest-egg in the bank,
we have set aside some money for the
next generation,
or perhaps
for the next time this grand old building of ours
needs major surgery.
But
this is not a reason to withhold our giving to God,
given through the body of his
people.
It
is also true that Bloomsbury is currently running an annual deficit,
and that over the next few years we
will face some difficult decisions
about
how much of what we currently do
we will be able to continue to do.
And
unless giving increases,
some things, some people, may have
to be cut.
Let
me tell you about a visitor we had here to the church recently.
He was, I think, an actor here for
one of the many script read-throughs
that take place during
the week.
(another one of our sources of
income:
one which is useful, but
not enough
to solve all our
problems, unfortunately).
This
actor stopped to talk with me in the foyer,
as I was stood there with my
clerical collar on, looking like a vicar.
I
showed him around the church,
told him something of the history of
the place,
and
outlined some of our current ministry.
He
was particularly interested in the work we do
with the homeless and vulnerable,
and
as he left, he asked if he could make a donation
to the work of the church.
I
said, yes of course,
and he said he would like it to go
to the hardship fund.
I
gently suggested that a donation to general funds might be more useful,
but he was adamant that it should be
to the hardship fund.
So
I promised him I would make sure it went into the right fund,
and with that he reached into his
pocket,
and gave me a five pound note.
Now,
don’t get me wrong,
a fiver is a fiver,
and
for some of the people who come through our doors,
that is a significant amount of
money.
There
have been occasions when people have tried to give me five pounds,
and it has made me weep with
humility at the level of their sacrifice.
But
I’m fairly sure that was not the situation here.
I
offer this story, not to condemn the actor,
who I know was giving with a good
heart,
and I know the Lord has received his
gift.
But
he thought he was giving to a homelessness charity.
He had conflated giving through the
church,
with giving to the person shaking a
bucket outside the tube station.
And
I don’t blame him for that at all,
firstly because he’s not part of
this church,
and secondly because those of us who
are part of the church,
can find it all too easy
to do the same thing.
So
my challenge this morning is for each of us
to spend some time prayerfully
reviewing our giving.
For
some of us it may be that we make a commitment
to start giving regularly to God,
laying
our gifts at the feet of our sisters and brothers in Christ
so that we can decide together
what God would have us do with his
money.
For
some of us it may be time to take out a standing order to Bloomsbury,
or to review the level of our
current standing order.
Deciding
on ‘an amount’ is never easy,
and, as you’ve heard, I’m no great
fan of the 10% tithe,
but many find that a useful place to
start;
recognising,
of course, that 10% of a large income is not as sacrificial
as 10% of a meagre social benefit
payment.
For
some of us, it may involve visiting the conservative party website,
seeing how much tax they’ve saved
us,
and committing to give that money back
to God.
It’s
not for me to answer this question for others,
but it is my place to ask the
question.
It
is also my place to say
that all that I have said applies to
me as well…
But
in all of this, remember:
Bloomsbury does not need your money
to keep the good work that is
Bloomsbury going.
But...
I do believe that the kingdom of God needs Bloomsbury,
and that it is the grace and love
and mercy of God
that has called this
church into being,
and which sustains us
day by day.
We are the kingdom of God in this
place.
And
so we are called to love one another,
to trust one another,
and to live in the unity of the Holy
Spirit.
And
we are also called to love God,
with all our heart, and all our
soul,
and all our mind, and with
all our strength.
