Most of us have heard sermons and received instruction that we should be good stewards, but what is a "steward," and how does one become a good one? We all have some idea that stewardship relates to how we manage our property, but what is the Truth about good stewardship? What do all the sermons and instructions mean? Is this just another way for the pastor to get more of our money away from us during this financial crisis, or is this stewardship business really commanded by God?
First, lets take a look at a law from the Old Covenant (testament) that I recently received via email:
"And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God" (Leviticus 19:10).
Obviously, God is commanding property owners, especially those with crops, to use them in a certain way that cares for the poor and travellers, presumably accomplishing His will that they receive care/support/food from believers. Though it may sound like a sinful question, many believers might ask themselves, "What right has God to tell us how to use our property?"
"1The earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein, 2for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers" (Psalms 24:1-2).
"But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able thus to offer willingly? For all things come from you, and of your own have we given you" (1 Chronicles 29:14).
The answer is that God owns the world and everything in it, including the people. He owns it because he created it. God invented the world, and so he has, essentially, a holy patent that never expires. Like a craftsman who builds a house on his own land with his own materials and labour, who can tell such a man what to do with the house or anything in it? Does the craftsman not own that house completely?
You may have worked all your life for your savings, your possessions, and your material wealth, but you did it using God's creations. At most, we have a license to use these things, but, ultimately, they all belong to God. Take our craftsman example: assume that such a man has a child, a son, and that he provides that son with a bedroom in the house he built. We call that room the son's room, but really it belongs to the craftsman. The craftsman, also a father, has given his son charge over that room and holds him accountable for his use, care, maintenance, and general management of the room he provided. What father has never told his son, "Clean your room!"? Also, what father gives his son $500 and says, "Son go buy a lollipop,"? The father wants his son to use what he is given wisely.
In the same way, God owns everything that he has created, and he grants us a license (or "permission" if you prefer) to use it. However, God has retained the right to govern how we use the material wealth and possessions that He has created. Like the craftsman, God will require us to give an account of our use, care, maintenance, and general management of the wealth and possessions that He has provided us. For us to ask what right God has to instruct us in the use of our material wealth and possession, this is no different than the son asking his father, the craftsman, what right he has to force him to clean the room. How completely ungrateful.
The Lord has instructed us that "true religion" is caring for those in need (see this post for scriptural evidence and citations). The Lord made caring for travellers and the poor a part of His covenant with the Jewish people (Lev 19:10). The Bible makes no secret that we are, as believers, "stewards" of God's possessions rather than the true owners of our own, and the Lord, as the master of those possessions, shall require us all to give account:
"1And he [Jesus] said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. 3Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed" (Luke 16:1-3; KJV).
I cited the KJV because it uses "steward" where the ESV uses "manager." However, the two words can mean the same thing (they also can have different connotations). I have heard that, historically, the first recorded uses of the English word “steward” are from the 11th century, referring to an official who controlled the domestic affairs of a household. I do not have a citation that I trust as evidence for this, but it holds true with the Biblical usage. The root words stig and ward mean "house" and "keeper," respectively, which combined suggest that a steward is the "keeper of the house" (hence my example of the craftsman/father, his son, and the craftsman's house).
That is what we are - the keeper of our father's house. The Lord's house is this world, which he crafted himself with aid of no man. There was no man to offer aid. We are also a part of the Lord's house, created to be his stewards. After all, Adam was given charge over the Earth from the beginning, was he not? In Genesis 2:15, God put Adam in the garden "to work it and keep it". In Genesis 2:19-20, God gave Adam leave to name every animal and beast. Adam was the first steward, but he did break the one commandment of the master: do not eat of this specific tree. When Adam was required to give account for his stewardship of the garden, God asked Adam whether had eaten of the tree. When Adam admitted this, God could no longer trust Adam to remain in Eden and refrain from eating more forbidden fruit. For that reason, both Adam and Eve were cast out (Gen 2:23-24).
Good stewardship is listening and obeying the will and commands of the master/owner. It does not end with money or material possessions. All that is belongs to God - even our bodies. Will we be good stewards? Praise God for Jesus Christ, that there is mercy and grace, because none of us perfectly listen or obey. Therefore, there are no perfect stewards. But neither mercy nor grace relieves us from our responsibilities.
If I leave you readers with only one thought, then it is this: no matter how wealthy or poor you may believe that you are, nothing belongs to you: stewardship is about how you use what you are given, not how much you have. In Luke 16:10, Christ himself said, "One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much."
Remember, in Mark 12:41-44, the widow gave more out of her poverty than the rich who gave out of their abundance. If you are rich and keep your money and wealth all to yourself, then you are a bad steward. If you are poor an give only the little you have to the Lord's service, then you have given much. In the same way, a believer who uses his/her talents only for personal gain has been a very poor steward of those talents, which also belong to the Lord! A person who strives to use his/her talents serve the Lord has been a good steward of them.
I will end this post by asking you to read Matthew 24:45-51. In those verses, Christ talks about the "good and faithful servant" as opposed to the "wicked servant" who watches over the master's household. I only realized very recently that the servant, as a master of the household, is a steward. When our master returns, will he put us in charge of many things, or will he "cut us to pieces" and assign us a place with the hypocrites? Salvation may be by grace, but Christ makes it clear that, in some fashion, our works, as stewards, will be judged. We will have to give an account to Christ upon his return.
Showing posts with label finance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label finance. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
NEWS: Obama's inauguration to cost $170 million during worst recession in years.
See the report for yourselves here. Mr. Obama to be President Obama, and I believe in respecting the office of the presidency. However, there is a substantial difference between respect and worship. At a price tag of over $170 million, this inauguration feels like more than just a ceremony given our national leader out of respect. Why the sudden increase in spending on this ceremony? We would be naive to assume that it is purely the result of increased security and and logistical spending. So what is the stimulus for this change? I guess, as Mr. Obama says, anything is possible, but paying off the national debt is not seeming like a possibility our nation will ever attain when indulging in such careless spending.
Or, at least, that is my two cents.
ROB: I agree, up to a point. The problem is that I think we're both predisposed to dislike Obama. It's hard to overcome or even fully recognize our confirmation bias -- fitting any new facts into the picture we have, and using them to affirm our preexisting beliefs.
It's hard to really imagine being on the other side. I can see a bit of an argument, though. To an extent, if people are excited about this inauguration in some ways it's good for them to be able to come in large numbers (the opening of this event to the public being a major factor in the increased cost). It could be good and/or inspiring for some people to be able to witness this inauguration, which means so much to them, in person.
Personally I think it comes uncomfortably close to a cult of personality, and unlike some of Obama's more ardent followers I have no need for a new Messianic figure. I also think it borders on irresponsible to spend so much money going into what is likely to be a major recession (though apparently the cost to the government itself won't be higher than other inaugurations; the increase comes from Obama's coffers). On the other hand if it inspires hope and confidence in the public, mitigating the hopelessness and despair inherent in a poor economy to some extent, it could be a valuable gesture.
Or, at least, that is my two cents.
ROB: I agree, up to a point. The problem is that I think we're both predisposed to dislike Obama. It's hard to overcome or even fully recognize our confirmation bias -- fitting any new facts into the picture we have, and using them to affirm our preexisting beliefs.
It's hard to really imagine being on the other side. I can see a bit of an argument, though. To an extent, if people are excited about this inauguration in some ways it's good for them to be able to come in large numbers (the opening of this event to the public being a major factor in the increased cost). It could be good and/or inspiring for some people to be able to witness this inauguration, which means so much to them, in person.
Personally I think it comes uncomfortably close to a cult of personality, and unlike some of Obama's more ardent followers I have no need for a new Messianic figure. I also think it borders on irresponsible to spend so much money going into what is likely to be a major recession (though apparently the cost to the government itself won't be higher than other inaugurations; the increase comes from Obama's coffers). On the other hand if it inspires hope and confidence in the public, mitigating the hopelessness and despair inherent in a poor economy to some extent, it could be a valuable gesture.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)