Rich & Poor-We're All the Same

I was just reading James 2 and was blown away by the frankness of the author in addressing an apparent disconnect in how rich people are treated in comparison to poor people and James is basically calling people on it.

I look at today's modern church and I see the same thing going on. For those of you unfamiliar with the denominational structure, allow me to paint you a picture.

The local church collects tithe and offering every week. This is tallied and reported to a Conference (if you're in the Adventist world), which then keeps track of all the money that come into each church in the Conference. Nearly all the money that is given in the form of tithe in the churches is sent off to the Conference, who then returns some money in the form of salaries for pastoral leadership. They use a percentage of that money to pay their staff, but the rest goes on to the Union Conference, which is a regional organization, handling multiple Conferences. They do pretty much the same thing with the money before it goes on to the Division (e.g. North American Division), which then passes it on to the General Conference, the world headquarters of the church. The money then gets distributed using some formula and system that I know nothing about.

So now that we're familiar with how a denominational structure is setup, let's get back to the issue at hand. I have seen a situation develop time and time again in which someone with money to give makes a suggestion and they are listened to, respected, etc. Whereas someone who doesn't have the same financial resources offers a suggestion and they are handled in a completely different manner; something like "Well, that's a good idea, but we just don't have the resources to do that right now."

What angers me about this situation is that often the person without the resources has a suggestion that addresses a real need, whereas the person with money is wanting to take on a pet project that doesn't necessarily benefit the church as a whole.

I have a friend of mine who goes to a church near Seattle, Washington, and they have done away with earmarked giving completely. They have 3 funds that can be given to: General Fund, Evangelism, and Youth. I think it's a beautiful system simply because if you sit down and think about it, everything that a church spends money on can really be grouped together into basic funds like that. There's no reason to have a list of 20+ departments that are all vying for a larger piece of the pie. It should be up to the church body as to what is important to fund rather than offering a long laundry list of options for people to give money to.

I understand that by offering more choices, it's more likely someone will find something they want to support and thus will be more likely to give money; however, I think it's up to the church leadership to help focus that giving and indicate what the focus is on for time being. This allows projects to get funded faster, getting them completed, which makes the church feel good because things are getting done. The alternative option is to have projects that drag on and on due to too many options being offered so people don't know what to focus on.

Sorry, I keep getting off on tangents. The point here is that we need to treat people the same, whether they have money or not. If we are showing favor to those with financial resources, it needs to stop. That's not what God has called us to, and if the church continues to bend over backwards for those who have more to give than others, then the church is essentially telling everyone that they are an exclusive social club...and the cost of admission is a large sum of money. The church must be inclusive, and not exclusive. Period.

Thoughts?