# Question on Giving



## Herald (Jul 12, 2015)

A couple in their mid-30's is having financial problems because the husband lost his six figure salaried job. They met with a Christian financial planner and counselor to address their problem. They went through a financial course and finally got to the part about establishing a budget. Under "expenses" the planner started first with giving. He used a benchmark of 10% of all earnings. He spent two sessions with this couple on trying to balance their budget. They trimmed all unnecessary expenses. The planner persuaded them to scale back (or eliminate altogether) entertainment, eating out, recreation, cable television, cell phone data plans etc. Outside of getting them to pitch a tent on public land, there is nothing left to trim. The husband takes a part time job. They remove their children from Christian school. They cannot homeschool because the loss of the wife's income would mean they would not be able to make their house payment. The bottom line is at they are still over budget by 9% (based on their current income). Both spouses work. The own a home that is underwater (cannot sell it) and they are sharing one car that is paid off. They are supplementing their budget shortfall from their savings and they can only do that for a few more months before they have more month than money. Their respective families cannot help them financially. While they believe the planner they sought out my advice. I am not a CPA, so I am remiss to make recommendations. However I looked over the planner's notes and on first glance concur with his math. The planner recommends cutting back on giving in order to balance their budget, and only until their financial situation improves. Once it improves, resume the full amount of giving. This couple asked my opinion. I struggled with what to tell them. On the one hand they need to honor God with their finances no matter what their financial situation. On the other hand, not to pay their bills will lead to a financial crisis in the next few months.

I told them that they bear responsibility for allowing their spending to become dependent on the husbands high salary. They should have lived under budget at that time. They understand that and have repented of their financial irresponsibility. On the other hand, the have cut all discretionary spending and still cannot make their budget while giving 10%. My advice was this: give what you can while still being able to meet your financial obligations. As your debts are paid off (they have a some credit cards and student loans), redirect those monthly payments to balancing your budget and increasing your giving. Since the planner was recommended by their church, continue to meet with him as a source of accountability. This will ensure that they do not misspend as their debts are paid off. 

I do not know what they are eventually going to decide. Would you recommend something different?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jul 12, 2015)

Part of the punishment that is inherent in sinning is the bearing of the consequences of that sin (I Samuel 15). Therefore, if by all good and necessary means at their disposal is has been determined that they cannot give as they would like then they must bear that as part of the consequence of their previous actions. They should indeed give what they can without defaulting on their other debts, but I would also keep in mind, as a means of encouragement and reminder that ALL that we have belongs to the Lord, that giving is not limited to $$. They can give of themselves (of their time). Perhaps they could lessen financial burden on the church by volunteering to clean, or help other members by giving through any particular skills that they have that could be a blessing to the members of the church or someone in the community. Then as the Lord sees fit to bring them through their financial woes, they will be able to add back more $$ giving as they continue to give of themselves unto the Lord.

Just a thought. . .


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 12, 2015)

That's excellent advice and could have the added advantage of leading to greater maturity by being more deeply involved in the life of the congregation. Assuming the rest of the plan is solid, I'd think they should have two additional longterm goals -- resume Christian education for their children, get out of a lifestyle that requires two incomes. So much of our society makes the presumption that we have to live a two-income lifestyle and couples adopt that viewpoint without giving it a second thought. Our children are the ones paying for it.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 12, 2015)

Hi Bill -

Your advice (and yours too, James and Jean) seems sound to me. We have struggled at times with debt, though not to the degree that you're discussing, and not to the point where we are pinched for two incomes - but at those times, the balance among all the Biblical goods can be hard to strike. It is sinful to withhold giving, but it is also sinful to not pay one's debts to others. Restoration of a sound financial situation and priorities is what they need to be after, and your path forward toward that end, and the discussion you've had with them seems excellent. 

Todd


----------



## Herald (Jul 12, 2015)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Part of the punishment that is inherent in sinning is the bearing of the consequences of that sin (I Samuel 15). Therefore, if by all good and necessary means at their disposal is has been determined that they cannot give as they would like then they must bear that as part of the consequence of their previous actions. They should indeed give what they can without defaulting on their other debts, but I would also keep in mind, as a means of encouragement and reminder that ALL that we have belongs to the Lord, that giving is not limited to $$. They can give of themselves (of their time). Perhaps they could lessen financial burden on the church by volunteering to clean, or help other members by giving through any particular skills that they have that could be a blessing to the members of the church or someone in the community. Then as the Lord sees fit to bring them through their financial woes, they will be able to add back more $$ giving as they continue to give of themselves unto the Lord.
> 
> Just a thought. . .



James, you explained it better than I could. Thank you.


----------



## Edward (Jul 12, 2015)

While I agree with the advice on cutting back on the giving as a short term bridge, they do need to evaluate their housing options. While Maryland isn't doing as well as most of the country, values have generally recovered to 2007 levels. If there really isn't any equity, perhaps they should default and save up for a move to a smaller rental. 

By the way - where are their deacons in all of this?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 12, 2015)

Edward said:


> While I agree with the advice on cutting back on the giving as a short term bridge, they do need to evaluate their housing options. While Maryland isn't doing as well as most of the country, values have generally recovered to 2007 levels. If there really isn't any equity, perhaps they should default and save up for a move to a smaller rental.
> 
> By the way - where are their deacons in all of this?



To default is exactly the kind of inappropriate choice that should absolutely not be considered under these circumstances. It's fundamentally dishonest. Just because they can't sell the home does not legitimize defaulting on a loan they took out and promised to pay back.


----------



## Herald (Jul 12, 2015)

Edward said:


> While I agree with the advice on cutting back on the giving as a short term bridge, they do need to evaluate their housing options. While Maryland isn't doing as well as most of the country, values have generally recovered to 2007 levels. If there really isn't any equity, perhaps they should default and save up for a move to a smaller rental.
> 
> By the way - where are their deacons in all of this?



Edward,

Default? They would be a compounding their problems and their sin; destroying their credit rating and reneging on a commitment to pay back what they owe. 

And perhaps you missed what I wrote in the OP:



Herald said:


> since the planner was recommended by their church, continue to meet with him as a source of accountability.


----------



## Herald (Jul 12, 2015)

toddpedlar said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > While I agree with the advice on cutting back on the giving as a short term bridge, they do need to evaluate their housing options. While Maryland isn't doing as well as most of the country, values have generally recovered to 2007 levels. If there really isn't any equity, perhaps they should default and save up for a move to a smaller rental.
> ...



They bought their home at the peak of the market in '05 with almost no money down. In retrospect a very poor decision. When the market crashed they lost $120K in value. That is a lot. Laurie and I lost over $100K on our home and only made back 40% of that when we sold our home last week. In our case we put a considerable amount down, so we were not underwater. Where they live rents are more than their mortgage payment, so not only would they trash their credit and renege on a promise to pay, they would also have to pay more in rent. What sense does that make?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 12, 2015)

Herald said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



Precisely... it makes zero sense, both financially and morally.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 12, 2015)

I would encourage us to give Edward a chance to respond. I am interested in hearing further from him on this.

I am also interested in hearing an answer to his question about the role of the deacons in this matter. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Edward (Jul 12, 2015)

toddpedlar said:


> To default is exactly the kind of inappropriate choice that should absolutely not be considered under these circumstances. It's fundamentally dishonest. Just because they can't sell the home does not legitimize defaulting on a loan they took out and promised to pay back.





Herald said:


> Default? They would be a compounding their problems and their sin; destroying their credit rating and reneging on a commitment to pay back what they owe.



For 30 years I've been doing creditor's rights work - collection litigation, workouts, foreclosures, and bankruptcy. So I'm almost always on the the lender's side. And I generally try to get every cent I can. But sometimes, the cheapest losses are the first losses.

Foreclosure isn't going to get you out of the debt, unless you are in a single cause of action state (and sometimes, not even then.) Foreclosure followed by bankruptcy might - you'd need to consult a debtor's rights attorney in the relevant state to evaluate the facts and apply the law. 

If it's a choice between feeding your children and maintaining a high FICO, feed your children.

If it is a choice between what bills can be paid today, and what can be deferred, make difficult choices. 
If the option is living in a tent in a public park, you've already got a situation where the house is being lost. Might as well limit the damage to the extent possible. 
And if the bank won't work with you on a short sale, make more difficult choices. 



Herald said:


> And perhaps you missed what I wrote in the OP:






Herald said:


> since the planner was recommended by their church, continue to meet with him as a source of accountability.





To which I would say, "Where are their deacons in all of this?"


----------



## Herald (Jul 12, 2015)

Edward said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > To default is exactly the kind of inappropriate choice that should absolutely not be considered under these circumstances. It's fundamentally dishonest. Just because they can't sell the home does not legitimize defaulting on a loan they took out and promised to pay back.
> ...



I do not have an answer about the deacons per se. I do know their pastor has met with them and reviewed the recommendations of the financial planner. The pastor is in agreement with the planner's recommendations and he (the pastor) encouraged them to continue meeting with the planner on a regular basis. That is all I know about the involvement of their church. Our relationship goes way back. They know that my wife and I went through a similar situation in the past and they wanted to run their situation by me. It is one of those things where they have already made up their mind. They just wanted an honest third party opinion. 

If they reduce their giving they will be able to break even. In about six months their first credit card will be paid off. They have two more credit cards that will be paid off in 2016 and their student loan either in '16 or '17. As these debts are paid off they will be able divert those payments to giving. The financial planner has them on a modified version of Dave Ramsey's debt snowball. The only difference is that, as a debt is paid off, they will increase their giving until they reach 10% of their income. Once they reach 10% then they will concentrate on paying their other debts off early. They would love to get out from under their mortgage, but all the advice they have received is to avoid a short sale or foreclosure because they would still have to find a pace to rent, and rents in their area of North Jersey are very high. They are current on their mortgage and their kids are fed.


----------



## Herald (Jul 13, 2015)

There is a lesson to be learned here, and I think James Helbert nailed it. There are consequences to any sin. When it comes to financial irresponsibility the tentacles are long. I know a couple that wanted to be missionaries to an unreached people group. Unfortunately they were deep in debt and years away from becoming debt free. The mission board rejected their application. My own financial mistakes caused me to miss out on the blessing of being able to help others in need. It also resulted in me missing out on a good job because it required a credit check, which I failed. Sometimes there is no good remedy. All options are painful. But if the remedy is met with true repentance, there is a positive lesson to be learned, and God will be glorified in that.


----------



## Frosty (Jul 13, 2015)

Herald said:


> There is a lesson to be learned here, and I think James Helbert nailed it. There are consequences to any sin. When it comes to financial irresponsibility the tentacles are long. I know a couple that wanted to be missionaries to an unreached people group. Unfortunately they were deep in debt and years away from becoming debt free. The mission board rejected their application. My own financial mistakes caused me to miss out on the blessing of being able to help others in need. It also resulted in me missing out on a good job because it required a credit check, which I failed. Sometimes there is no good remedy. All options are painful. But if the remedy is met with true repentance, there is a positive lesson to be learned, and God will be glorified in that.



Thank you for this, Bill. Something about what you said here really blessed me.


----------



## Toasty (Jul 13, 2015)

> My advice was this: give what you can while still being able to meet your financial obligations. As your debts are paid off (they have a some credit cards and student loans), redirect those monthly payments to balancing your budget and increasing your giving.



I agree with this.

Is there a way that they can make more money so that they can give 10% and still meet their financial responsibilities?


----------



## Herald (Jul 13, 2015)

Toasty said:


> > My advice was this: give what you can while still being able to meet your financial obligations. As your debts are paid off (they have a some credit cards and student loans), redirect those monthly payments to balancing your budget and increasing your giving.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Henry,

The husband took a part time job to earn extra money. They both considered giving multi-level marketing a try and I threatened to drive up to their house and perform an intervention if they did that (I am not a fan of multi-level marketing,as you can tell).


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 13, 2015)

Herald said:


> Toasty said:
> 
> 
> > > My advice was this: give what you can while still being able to meet your financial obligations. As your debts are paid off (they have a some credit cards and student loans), redirect those monthly payments to balancing your budget and increasing your giving.
> ...



Did you mean _exorcism_ instead of intervention there, Bill?


----------



## Herald (Jul 13, 2015)

toddpedlar said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > Toasty said:
> ...



Todd, I didn't want to get _too _dramatic, but exorcism is the basic idea.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 13, 2015)

The amount of giving should also take into consideration of taxes levied destined for the social welfare.


----------



## Herald (Jul 14, 2015)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The amount of giving should also take into consideration of taxes levied destined for the social welfare.



Patrick,

I'm not sure I understand your meaning.


----------



## OPC'n (Jul 14, 2015)

Is there a scripture which tells us how much to give? I thought 10% was OT.


----------



## Edward (Jul 14, 2015)

Herald said:


> North Jersey



Not sure why I was thinking Maryland. Default makes even more sense in NJ, where the judicial foreclosures generally take even longer. And he could always approach them about a short sale, deed in lieu, or cash for keys, although home mortgage servicers tend to have a well earned reputation for not being responsive.


----------



## MW (Jul 14, 2015)

Edward said:


> By the way - where are their deacons in all of this?



Thankyou for bringing your experience to bear on the economical side of this, but I would be wary of making the deacons serve as closet financial advisers or administrators. First Timothy 5 resists the temptation to turn the church into a welfare institution and places the onus on the family. It should also be an aim to maintain dignity and privacy, especially in financial matters.


----------



## Edward (Jul 14, 2015)

MW said:


> Thankyou for bringing your experience to bear on the economical side of this, but I would be wary of making the deacons serve as closet financial advisers or administrators. First Timothy 5 resists the temptation to turn the church into a welfare institution and places the onus on the family. It should also be an aim to maintain dignity and privacy, especially in financial matters.



Our church is fairly far from the conservative end of the spectrum represented on FR, and we do have a fairly broad view of our mercy ministries, which has placed under the diaconate. One point that I had in mind when I asked my question (twice) was the outsourcing of the accountability to the 'Christian financial planner'. That does strike me as something that should be done by the church officers, not a third party. 

As to your point of maintaining privacy and dignity in financial matters - that is how I was raised, but I don't agree that that is the proper approach. One should carry their burdens to their brothers and sisters in Christ. We shouldn't bear our suffering alone.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 15, 2015)

Something I've observed from this conversation so far is that 1) there are consequences for sinful actions, and 2) even though they have sinned in their finances, they have also repented (according to Bill) of this sin. Edward is 100% correct in that we are to bear each others burdens. "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." (Gal. 6). Notice two things here: 1) we are called to bear one another's burdens, and 2) in doing this we are fulfilling the law of Christ. We should know this, but what are the two tables of the Law? Love God with all your heart, mind, soul, strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. Does this mean that we say "I love you, now be on your way"? How does this look on a practical level? How does one bear a brother's financial burden and love them in this manner? I would suggest by giving to that brother what doesn't truly belong to you but to God: your time and money. 

Now before someone jumps the gun, I am not suggesting to be foolish but I am suggesting to be truly loving to your brother. They have repented. They know what they did was wrong. Now is the time for restoration, accountability, and demonstrating the true bond of unity in Christ.


----------

