If uniformity, brotherhood accountability and written guidelines are essential indicators of a godly church, why do we stop with attire? If this way of applying biblical principle is good for shoes and dresses, why not for money?
Uniformity in dress expresses oneness, we teach. And that accountability is a necessary expression of openness and humility. That having restrictions and guidelines and rules are only good sense, like guard rails and speed limits.
If so – and I do not dispute this – why not subject our finances to the same restrictions?
The New Testament, especially Jesus, has far more to say about money than clothes. Think of some scriptural references to money and imagine with me some brotherhood agreements we might make.
“That there may be equality…” 2 Cor 8:14
At the end of each year a leveling meeting might be held where earning inequalities would be addressed and checks written to redistribute wealth.
“It is easier……than for a rich man to enter…” Matt 19:24
We could decide together what constitutes a rich man. Real estate price, cost of living, and family size would be factored in, and we’d decide on an income limit. Brothers would be assured that earning above the limit is perfectly fine, but numbers over the limit would go into the church coffers to be used as the brotherhood saw fit.
“But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother hath need…” 1 John 3:17
A giving rate or tithe could be agreed upon, and baked into the established income cap.
If accountability is as effective as our frequent use of it indicates, spending could be tracked and recorded. Purchases could be listed and copies passed around at a brothers meeting to subject our financial decisions to each other. Brethren would be encouraged to hold each accountable for our spending. Was that $45 steak really necessary, Brother Matthew? Or that $1500 pair of binoculars, Joshua?
Or, categories of appropriate purchase limits could be listed. Real estate, vehicles, recreation, vacations. Requests for exceptions could reviewed, and permission given with brotherhood consent.
Are you shaking your head? Me too. But why? If rules and mandatory, specific applications are good for clothes, why not for money? If not for money, why for clothes?
Borderlands 
Thank you!
In some sense clothes are downstream from money. We use our money to buy clothes. The image we make with our money partially shows up in our appearance?
Others might disagree but to me finances are more personal than clothing. It would seem a more personal privacy invasion to have detailed rules about money. I don’t think detailed rules would be helpful to produce better values.
I share your concern that detailed rules about clothes are also counter productive. Is there a balance in accountability and autonomy? I suspect if our focus on accountability weakens autonomy and personal convictions we are doing it wrong. Somehow accountability in church relationships should strengthen us personally rather than cause dependance or rebellion?
Money is less amenable to rules than clothes. Each persons needs and situations differ somewhat. To have detailed standards as you propose tongue in cheek would create endless caveats. Income caps per child? Gross income vs personal income? Business size?
If church rules about clothes are principled, few and flexible what basic guidelines about money could be helpful?
LikeLike
Thanks for the feed back.
I’m bothered by what seems to me to be our cultures’ inconsistent engagement of finances versus clothing, and the messaging to our families and observers.
But maybe, as you suggest, money and dress don’t share enough to be useful comparatives.
LikeLike
I found your latest post thought-provoking; and while I feel comfortable having guidelines on dress (though I think they should be minimal), I do struggle a bit to defend having guidelines for dress, but not for finances.
A few things come to mind, however.
Someone once said that Anabaptism is like a three-legged stool. The three legs are: nonconformity, non-resistance, and non-accumulation of wealth. When one of those three legs falls, the other two eventually follow suit and the chair collapses.
Secondly, while the exact church “regulations” we have are not clearly spelled out in the Bible, the Bible does give the church authority to take positions and issue guidelines (Acts 15). The church might choose to issue guidelines that they think are appropriate application of Biblical principle, whether they be concerning finances or dress. I believe we do well to respect those, if for no other reason because God sanctions church authority. The dress guidelines the church places may be a good means to remind myself whose I am.
Thirdly, a person may argue that the church does not have authority. Well, if the church does not have authority in a person’s life, then who does? I find it concerning that while some Anabaptists are fans of law and order in civil government, and sneer those in government who would like to relax rules (or consequences for disregarding them), some of those same people tend to run from authority within the church. Yes, I know. We all like law and order, whether inside or outside the church, until that law and order crosses my will. But what basis does a parent that is running from authority because the church asks of them something they don’t understand or agree with, to ever require anything of their child that the child does not understand?
When there are no guidelines in the home, there is chaos. When there are no guidelines within the church, there is chaos. But exactly what those guidelines should be in every situation, I am unable to say.
Thank-you for the article.
LikeLike
Good thoughts, thank you.
LikeLike