Biblical Economics 2

Christian Ethics and the Goal of Biblical Decision-Making

All right, we're going to continue on again with our study of Christian ethics, and this is our third week. We began the course the very first Sunday by saying basically what the goal of this study is.

And we're going to be doing this study until the end of the year. And then I'll be going out of this class and you guys will be having Byron will be taking this class for the indefinite future. I guess forever, unless God changes it again.

But anyhow, the very first class two weeks ago, what we said was that the overall goal for making ethical decisions should be to understand and obey the teaching of the entire Bible with regard to any particular situation.

That is the definition of Christian ethics, because if we say we're Christians trying to make ethical decisions, well, our opinions are really secondary to what the Bible says. If we believe that the Bible is the word of God, then we trust that what it says on any given issue is, in fact, what we ought to be doing.

So I hear a lot of people say this when I talk about ethical decisions. People will say, well, I feel like this is the right answer. I, I feel like that's the right answer. And not trying to be ugly, not trying to be hurt or anything like that, I often say it doesn't really matter how you feel, because there's a lot of people who have felt very good in their sin.

It doesn't matter how you feel. What matters is what the Bible says in regard to the issue. If we're talking about Christian ethics. And of course, that's what we are discussing. So we I asked the class to give a I had a list of topics and I said, because we're limited in time, we're not going to be able to the entire list.

Which topics most do you think most affect you now that you'd like to hear discussed? And one of the topics I put down was economics and stewardship. And surprisingly, that one got the most hands. People wanted to hear what does the Bible say about economics?

What does the Bible say about stewardship? What does the Bible say about how we ought to be handling our finances and what governmental system should we as Christians support in regard to finances? Obviously, and I want to make this point.

Obviously, we can't force the government to do anything economically. All we can do is support an economic system. Whether we're voting, we can only vote to support. God is sovereign. God is going to see to it that what his plan is met.

And sometimes that's done through things that we don't agree with as far as systems. But that's because God may be judging the nation or God may be doing something through a system that we don't necessarily think is the best way.

But the question that we're asking is, is there a system that a Christian should support? Last week, we said basically the two that in America we sort of have to concern ourselves with. And these are not the only two economic systems, but we said these two represent two philosophies.

That's what we said. It's not the only two economic systems, but it represents two philosophies. Capitalism represents what we would call individualism. Individualism. That the individual is responsible for himself.

He is responsible for producing and he's responsible for taking care of himself. He's not responsible to anyone but himself. And that's the individualistic idea of capitalism. He is as good or as bad as he himself works and decides and chooses to be within his system.

Is capitalism inherently flawed? Yes, it is. And we talked about some of the flaws last week. We talked about how capitalism often produces greed. Because if it's individualistic, it's about me. It's all about what I can accomplish.

Yeah, yeah. Mind, mind, mind. It's that. So there is a problem with capitalism. It's not there is no perfect system. So we talked a little bit about that. And we said socialism where capitalism is about individualism.

Socialism is about what is called collectivism. It's about the good of the whole or the most trying to get as many as possible to have their fair share piece of the pie. And we said, what was the inherent problem with socialism?

Does anyone remember from last week what the inherent problem with socialism was? We said that socialism requires an incorruptible government. It requires an incorruptible government because as soon as you introduce corruption into those who are in charge of seeing that everybody gets their fair share.

What we end up with is like what we saw in communist Russia, the Soviet Union with red lines of people. The ones who were in charge having everything and giving the ones who were the underlings, the ones who were a part of the collective, did not receive hardly anything at all.

And there are people who are going hungry, people who are starving as a result of what? As a result of greed. You see, capitalism is not the only thing that capitalism is not the only system that produces greed.

Both of them have the capacity of producing the problem and feeding the problem of greed. So that's where we ended last week. We said we have two systems, individualism and collectivism, capitalism and socialism.

Of course, under socialism, you have things like welfare states, communism, things like this. Under this, you have welfare capitalism, free market capitalism. So there are different subcategories which we could go on for weeks and weeks discussing, but that's not really our purpose.

The question we asked last week, again, is either one of these systems biblical? Well, they're both philosophies and both philosophies can find some of their parts in scripture. We said some people argue that socialism was the method of the early church because within the early church, it says they held everything in common.

People sold what they had. They pulled it together. And that the apostles were the ones who ensured that everyone had what they needed. And I said, what I said is this socialism? And we said, well, it sort of sounds like socialism.

I said the difference, though, and again, I'm just I'm rehearsing what we talked about last week. The difference between socialism and what happened in the early church is what happened in the early church was all voluntary.

It was not a forced thing. Socialism demands no private ownership. But in the early church, what was said? What was stated? It's yours to do with what you will. When Ananias and Sapphira only gave a portion of their money, what did Peter say to them?

The land belonged to you before you sold it. And once you sold it, the money that you had could have been spent however you want. They didn't get in trouble for not giving it all to the church. They got in trouble for lying.

We stressed that last week. So the problem with socialism in regard to saying that's the method of the early church is that the method of the early church was based fully on voluntary sacrifice. It was not based on compulsory sacrifice.

That's what socialism demands from each according to his ability to each according to his need. Well, that's the motto of communism. Socialism changes it slightly by saying from each according to his ability to each according to his deeds.

Again, it's a slight difference, but it does. There are two sort of competing philosophies even within collectivism. Somebody asked me one time, what's the difference between socialism and communism? I said, socialists don't use guns.

That's actually not true. Because they do. Because they use the power of the government, the power of the government to demand that everyone share. It's like the parents who say you have to share the two children.

You have to give him. You have to give her. And if you don't, you're going to get a discipline. You're going to get a spanking. You're going to get in trouble. Well, the government bears the power of the rod.

They bear the power of the sword to demand that everyone share. And that's the issue of socialism. Now, again, I'm trying not to rehearse everything from last week, but I don't want anyone because I know a few of you weren't here.

I don't want anyone to sort of be left behind. I said that one of the issues of socialism and particularly welfare-based systems is that they encourage the populace. They encourage people to not work and yet still be able to have their needs met.

Because they have those who will work. What they work for is taken from them and then is distributed back to those who refuse to work. So we talked about the fact that 2 Thessalonians chapter 3 and verse 10 says that if a person doesn't work, then that person should not eat.

And I think that we have to, again, remind ourselves it doesn't say if a person can't work. It says if a person will not work. And again, there's a difference. There are people who physically cannot work.

But yet I think that we have to be careful because what has happened is that idea of can't work has become so broad that people find reasons and ways not to work. So that's an issue. But it says if you will not work, if you refuse, if you choose not to, and you have, of course, the ability to, then you're not to have a place at the table.

You're not to eat. Well, that's difficult. Pastor, that's mean. It's not mean. It discourages the lethargy and the laziness that often comes from people who are willing to receive the support of others without supporting themselves.

I had a very negative conversation one time with a member of my own family. We were actually in the sanctuary here, and he and I were having a conversation. And he said what a lot of people say. And you may have said this before, too.

I hate it that we send all that money overseas to give people stuff. We ought to spend that money on people right here in America. That was his statement. And some of you maybe have said that statement before.

And I was not arguing that there are people in America that have needs. But what I said to him was this. I made him very mad. I said, well, there's a lot of people in America here that are getting money that really should have themselves a job or should be looking for work.

And that money could maybe go to. And because he was a recipient of said money, he was angry. But it's the truth. You know, we don't want to hear these things when it affects us. And his response was, well, that money is just out there.

It needs to come to me. And I said, no, the government doesn't have any money. The government is not a producer. Government doesn't produce anything. Government receives through taxation and then redistributes.

Somebody say that because I can't. Redistribute. Thank you. A ton of quick work and halfway through. But anyhow, so the issue, if a person has the ability to work and can work, they should work. Now, the question we're going to begin with today, and I think this is an important question that we have to deal with in regard to this subject, is this.

Doesn't the Bible command us to take care of the poor? And isn't that the main goal of socialism? And as such, doesn't that make socialism more in keeping with the biblical principle? I say it again. Doesn't the Bible command us to take care of the poor?

And isn't that the main goal of socialism? And thus, doesn't that make socialism more in keeping with the teaching of the Bible? And I will say this is what is often touted by those who support socialism.

They'll say the Bible says this, not because necessarily that they believe the Bible, but in an attempt to sort of call anyone who is a capitalist a hypocrite. They'll say you're a hypocrite. The Bible teaches socialism.

The Church's Responsibility to the Poor

Well, here is the answer to the question. Doesn't the Bible command us to take care of the poor? And isn't that the main goal of socialism? Well, it is true that we have a very real responsibility to the poor.

And by we, I mean the church. This is a very important thing that I wanted to stress today. The church is supposed to be on the front lines, helping those who are in need of food, clothing, shelter, and care.

And this has been recognized in the past, which is why most of the charities and hospitals were founded through churches and missionary endeavors. Name some of the hospitals in Jacksonville. Baptist Hospital, St. Vincent's Hospital, St. Luke's Hospital.

These have their foundations in the church. They have their foundations in Christian movements. What are the companies that help children get adopted? Catholic Charities, Jewish Family Services. That's where we got our children was through Jewish Family Services.

The orphans are supposed to be cared for through the ministry of the church. The widows are to be cared for through the ministry of the church. And for centuries, we understood this. This is why there were men whose hearts were bent towards the creating of orphanages in places where there were none.

And why there was the planning and the building of hospitals where there were none. Because there was a desire within the heart of men, godly men, to help their brethren, to help their fellow man. You've never seen Charles Darwin International Hospital.

I don't think. There might be one out there.

But you see, it is the fate of Christianity which lends itself toward benevolence. And it should. If there was ever a benevolent man in the history of men, it was Jesus Christ. And thus, to call ourselves Christians should be to call ourselves desirous of benevolence.

To love people even if they don't love us back. To give to people even if they don't appreciate our gifts. Isn't this what Christ did for us? And as such, we have a responsibility to do that as the church.

If a person does not have the means to provide for themselves, the church is supposed to help provide for them. In the Bible, the widow and the orphan are often referenced as examples. Why? Because the widow and the orphan were unable to care for themselves.

Jesus Christ was adamant that being his follower meant that we were to seek to meet the needs of others. Even if that meant sacrificing what we had so that they could have. The story of the Good Samaritan being one of the best examples in the history of the church.

The Good Samaritan was what? He was a man who was willing to not only put the man up for a night. But he says, you take care of him as long as he needs and I'll come back this way. And if he spends any more than I've left with you, I'll take care of him.

I will see to it that the needs of this man are met. And that's what does Jesus hold him up as? The example of neighborly love. Because what started the question, what started the parable of the Good Samaritan?

The man asked the question, who then is my neighbor? Because Jesus said, love your neighbor as yourself. Actually, he asked the command. He says, what is the command? He says, love your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.

But love your neighbor as yourself. And somebody stood up and said, who is my neighbor? Jesus said, a parable. He said, the Levite walked by, did nothing to help the man. The priest walked by, did nothing to help the man.

Jesus, never short to take a shot at those priests and Levites who weren't doing what they were supposed to do. And he used them as the example of those who just walked by. The most religious of the people who did not do their duty in helping this man.

But the Samaritan, whom everyone hated, Jesus said he was the one who stopped, loved, gave of himself, was totally benevolent. Was without any regard for his own self-interest and gave all that he could to see that this man had his needs met.

And Jesus said, that's the example of neighborly love. And that's the love that we're supposed to demonstrate. Now, having said all that, we mustn't automatically assume that helping the poor is the goal of socialism.

Though socialism does seek to distribute all wealth equally, at least theoretically. It also is a means of power to those in positions of leadership. The more the people rely upon the government to meet their needs, the less they will choose to rebel against the policies of the government.

Hear that again, because that's very important. Socialism is based on this idea. The more the people rely on the government to meet their needs, the less the people will rebel against said government.

It's just that simple. If you're taking care of me, I'm not going to bite the hand that feeds me. One of the philosophers of the past said, as soon as people realize they can vote for a paycheck, then the republic is lost.

They vote people in who will pay them. We're in trouble. In capitalism, people are encouraged to work hard to produce because they will enjoy the fruit of their labor. Socialism has often been accused of destroying the desire to work hard because there is no reward in achieving and producing more.

In the end, if a doctor makes the same as a busboy, what motivation is there to be a doctor? I think that our economic system has done a lot to drive us forward. I think early on our commitment to scriptural principles was also part of the blessing that has caused us to be as powerful and influential as we have.

Consider how much of the world has been reached for the gospel because of the American ability to produce and send Bibles and send missionaries and send money. Obviously, we see God's hand of providence in that.

We also see God's hand of judgment even now as we see the rise of sin all throughout our nation. Sin has always been there, but we see it now being glorified. The Bible says, Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.

That's what we're seeing every day on the news. We glorify the horrible and we downplay the good. That's what Romans 1 says. It happens. As the people continue to deny God and deny his providence and deny who he is and they worship other things and other gods, God turns them over to the base mind and we begin to see exactly what we're seeing now.

Part of God's building up of the United States has been through an economic system that rewards hard work. I think so.

I think that predominantly what you said about God blessing our nation, that's the predominant thing, but I also think we have vast resources and a pioneering spirit. Our resources were just like, wow, we had everything we needed right here to do everything, plus the will to invent a brand new country.

It was just, they call it the mother's necessity, the mother of invention. All the innovations that came from the Americans really spread to the rest of the world.

America really is a very unique nation in some of what you're getting at. I never realized how big America is as far as land-wise. I heard a joke one time that says the difference between Americans and Europeans is that Americans think 100 years is a long time and Europeans think 100 miles is a long way.

Because we've gone 200 years and so much has happened in 200 years. Over in Europe, it's 200 years. They go back thousands of years or hundreds of years and they think 100 years, that's a drop in the bucket.

But to us, the same thing can be said about 100 miles. 100 miles, man, there are people who own 100 miles worth of land here. No big deal. I remember that in a day. Oh, absolutely. Oh, yeah. No problem for us.

That's why our cars are the size of houses. We live in them. Over there, they have bicycles with engines. But the same, you look over in Europe and you look at the different countries and what we call a state, they would have an entire sovereign nation as far as land mass and population and size and everything.

It's amazing how large America really is. So you talk about necessity being the mother of invention, things like the automobile, the train system, and all of the rail systems that were required for moving goods and people and services to and from certain areas.

I mean, yeah, a lot of things have been produced as a result of necessity. Now, I want to move on to another question. The last question was doesn't the Bible command us to take care of the poor and isn't that the main goal of socialism?

I think, again, that's two questions together. Does the Bible command us to take care of the poor? Absolutely. That is the church's responsibility. And the church, I think we have lost our vision in that area in a lot of ways.

I think the church has become very self-serving. I think the church has become very self-concerned and self-involved and has moved away from the desire to help. We've chosen to build the crystal cathedrals and the monuments to our own names and these things, and we've chosen to have 50 ,000 member churches inside basketball stadiums or whatever because that glorifies us rather than being benevolent.

I do think we've lost our way in many ways as a church. So I know it's laid at our doorstep. We need to own it and do something about it, so I agree with that. But I do not believe that the socialism of the government is the answer because robbing from one to give to another is not the way.

The Bible says that one should be willing to give of what he has, not that it be taken from him by force. If it's taken by force, it's not benevolence. It's robbery. So that's where I think the problem becomes.

Self-Interest, Greed, and the Limits of Capitalism

Now, what about the objection that capitalism breeds greed? The objection leveled against capitalism is that it breeds selfishness and thus it encourages greed. However, it must be understood that there is a difference and I want you guys to understand this is important.

There is a difference between selfishness and self-interest. There is a difference between selfishness and self-interest. All people have self-interest. That does not exactly make all people selfish.

For example, it is in our own self-interest to get a job and earn an income so that we can support our family. That's not selfish. That's just going about our self-interest. That's what we are supposed to do, thus that's what we need to do.

We can do that without being selfish. Greed is inherent in any system because it is a part of our fallen human nature. In socialistic systems, greed is often demonstrated at the top with the leadership holding the reins of power and allowing those under them to suffer.

One thing that capitalism does do, and again obviously not just because I'm an American, maybe that has some influence on it, but I of course would support capitalism, and here's the main reason why. One thing that capitalism does do to counteract the problem of the sinful human nature is that it provides an inherent system of checks and balances which help curtail individual sinful behavior.

For instance, if one business is charging an unfair amount for a product, another business can come along and charge less and thus earn the business of the consumer. Much like the three branches of government are supposed to keep each other from corruption, businesses are working toward earning the trust and business of consumers and thus are keeping each other in check.

That's how the free market is supposed to work. That the sinful, greedy nature of humankind is curtailed by free market enterprise. Is that necessarily biblical? Well, look at it from this perspective.

Does the Bible teach that mankind is by nature sinful? Does the Bible teach that if we are not restrained that we will be, that our depravity will allow it to demonstrate itself? Well, the Bible teaches that and so does nature.

Nature teaches that if we are unrestrained in our sinfulness that we go, it's anarchy. Think of, I've used this example many times, Hurricane Katrina. When the police can't come and the government's not there to bear the sword, the police are not there to hold anyone back, we see human depravity on display.

So the question becomes, which system inherently has within it a way to curtail sinful business practices, sinful ways? The one that allows for there to be competition. Just like in the three branches of government.

Again, I use this as an example. Why did our founders put in three branches of government? So that one could not become the absolute. Because with absolute power, what is it, power corrupts? And absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If any one branch of government had the power to become the absolute power and it became corrupted, as such the nation itself would fall. It's one of the reasons why people complain so much about the judiciary.

That's hard to say. The judiciary, people complain. Why? Because we don't have terms for the Supreme Court. They're appointed, they're not elected, they're appointed, and they receive that position for life.

And what happens if one is corrupt? That's a problem. Again, the Constitution, though an important document, is not scripture, it's not God-breathed, it has its own inherent flaws. And that's why people have been concerned about that one area of our government.

Because it's supposed to be a system wherein it checks the sinful nature, it checks the sinful heart. Likewise, capitalism is supposed to do that very same thing. Why is it not able to do that? It is not able to do that because we no longer live in capitalism.

We now live in a system that is government-driven, basically. Almost everything that is supposed to be capitalistic and determined by the free market is now determined by governmental restrictions and restraints, which cause things to change.

For instance, the taxation system, which causes people, business owners, to have to do things like find other nations to hire employees because the taxation system is different in other nations. Does that mean those businesses that send their jobs overseas are right or wrong?

They would do it anyway, though. I'm telling you, if they weren't taxed, they would still do cheaper labor because of the competition. If they said, we can pay them here in America, or we can get it cheaper over there, it wouldn't matter whether they're taxed.

They would still do it because if they don't do it, then the competition next door will do it, and then their stock will drop because some animals in Wall Street will sell you labor because you pay more pure labor over here.

And they also get away with certain standards we have over here for a small... I would think their building is producing the waste from it. In another country, they can just dump it in the ocean.

They're going to do anything they can to keep that bottom line. That means they're not going to wave the flag at all.

Big business continues to...

I don't want to get too far off the track, but I had a question. You talk about the three branches of government. I hear this term all the time, the Senate Judiciary Committee. If this is the Senate and they're the legislative branch, what are they doing with their nose in the judicial system?

I'll have to go get Nathan, who is our political science major, to come in and answer that question because I don't know.

It's written in the Constitution that Congress has the power. The Supreme Court, they cannot do this. For all the lower courts, if justices do become corrupt, the Senate can remove them. And also, when the president nominates a member to serve on the court, the Senate must approve them.

And it goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee first, before it's presented to the entire Senate for an up or down vote.

I see them being involved in things like Roger Clinton and the steroids and the PCS college system and stuff that they want to get there.

Yeah, they want to get their hands in everything, but as far as the Senate having to say so in the justices, that's written in the Constitution. Just like the Senate is supposed to approve any treaty that the president agrees to, just because the president signs the treaty doesn't make it law yet.

And I want to back up to something I said earlier. When I said a Supreme Court justice is appointed, I understand also that the Senate is involved in that appointment. I just meant they're not voted on by the populace like a president or a congressman.

And they're appointed for life, but only the lower courts can be impeached and removed.

But I was just saying, I just wanted to back up to something. When I said appointed, it wasn't as if it's a... It's already off track. No, it's fine. And I do want to address something, because there is a problem in our system.

We already talked about the problem of greed. I want to address something that I do see as a problem, and maybe this is off track, maybe it's not. We're talking about economics and ethics. We can't talk today.

So I want to address something that I do see as a problem. Thirty-five, forty years ago, I guess it is now, my dad started working at a company called Metal Container. Metal Container made cans for Anheuser-Busch and Pepsi-Cola.

My dad made cans for the better part of my life. Thirty-five years he worked at Metal Container. When dad started working at Metal Container, back in the late 70s, before I was born. I love that. Dad was working there, and he was making an exceptional amount of money for what he was doing.

He was making somewhere in the vicinity of around $40 ,000. Okay? So I just... Putting that down there. That was quite a bit of money for that time, and he did get raises over the years. By the time he retired, I think he was making more...

I don't want to go into what he was making when he retired. I always remember people saying, your dad really has a good job, and I never understood. I just knew I didn't go without anything, and that was very nice.

Dad always had a good job, right? My brother, we lived in the house, and it was nice that he had such a good job. His superiors, the person who was in charge of Metal Container, made somewhere in the vicinity of about $90 ,000 to $120 ,000.

Something like that. A fair amount difference. But, of course, you're talking about dad, who is a machine worker, versus the guy who's in charge of the whole place. Obviously, the guy's going to make quite a bit more.

Somehow, in the last 30 years, things have changed. Because where it used to be that a worker could support his family on a wage, now what we see is they're hiring what they call temporary employees. See, back then, dad only got this, but he also got health benefits.

He also got savings accounts, stock options, and all these things that went along with the job. So he probably was making somewhere in the vicinity of $60 ,000, if you included all of the insurance and everything that went along with his job.

He had an exceptionally good job, and Anheuser-Busch and Pepsi-Cola were making a lot of money. Today, they hire what are called temporary employees. Temporary employees get no stock options, no insurance, no anything else.

No 401K, no anything. And they make $11 an hour, which this is $20 an hour. Approximately, if you work 50 weeks out of the year, that's about $20 an hour. This, just a little bit more, maybe, than half.

But again, if you count all the other stuff, it's not even really a third, if you imagine what he was making. And this guy is now making like a million. Somehow, in 30 years, greed has become involved, and the power and economics have shifted, and it has created a problem.

So I'm not saying capitalism is the best way, the only way, the way it's going to be. What I'm saying is that when we talk about the Bible, and what does the Bible teach? The Bible doesn't teach that we have to rob from the rich to give to the poor.

The Bible doesn't teach Robin Hood ethics and Robin Hood economics. The Bible does teach that man is sinful, and that sometimes that sinful nature has to be curtailed. That doesn't mean that the system is perfect.

I had my first savings account on Blanding Boulevard in the early 70s. I got 6 .5 interest on a savings account, which I could take out at any time. I didn't have to keep it in there or anything. 6 .5 interest?

6 .5 on savings, on a regular savings account. I had my little book. That was good. $40. Yeah, you could get that in the early 70s. Now, what? Half a percent? Oh, yeah.

Economic Politics, Church Stewardship, and Voluntary Giving

Like I said, the last question I wanted to ask, because we're running low on time. I thought we were going to move on today, but we'll move on next week. Last question was, as a Christian, should I be concerned about economic politics?

Well, here's the first thing we need to answer in that question. We should recognize that economic politics do not directly affect the church. Please hear me. Let me finish before you want to contend.

Economic politics do not directly affect the church. Christ will build his church in any economic system and any economic political model. Christ is going to build his church. Right now, there are churches which exist under every type of government, whether it be totalitarian, whether it be monarchy, whatever.

There are churches in every country and every land. Christ will build his church in every economic system and every political system. So if somebody says, oh, we've got to have capitalism because the church will fail, then you've got the wrong God.

That's one. However, we need to recognize that economic politics do indirectly affect the ministry of the church in America because we do what we do by means of what we have. We are able to produce and to give and to see missionaries go out and to see missions work be done because of what we produce and what we can do.

So, yes, there is an indirect effect to what we are able to do in the way of ministry by what we are able to produce as far as economics, and that does have an effect. I mean, honestly, I'm going to go ahead and tell you right now.

In a few weeks, we're going to be voting on a new budget for 2012. It's lower than last year. Last year was lower than the year before. Why? Because economics indirectly affects what we're able to budget, what we're able to do.

It happens. We've got about the same amount of people, but we've had a lot of people out of work. We've had a lot of things change as far as demographics within the church. Things happen. You know what?

We're not going to say the church is failing. The church is not failing because Christ will build his church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. But economics do indirectly affect the church.

So it's important to understand at least how the effect is going to happen. So next week, we are going to change our focus from governmental economics to church stewardship. And we're going to talk at least for a week, maybe two, on the difference between compulsory giving and voluntary giving.