Investing for Retirement

[lesterb]

This is all good, and I probably needed this more than anyone else on here.

I have a question though. I'd be the kind of person that would constantly be feeling guilty if I followed this philosophy. So every dollar I spend for groceries, or far a family trip, comes out of God's pocket rather than my own? But Ecclesiastes does say that enjoying the fruit of our labor is one of God's gifts to us.

Does Roger ever take a family trip? Or eat in a restaraunt? Or buy a better vehicle?

[RZehr]

This is all good, and I probably needed this more than anyone else on here.

I have a question though. I'd be the kind of person that would constantly be feeling guilty if I followed this philosophy. So every dollar I spend for groceries, or far a family trip, comes out of God's pocket rather than my own? But Ecclesiastes does say that enjoying the fruit of our labor is one of God's gifts to us.

Does Roger ever take a family trip? Or eat in a restaraunt? Or buy a better vehicle?

Yes and yes. Probably less than the average Menno around here. Yes, probably older and cheaper than the average Menno around here.

[Wade]

This is all good, and I probably needed this more than anyone else on here.

I have a question though. I'd be the kind of person that would constantly be feeling guilty if I followed this philosophy. So every dollar I spend for groceries, or far a family trip, comes out of God's pocket rather than my own? But Ecclesiastes does say that enjoying the fruit of our labor is one of God's gifts to us.

Does Roger ever take a family trip? Or eat in a restaraunt? Or buy a better vehicle?

Guilty I hope I never came on too strongly with this...
I believe God can work through what might seem like the most unlikely circumstances and I agree we are supposed to do things with our families and let children be children and have some fun too. Sometimes our fun might look different from others as Christians but we certainly should have joy.

We have a 17 year old vehicle with near 400,000kms and I am content with it even if it wouldn't start recently and needs work but I don't think it would be unreasonable to save for something else in case it dies soon. Giving all our money away every month does not support us getting a different vehicle if this one breaks down. The combined price of our last 2 vehicles was $700 and the 3rd last was $1000 so maybe it would work to not save... But it doesn't feel right to push it either.

Eating at restaurants can be a time of witnessing to others and could be really good to do within reason.

I really like Gary Miller's book Kingdom Focused Finances for the Family and since I budget; I do save money for regular bills upcoming like heat in winter, insurance on our vehicle, etc. Which seems reasonable.

However these again are my thoughts. Each one will apply it a different and that's good, I just am in favor of some application.

And as far as guilty goes I was thinking that someone who was a Christian school teacher and wrote/writing Christian books for lesser wages was doing work for the kingdom in a way that most are not called to do. Time is more precious than money and a good example I thought. It is inspiring to me that people do these things pouring their time into encouraging and touching so many others with little chance of saving...

[EdselB]

[
You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I was told that at Shippensburg they would allow you to borrow money to buy a farm, but when you sold it or died, the proceeds would go to the church, not your family. That would be their way of having it all come out even in the end, I guess. So if a son was to take over his father's $2.5m dairy farm, he'd have to pay the church $2.5m for it.

No inheritances.

But the father could use his equity to get his sons started in farming.

I just saw this.

Shippensburg Christian Fellowship does have a general teaching against the accumulation of wealth. This does not mean that members don't own property--but we don't like to see it go beyound a personal residence or buisness. Our original goal was that we would stay away from debt, and to do so we would help each other with property purchases. While we have helped each other along this line, we have never had the resources to pull it off completley, or even in a major way, (this is due in part to the fact that alot of our corporate financial resources have been used to pay medical bills), so most of our brethren have had to borrow some money to buy a house. There is also the expectation that if a person needs to borrow money that it be brought to the brotherhood for counsel. There have been a few occasions where we have advised against a purchase and normally that advice has been taken. We also have an annual financial accountabilty meeting, where each member reports on their indebtedness and assets. As far as inheritance or passing a farm or business on to one's children, we have never dictated anything like what was described above.

[lesterb]

[
You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I was told that at Shippensburg they would allow you to borrow money to buy a farm, but when you sold it or died, the proceeds would go to the church, not your family. That would be their way of having it all come out even in the end, I guess. So if a son was to take over his father's $2.5m dairy farm, he'd have to pay the church $2.5m for it.

No inheritances.

But the father could use his equity to get his sons started in farming.

I just saw this.

Shippensburg Christian Fellowship does have a general teaching against the accumulation of wealth. This does not mean that members don't own property--but we don't like to see it go beyound a personal residence or buisness. Our original goal was that we would stay away from debt, and to do so we would help each other with property purchases. While we have helped each other along this line, we have never had the resources to pull it off completley, or even in a major way, (this is due in part to the fact that alot of our corporate financial resources have been used to pay medical bills), so most of our brethren have had to borrow some money to buy a house. There is also the expectation that if a person needs to borrow money that it be brought to the brotherhood for counsel. There have been a few occasions where we have advised against a purchase and normally that advice has been taken. We also have an annual financial accountabilty meeting, where each member reports on their indebtedness and assets. As far as inheritance or passing a farm or business on to one's children, we have never dictated anything like what was described above.

Thanks for the correction. It has been a number of years since my inquiry into this, and my memory may have enhanced some details.

[Adam]

I just finished rereading the book of Proverbs specifically with this question of investing for retirement in mind.

First, let me say that I was pleasantly surprised at how many references there were to helping the poor, not to mention the many references to preferring to have little with integrity and joy as opposed to having wealth through ill-gotten means or with strife. Proverbs definitely supports Jesus in encouraging us to give to the poor. Although one might be able to take one or two verses in isolation and use those to support a lifestyle of wealth and riches, it is difficult to come to that conclusion when you read the book as a whole.

At the same time, one verse really stood out to me as pertinent to this discussion. I know I am not the first to make the following observations, but I do think it is important to consider them in this discussion.

The verse is Proverbs 13:22, which says:

A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children,
but the sinner's wealth is laid up for the righteous.

Now we could talk about 'an inheritance' as being something other than money, material goods, or property, such as leaving an example of a godly life to your children and their children. And I believe there is great validity in that. However, in the context, 'inheritance' seems to be talking about money, material goods, and/or property. It is interesting to note the contrast between the 'good man' and the 'sinner'. What the good man is leaving to his children's children, he has presumably gotten through honest means (otherwise he wouldn't be called 'good'). It is also, incidentally, not described as 'wealth'. And what the Lord has blessed him with in his life, he leaves to his children, and this is presumably handed on to his children's children (probably because he raised his own children to be wise and not to squander God's blessings). But what the sinner has is described as 'wealth', and such 'wealth' is not passed on to his children's children, but rather it 'is laid up for the righteous'. This 'wealth' is presumably gotten through dishonest or sinful means, and as such it will ultimately pass from the sinner's hands.

When we propose the idea of not saving for retirement (and by retirement I mean the time when we are no longer able to work and need income for our basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter), we need to ask a question. The question is: If I am not saving for my own retirement, how will my needs be provided for in my old age? In answering that question, Roger Hertzler appeals to 1 Timothy 5:4, which says:

But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God.

And I do think that it is incumbent upon us to provide for our parents if they are unable to provide for themselves. However, I do not believe that this verse says that we as parents should handle our financial resources in such a way that our children and grandchildren have to provide for us. Rather Proverbs 13:22 seems to suggest that it is good if we do not lay such a burden on our children. Interestingly, 1 Timothy 5:4 only talks about 'widows'. It does not talk about 'widowers'. I think this is significant as wives were generally dependent upon their husbands for financial support. So if a woman lost her husband, she lost her means of support. Thus, the children and grandchildren needed to provide for her, and, if that wasn't an option, then the church needed to provide for her. But Proverbs 13:22 seems to suggest that a man's role is to have enough that he can pass along an inheritance to his children. Certainly if a man or woman become destitute in their old age, their children and grandchildren should support them. But I struggle to make the jump to this being the 'plan'. Does this mean that we should ignore the needs of the poor and store away abundant wealth so that we can eat, drink, and be merry after the age of 65? I don't think so. But I do think it means that it is good to plan for the needs of our old age. Is that storing up treasure? I don't think so, at least it is not any more storing up treasure than is saving the food from the harvest to last through the winter.

Although I tend to disagree with Roger Hertzler on this one point, overall his book made a deep impact on me and has changed the way I look at giving to the poor and my responsibility to do so. And for that I am very grateful and deeply appreciative of his book.

If others have different interpretations of Proverbs 13:22 related to this matter, I would welcome hearing your perspectives.

[RZehr]

Sounds logical, but how does Luke 12:33 and Mathew 6:19 fit?

[Adam]

Sounds logical, but how does Luke 12:33 and Mathew 6:19 fit?

That's the big question! What I keep coming back to is when Jesus said "Sell your possessions and give to the poor," I really don't think he meant all of our possessions, including our house, clothes, and food. We know that Peter owned a house, and it seems from John 21 that he and the disciples owned a boat as well that they used to go fishing. We also know that Paul had parchments, which were quite expensive. They all wore clothes (even Jesus). Jesus also had women who supported his ministry. If they had sold ALL their possessions and given to the poor, how could they have supported him? Similarly, if children sold all of their possessions and gave them to the poor, how could they provide for their widowed mothers? I think it is safe to say that even those who hold the strictest interpretation of this verse (such as Roger Hertzler) would not argue that Jesus means that we have to sell absolutely everything we have and give it to the poor.

So the question becomes: Which possessions is Jesus talking about? This question is not answered specifically, and we all must work out the answer together (which is why I appreciate this forum). It seems to me that it must refer to extra material possessions that we don't need. And by not specifying what those are, I think Jesus encourages each one of us to take stock of what we have and evaluate everything. Had he given us a specific list, we humans, who tend toward legalism, would be tempted to obey the letter and not the spirit of the teaching. By not specifying it for us, I think Jesus really challenges us to think through everything and come to difficult decisions as a community of believers.

Regarding Matthew 6:19, I think it is good to remind ourselves what the word treasure means. Treasure is defined as "a quantity of precious metals, gems, or other valuable objects." This does not refer to the basic necessities of life. Rather it seems to refer to expensive material objects that serve no immediate purpose in our lives other than to make us appear wealthy and feel secure that we are financially independent. I believe retirement accounts and investment accounts can fit that description if their purpose is to create wealth for ourselves beyond covering our basic needs and if they cause us to trust in our own financial position rather than in the Lord.

But there seems to be wisdom in planning for the future. If you get paid once a month on the first of the month, do you save any of that amount to cover expenses that you know are coming later in the month or do you only cover your immediate needs of that day and give the rest away? I think all of us would save for the expenses that we know are coming later that month. We do the same for larger expenses that may come annually. Saving for retirement is the same sort of idea, but on a longer timeframe. At what point does saving for future expenses become laying up treasure?

I also want to offer an example to show the difficulty of labeling what can be considered laying up treasure. If you have a house and farm land that is worth $200,000 that you use to earn a living and $0 in a retirement account, and I own a house that is worth $30,000 and have $30,000 in a retirement account, am I laying up treasures (even though your assets are worth more than mine)? Or are are you the one laying up treasure because you are $140,000 richer than I am? Or are neither of us laying up treasure? Or both of us?

I ask these questions because I want to be faithful to Jesus's words. It is just difficult, at times, to figure out what that looks like in practical application. That's why I want to hear others' opinions and perspectives on the matter.

[Judas Maccabeus]

[
You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I was told that at Shippensburg they would allow you to borrow money to buy a farm, but when you sold it or died, the proceeds would go to the church, not your family. That would be their way of having it all come out even in the end, I guess. So if a son was to take over his father's $2.5m dairy farm, he'd have to pay the church $2.5m for it.

No inheritances.

But the father could use his equity to get his sons started in farming.

I just saw this.

Shippensburg Christian Fellowship does have a general teaching against the accumulation of wealth. This does not mean that members don't own property--but we don't like to see it go beyound a personal residence or buisness. Our original goal was that we would stay away from debt, and to do so we would help each other with property purchases. While we have helped each other along this line, we have never had the resources to pull it off completley, or even in a major way, (this is due in part to the fact that alot of our corporate financial resources have been used to pay medical bills), so most of our brethren have had to borrow some money to buy a house. There is also the expectation that if a person needs to borrow money that it be brought to the brotherhood for counsel. There have been a few occasions where we have advised against a purchase and normally that advice has been taken. We also have an annual financial accountabilty meeting, where each member reports on their indebtedness and assets. As far as inheritance or passing a farm or business on to one's children, we have never dictated anything like what was described above.

Curious if they would have a problem with a pension one got at work? I am talking about the old "defined benefit" kind, which you can't touch, until you die or retire, whichever comes first

J.M.

[Josh]

Traditionally plain Anabaptists spoke against things like pensions (which used to all be defined benefit) and social security. Since plain Anabaptists avoided labour unions and the professions for the most of the 20th century, they ended up avoiding workplaces that had pensions.