Investing for Retirement

[justme]

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.

um
ok.

the church isn't the one who originally paid for the 2.5m dairy farm, is it?

[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.

um
ok.

the church isn't the one who originally paid for the 2.5m dairy farm, is it?

Okay, let me think it through again. So the parents die and you have this $2.5m value sitting there. The owner bought it and paid for it, or got it by inheritance before joining the church. Whatever it gets sold for goes to the church, because that is the accumulated value. So if a son, or several sons decide to buy it, the money goes to the church. So they have bought it from the church, and have a $2.5m debt. That's okay, apparently because the farm is a tool. As the new owner goes through life, and pays off his debt, his net worth increases, and his debt decreases. Also, if things go like normal there will be some inflation. So when he dies, his net worth in probably about $4m. And we go through the same process again. Only now the church has "sold" the farm twice and made $6.5m on what is only worth $4m. So what you have done is simply moved the accumulation from one spot to another. It is assumed that the church will disperse of the money to needy places or people, but normally, such schemes don't work out in the long run, so....?

Also, since it is technically illegal to disinherit family members, as soon as one child leaves the church he might contest the will and the judge will throw it out and split the money amongst the family.

[Wade]

This discussion as a whole has become quite discouraging...

What did Jesus do? Common purse!
That is likely why the church in Acts did it too, following the example of the same one we claim to follow...
That is probably likely why the early Anabaptist's did it and the Hutterite's still do it today.

I have lost a lot of respect in how we do things today with this conversation...

[ken_sylvania]

This discussion as a whole has become quite discouraging...

What did Jesus do? Common purse!

Carried by a thief.
Simon Peter still had his own ship and his own house though.

That is likely why the church in Acts did it too, following the example of the same one we claim to follow...

Maybe, except it seems the "having all things common" was a temporary response to a temporary problem (all these out-of-town Jews that had become believers and hung around longer than expected). At any rate it doesn't seem to have been the way the church in Acts did outside of Jerusalem. Otherwise Paul would have written to the deacon at Philemon's church to ask that Onesimus be pardoned, rather than to Philemon.

[RZehr]

This discussion as a whole has become quite discouraging...

What did Jesus do? Common purse!
That is likely why the church in Acts did it too, following the example of the same one we claim to follow...
That is probably likely why the early Anabaptist's did it and the Hutterite's still do it today.

I have lost a lot of respect in how we do things today with this conversation...

I have no doubt that Christian communalism is a fine way to operate.
I think part of the problem might be that while we have an account of what they did, it isn't really prescribed.
And we all have enough of the old man in us that we are able to live selfishly and game the system no matter what type of economic system we are a part of.
And there is enough people on this thread that have seen pretty much all these types of programs be gamed that we end up just trying to keep our own nose clean so to speak, and not come out too adamant that one way is the only way.

[Soloist]

I suppose I tend to look at it like how Conrad Grabel said.

Achieving financial advantage brings us at best a temporary happiness in this world and it can often disguise the naked force which supports it. It is impossible to reconcile the love of money with God's truth

The Christians from multiple times had land, sold land, bought land, had land stolen... on and on.
I see nothing wrong with someone buying property and I tend to find that renting means you cannot take the homeless into your home... I've asked my landlord about letting some missionaries stay briefly with us and he said no. Maybe in that case, my home could be considered a tool and not an investment?
I want land... I want to homestead but I firmly believe against taking out loans. The thing is, rent verses mortgage... I have to admit I see little difference. One you lose the rental if you can't pay the rent, the other you lose the house if you can't make mortgage. One you build wealth (sort of) the other is emptying into nothing. I've never had a credit card... so a mortgage would likely be high, but I also, having served in the military, might qualify for a cheap home loan.
At the end of the day, I need a stable job to even consider a mortgage so its a non-issue for me still. Also, we are quite fortunate to have a good landlord who charges cheap rent and keeps things fixed.
I'm mixed on the work less to spend more time with family or work same and give more away.

I'm all in favor of a common purse and communal living, but man is fallen.

[lesterb]

I'm sorry if I sounded cynical. But I just haven't seen it working from Roger's perspective. What I have seen working is a brother slipping some money into someone's pocket when they had a need. The Bible gives the illustration of manna in this light, where those who gathered much didn't have any left over and those who gathered little didn't lack. I think the Holy Spirit is a better administrator of something like this than a treasurer or church committee.

A Mennonite minister of several generations ago was going to town for groceries. Only problem was that he had no money to buy them. But they had no food at home, so he went. I forget the exact details, but I think he was walking and had to wait on a passenger train crossing the road. The train stopped and a man jumped off and gave him some money. He jumped back on the train and it continued. He had no idea who it was, but he was able to buy groceries that day.

I'm sure that some of us could share personal accounts like that.

Needs vary. And God's ways of meeting them vary. Sometimes God uses us to meet a need for someone else, other times He uses someone else to meet our need. But to make a church rule stating that we must give all our profits to the church and regulating the whole thing like that somehow just gives me a bad taste.

Maybe I've visited too many rich Hutterite colonies.

[Adam]

Thank you all for your replies. I really appreciate hearing your various perspectives. I especially appreciate hearing the perspectives of those who are older. That was one thing I felt was lacking in Hertzler's book--hearing the perspectives of those who had lived as he was suggesting and could offer their wisdom and experience on the matter. Despite a diversity of opinions in the responses, I do see common themes:

(1) We are stewards of the finances God has entrusted to us
(2) Those resources should go towards furthering the Kingdom of God and helping the widows, poor, needy, etc.; however
(3) God also wants us to provide for our families (and presumably ourselves)
(4) Accumulation of material goods and wealth gets in the way of Kingdom Work and helping others financially; it is also detrimental to our own spiritual wellbeing

So if one were to invest, it should only be with an eye toward providing for the needs of himself and his family and/or in order to give an even greater amount to further the Kingdom and help others. Furthermore, investments should never be in companies that profit from sin.

I do like what John Wesley did in setting an annual budget of 30 pounds for himself and giving away anything that came in above that. Whether the budget we set includes savings for retirement or not, perhaps the key point is the commitment to give away everything else that comes in above and beyond that budgeted amount, and to do so with joy.

I might also add that our financial decisions should be based on faith and not on fear. Often we view investing as something done out of fear that the Lord may not provide, but I would like to offer another perspective from our own situation. My father-in-law is 81, and if he did not have retirement savings and if he did not make use of Social Security, we would almost certainly not be able to be serving as Bible translators in Papua New Guinea. If we had to provide for all of his needs, it would hinder us from doing the work that God has called us to do. We, in turn, also want our own children to be able to serve God in whatever way He may call them and not be a hindrance. In that case, investing in our own retirement would not be out of fear that God won't provide, but out of faith that God also wants to use our children to bring about His Kingdom, and our desire to not hold them back in any way from living fully for Him. However, I am still working through these issues as there are valid argument both for an against investing for retirement.

[Ernie]

I do like what John Wesley did in setting an annual budget of 30 pounds for himself and giving away anything that came in above that. Whether the budget we set includes savings for retirement or not, perhaps the key point is the commitment to give away everything else that comes in above and beyond that budgeted amount, and to do so with joy.

I like this. I think God's concern is how we use and invest anything beyond our needs.

I might also add that our financial decisions should be based on faith and not on fear. Often we view investing as something done out of fear that the Lord may not provide, but I would like to offer another perspective from our own situation. My father-in-law is 81, and if he did not have retirement savings and if he did not make use of Social Security, we would almost certainly not be able to be serving as Bible translators in Papua New Guinea. If we had to provide for all of his needs, it would hinder us from doing the work that God has called us to do. We, in turn, also want our own children to be able to serve God in whatever way He may call them and not be a hindrance. In that case, investing in our own retirement would not be out of fear that God won't provide, but out of faith that God also wants to use our children to bring about His Kingdom, and our desire to not hold them back in any way from living fully for Him. However, I am still working through these issues as there are valid argument both for an against investing for retirement.

Our situation is similar. Our parent's saving up for their old age allows us to minister. At this point it doesn't look like we will be able to do the same thing for our children, unless we start doing something differently the next 20 years.

[appleman2006]

I have been blessed by reading the back and forth discussion on this subject. Regardless where you come out on the subject it tells me that you are all taking this thing seriously and trying to follow God to the best of your ability.

How many of you remember the book "I kissed dating goodbye" . When that book came out many young people that I knew took everything he said very literally and I think totally missed the main point in his book. So much so that the author had to write a second book "Boy meets girl" to clarify a lot of the misconceptions that had come out of his first book.

I have wondered if the time will come where Hertzler will have to write a second book for the same reason. I do not know the man at all. I have read some of his other stuff and I am very impressed by his sincerity and his obvious desire to follow God in all areas of his life. I also like his willingness to tackle even some of the very tough questions in life.

I do believe that most of us in our culture are far too materialistic. That includes the very well to do among us as well as the not so well to do. If you have never read Gary Miller's books, especially "Going until you are gone" I would highly recommend it. I think it tackles many of the same questions that Hertzler does but for me at least it made a lot more sense and gave me the courage to believe that a person can live in this day and age and have a proper view of material things,
Without going into long detail right now let me summarize what I have come to believe. Hoarding for selfish reasons is always wrong. Saving so that you can care for those entrusted to you or to better help and serve in the corner of the world you have been put into is a total different thing. And those with an open heart towards God will know exactly when they have crossed the line from one to the other.