Derek Webb, that irascible warrior poet and musical prophet, has released a new song entitled, “What Matters More.” In it, he takes the church to task for its myopia on the issue of homosexuality, accusing the church of focusing on sexual ethics to the exclusion of the problem of poverty. In typical fashion, Webb uses his sharp tongue to really stick it to the church. Here are the lyrics:
You say always treat people like you’d like to be
I guess you love being hated for your sexuality
You love when people put words in your mouth
About what you believe
Make you sound like a freak‘Cause if you really believed
What you say you believe
You wouldn’t be so damned reckless
With the words you speak
You wouldn’t silently consent
When the liars speak
Denying all the dying of the remedy(Chorus)
Tell me, brother what matters more to you
Tell me, sister what matters more to youIf I can see what’s in your heart
By what comes out of your mouth
Then it sure looks to me like being straight
Is all it’s about
It looks like being hated
For all the wrong things
Like chasing the wind
While the pendulum swings‘Cause we can talk and debate
Till we’re blue in the face
About the language and tradition
That He’s coming to save
And meanwhile we sit
Just like we don’t have give a shit about
Fifty thousand people who are dying today
The “fifty thousand” assumedly refers to a claim by the charitable organization MakePovertyHistory that says 50,000 people die of poverty-related causes every day. And so, in light of this sad statistic, Webb charges the church with apathy to the plight of the poor. Actually, no, apathy is too weak a word–he says the church doesn’t “give a shit about fifty thousand people who are dying today” in favor of having arcane arguments about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality (“’cause we can talk and debate/till we’re blue in the face/about the language and tradition”). Those are strong words. Fighting words, some might say. So, I think it is fair to ask: Is Derek Webb right?
First, let me say that any abuse, prejudice, or physical, emotional, or spiritual harm brought upon homosexuals by Christians in the name of Christ is evil and pernicious. Christ calls us to transform sinners through godly love, not satanic hate. That is the clear message throughout the Bible, and that is the message of the gospel.
If Webb was making this point, and this point alone, then I could agree unequivocally with his message and his methods. But this is not what Webb is saying. He is claiming the church doesn’t “give a shit” about the poor while favoring disputes about non-important issues.
I think Webb is wrong. From my personal experience over many years as a churchman in a variety of denominations, I cannot think of a single person who didn’t “give a shit” about the plight of the poor. Additionally, after a simple Google search, I just learned that 80% of practicing religious people in the U.S. donate two-thirds of all charitable dollars in the country, with charitable giving by religious people declining just .1% during the recession years of 2007-2010. Contrast this information to the general decline of giving in America by 11%. According to the report by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Christian charities to the poor have seen donations either stay the same or go up during 2007-2010. Charities that have seen donations grow or stay static include World Vision, Compassion International, the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities USA, Lutheran Services in America, Christian Appalachian Project, St. Mary’s Food Bank, Covenant House, and the Union Rescue Mission, just to name a few (a few, incidentally, that represent some of the largest charities–including non-religious–in the U.S.). In my academic studies, I’ve read or skimmed such books as American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, by David Campbell (Notre Dame) and Robert D. Putnam (Harvard), where I learned that faithful practitioners of religion give four times as much as their secular brethren, even though religious people are generally less affluent than secular people. It seems to me that the far majority of Christians really do “give a shit” about the poor.
I understand Webb is trying to push the church into giving even more; to focus on those issues central to the gospel and discard those that are incidental. There is real truth in that message. But Webb’s presentation of that message is suitable more for the idealistic college freshman trying to escape the midnight debates of the dormroom. For those in the church who work for a living, and yet still give away their hard-earned money, Webb’s message misses the mark. So much so, in fact, that I would ask Derek:
Please have a care.
I have to say, I disagree on several points. The song doesn’t say “the Church doesn’t care about the 50,000 people dying today.” I think that’s reading into his words too much. He is certainly addressing Christians, yes, but he doesn’t imply that every Christian is simultaneously a miser and a bigot. I too know wonderfully generous Christians who also love and encourage everyone they meet. I don’t think Webb’s absolutist, fiery words should be mistaken for ignorance of the generosity of millions of other loving Christians. He’s not attacking the whole body – but rather a sickly, apathetic piece of it.
How large does he believe that apathetic piece to be? I don’t know. Surely, he does at least imply that too many Christians do not care, which is something you were seeking to address with the statistics comparing Christian and non-Christian charitable giving. However, I’m not sure Webb would see as strong a correlation as you between the amount of money we give to charities and the level to which we care about those served by the charities. It’s a whole lot easier to write a check than to go volunteer, move into a community with the suffering, or even adopt drastically simpler lifestyles and standards of living. That is what Jesus did. How many American Christians then fit that description? Perhaps Webb’s challenge is more nuanced than we initially recognize.
I’d also argue that giving four times more than non-Christians is a fairly irrelevant figure. Giving four hundred times more than non-Christians would be just as irrelevant. Our level of concern for the poor should not be rated by how much better we do than those who do not have the Word of God. I have seen figures right alongside statistics like those you provided, (I forget the exact number, though I’ll try to find it) that suggest the level of giving by Christians is still very low, regardless of how much higher it may be in comparison to non-Christians. Especially when we reflect that Jesus told the young rich man to give up everything – not to give up four times more than the unbeliever near him.
In fact, the same WSJ article you quoted, which said Christians have maintained high levels of giving, also cites that, “on average, those in the most religious fifth donate $3,000 to charity annually.” If we consider the traditional idea of a 10% tithe, then this figure doesn’t really impress me that much. I would conjecture that almost every single Christian I know grosses more than $30,000 a year after taxes. Perhaps I know too many rich Christians? Or maybe my expectations are too high, that Christians would actually give 10%. Is it that it’s difficult to give much more when you already own a home, several cars, a couple tvs, nice clothes, lots of food, etc. etc.? Yes, it is difficult. It’s supposed to be difficult. Anecdotally, I don’t know that many Christians who seem to struggle under the weight of their charitable giving. It’s more like an obligation. Ron Sider has some great suggestions for a graduated tithe model that would stretch us more.
Frankly, I agree with Webb that we might just possibly need a wake up call. If your article is simply trying to point out that some Christians care about the poor, then I’ll grant you that. But I don’t see how your statistics prove that the majority of American Christians genuinely care the way they should. If nothing else, Webb spurs us on to question ourselves. If we find ourselves to be doing fine, then alright. And I’m glad that you’ve never known any Christians who don’t care about the poor. But I have. Many, in fact. They happen to be some of the same people who lambast and rail against homosexuals. They need to hear this song.
From Generous Giving (www.generousgiving.org/faq):
“In America, the acquisition of wealth since the Second World War has far outpaced levels of giving. While Christians traditionally are thought of as some of the most generous people on earth, and statistics show that the actual amount of money they give to charities increases steadily each year, how much Christians give by percentage falls further and further behind levels of acquired and accumulated wealth and prosperity. Evangelical Christians in America are giving smaller and smaller percentages of their incomes to the cause of Christ each year. On the average, Christians are not even matching the 3.3 percent given by people during the Great Depression.
Some other notable statistics from Generous Giving, albeit a few years old (2000-2007). See http://www.generousgiving.org/stat_footnotes.html for the source information.
“Christians worldwide had personal income totaling more than $16 trillion in 2007 but gave only 2 percent, or $370 billion, to Christian causes.” (#60)
“Overall, only 3 to 5 percent of those who donate money to a church tithe (give 10 percent of) their incomes.” (61)
“9% of American “born-again” adults tithed in 2004.” (62)
“Giving by North American churchgoers was higher during the Great Depression (3.3 percent of per capita income in 1933) than it was after a half-century of unprecedented prosperity (2.5 percent in 2004).” (63)
“The average amount of money given by a full or confirmed member of a U.S. Christian church in 2004 was $691.93. This comes to an average of $13.31 per week.” (64)
Peter, I think your message is quite different than Webb’s. You’re stating, quite fairly, I think, that American Christians should give much more of their time, treasures, and talents than they are currently giving relative to their income. And, you’re making your point in a much more respectful and informed manner (no “don’t give a shit” for you!). 🙂
My point is that Webb’s prophetic voice misses the mark because it doesn’t reflect or capture the actual thinking or practices of Christians. The falling rate of charitable donations by Christians during the last half-century is much more complicated story than Webb makes it out to be, a story that should make someone pause before they say Christians “don’t give a shit.”
Well I understand that his use of a swear word is dicey, and I won’t question any criticism of that (though I think it would be a waste of time, considering the larger issues at hand in the debate).
I would welcome your explanation of how “the falling rate of charitable donations by Christians during the last half-century is a much more complicated story than Webb makes it out to be.” In your article, you took his point that Christians don’t care enough and provided statistics to indicate that he is wrong. I provided other statistics that paint a different picture. What am I missing from those figures that makes it a complicated story?
Also, knowing Derek Webb’s music, political beliefs, and history of activism, I think that he probably did give pause. I think he probably thought about it and decided that it was worth it to write such a controversial song because poverty is such a desperate issue – yet one that, for some reason, doesn’t even elicit 5% of the Church’s resources. You say that he does not reflect the “actual thinking or practices of Christians.” I’d say it’s hard for us to know the actual thinking of Christians, but you and I both have attempted to reveal the actual practices. I guess your statistics show that Christians are doing quite well, as long as they give more than those without Christ. I stand by my position that such a defense is a cop out.
Until I see the Church start a revolution and truly administer caring change to address these problems, I won’t fault Webb for wanting to point out that some of us are falling short. I’m confused why you choose to do so. If the Church is truly a unified body, then the failings of a few should be of importance to all. Especially on issues like poverty, which Christ consistently and vehemently addressed in the Gospels.
I’m not concerned with Derek’s use of the swear word, but that he directed such harsh rhetoric at a group of people who do not deserve such judgment. I think Webb is wrong on substance–that American Christians “don’t give a shit” about the poor. This is an absolute statement that overstates the case, and points the finger in the wrong direction. My statistics, especially the one about religious people giving four times as much as their secular brethren, were intended to subvert Webb’s main claim in his song. If religious people are giving four times as much, then shouldn’t Derek reserve such judgments for the world?
I think our disagreement resides in our different perspectives: you (and Webb) are holding the church to a heavenly standard, standing in judgment of the church for not being like heaven. You want it to radically change, and take all alternative views as cop-outs. Me, I filter my interpretations through the fact that we live in a thoroughly broken world on the wrong side of eternity. So, maybe I’m a realist and you and Webb are idealists—I’m sure there’s a balance somewhere there. Regardless, I’m often stunned at what the American church has accomplished over the last century (a time when worldwide poverty has actually decreased when compared to rates in world history; a result not single-handedly caused by the church, but it did play its part—even though the rate of giving has decreased. That’s the nuance missing from Webb’s song).
And so, when it comes to criticisms of the church from people who make their living from the church (back in the day, prophets who made money from their message were considered false prophets), I find it totally uncalled for to claim the church “doesn’t give a shit” about the poor. I think more time should be spent focusing on what the church has done right in this age of church-hating; we should build it up rather than deconstruct, so that our charitable processes can be improved.
Let’s think of it this way: I witnessed our local church start a food program from scratch, even though we had no resources to do so and had incredible organizational, operational, and political obstacles in our way—just to start a program that feeds people for one meal a week! But those obstacles were overcome through the heroic and thankless actions of many unnoticed people in the church. These people “give a shit.” And our church is not just one beacon of light among the American darkness—which is why I listed those American charities in the post, since it was just one measurement to see how people stood on the question.
Webb’s broadsides against the church, and those similar to it, are just not helpful or accurate. And so however well intentioned, they miss the mark and result in bringing the church down, rather than lifting it up. I believe his comments deserve correction, so we don’t just continue pointing the finger at the church with self-righteous indignation as it continues to flounder and become even more irrelevant than it already is. I take solace, though, that there probably aren’t many people who believe Webb’s words, otherwise there would no charitable giving at all.
Sorry, I jumped from facebook over to this. Hope I’m not intruding.
I think that Webb’s critique of the Church is not “the Church doesn’t care about the 50,000 people dying today.” Like Peter said, this is reading too much into his words. It seems to me that this song is looking at the misappropriation of some in the church’s energy. If you’ll notice, Webb doesn’t say “you don’t give a shit,” he says, “we sit like we don’t give a shit.” I think the problem he’s highlighting is not that whoever he’s responding to really doesn’t care about those dying of poverty related causes, but that the way we spend our time, the ways we invest our resources of intellect, of passion and of activism, do not reflect strongly enough on those things that should be central to our faith being lived out in the world. I think he is upset about what he sees as a disparity in some branches of the church between a zealous pursuit of anti-gay anything and everything, from protests to debates to legislative action; and on the other side a tacit, even if from a worldly/comparative perspective sufficient commitment to the poor an to the disenfranchised in the world. He’s looking at a disparity in where he sees the real passions of some in the church, and where instead they should be directed.
Notice as well that he indicts himself. He, again, does not say “you don’t give a shit” but “we don’t give a shit.” That whole stanza is saying that all of us can argue all we want about this, invest our passions and our opinions in one side or the other, but what does it do for those people who need our help, and who Jesus commanded us to serve? At the bottom, it is not as much a criticism of a disproportionately low importance placed on care for the poor as it is a disproportionately high importance placed on the debate over homosexuality and how to fight against it. This is why he asks, “What matters more to you?” and not, “Why doesn’t this matter to you?”
Which is more worth our time?
And while I’ll concede that the church should be given credit where credit is due, I don’t think that on issues of homosexuality or issues of care for the poor we are are yet without reason to strive further.
The most common response (by a wide margin) of a non-Christian to the question, “What is the first thing you think of when you think of a Christian?” is “anti-gay.” Regardless of how such a misconception has come about, it clearly shows that more needs to be done on our end to fix it.
And even if we’re giving four times more than the non-believer, this is irrelevant, as Peter says. For what good thing should we expect of those who do not have Christ in them? Any good thing they do is gravy, and just serves to show the goodness of General Revelation in the world. But shouldn’t we expect, or at least strive for total, self-sacrificial goodness from those who have Christ within themselves? We are not held to the world’s standards of giving and of sacrifice, but to God’s. Taking Peter’s average of $3,000 given by the most religious 5th, even if we are to falsely assume that the average yearly income for these individuals is $30,000, this means they give 10%. It also means they withhold 90%—probably much more.
Neither of these realities makes me think the Church is above humbling itself to accept (what I would consider to be) harsh but edifying criticism on these issues.
John, thank you for comments; you’re certainly not intruding. Our combined comments will serve our readers in the church by creating a balance between two the arguments.
As to your comments themselves, I can only refer back to Webb’s actual words, and not his intent. He says “brothers and sisters” (a biblical name for the church) doesn’t “give a shit” about the poor while she wrestles through a not insignificant sexual crisis. I find those comments destructive enough that they deserve a strong rebuke, lest we in the church finally come to see the church as a wholly irrelevant institution.
Additionally, you have a curious double standard when it comes to the world: first, you say their rate of giving is irrelevant when compared to the church, yet you lift the world’s perception of the church as anti-gay as a legitimate reason for the church to repent. Sorry, but you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Remember, my argument was *not* that the American church is doing enough for the poor, but that it doesn’t deserve such commentary from people like Webb. Frankly, while Webb is a brilliant artist, we must keep in mind he makes money from the church. In light of this, I think he has forfeited any right to say the church doesn’t “give a shit” about the poor. He can’t take with one hand from the church while using the other to stab it in the back.