What this is about
A man gives because he was asked, and because the asking made sense: there are children who need feeding, there is work that needs doing, and he has enough. In every other part of his life he reads what he signs and asks what things cost. Here he asks nothing, and he has been taught not to. Asking would be unspiritual. Asking would mean he does not trust.
The question is whether that teaching has any support in the book he believes.
The claim being tested
That giving in the Bible is stewardship and not disposal — that it always goes to particular people for particular purposes, that the people handling it are expected to be checkable, and that at some point a person who keeps funding harm has stopped being a bystander.
And what it is not asking
Nothing here is about tithing, or about how much you should give, or about whether you should give less. Nobody living is named, and no accusation is made against anyone. The only historical example used is five hundred years old.
The short answer
- Paul would not carry the money alone. The relief fund for Jerusalem travelled with a second man — and not one Paul picked. He was “chosen of the churches.” Paul says why in the text: “that no man should blame us” (2 Corinthians 8:19–20).
- He says being right with God was not enough. He was providing for honest things “not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men” (8:21). That is the verse that answers “God knows my heart.”
- The people who gave chose who carried it. “Whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send” (1 Corinthians 16:3).
- When money was complained about, the complaint was believed. Greek-speaking widows were being overlooked; the apostles handed the job to seven men the congregation itself chose (Acts 6:1–6).
- The machinery is older than the church. The temple repair fund in 2 Kings 12 is a locked chest with a hole in the lid, counted by two officials from two different institutions, ring-fenced so it could not be spent on anything else, and paid straight to the builders.
- Giving in the Bible is never giving-in-general. It is for the poor at Jerusalem, for these teachers, for widows on a list with written criteria (1 Timothy 5). There is no such thing as a gift whose purpose nobody can know.
- The warnings are about hiding things, not about spending. “Feigned words,” “fair speeches,” “a cloke of covetousness.” Every one describes a gap between what the giver was told and what was true.
- Funding someone is treated as taking part in what they do. In both directions: support the right people and you are a “fellowhelper to the truth” (3 John 8); keep supporting a man you know to be false and you are “partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 11).
- Where this page gives ground, first: big overheads are not, on their own, a warning sign. The Bible insists the worker is paid, and Paul spends most of a chapter proving it (1 Corinthians 9).
- Where this page gives ground, second: there is a real case on the other side, and the hardest verse in it is the widow with two coins, who gave everything to a treasury run by men Jesus had just condemned — and he praised her for it.
Whose money is it, once you have given it?
The usual answer is: not yours any more. And there is something to that — Peter tells Ananias plainly that the property was his own and nobody made him give anything (Acts 5:4), and Paul says the giving should be cheerful and not squeezed out of anybody (2 Corinthians 9:7).
But look at what the answer assumes. It assumes the gift moved ownership from one owner to another. The Bible does not describe it that way. “All things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee” (1 Chronicles 29:14). If God owns it, then neither of you does. You were a steward before you gave; they are a steward after. What moved was custody, not ownership.
That matters, because a steward is by definition somebody who can be asked. When a steward is accused of mismanagement in Luke 16, the owner does not dismiss the report as disloyal talk and does not act on it either. He says: give an account of thy stewardship. An account is what settles an accusation, in either direction.
And there is one sentence that simply does not fit the other model. Paul thanks the Philippians for money and says: “Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account” (Philippians 4:17). What is credited to the giver is not the payment. It is what the money went on to do.
The chest with a hole in the lid
In 2 Kings 12 money had been collected for temple repairs for years and the repairs had not been done. The king does not preach about generosity. He looks at the process, finds it broken, and rebuilds it:
- A chest with a hole bored in the lid — money goes in, and does not casually come out.
- Placed in public, beside the altar, where people come in.
- Counted by two officials from two different institutions, the king’s scribe and the high priest, together.
- Spent only on what it was raised for. They did not even make silver vessels for the temple out of it, which would have been a perfectly pious purchase.
- Paid directly to the carpenters, builders and masons.
Then, five verses later, the one place in the Bible where accounting is dropped: “Moreover they reckoned not with the men… for they dealt faithfully” (12:15).
Read that verse carefully, because it is the whole argument in one line
The checking is dropped because these men had proved themselves over years, in the open, where it could be seen. It is the conclusion of an inquiry, not a substitute for one — and it can be taken back, which is exactly what happened at the start of the chapter. An organisation that wants the outcome of this verse without ever having submitted to the process is asking to be excused a test it has not sat.
The best argument on the other side
This is not a formality. The case against asking questions is old and serious.
Jesus tells you to keep your giving quiet. “Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth” (Matthew 6:3). That is hard to square with keeping a file and expecting a report.
Chrysostom, in the fourth century, is blunt about it. “If we investigate the lives of men too carefully, we shall never have pity on anyone.” He thought the questions asked at the door are usually asked by people who have already decided not to give. He is right about that more often than we would like.
And then there is the widow. Read Mark 12 without stopping at the chapter break. Jesus condemns the men running the temple as those who “devour widows’ houses” (12:40). Two verses later a poor widow puts in two small coins — everything she had — and he praises her without qualification. Two verses after that he says the whole building will be pulled down.
Take that seriously
If the giver’s duty extended to the quality of the institution, that was the moment to say so. He does not. Whatever else is true, a person who gives in good faith to something that turns out to be rotten has not sinned. The deception is the deceiver’s, and it stays his. That is worth saying early, because the fear of having been foolish is what makes this subject so hard to talk about.
Where does this page think those texts stop? Here: they are about the person in front of you. A man at the roadside asking for food needs no credential beyond hunger, and you should give and ask nothing. It is a different situation when somebody stands between you and the need — holding the money for a period, and deciding what you are allowed to know. The Bible treats that second situation differently, and so has the church, since the first century.
When does supporting become taking part?
Nobody is guilty for what they had no way of knowing, and most givers are in that position most of the time. Nobody is innocent when they knew perfectly well. The interesting ground is in between, and the line this page draws is not where most people expect.
You still owe nothing
- You gave in good faith and nothing has reached you since.
- You noticed something small and thought no more about it. Noticing is not knowing.
- You have heard a rumour from someone with a grievance. What that calls for is a question, not a conclusion and not a withdrawal.
Something has changed
- You asked, and the answer does not fit the facts you already have. That is now your knowledge, not somebody else’s rumour.
- You decided not to ask, because you would rather not know. Nothing was added to what you know; everything changed about what you chose.
- You know, and you help persuade other people to give. You are now lending something more valuable than money.
The hinge is the second one in the right-hand column, and it is not the point of certainty. It is the point of deliberately not finding out. That is where, in this page’s view, a supporter stops being a bystander — and it is offered as opinion, because 2 John states the principle without grading it.
Is this in the Bible?
Eight financial arrangements. Some are in scripture and some only sound as if they are. Mark each one before you reveal the answers — and watch the last one.
So what is actually a warning sign?
Not cost. The Bible is emphatic that the worker gets paid — “who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges?” (1 Corinthians 9:7) — and Paul calls the money Philippi sent him “a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God” (Philippians 4:18). Salaries, offices and travel are not corruption, and a test that treats every cost as suspicion would condemn the church at Philippi.
What the Bible actually points at is the gap between what was said and what was done, and whether anyone is allowed to see it.
Worth paying attention to
- One person controls the money, the appeals and the reporting, with no second name anywhere.
- You are told that asking about money shows a lack of faith.
- A polite, direct question is met with offence instead of an answer.
- The appeal described a specific project and nothing was spent on it.
- Giving is presented as an investment with a promised personal return.
- Money is asked for privately, away from where other people would hear the pitch.
- Give tonight, before the door closes.
Tells you nothing on its own
- A high proportion spent on administration. It is the easiest number on a set of accounts to manage, and starving the finance function improves it.
- The leader lives well. The question is whether it was disclosed and whether it matches what givers were told.
- The founder’s family hold senior posts. Common in honest organisations and dishonest ones alike.
- Paid staff, an audit, a finance director. All of these are costs, and all of them are what accountability looks like.
Read the left-hand list again and notice that none of it is about money. Every item is about information — who is allowed to know what. That is the Bible’s own category, which is why its vocabulary for this is feigned words, fair speeches and a cloak.
Check it yourself
Five things. About an hour in total, all free, and between them they settle most of this without any help from this page.
- 1. 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, in one sitting. Ten minutes, free at biblestudytools. Read it as an administrator, not as a devotional passage, and count how much of it is logistics.
- 2. 2 Kings 12:4–16. Ten minutes, and the most surprising thing on the list. Finish with verse 15 and decide which way it argues.
- 3. Mark 12:38 to 13:2, straight through, ignoring the chapter break. Three minutes. The hardest passage against this page. Decide for yourself.
- 4. 2 John and 3 John, both letters entire. Five minutes for the pair. The same rule stated twice, once each way round.
- 5. John Chrysostom on almsgiving, at goldenmouth.org. Twenty minutes, and the strongest thing ever written against the instinct this page has been encouraging. Read it before you decide you agree.
The full version
Six interactive sections, the texts quoted at length, the counter-case argued properly, the church’s own record from the first century to 1948, and the prompt that produced it.
Read the full dossier → Simple English →