Photo by Fabian Blank on Unsplash
There has been a lot of talk over the last couple weeks (interrupted, of course, for impeachment and Christmas) about the church’s $100 billion endowment. And I want to add to that discussion. Specifically, I want to think about the question of how the church could change with a $100 billion endowment.
I’ll note that in the earliest iterations of this post, I thought about freaking this as some sort of (unsatiric) modest proposal.
But that has a couple significant problems. What I’m going to lay out here is not at all modest; it would represent a sea change in church finances. Moreover, it’s not a proposal so much as it is brainstorming. But a $100 billion endowment absolutely requires brainstorming. And my brainstorm?
Basically this: according to the whistleblower, the church’s operations cost roughly $5-6 billion a year. Meanwhile, the church (or, rather, Ensign Peak Advisors) has been earning roughly a 7% annual return. On $100 billion, that means the church makes about $7 billion a year from investments.
So what if instead of tithing, the church used its return on the Ensign Peak Advisors fund for operations? As far as I know, that would be unprecedented in church funding. Few if any churches have that kind of financial cushion, so few if any could survive on investment returns rather than annual donations.
Before you nod in agreement, though, note that I’m not done. I’m absolutely not advocating the end of tithing. After all, the Lord introduced tithing as a “standing law” to us “forever.” The fact of an enormous endowment doesn’t change forever.
At the same time, though, the purposes and uses of tithing have changed. In its initial 1838 iteration, it was for physical construction and to pay off church leaders’ debts. By Utah, tithing was often paid in-kind, and that tithing was often used to help the poor. In the early 20th century, bishops were paid a percentage of the tithing their wards and stakes raised.
And our version of tithing isn’t identical to the Hebrew Bible version. Or rather, versions. Adam Chodorow writes about two types of Jewish tithes: agricultural tithes and maaser kesafim. The agricultural tithes were used to support Levites and to help the poor. While not identical, our version of tithing seems to derive largely from these agricultural tithes—we pay to the church, which largely uses it for administrative purposes.
Maaser kesafim encompasses the obligation to give between 10 and 20 percent of one’s income to help the poor. It isn’t (or, at least, isn’t always) centrally collected; rather, individuals decide how and to whom to donate.
As I pointed out above, a $100 billion endowment largely obviates the need for tithing as a funding source for the church. So what if the church were to shift from its quasi-agricultural tithe to a maaser kesafim model?
Again, this shift wouldn’t represent giving up tithing. Tithing—the idea of giving up something valuable to ourselves—is an important religious obligation, and not just because our scripture tell us tithing is a forever law. Jesus tells us not to lay up treasure on earth. Tithing is one way we can remind ourselves that our treasure isn’t (or, at least, shouldn’t be) here.
And imagine the good we could do in the world if we, as members, made $7 billion of charitable contributions every year. It wouldn’t solve poverty, of course, but it wouldn’t hurt. Moreover, it would force us to engage with charity, and would potentially ensconce us with organizations that do good in the world.
A couple caveats: as anybody who has ever drafted a mutual fund prospectus can tell you, past performance is no guarantee of future results. That the church has averaged 7% over time doesn’t mean that the market will always return 7%. Also, it’s possible that expenses could rise faster than the church’s return on investments, even if the market doesn’t fall. At some point in time, the church could reasonably request that members pay their tithing to the church again, at least for some period of time.
Also, it’s not like the church should get out of the donation-receiving business altogether. I think it’s critical that we continue to pay fast offerings, so that we can ensure that our fellow Saints who need help have access to the Bishop’s Storehouse and the help with rent and with housing and with other things that the church provides. I think missionaries and their families and friends should continue to pay into the missionary fund. And honestly, I assume that some members will want to continue to pay some or all of their tithes to the church. And that’s not a bad thing. That the church can open up its definition of tithing doesn’t mean that it should exclude itself from the set of appropriate recipients.
Would this work? I don’t see why it wouldn’t. The church wouldn’t increase its wealth as quickly but, at the same time, assuming that both the $100 billion number and the $5-6 billion of annual expenses are accurate, it would not have to dip into the principal—the church could operate purely on its investment returns.
I see very little downside to members of the church getting a reputation for being big charitable givers. And giving to charity has the added benefit of helping both our neighbors and our God at the same time. After all, when we’re in the service of our neighbors, we’re also in the service of God.
So should the church make this shift? Honestly, I don’t presume to know. But I do know that it’s important that we acknowledge and talk about money in the church. Because the church has money, and if we don’t think carefully about how to employ that money, it will just sit there, accumulating and not doing any good. And we won’t get the benefits that come with engaging and thinking carefully.
And it’s important to note that the money the church has gives it a lot of opportunities—new, unprecedented, and largely unforeseen opportunities—to experiment with how to best fulfill its salvific mission and its mission to create Zion. And this is one possible way to approach that.