Question: Bob, in your opinion, is it necessary to have life insurance on my wife and children? I am the primary wage earner, and I have adequate insurance on myself. Response: There seem to me to be two logical reasons to have insurance on your wife. One is for burial expenses. The other is to provide extra funds to care for the children, if necessary. The amount of insurance on your wife would normally be substantially less than that on yourself. Also, I don’t believe insurance for children is necessary except to cover the cost of burial. An argument often made for insurance on children is to guarantee their insurability in later years. However, only a small fraction of folks are uninsurable at the time they marry; therefore, I believe the potential risk does not justify the cost of buying insurance at a young age.
Monthly Archives: June 2017
Automatic Overdraft Protection–Good or Bad?
Question: We’re a young couple, and we’ve just opened our first checking account. The banker told us about a helpful service called “automatic overdraft protection.” He said if we ever overdraw our checking account, the automatic overdraft covers the deficiency. This sees like a good idea, but I know that it must have some pitfalls. Can you help us understand better? Response: BEWARE OF AUTOMATIC OVERDRAFTS! Why? Because they present two distinct problems: (1) They can encourage you not to balance your checking account because you know that you have overdraft “protection.” (2) An automatic overdraft is also an automatic loan. It comes out of a credit account, and you’re charged interest as well as a fee for using it. In my opinion, the automatic overdraft is one of the worst services in the banking industry and certainly one of the quickest sources of debt for undisciplined folks who don’t balance their checkbooks. A proverb says it well: “The naive proceed and pay the penalty” (Proverbs 27:12b).
1, 2 or 3 Tithes?
Question: I have been told there are 3 tithes mentioned in the Old Testament(one being the 10% that many Christians practice). Would you please explain what the other 2 are and do they have relevance today? Response: It appears that there were 3 tithes mentioned in the Torah. The first, called the Lord’s tithe, consisted of the 10% of the harvest that went to support the priests and Levites since they were given no inheritance of land. (Numbers 18:21) Then there was a 2nd tithe on the remaining 90% that the people consumed themselves each year at the Feast of Tabernacles in a nationwide celebration of God’s provision. (Deut. 14:22-27) It was called the Festival tithe. The 3rd tithe was the tithe for the poor. It was given every third year to help the poor and indigent. (Deut 14:28-29) There is a difference of opinion on this one, some believing that the 3rd tithe was the same as the 2nd, but was given to the poor instead of being consumed at the feast one year out of three. Today the vast majority of those who teach that tithing is still required by God are usually referring to the Lord’s tithe, saying its purpose is to support all the Lord’s work in the world today. Since the other tithes were designed to recognize and celebrate the Lord’s provision (Festival tithe) and promote a spirit of generosity among God’s people (Tithe for the Poor) some (myself included) believe that true financial blessing comes only to those who voluntarily and joyfully maintain the spirit of the 2nd and 3rd tithes in their giving by going beyond the Lord’s Tithe. As it is with all things pertaining to the Lord, it’s the motives of our heart that really matter. Those who give sparingly and begrudgingly are missing both the point of giving and the blessings associated therewith. “With the measure you use it will be measured to you.” (Luke 6:38) (From “Grace Through Faith” Monday, October 15, 2007)
Don’t Borrow to Give
Question: I’m from a school of thought that says use other people’s money (OPM); in other words, borrow to do whatever you want. it’s a hard mentality to shake, even though I now understand it’s contrary to God’s Word. I was recently at a meeting in which fund raisers recommended that people in a congregation borrow to give to the church building program. That sounds more reasonable to me than the church itself borrowing. What do you think? Response: Larry Burkett once wrote, “If you knowingly violate biblical principles, it’s wrong, no matter how noble the purpose. I don’t believe God would direct anyone to violate His Word to accomplish His work. The principle of surety says that we’re not to borrow against an unknown contingency. The idea of using other people’s money has bee greatly overplayed in our society, especially within the church. I believe that God has provided us Christians all the money necessary to do anything we want if we are committed to it. Borrowing should never play a part in giving. We should always give what belongs to us, not what belongs to somebody else.“ Thank you yet again Larry! I agree–don’t borrow to give to your church.