In the previous article where I began reviewing Joseph Willis’ book, “Money Is The Answer For Everything”, I mentioned that the author has filled the book with verses/passages from the Bible in an attempt to give it a biblical foundation. Sadly, however, I have found Willis’ biblical interpretation and methodology to fall short in many ways. So I’m writing this second article to follow up on my theological critique of this book.

Willis’ book has 21 chapters that are broken up into four main sections:

1. “The heart of the matter”, where he draws attention to our “heart” attitudes towards money, as well as helping readers establish a biblical framework for monetary contributions.
2. “How much should I give?”, where he gives biblical principles and practical wisdom on Christian giving, particularly with regards to quantities.
3. “Why withhold from the giver?”, where he addresses human motivations when it comes to money and God.
4. “Mini-studies”, where he gives mostly practical advice on how to manage one’s money in many areas of life, eg. How to increase our giving, gifts to the poor, career choices, etc.

This article aims to critique Willis’ theology in the first section of the book.

Chapter 1 – It Is All About The Heart

In his first chapter, Willis rightly points out that we must first pay attention to the human heart when it comes to the matters of giving towards God. Since God is all-powerful and resourceful, He doesn’t actually need our money to fulfil His purposes. Just like any good earthly parent, God values the underlying heart motivations of His child’s gift-giving over the gift itself. To this, I give a hearty (pun-unintended) “Amen”!

However, we begin to see Willis smuggling in ICC’s “soldout” doctrine in the following section of the chapter.

Willis argues that the patriarchs in Genesis (ie. Abel, Noah, Abraham and Jacob) are great role models when it comes to God-honouring giving. In fact, they gave generously from their own hearts long before the written instructions for giving were spelled out through the Law of Moses. Willis even goes as far as to say that the Law of Moses was “based upon” the heart motivations of these men.

You can surmise that the Law given to the nation of Israel was based upon the great hearts of these men before the Law: Abel, Noah, Abraham and Jacob.

Willis, Joseph. “Money Is The Answer For Everything” (p. 18, Kindle)

Of course, there is conjecture in Willis’ statement here. Rather than the Law being “based upon” the hearts of these men, it might be more accurate to say the Law was based upon what humans were designed for, since the requirements of the Law has been written on all human hearts (Romans 2:12-16).

But what about these men that should draw our attention anyway? For the sake of brevity, I will only comment on his teachings about Abel and Abraham.

1. Abel vs Cain: The Best vs Some

For Abel, he argues:

Abel brought the most valued part of his prized possessions, the fat of his firstborn, and Cain just brought “some” of what he had. In these two men, we see reflected the hearts of all men and women who come to God with offerings…. Those like Cain just give some. They give because they know it is the right thing to do, yet their lack of gratitude and understanding of how God provides for them will inevitably lead them to offer only some. How did God view Cain’s offering of giving just some? He viewed it as evil!

Willis, Joseph. “Money Is The Answer For Everything” (p. 16-17, Kindle)

This is the first instance where Willis’ soldout theology rears its ugly head. He emphasises that the main problem with Cain’s gift to God was that he only gave some. Meanwhile, his brother Abel gave “the fat of his firstborn”.

In other words, Abel gave his best while Cain only gave some of what he had.

In a peculiar yet intentional manner, Willis seems to be blurring distinct categories here. When you read the story in Genesis 4:3-5, the problem is really about the quality of Cain’s gift, not the quantity. By placing emphasis on the word “some” Willis introduces his own theology, contradicting the emphasis of the text.

Besides, upon a careful reading of the story in the NIV translation (which Willis utilises but fails to acknowledge, contrary to Zondervan’s copyright), you will notice that Abel also gave “some”:

³ In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. ⁴ And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, ⁵ but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

Genesis 4:3-5 (NIV)

But regardless of this, more important is fact that the original Hebrew text does not contain quantity words such as “some” or “a few”. The main point was simply that Cain brought fruits from the land, not how much.

By emphasising the quantity of giving, Willis covertly lays the groundwork for the ICC’s radical all-or-nothing soldout theology, such that by giving God (and by extension, the ICC) only “some” of your money, it should be regarded as evil.

It is also no coincidence why the second section of this book, “How much should I give”, is all about the quantity of one’s giving. In fact, Willis shares a story of a young man at his church who had a salary increase of almost double. But when the man’s increased giving was less than what Willis expected, he “challenged” (or coerced?) him to give more generously:

Yet when his new income came in, he only increased his contribution by “some” (like Cain), but not by double or more. Yes, his giving was more than he was giving before and more than a tithe, but not generous. I asked him about this and he explained that he was worried about the expense of his upcoming wedding. I challenged him that if I had asked him two months before he had the increase, would he have felt great about doubling his contribution if God was to almost double his wage. He said he would have. I then challenged him if he thought he was being generous towards God. I did not want him to answer me but to go and pray to his God that night and talk it through with Him. He did so willingly and that night he adjusted his giving to God to a generous amount.

Willis, Joseph. “Money Is The Answer For Everything” (pp. 83-84, Kindle) – emphasis mine.

2. Abraham: Initiating giving back to God through God’s representative

Another example where we see Willis smuggling in ICC doctrine can be found in his use of the story in Genesis 14:18-20. In this story, Abraham returns home from victory against his enemies and, out of his thankfulness to God, gave a tenth of his plunder to Melchizedek unprompted. This Melchizedek figure was described as the king of Salem and a priest of God Most High (verse 18).

Based on this story, Willis arbitrarily formulates a principle that the hearts of godly people would initiate a financial sacrifice towards “God’s representative”. He writes:

Abraham had the heart to initiate giving a financial sacrifice to God’s representative without any suggestion or prompting. He saw it as giving to God himself. He gave him a “one-off payment” of a tenth of all his plunder.

Willis, Joseph. “Money Is The Answer For Everything” (p. 18, Kindle)

Later in the chapter, Willis speculatively suggests that Abraham’s example of giving a tenth to God’s representative became the basis for the codified Law practice of giving tithes to the Levites who serve as God’s representatives in the Tent of Meeting (Numbers 18:21). Granted that this Law requirement is no longer applicable for the New Testament (NT) people of God, Willis insists that the “spirit of the Law” should remain our focus today (p. 20, Kindle).

However, the so-called “spirit of the Law” that Willis suggests is the aforementioned principle of unprompted, generous giving to God’s representative. That means, Christians of the NT should also give generously to God’s representative(s) as a way of thanksgiving.

But the big question is, who are God’s representatives in the NT anyway? While Willis would like you to assume that church leaders are now God’s representatives (he uses Leviticus 7:11-14 to proof-text the church leadership’s right to ask for money on p. 24, Kindle), the NT is actually less clear about this. Since every Christian is endowed with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:17), ie. the Spirit who was only given for people serving in special offices in the OT, the question of “Who are God’s representatives?” has become harder to answer. As a matter of fact, the title of “priest” is no longer used in the NT vocabulary to describe specific leaders. Instead, the church as a whole is called to be a holy and royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:4-12) because of its collective task to offer spiritual sacrifices of good deeds (verse 12) to God, as well as declaring God’s praises before a watching world.

Of course, this doesn’t mean Christians should be withholding from giving money or practical support to gospel labourers as a way of thanksgiving. For instance, the Apostle Paul was a recipient of Christian support when he was imprisoned. In Philippians 4:18 (NIV) he even calls it, “a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God”.

However, adopting Willis’ view that the church leadership is now God’s priesthood collecting offerings from His people has a potential pitfall. It can easily morph into the belief that this is the sole way in which a Christian can make offerings to God. As mentioned in one of my previous articles (under Point 10), the ICC has a tendency of creating a false dilemma for church members: You either give your money to the church, or your money would be given to your personal idols. This is certainly not true and it is also harmful teaching.

In Acts 10:4, an angel appeared to Cornelius, a God-fearing Gentile man, and said to him, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.” (NIV). This story shows us that God was pleased with Cornelius when his gifts were generously given to the poor. But there is no mention that Cornelius had to give through “representatives” for it to be considered an offering. Therefore, there is no biblical justification to the suggestion (even if it’s subtly implied by ICC leaders) that giving to the church is the only way you can make a monetary offering to God.

Chapter 2 – Why Do You Want To Be Rich?

Much of chapter 2 is about the dangers of wanting to be rich. Willis rightly warns Christians to avoid the trap of pursuing wealth as a life goal. But in so doing, he glorifies poverty and shows it to be the true way of salvation.

Willis has dangerously overstated his case here, though it is totally in-line with his radical soldout theology. It is unreasonable to propose that just because pursuing wealth is spiritually harmful, one must find oneself in the opposite extreme of pursuing poverty.

Yet Willis is quite bold in asserting:

Poverty with God is not something to be feared. In fact, it is something we should embrace as any other challenge. We must see it as an opportunity for God to display His love and power in our lives.

Willis, Joseph. “Money Is The Answer For Everything” (p. 30, Kindle)

So that I don’t misrepresent Willis, when he calls on people to pursue poverty, he doesn’t mean that one should stop working and simply embrace the lack of money for its own sake. Instead, he is advocating for a lifestyle of living simply, as well as regularly emptying one’s pockets for God.

While I have no problem with Willis’ promotion of a simple lifestyle for Christians and for them to give sacrificially to God and for His mission, I am more bothered by his use of language. Willis continuously exhorts for his readers to pursue and embrace poverty, yet the Bible never puts it in such a way. If anything, the writer of Proverbs 30 asks God to give him neither poverty nor riches:

Two things I ask of you, LORD; do not refuse me before I die: Keep falsehood and lies far from me; give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, ‘Who is the LORD?’ Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God.

Proverbs 30:7-9 (NIV)

The writer teaches us that both riches AND poverty can lead one to sin against God. So it is important that we must pray for neither.

In addition, Willis’ glorification of poverty seem to paint a one-dimensional picture of money: You just need money to survive, not thrive. So give everything else you don’t need away! So can money be used for one’s enjoyment? Is it wrong to use money purely for the sake of one’s pleasure (eg. taking a family holiday, buying a video game or a nice pair of jeans, etc.)? Sadly, Willis doesn’t seem to give us any wisdom in his book on this.

But he does give us a lot teaching about the goodness of poverty. In chapter 2, Willis justifies poverty through his use of various Scripture passages.

Early in the chapter, Willis makes a series of arguments under the sub-heading “Salvation Comes To The Poor” where he highlights the blessedness of those who are materially poor in relation to their proximity to God’s kingdom. He quotes from Luke 6:20:

Looking at his disciples, he said “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

Luke 6:20 (NIV)

Rather than using the immediate context surrounding Luke 6:20 to explain this verse, Willis unhelpfully borrows from Jesus’ teaching much later in Luke 14 to explain it. He writes:

The core issue in becoming a Christian is giving up everything for Christ and His Kingdom. What are some of those things? For some their cost is a job; for others giving up their career, moving to a new city, not living in luxury, no longer receiving the praise of men, and the list goes on. All these things cost a lot of money or could potentially lead to gaining a lot of money. The poor have no such hurdles. Those that do are called to live as if they do not, to become poor by giving up everything. And when Jesus says everything, He means everything!

In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples. (Luke 14:33)

Willis, Joseph. “Money Is The Answer For Everything” (p. 28, Kindle)

In other words, Willis makes the point that only those who are willing and able to give up everything for Jesus will receive the kingdom of God. And because the poor have literally less things to give up on in order to follow Jesus, that is why they are considered to be more “blessed”.

This is yet another clear example where we see Willis’ interpretation of Scripture being firmly guided by his commitment to ICC’s soldout theology. Luke 14:33 is an ICC favourite!

In the ICC mindset, even if you are a baptised disciple of Jesus, you are constantly one step away from falling short of entering God’s Kingdom if you fail to submit to Jesus (usually in the form of the church’s demands on you) in every aspect of your life. That is why Willis mentions, rather strangely, that even “moving to a new city” to be a potential criteria for one’s submission to Jesus. Hence, being in poverty gives you an edge over the wealthy, since you would have less “hurdles” that would stop you from ultimately reaching the goal of God’s Kingdom.

Sadly, this lack of assurance of one’s salvation causes ICC members to live in constant fear of missing out of God’s Kingdom. It also leads them to empty their pockets for the church in fear that they might be withholding anything from God. However, let’s set this issue aside for now.

But is it true that being poor really gives you a spiritual edge?

Willis’ interpretation of Luke 6:20 would run into trouble with the story of the ten lepers in Luke 17:11-17. In this story, Jesus miraculously healed all ten lepers, yet only one returned to thank Jesus. The other nine seem no longer interested in Jesus after they got what they wanted. Now it would be safe to assume that those nine lepers who rejected Jesus would have been materially poor, as they wouldn’t have been able to work and earn an income due to their skin condition. Yet, their poverty didn’t bring them any closer to following Jesus.

But on the other hand, the rich man Zacchaeus in Luke 19:1-10 was thrilled to follow Jesus, even at the expense of potentially losing his entire fortune.

Therefore, it would be wrong to think that material poverty itself could ultimately bring you closer to the kingdom of God. Willis seems to be misguided here when he glorifies poverty because of its spiritual benefits. Like Zacchaeus, one can be wealthy but not be attached to their wealth. And like the lepers, one can also be poor but still have money or something else as their master.

In addition, we also see numerous examples in the Bible that having wealth did not always hinder one’s pursuit of God. Abraham is one famous example (Genesis 13:1-4) and Job is another (Job 1:1-3).

It would have given Chapter 2 more balance if Willis had brought up these examples. It also would have been helpful in this chapter if Willis had quoted the Apostle Paul’s teachings in 1 Timothy 6:

¹⁷ Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. ¹⁸ Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. ¹⁹ In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.

1 Timothy 6:17-19 (NIV)

Note that Paul did not call on the rich to pursue poverty, as Willis has done in his book. Rather, Paul simply exhorts the rich (likely Christians) not to be arrogant, but to be rich in good deeds and share generously.

Chapter 3 – Dealing With Greed: Need Versus Want

To my joy, I actually found myself agreeing with a lot of what Willis says in this chapter! He seeks to provide a heart diagnosis to see if it’s greed that motivates a lot of our actions.

He gives us a helpful definition of greed:

A simple definition for greed is the excessive desire to have, to acquire, to possess or to consume more than one needs or deserves. It is most obviously seen in the outward approach to money, possessions and food or drink. Greed like all sin is deceitful. We live in a society that is permeated by greed and we compare ourselves to the standards of those around us. It is so hard to see greed for what it is. If many around you are overweight due to greed, it is easy to justify in your own mind that your greed is not so bad. If those around you have the latest gadgets, it is tempting to want them yourself, even if you do not need them or cannot afford them. When every one of your friends has a car or two, then it is hard to conceive of how to live like those who do not have one.

Then Jesus said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.” (Luke 12:15)

Willis, Joseph. “Money Is The Answer For Everything” (pp. 47-48, Kindle)

I appreciate Willis’ mention that greed is the “excessive” desire of things, rather than “any” desire at all. This suggest that he isn’t given into Asceticism, where anything pleasurable to the body is seen as evil.

Willis is right to call on believers to avoid all kinds of greed as it leads to all kinds of sins and imbalance in the world (p. 42, Kindle), and even to put greed to death based on Paul’s words in Colossians 3:5-6 (p. 43, Kindle).

I actually found myself moved by some of the stories he shares about members in the ICC trying to put their own greed to death by making monetary sacrifices to further God’s mission. But I don’t think it was a good idea for Willis to have mentioned their names in his book as it may lead to spiritual pride. Jesus taught that when we do righteous deeds such as giving money away, we shouldn’t even let our left hand know what our right hand is doing (Matthew 6:1-4)! In addition, I really do hope that these men and women had been giving willingly (2 Corinthians 9:7) rather than out of compulsion, coercion or fear of condemnation.

It would have been really helpful if Willis had actually given us the biblical reasoning behind Paul’s exhortation in Colossians 3:5-6 to slay our greed by actually mentioning the earlier verses in 3:1-4. Taken in context, it says:

¹ Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. ² Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. ³ For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. ⁴ When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

⁵ Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.

Colossians 3:1-5 (NIV)

What is truly intriguing about Paul’s statement here is that the Christian finds themselves in a marvelously paradoxical state – possessing a physical body capable of producing fruits of death, yet spiritually alive in the eyes of God. But that hasn’t always been the case; our body’s sinning was simply a reflection that we are spiritually dead, just like everyone else in the world.

However, for the Christian, there is an end to our spiritual deadness because baptism was our spiritual funeral (Colossians 2:12-13)! And because of our faith in Jesus (verse 12), we have been made to spiritually join with Him (like a siamese twin) in His resurrection and ascension to heaven at God’s right hand – which means we are now spiritually living and seated with Jesus!

However, our earthly bodies do not reflect this yet, despite being alive with Jesus in heaven (Colossians 3:1). Hence, Paul exhorts Christians to “set our minds on heavenly things” by ensuring that our earthly physical body lives in conformity with our true heavenly body that is with Jesus. Meaning, we must put to death in our earthly physical bodies of all kinds of sin, including our greed.

Unfortunately, the ICC’s theology doesn’t seem to operate on the biblical principle that our killing of sin is the result of having already been saved. Instead, the ICC’s soldout theology makes one unsure of their salvation. This keeps ICC members striving to slay their sins out of fear of condemnation (usually from their church leaders), rather than from the assurance of having already been saved through their faith in Jesus which joins us with Him.

Conclusion

So far I’ve only critiqued 3 chapters from Joseph Willis’ book, but I think it should be enough for us to have an idea of what the whole book is about. Overall, I appreciated Willis’ attempt at making a biblical case for the pursuit of God and His mission over our love for money. But I feel that a lot of the theology is “forced” artificially to conform with ICC teachings and demands. Willis’ use of the Cain and Abel’s story is a prime example.

Let me invite you to read it for yourself to see what you think of it!