Let me start by saying I love the local church and believe wholeheartedly in it.
I love pastors. I love staff. I love volunteers.
This is not a divisive post or one meant to say anything negative about the local church. I'm aware staff have families, carry heavy burdens, and many could likely make more in the private sector.
That out of the way.
I've been thinking about something for years.
Just to see the impact of what's possible.
If you are one of the people who gives financially to a church, what if 20% of what we already give was directed toward caring for children in foster care, children adopted from foster care, and widows in serious financial need?
Not giving more.
Just changing where twenty cents of every dollar lands.
What If the Money Followed the Child?
Imagine $1,000 a month attached to the care of every child in foster care.
But here's an important part of the idea:
If that child is adopted, the money follows the child.
It doesn't stop because they found a family.
The adoptive family continues receiving that $1,000 per month toward the care of that child until the child turns 18.
While they're in foster care, it helps provide for their care.
If they're adopted, it follows them home.
Not for six months.
Not for a year.
Until they're 18.
Why?
Because adoption doesn't end the cost of raising a child.
In many ways, that's where a family's lifelong commitment begins.
The money could help with groceries, clothing, school expenses, childcare, counseling, medical needs, activities and all the ordinary expenses that come with raising a child.
Money doesn't create a family.
Money doesn't heal trauma.
And money certainly isn't a substitute for love, stability and belonging.
But financial support might remove one very practical obstacle for families who have the love and desire to adopt but aren't sure they have the financial ability to take on another child.
What If It Also Gave Families Time?
There's another part of this that I think could be significant.
Many families who might consider fostering or adopting are two-income households.
They may have the room in their home.
They may have the love.
They may have the desire to help.
But they look at their finances and simply don't see how they could do it, especially when bringing a child into their home may require more time, attention and flexibility than their current work schedules allow.
That's where the $1,000 per month following each child could do something beyond simply helping pay expenses.
It could give families time.
For some families, that money might allow one parent to move from full-time work to part-time.
For others, particularly those adopting siblings, the combined support might make it possible for one parent to stay home for a season.
Imagine a family adopting three siblings who otherwise might be separated.
Under this idea, $3,000 per month would follow those children into their new home until they turn 18.
That doesn't make the family wealthy.
It helps make something possible that may not have been possible before.
One parent might be able to work fewer hours.
Be home when the kids get home from school.
Take them to counseling appointments.
Help with homework.
Sit beside them when they're having a hard day.
Drive them to practices.
Eat dinner together.
Be there.
Because children coming from foster care don't only need a roof and food.
They need people.
They need time.
They need consistency.
They need someone who isn't always rushing out the door.
They need someone available enough to learn their story, understand their hurts, celebrate their victories and slowly build the kind of trust that may have been broken many times before.
And siblings especially need the opportunity, whenever possible and appropriate, to stay together.
Maybe financial support could make it possible for a family who could afford to adopt one child to say yes to two.
Or three.
Or a sibling group.
The goal wouldn't be to pay people to adopt children.
The goal would be to remove financial barriers that keep good families from being able to say yes.
And once they say yes, instead of removing support from that child because they've finally found a permanent home, we continue supporting the family that's doing the work of raising them.
In a way, we're saying:
You opened your home.
You gave this child your name.
You committed to being their family.
We're not disappearing now.
We're going to help give you something these kids desperately need.
Time to love them.
Then There Are Widows
Now imagine $500 a month going directly to widows with no meaningful family support and not enough Social Security, savings or other income to meet basic needs.
Food.
Housing.
Medicine.
Utilities.
Basic necessities.
Not every widow would qualify.
This would be for those who truly need help, with systems in place to verify need and prevent fraud.
I haven't found reliable data that tells us exactly how many widows would meet that specific definition.
So I don't want to pretend I know that number.
But we know they're out there.
And Scripture certainly hasn't been unclear about remembering them.
Just Look at the Scale
Americans gave an estimated $151.58 billion to religious organizations in 2025.
Twenty percent of that is more than $30 billion a year.
There are roughly 329,000 children currently in foster care in the United States.
Providing $1,000 per month toward the care of those children alone would initially represent approximately $4 billion per year.
The actual long-term cost of this proposal would be higher because the stipend wouldn't disappear when a child was adopted.
It would follow that child until age 18.
Over time, that would create a growing group of adopted children receiving continued support even though they were no longer counted among the children currently in foster care.
So I'm not claiming $4 billion solves the entire problem.
I'm trying to show the scale of what's possible.
We're talking about more than $30 billion every year if twenty cents of every dollar currently given to religious organizations were directed toward something like this.
Imagine what could be done.
Children cared for while they're in foster care.
Families financially supported after saying yes to adoption.
Parents potentially able to work less so they can spend more time raising those children.
Sibling groups given a better chance of staying together.
Widows able to buy groceries.
Medicine purchased.
Rent paid.
Utilities kept on.
And enough resources set aside to build serious systems for oversight, verification and fraud prevention.
Twenty Cents
That's what keeps getting me.
This isn't asking anyone to give more.
It's asking:
What if twenty cents of every dollar we already give found its way directly to a widow eating alone tonight or a child wondering where they're going to live next?
What would that look like?
What kind of testimony would that be?
Not from the government.
Not because Congress passed another program.
But from the Church saying:
We see you.
You're not forgotten.
We're going to help.
I Know It's Not That Simple
I realize this intersects with the realities of the local church.
Churches have pastors and staff to support.
Buildings to maintain.
Utilities.
Insurance.
Ministry programs.
Missions.
Repairs.
And countless other expenses that most people sitting in the pew probably never think about.
Redirecting a meaningful portion of giving would require real changes and real sacrifices.
It might mean delaying a building program.
Waiting another year to remodel something.
Keeping the old sound system a little longer.
Doing things differently.
I'm not pretending it would be simple.
I'm simply asking whether it might be worth asking the question:
Where does the money we give actually land?
And how much of it eventually reaches the people Scripture repeatedly tells us not to forget?
What About Accountability?
Any program involving this much money would need strong safeguards.
The goal isn't simply to hand out money and hope it reaches the intended need.
Part or even all of the assistance could potentially be distributed through some type of Essentials Card that could only be used for approved necessities.
Groceries.
Gas.
Utilities.
Clothing.
Household supplies.
Medicine and other basic needs.
The cards could be limited to approved retailers and service providers such as grocery stores, gas stations, pharmacies, utility companies, Walmart or similar stores where families can purchase everyday necessities.
Another possibility would be a combination.
Part of the monthly support could be available as flexible financial assistance, while another portion could be restricted to essential expenses.
The exact system isn't really my point.
There are people much smarter than me who could figure out the technology, verification and accountability needed to make something like this work.
My point is that we shouldn't allow the possibility of abuse to keep us from imagining ways to help people who genuinely need it.
Build safeguards.
Verify eligibility.
Audit the system.
Use technology to reduce fraud.
Make sure the help follows the child or reaches the widow it was intended to serve.
Then let the resources do what they were given to do:
Help people.
This One Is Personal for Me
This isn't just a theoretical idea I've thought about from a distance.
Thirteen years ago, my wife and I adopted a sibling group of four kids in one day.
I've seen firsthand what it looks like when children need a family.
And I've seen what keeping siblings together can mean.
We've also taken a parent into our home and cared for them through four years of incontinence.
I've seen that side too.
I've seen what caring for someone actually requires.
It takes time.
It takes patience.
It takes sacrifice.
And yes, sometimes it takes money.
So maybe that's why this question won't leave me alone.
I'm not suggesting I have the perfect answer.
I don't.
I'm not proposing that every church suddenly change its budget tomorrow.
I'm looking at what we're already giving and wondering:
What could we do with it?
What if twenty cents on the dollar became groceries?
Medicine?
Rent?
A safe place to sleep?
Help for a foster family?
A monthly stipend that follows a child into their new family?
A parent getting to work part-time instead of full-time so they can be home more?
A family being able to say yes to a sibling group instead of watching those children be separated?
Relief for a widow trying to survive on her own?
Maybe the question isn't always:
How can Christians give more?
Maybe sometimes the question should be:
How close can what we already give get to the people who need it most?
Twenty cents on the dollar.
It's just a thought.
But imagine where it could land.