The fall months are when most churches are putting their budgets together for presentation to their congregants. I had a really amazing conversation with a pastor recently about how many people now not only don’t know the definition of tithing but have interesting ideas about what constitutes a tithe. Most pastors are pretty good at citing Malachi 3:9-10: “You are suffering under a curse, yet you—the whole nation—are [still] robbing Me. Bring the full ten percent into the storehouse so that there may be food in My house. Test Me in this way,” says the LORD of Hosts. ”See if I will not open the floodgates of heaven and pour out a blessing for you without measure.”
Obviously there is more to understanding that passage than merely equating the local church with the storehouse, but in our area, there is a habit that I think is more prevalent than most folks think: considering some items “tithe-deductible.” Kids in a private Christian school? That’s kingdom work, so we can take that off the tithe. Supporting a Christian candidate for office? That’s kingdom work, so we can count that toward our 10% as well. Ate at Chick-fil-A? Yes, another tithe-deductible expense. Buying a copy of “Fireproof” on DVD? That counts too since a church made the film. Bought some Ethos bottled water at Starbucks, part of that goes to poverty relief, so it counts too.
I doubt that most of these folks would do these substitutions on their taxes, but in the case of the local congregation, it means the difference between supporting ministry and not supporting ministry.
For all of our talk about politicians and debt and spending, I have a feeling that most of us have our own housecleaning we need to do in the area of God’s money.
October 8th, 2010 | 12:06 am | #1
Although I entirely agree with your final point, I don’t see why contemporary Christians apply the details of the Malachi verse to themselves–particularly the detail about “ten percent”.
October 8th, 2010 | 8:29 am | #2
C. Ehrlich,
You sound like a typical modern Christian with that line. Whenever I discuss the issue of tithing with parishioners that is almost the first thing I get back “Well, that’s the Old Testament!” Funny, I don’t hear that when it comes to stealing, or murder, or adultery, or lying or….. It’s simply foolish for any Christian to say uncritically “The Older Testament does not apply to me”.
A better argument might be that the tithe is never mentioned in the New Testament. However, it hardly seems likely that the expectation for giving under the New Covenant would be ~decreased~ does it? Given the words of Jesus, the practices of the early church, and the admonitions of Paul, it seems pretty likely that the tithe was the ~minimum~ standard (a floor not a ceiling) for giving in the early church.
October 8th, 2010 | 8:42 am | #3
David C.,
While I disagree with C. Ehrlich on most things it seems…I think he’s right here.
If you look at all that the Israelites were required to give, it was more like 25% than 10%.
The NT says to set aside something “in accordance with your income”. Which sounds a lot like “give what you can”.
I agree that giving nothing or very little says a lot about someone’s spiritual condition, I think making 10% a rule is a bit like circumcising the boys or paying the church a certain price to redeem back your oldest son (something the Israelites were also required to do).
I don’t really think that the argument that the NT must necessarily increase or maintain the OT requirements really holds any water.
It’s a bit like saying in the OT they circumcised the boys, so in the NT we need to cut it right off…
October 8th, 2010 | 9:46 am | #4
I recently listened to a sermon on Malachi and tithing by Gordon Hugenberger, senior minister at Park Street Church in Boston.
He surprised me by suggesting that our federal contributions to social security and medicare are ways of caring for the poor and thus excluded from the tithe. Just as Boaz would have tithed only on the grain he collected, excluding that which he left for the gleaning poor, so we should exclude welfare line items from our tithes. (This would not apply to income tax in general, however.)
October 8th, 2010 | 9:48 am | #5
Arguing about the enduring applicability of the tithe is kind of beside the point here. Forget the controversial word “tithe” and substitute “what I give to the church,” and then consider what the post is saying — that people try to count all these ancillary things “against” their giving as though giving to the church is something to be minimized and offset where possible. That’s the real issue here.
For those of us that consider the tithe still to apply in some way, “tithe” is a fine word to use. For those that don’t, Mr. Fant’s point still bears consideration.
October 8th, 2010 | 10:23 am | #6
The tithe is mentioned in the New Testament positively. In Matthew 23, when Jesus is criticizing the Pharisees, he says that they “tithe of mint and rue and cummin, but neglect the weightier matters of the law, such as justice and mercy. These you ought to have done, WITHOUT LEAVING THE OTHERS UNDONE (emphasis mine).
I am not trying to be a legalist on this, but the tithe is more about giving your first and best to God in every area of your life (including finances specifically). 10% off of the top is not a burden when one lives below their means. For many people this is difficult and a sacrifice, but frankly the reason it seems that way for others is that they have embraced a lifestyle of overspending. I speak from experience in this matter, I have done it myself and am still living out the consequences of this in some ways.
The question isn’t about about hermeneutical hair splitting, but about what has your heart. Jesus said it best. “You cannot serve God and Mammon”. Giving your first and best to God is a great way to break the hold of Mammon on your life.
October 8th, 2010 | 12:06 pm | #7
Daryl,
Don’t really want to argue here, as I sense that we may be talking past one another. I did not say that 10% is “a rule” — that was Scripture and you will want to take that up with the Author.
The question is about the applicability of tithing to Christians,which is a theological/hermeneutical question that can’t simply be dismissed by an (inapt) comparison to circumcision. The covenantal rite of circumcision is explicitly overridden in the New Testament (by baptism, I would argue). No such revision occurs when it come to the tithe. Rather the opposite in fact. Jesus clearly commands a higher and more generous standard — which led to my general (but not universal) observation that the New Covenant tends to be more (rather than less) expansive in it’s scope.
Look, as a Christian and as a pastor, I favor grace and freedom. I am not going to tell a brother or sister that tithing is necessary — that’s a matter of conscience. But I will argue (strenuously) that not giving at all is spiritually hazardous and that I don’t think a tithe (however defined) is a bad place to ~start~. Furthermore, the whole discussion of giving often starts in the wrong place in my view. Something like a “how little can I give percentage wise and still make God happy” spirit of legalism usually prevails. Giving should come as a response to the God’s grace and mercy not as some sort of begrudging guilt salve.
Not that this is what you are saying mind you… but it is a lot of what I’ve heard in the church after nearly 25 years of parish ministry.
October 8th, 2010 | 12:09 pm | #8
Steve B — you wrote about giving as a way “breaking the hold of money in your life”. I agree and wonder if your ever read “Money and Power” by Jacques Ellul? In the book he talks about Jesus’ characterization of money as “Mammon” as his way of letting us know that wealth has a spiritual dimension and power. That power Ellul says, must be broken or “profaned”. And how do we profane the spiritual power of wealth? By giving it away.
October 8th, 2010 | 12:15 pm | #9
GREAT topic. The wife and I have thought about the “giving money to a Christian candidate” line item and decided that it didn’t count. I love the ones about eating at Chick-fil-A and buying the Fireproof DVD. That’s awesome.
October 8th, 2010 | 12:20 pm | #10
Hunter,
I have a friend who takes regular mission trips to Haiti. Last week I bought him beer and cigars. Does that count?
October 8th, 2010 | 12:28 pm | #11
What about taking the pastor to lunch? Can I deduct his expense, both of ours, or neither? I need to know pretty quick, because it’s pastor appreciation month at our church. ;-)
October 8th, 2010 | 12:33 pm | #12
Tom,
Irony is, he could take you out to lunch and deduct it as a “professional expense”. Tell him you want to go someplace spendy for lunch on his dime and that in so doing you are “appreciating him” by giving him a tax deduction.
October 8th, 2010 | 12:55 pm | #13
david c
I have read some Ellul’s work, but not that particular one. Dallas Willard made similar points in The Divine Conspiracy. The spiritual warfare motif can get abused, but in this case I think it applies. Priorities aren’t just rational choices we make, we can “give place” to evil in our lifestyles (pornography also comes to mind, to open up a big can of worms) and in so doing, lose control of our lives in a very literal way.
October 8th, 2010 | 1:14 pm | #14
Where I go to church the message about tithing is that we should give away some significant portion of our income (10% as a minimum). It doesn’t have to be to the church. Any worthy charity is appropriate.
The issue here is twofold. First, we should not be living as well as we can. We should give as a way of acknowledging that all we have is given to us. Keeping all we have been given fails to honor God and thank him for the gifts we receive. Not doing so would be keeping something that doesn’t belong to us.
Second, we need to develop our hearts to give radically. For in that radical generosity our hearts are transformed. In that radical generosity we are joined with Christ in the radical generosity that he showed us on the cross. The reality is that tithing is a gift whose main beneficiary is us.
October 8th, 2010 | 1:21 pm | #15
davidc,
I think we are agreeing here. What and if we give says a lot about where we’re at.
That we should give is a given…
I will say that as soon as we say 10%, then 10% of what is a reasonable question. Especially when we remember that the tithe and all the other offering were Israel’s system of taxation.
But, as I said, I agree that we need to give, must give in fact, but as soon as we introduce specific numbers or percentages, we’re going where New Testament Scripture doesn’t go.
I’ve heard many people say something like “Show me your day-timer and chequebook and I’ll tell you what’s really important to you.”
I think that’s the kicker.
October 8th, 2010 | 2:19 pm | #16
Note to Steve Billingsley – the tithe never was about giving the first and best to God. Read the scriptures.
God defined His tithe in Leviticus 27:30-33 as a tenth of the crops (not the first tenth) and every tenth animal (not the first, but the LAST of every ten).
Church leaders have mixed or confused firstfruits with the tithe. They have nothing to do with each other. The firstfruits went to the priests while the tithe went to the Levites (see Nehemiah 10:37).
OLD TESTAMENT – THE FIRST OF THE FRUITS SHOULD GO TO GOD
Proverbs 3:9 (KJV) “Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase:”
NEW TESTAMENT – THE WORKER SHOULD BE FIRST TO RECEIVE A SHARE OF THE FRUIT
2 Timothy 2:6 (KJV) “The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits.”
When was the last time you heard a pastor say that you should spend the FIRST part of your income on yourself and your family?
1 Timothy 5:8 (KJV) “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”
The New Testament makes it clear that we are to use the FIRST of our income to take care of ourselves and our family. We are talking about needs, here, not just anything we want. Then we should give generously from what is left.
The Bible CLEARLY SHOWS that the tithe ENDED at the cross in the Book of Hebrews. In the first nine verses of Hebrews 7 the words tenth or tithes appears SEVEN TIMES. The ONLY place in the Bible, after Calvary, that tithing appears is in Hebrews 7.
In Hebrews 7:5 we are told that Levi (the Levites) took the tithes under the law. In Hebrews 7:12 we are told that when the priesthood changes, the law will change. Hebrews 7:18 is telling us that Numbers 18 was disannulled. Numbers 18 established the Levitical priesthood, and part of that establishing included tithing. When the Levitical priesthood ended (at Calvary, or at least in the year 70AD when the temple was destroyed), all laws that established that priesthood were canceled. If Numbers 18 wasn’t canceled, we would still be under the Levitical priesthood.
The New Testament teaches generous, sacrificial giving, from the heart, according to our means. For some, $1 might be a sacrifice, while for others, even giving 50% of their income might not induce a sacrifice. In the Old Testament, ONLY the farmers tithed, and it was equal percentage (a tenth). The New Testament teaches the principle of equal sacrifice instead of equal percentage. Equal sacrifice is much harder to achieve, if not impossible, than giving ten percent.
October 8th, 2010 | 2:33 pm | #17
There is good tradition on the side of tithing. My life changed dramatically when I began to tithe. Seeing my money as God’s money rather than simply as my own has changed my perspective completely. We can argue all day about which passage says what. The bottom line is that giving is Biblical. I won’t be legalistic with regard to what others do, but as for me I know the benefits of trusting God with my money. Tithing is, at the very least, a good start.
October 8th, 2010 | 2:37 pm | #18
Gary, I often wonder why people get so worked up and put so much effort out to refute an argument (any argument, much less this one).
If you don’t believe that tithing doesn’t apply to Christians, don’t tithe. For most evangelical Christians in the present day U.S. of A, a tithe of their income would not be burdensome at all…and yes, tithes and giving the firstfruits of your increase were very much related in the Old Testament.
Again, I said I wasn’t interested in being a legalist about this, but the like many specific commandments in the Torah that are not literally applied in the New Testament (dietary laws for example), there are applications that Christians can make today.
There isn’t anything magical about the 10% number, I agree that many would have to sacrifice a great deal to give 2% and many could give much more.
So why are you so worked up about this? Is there anything wrong with giving your first and best to God? Is it not true that an overspending consumeristic lifestyle is something that many believers in our society and our churches (including myself by the way), struggle with?
Stewardship isn’t just about 10% of our income, it is about all of it. Every bit of it is a gift from God.
So again, why are you so worked up about this?
October 8th, 2010 | 2:40 pm | #19
The detail of “ten percent” is actually less worrisome to me than the emphasis on giving it to the local church. A bit of grown-up realism is in order here: there are obvious reason why pastors and church leaders tend to favor such contemporary applications of the Malachi verses. Though, and as I’ve already noted, I entirely agree with Gene Fant’s final point.
Has anyone read David Platt’s book Radical? I’ve not, but I see that it’s on the NYT best sellers list. It sounds interesting.
October 8th, 2010 | 2:42 pm | #20
Orthodj has the money quote right there:
“Seeing my money as God’s money rather than simply as my own has changed my perspective completely. We can argue all day about which passage says what. The bottom line is that giving is Biblical. I won’t be legalistic with regard to what others do, but as for me I know the benefits of trusting God with my money. Tithing is, at the very least, a good start.”
Steve Billingsley,
To say that 10% would be a burden to no one in America (or up here in Canada for that matter) is to really really think only inside your pay range.
Just because people in India live on a nickel a day doesn’ make everyone here rich. There’s more poverty on this continent that you realize.
October 8th, 2010 | 3:00 pm | #21
I didn’t say that 10% wouldn’t be a burden to no one, I said to most.
The addition to that is that in my first comment I said particularly that it wouldn’t be a burden if we were living below our means. How you spend the other 90% is the key to being able to give 10%.
How many who say that tithing would be a burden have an iPhone or a flat screen TV? How many carry a balance on a credit card (or credit cards) which is flushing money down the toilet with high interest rates?
I have lived this scenario. I spent like a drunken sailor and wondered why it was so hard to give. Making the changes in my lifestyle to live below my means (and I certainly backslide from time to time) was not easy, but it also wasn’t nearly as hard as I thought it would be. I gave up some luxuries and still live a lifestyle that my parents at my age (much less my grandparents) wouldn’t have been able to imagine. And I am not raking in the bucks by any stretch of the imagination. (and I have a wife who does not work outside of the home and 3 boys).
October 8th, 2010 | 3:07 pm | #22
Steve Billingsley said, “Stewardship isn’t just about 10% of our income, it is about all of it. Every bit of it is a gift from God.”
Right, Steve. So why is it every time I hear the word “stewardship” in church all that is mentioned is tithing? Christians should be taught to be good stewards of ALL their income. I teach that Christians should pray before making any large purchases as well as pray regarding their giving.
I personally know way too many families who believe they must give the 10% to the church even though that means they are unable to help other family members who are in need. There is no ten percent minimum in the New Testament.
In the Old Testament tithing was a payment, not a gift. The tithe came from ASSETS that came from God’s hand, not income from man’s labor. There was no principle to give back to God a tenth of what man earned. That lie was made up by man.
No one pays the Biblical tithe today, so why must Christians use the word tithe when they are giving? Giving a tenth of one’s income to the church has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Biblical tithe. It is comparing apples to oranges.
The tithe went to the LEVITES – the ushers, singers, musicians, janitors, etc., the servants to the priests. Not exactly who Christians take their so-called tithe to today, is it?
You don’t pay the Biblical tithe. No one pays the Biblical tithe today. Today, we give.
October 8th, 2010 | 4:43 pm | #23
C Ehrlich,
As I said, I don’t talk about tithing much with my congregation — almost never in terms other than those I described. However, your intimation that pastors and church leaders who do emphasize the Malachi verses are doing so for reasons of selfish gain is odious, puerile, anti-clericalism — rather than a self-styled appeal to “grown-up realism”.
October 8th, 2010 | 5:01 pm | #24
Gary,
We are not going to get into an exegetical war here, but to posit that Hebrews 7 is about abolishing the tithe is to miss the forest for the trees. Hebrews 7 is about Jesus being a priest “after the order of Melchizedek”. The question arose among Jews interested in the Gospel as to how Jesus could be called “a priest” indeed our “High Priest” when under the Law only those in the Aaronic/Levitical line could become priests? The author of Hebrews then lays out the example of Abraham paying a tithe to the priest Melchizedek who was (obviously) not a priest in Levitical line but was still considered worthy to receive the offering — in fact worthier because he was not given it for lineage alone. Thus is Jesus said to be a priest in the line or order of Melchizedek.
To make Hebrews seven about the abolition tithe is an exercise in missing the point — like making the parable of the lost sheep an lesson on animal husbandry.
October 8th, 2010 | 5:07 pm | #25
Many have observed that the quirkiness of the typical interpretation of Malachi 3: 9-10, which sees it as a command for contemporary Christians to give ten percent of one’s income to the local church.
What explains this widespread and enduring interpretation? David C thinks it is “odious, puerile, anti-clericalism” to suggest that it has anything to do with the fact that such an interpretation tends to benefit pastors and church leaders–the people who not only promulgate the interpretation, but who also depend on such contributions for their livelihoods, careers, and personal projects.
I suppose I just don’t share the assumption that our pastors and church leaders are beyond such influences.
October 8th, 2010 | 5:26 pm | #26
C Ehrlich seems to think that the only reasons pastors would support what they understand as a Biblical standard for tithing is for reasons of personal gain. That is, to put it mildly, calumny. One might be inclined to take offense — particularly since no less an authority than Paul has no problem with pastor-teacher’s earning their “livelihood’ from the giving of parishioners in local churches.
But, like with the phrase “zygote hysteria” it’s more likely that C Ehrlich is just trying to throw out troll bait rather than engage in a serious discussion of the nature and function of the tithe and it’s applicability to Christians.
October 8th, 2010 | 5:29 pm | #27
C. Ehrlich, you’re moving the goalpost.
No one said that pastors and church leaders are beyond such influences.
But it’s objectionable to say that it is generally true that those who emphasize giving to the church, do so out of self-interest. No doubt it happens more than it should, but you unfairly tar many with that brush.
My church emphasizes giving to the church because of our beliefs about the nature of church authority. We give to the church, and then the leaders of the church direct it to many different worthy ministries and needs. Our church has one paid employee — the pastor, who makes well below the typical salary for a man of his education and experience level. Below the median household income, if I’m not mistaken, for a man with 35 years teaching/ministry experience and an advanced degree.
October 8th, 2010 | 5:49 pm | #28
Point taken Pentamom. But I also now see that the goal post was moved a bit earlier. My suggestion was never that anyone who emphasizes giving to the church, do so out of self-interest (as suggested by David C in #23). My claim in #19 was rather this:
Think of that claim on analogy to these:
With such claims, no one is saying that every rich person who votes Republican is doing so for self-interest. Etc.
October 8th, 2010 | 5:53 pm | #29
I think Gary Arnold has given the best argument here; every other comment is unsupported or an unfortunate kind of “what’s true is only true for you” comment. If someone is right, it should at least be provisionally admitted: “That’s a good argument I can’t refute; I don’t like it, but I’ll have to think about it more to see if I really am wrong.”
That said, I agree that American Christians, generally speaking, are quite materialistic and need to have their spending examined by people who actually know and love them, and who are willing to have their own decisions examined in turn. People tend to over-spiritualize away Jesus’ commandments regarding giving which are quite strong and simply do not set any upper limit to monies given.
October 8th, 2010 | 6:25 pm | #30
A couple of years ago, I wrote an article about how my wife and I learned to tithe. http://www.thefaithlog.com/2008/03/learning-to-tithe.html
October 8th, 2010 | 8:25 pm | #31
You know, C. Ehrlich, those analogies do nothing for me. They are just as prejudicial and overly general as the case we’re discussing. Both assume beliefs motivated not by conviction, but by personal interest, being the dominant situation for a given set of beliefs.
I’m not saying there are no such things as generalities or tendencies, just that they rarely shed a lot of light on things, and serve rather to undermine the possibility that a position could have solid, independent reasoning behind it.
October 8th, 2010 | 8:45 pm | #32
Pentamom, none of these statements deny that there is reasonable, independent reasoning behind the various positions (just as there is presumably reasonable, independent reasoning that favors rejecting those positions). Think rather of these sorts of statements as those of a sociologist pointing out a non-accidental correlation between, for example, people who are gun enthusiasts and people who endorse a peculiar interpretation of the Second Amendment. Such statements often indicate the plausible influences driving such correlations. Often, as in the statements I use for illustration, the facts they allude to are really quite obvious, aren’t they?
I don’t think that the claims I am making is all that surprising. See if you don’t agree:
October 8th, 2010 | 8:47 pm | #33
I have to back up OrthodoxDJ. Tithing will change your life. My wife pushed hard against my young unwillingness. She prevailed and life has never been the same since.
October 8th, 2010 | 9:26 pm | #34
Hunter Baker,
You think that an Old Testament law that you follow today has changed your life. A law that was nailed to the cross.
The REAL change in your life will come when you finally understand that we are under grace, not Old Testament laws. Jesus paid the ENTIRE price already. Once you give up Old Testament laws and start recognizing and using the Holy Spirit that God have given to us, you will be led by the Spirit, not some Old Testament laws and/or principles. If you are born-again, and have received THE Spirit, you don’t need laws to use for your guidance. You don’t need a minimum amount, etc., or a starting point in your giving.
Being Spirit led, I find myself giving far more than a mere tenth of my income. Not to the church, necessarily, but to where and to whom the Spirit leads me. If you follow Old Testament laws and principles, you really don’t know whether or not you are pleasing God. But follow THE Spirit, and you’ll know you are doing what God wants you to do.
God can bless anyone at any time for any reason He chooses.
October 8th, 2010 | 9:43 pm | #35
Paul speaks of how farmers normally get the firstfruits of their labor as an analogy for the eschatological reward of perseverance in the faith and in ministry. Isn’t it a bit much to suppose that his offhanded comment about what farmers normally expect was an overturning of the very idea that firstfruits of what we steward on behalf of God should belong to God? I don’t see how the NT could overturn such a basic creation principle as if it were a mere contingent matter for the duration of the Mosaic law.
October 8th, 2010 | 10:10 pm | #36
Jeremy, is anyone here denying that “what we steward on behalf of God should belong to God”? Who?
October 8th, 2010 | 10:35 pm | #37
Jeremy,
Proverbs 3:9 (KJV) “Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase:”
Check out the Hebrew dictionary here. “All thine increase” is referring to fruit or grain. This is referring to the first of the crops ONLY, nothing else. There is no other principle involved. This is verified by looking at verse 10:
Proverbs 3:10 (KJV) “So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.”
Church leaders love to take these verses out of context and apply it to your income. That, my friend, is not Biblical.
In the Old Testament, you gave to God by taking the tithe to the Levites, taking firstfruits to the priests, and through burnt and other sacrificial giving.
In the New Testament, you give to God by giving to the needy/poor. See Matthew 25:42-45.
Church leaders add to, subtract from, and mix up the scriptures to suit their needs. Today, many pastors teach man’s traditions instead of God’s Word. No church in the US taught tithing on one’s income until the late 1800s.
Today’s church is full of money changers.
October 9th, 2010 | 3:57 pm | #38
I am with (positionally, perhaps not actually) C.S. Lewis on giving:
“Giving to the poor is an essential part of Christian morality. I do not believe one can settle how much we ought to give. I’m afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words, if our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, and amusement, is up to the standard common of those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away too little.
If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small. There ought to be things that we’d like to do but cannot do because our charitable expenditure excludes them.”
October 10th, 2010 | 10:22 pm | #39
C. Erlich, my comment was directed at Gary, who was able to see exactly that it was his view that I was targeting (even if he couldn’t discern which part of it I was targeting).
Gary, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. I never claimed there to be a valid tithe principle for the church based on the Mosaic law. I claimed that there is a principle of stewardship going back to Adam, whereby nothing really belongs to us to begin with. We simply safeguard what God gives us and use it for whatever we can do to increase it. This is indeed a biblical principle and has nothing to do with any direct transference of the tithe to the church, so I’m not sure why you’re criticizing such a view, a view I don’t even hold.
My point is that a biblical stewardship view is very basic to all talk of giving throughout the Bible, including the Torah tithe. The Mosaic law gives a particular application to the temporary situation of priests and Levites needing support (and needing sacrifices), but it’s based on this larger principle. The fact that there is language in the NT that can be construed as contradicting the firstfruits Torah practice does not undermine the original principle that nothing really belongs to us to begin with, and thus it’s immoral to think of our possessions as genuinely ours. The implication is that the passages you refer to from the pastoral epistles have to be analogies and about spiritual reward, and only analogies about spiritual reward, and therefore not, as you take it, giving a theology of earned profits.
It’s irrelevant to that point to agree with me that the tithe was only about agricultural yield or that it was only temporary.
October 10th, 2010 | 10:52 pm | #40
I’m all for giving and agree with what you say except I would never use the word “tithe” when referring to free-will giving as it can infer the Biblical tithe to some. Otherwise, we mostly agree.
October 10th, 2010 | 11:08 pm | #41
Yea, I guess I’m with Gary on this one. I don’t think he (or maybe even anyone else here, for that matter) is denying that “what we steward on behalf of God should belong to God.”
October 11th, 2010 | 6:01 pm | #42
Since Malachi talks about the return of Elijah the prophet “before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord”, I suggest that the book itself is claiming continuing applicability until the Judgment.
Let me offer one example of how the concept of tithing can operate.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“Mormons”) has had a standard of tithing since the 1830s. It also has no career clergy, so all the people at the local level of every congregation are unpaid volunteers who support themselves with regular jobs. In some cases, the bishop and his two counselors who lead each congregation probably contribute as their tithes as much as the salary of a pastor at many churches. Rather than appearing to be self-serving when speaking to their congregation about tithing, they are examples of financial sacrifice.
Costs are reduced by housing as many as four congregations in a single building, with different meeting times each Sunday. Congregations in the more prosperous USA contribute their donations into an international pool that supports Church building and activities in less wealthy nations in Asia, Africa and Latin America, where half of Mormons now live.
The most senior leaders of the LDS Church are compensated for full-time work, after they have invested decades in voluntary service and making their own tithing contributions. It is also generally acknowledged that they are not paid what they could earn in their original careers (e.g. as a world-renowned heart surgeon, several attorneys who were partners in major law firms, several university presidents, a nuclear engineer, and a sr. vice president for Lufthansa).
Mormons are also asked to voluntarily donate additional contributions. On the first Sunday of each month, they fast from two meals and donate at least the value of the food not eaten to aid the poor. Additional voluntary contributions are made to provide educational loans to members in developing countries, to help support missionaries who cannot support themselves, and to build temples, where special ordinances such as eternal marriage are performed.
Typically each Mormon congregation has at least 60 positions as leaders and teachers that are filled by unpaid volunteers, contributing from 5 to 20 hours a week. Young Mormon missionaries are supported from their own savings and from their families. Many older couples also serve as full time missionaries, living off their retirement income.
Tithing funds are used to construct some 400 new meetinghouses worldwide each year, and to cover the major part of their utilities and maintenance costs. Tithes also help ensure that tuition at Church universities remains affordable. Tithes pay for weekday religious education in Church facilities adjacent to high schools and colleges.
October 12th, 2010 | 2:10 pm | #43
My local church gets the bulk of my giving. right now, I aim for 12% but I also support a local pregnancy center and a couple of other Christian ministries (one geared to equipping youth and one to worldwide apologetics) out of that.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact