Having grown up in a small Southern Baptist Church, there were three things that were certain, death, taxes, and several sermons a year from the pastor on tithing. When I was in college, I began to look at the Biblical basis for tithing and when I asked our college Sunday School teacher (the pastor's wife) about the issue, it was as if I was a heretic. My questioning the written in stone 10% rule was not looked upon very highly.
Can we open a discussion on tithing here? I think it would help me work through the issue. BTW, even before I get started. I don't want to be accused of not being a tither. Our family gives beyond the 10% amount so we are safe :)
Here are some of my comments, would you care to opine as well?
I guess the most used verse for tithing is Malachi 3. I know that I have heard dozens of sermons on how we Christians are robbing God if we do not give our 10%. Perhaps when everyone were farmers, it was easy to identify the 10%. What about someone who owns his own business? Is his 10% of everything he sells, is it after expenses, is it his taxable income (if so, most would never need to tithe again)? Tithing is interesting in the modern world, especially if we become legalistic about it.
Viola, in his book Pagan Christianity, makes the point that the tithe was sort of like the income tax. He also points out that every third year the tithe was 23.3%, not the 10% that we practice.
How do we reconcile the modern day tithe with the New Testament example of sharing everything in common with other believers in need?
I could go on for a while, but I will allow some of you to jump in on this one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Okay, if you are going to open the can, let's push out all the worms!
First, I have also struggled with this issue for several years now. Not whether or not I should tithe or not, but what is the New Testament position on this issue. As with you, my wife and I give more than a tithe, so I feel free to opine here. It's not that I have a problem with tithing, it's just I struggle with the Scripture used to proof text this position. Malachi, being the most frequently quoted, I have yet to have someone explain to me when the "storehouse" of the Old Testament became the "church" of the New Testament. Now Jesus did infer that we should tithe but there is not direct command.
Second, the everyone sharing everything did not last long and I have never seen this time in the early church's life as something we should be overly concerned with. The fact that churches did not see their first building until several hundred years later is significant.
Third, and this is the point I really want to make. If I accept what was taught as I was growing up, then I am obligated to give my entire tithe to my home church. Why is it then that I was advised as a missionary NOT to do this since my tithe could overwhelm a small congregation. However, if the "biblical" principle is to give to your "storehouse" or local church home, why is there an exception on the mission field. Can you imagine Bill Gates joining an SBC church in the U.S. and the pastor asking him NOT too give his entire tithe to the church so that his giving would not overwhelm the church?
I'll stop here.
Okay, I will make the obligatory statement that will qualify me to comment on this subject... yes, we tithe. There, now that said... I too struggle to find the Biblical foundation for tithing without living under the old covenant.
Paul tells us the law was our schoolmaster. It trains us to know what is right. Now we have something much better, living under a new convenant, under grace. We don't need to follow the letter of the law, but the spirit of it. So, I think tithing is good for training us to exercise our faith in giving back to the Lord what He gave us and belongs to Him in the first place. It is a starting point, because everything we have belongs to Him. He has the right to ask for all of it. I believe (and practice) giving above the tithe, with the tithe being just a minimum of what we should give the Lord. I don't think the local church is a storehouse, but a channel for that giving. I also think we should not disregard the pattern of the early church in the book of Acts... selling possessions and giving the proceeds so that no one was in need. We too easily dismiss sacrificial giving when it should be a vital part of body life.
Tithing is a non-issue under the New Covenant. Isn't it amazing that Jesus only mentions it in passing. That can hardly be classified as an endorsement of the practice. Peter, Paul and the rest of the Apostles never mention it! Certainly if tithing had been necessary for those early believers, Paul and the other Jewish apostles would have had some instructions to the Gentile converts about the practice. Yet they are all strangely silent.
Here is why it is such a huge issue in the SBC and every other institutional church structure. There are salaries to pay; buildings to finance and maintain; denominational expenses to cover; programs to underwrite, etc. Ironically those were the same kinds of things the Old Covenant tithe covered. Not so with the New Covenant.
However, the New Covenant requires that one deny self, take up their cross daily and follow Jesus. That being the case, under the New Covenant, God has the right to invade anyone's finances/possessions at any point to cover the basic human needs of others. After all, since a disciple has died to himself, he has no possessions anyway. No more does money need to be raised for salaries, buildings, programs and denominational bureaucracy...there are no such expenses for local groups of disciples. But, a disciple's time of plenty is given to cover another disicple's time of need. Why, because someday the roles will be reversed. Read 2 Corinthians 8:13-15.
How shameful it is that Pastors (I used to be one myself) bury their parishoners under a mountain of guilt so the annual budget can be met. How shameful it is that brothers and sisters around the world go without the basics while $80k pipe organs sit unused for 167 hours/week in churches all over the western world.
How ironic it is that the ministry we read about in the New Testament required little or no financial underwriting. Yet, today's western church is paralyzed without large amounts of money. How ironic it is that when money is introduced to pioneering/indigenous mission work it creates more problems than it solves. Yet, western churches always want to throw more money at the mission field (funny how the institutional church behaves just like the institutional government).
Tithing is a religious practice. But Jesus does not want our religious practices, he wants our heart. So, disciples should give and give generously. But they shouldn't let their right hand know what their left hand is doing. A measure of a disciple's reward in heaven will be based on their giving. But that kind of giving does not get written off on their IRS Form 1040. New Covenant giving is not about meeting certain standards, guidelines or benchmarks. That is man-centered religion. New Covenant giving is bourn through relationship. If a disciple sees a brother or sister in need and doesn't meet that need then shame and judgement on them! It has nothing to do with giving upto or beyond a certain percentage. It has to do with abandoning the self-life so neighbors can be loved in Jesus name!
By the way, what happens to denominational mission sending agencies (where can those be found in the New Testament?) when the truth starts getting out about this stuff?
I have put together a outline/survey of early church money practices here.
Your Brother,
Brent
Brent,
Your above comment would serve well as a blog post on your site!
I too must join the crowd in saying we practice more than the 10% giving. However in our teaching, we teach go over all the pertinent NT Scriptures with our folks and allow them to decide what it is the Scripture is teaching. It basically boils down to the individual believer giving what they choose in their heart to give and doing so joyfully, understanding that ALL we have belongs to Him.
House2House has a good recent article on the subject and can be read here.
I new it would be a can of worms!
I new it would be a can of worms!
Brent,
Wow! Don't hold back, tell us what you really think? :)
I really like your outline of teachings on giving in the NT. Can I steal this from you and use it in our training on the field?
Let me play "opposing view" advocate with you. (I never want to be an advocate for the devil)
Although I agree with your basic tenets here, do we have the Scriptural backing to say that it is "wrong" to pay salaries and maintain buildings? And then there is your question about institutional mission sending agencies. Ouch! Although I recognize a significant amount of bias on my part, I'm not ready to say that Scripture teaches that an individual believer, a church, or a group of churches cannot give in support of a missionary or missionaries. The problem comes when we teach that this is the only avenue for giving to missions.
Paul, although he seems to imply that receiving payment from the church is optional, a minister of the Gospel can expect some level of support for his ministry and leadership to the body. See 1 Timothy 5:17-18 and 1 Corinthians 9:1-9. Now I am not speaking about a professional class of wage earners but am saying that a body of believers should support and honor those who provide a significant amount of leadership in the role of elder or pastor.
I do, however, agree that we need to look at the larger issue of stewardship. SBC churches gave over 9 billion dollars through their local church offering plates last year. Where did the vast majority of that money go? Probably to maintain the structure of church and little to helping members be church. Only 2 cents out of every dollar made it to missions.
George, we're losing control of the worms.
Bueno...
I am travelling right now and can't comment much but I do believe that we still have lots of worms in the can. Brent opened the can a little, but I would like to rip the top of it :)
Ken,
Please use the outline for the training! I won't even charge you for it, or send a case of them for you to sell at the book table!! :-) Nor do you need to mention me at all. After all, what kind of man would charge a fee for teaching God's word? But, we would accept a small donation to keep our program on the air... Sorry, slipped back into clergy-speak there :-)
As far as salaries and buildings go, it is not an issue of right or wrong. The issue is the nature of the church. Form follows function. The church is to be a priesthood of believers, not a centralized organization with a professional class of leaders. If we really are a priesthood of believers we don't need professional leaders or buildings. The nature of the church is to function publically, daily and from house to house. This is the best environment for a priesthood of believers. The overwhelming weight of historical evidence tells us that salaries (professional clergy) and buildings only serve to stiffle the priesthood of believers. If there is a clergy, there is a laity. There cannot be a priesthood of believers when a clergy/laity structure exists. Building oriented church life only serves to reinforce this divide. The building is the place we go to watch the professional clergyman perform his duties on our behalf. That is way to Old Covenant, not to mention a gross misuse of Kingdom resources.
So, the scriptural evidence supports a church structure that allowed the early church to function as a priesthood of believers. That being the case, why would anyone want to introduce a structure that takes the priesthood away from each believer and returns it to a handful of levites/priests/clergyman?
Let's just be honest here. When it comes to church structure, protestants are just re-treaded catholics, which put the new wine of the New Covenant back into the old wineskin of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant had priests, festivals and a tabernacle/temple. The catholics have a priest, a mass and a cathederal. Protestants have a pastor, a worship service and a sanctuary. If it walks like one and talks like one, maybe it is one :-)
The New Testament absolutely teaches that brothers and sisters should support their fellow disciples who itinerate for the Gospel. They should offer hospitality and basic needs when possible. However, that support is voluntary, not a negotiated salary and benefits package. Those who itinterate should be prepared to work for money when the offerings ebb. And those who itinerate should not be asking for money all the time. Leave it up to God to impress his body to give where it is needed. In some cases even the elders of local churches might receive love offerings from fellow disciples, but they would never demand it for services rendered. How many of today's pastors would stick around their congregation if they did not get a regular paycheck? Most would way that God is "calling" them to a place to be named later.
The main problem I see with mission sending agencies is their hierarchical structure. They look more like the army than they do the New Testament Church. When centralized money is involved, results are expected and accountability structures must be put in place. Yet Jesus strictly prohibited his followers from setting up hierarchical structures by which they might lord over one another. There are no chains of supervision among diciples. There are only brothers who bare one another's burdens.
Peter, Paul and their apostolic teams did not have to send in monthly reports or set annual goals. Why? Because they were not paid and supervised by a centralized agency. They went were the Holy Spirit sent them, not where the latest initiative from the board of trustees said they should go. When the love offerings came they used the money. When there were no offerings they worked for their food and clothes (Acts 20).
Let's be careful not to read "salary" where only hospitality and basic needs were being taught. Remember that 1 Timothy 5:17-18 must be viewed in light of Acts 20:33-35. The same group of Ephesian elders are being spoken of in both places. When we "support" elders and others with regular and expected stipends, salaries, etc. a clergy/laity divide is instantly put in place. But, when God's people give voluntarily to help those who itinerate or excell in teaching/preaching, etc. the priesthood of believers is maintained.
These are difficult things to write/say because I know that many have sacrificed to see the Great Commission fulfilled. I am not attacking any one person, just a mindset that blindly accepts the traditions of men without holding them up to the light of scripture.
Your Brother,
Brent
This can has been kicked over and stomped on! Now we have the Counsel of Worms II :-0
Brent, I agree with most of what you say. However, after a time the new wine and wineskins become aged. Simple indigenous structures become more complex and institutionalized over time. Whether that is right or wrong, it is a fact. The key is keeping it simple and as close to the N.T. model as possible, for as long as possible, before it stagnates or plateaus/declines.
In other words, let's strive to be used by the Spirit to nurture new movements to remain pure for as long as possible so that the gospel can spread as far and wide as possible. Then, a day will come when those simple house churches will develop into something else, or combine, or disappear. But that is okay, because the kingdom will have expanded among a generation.
Then God will do a new thing to reach the next generation. I believe He is doing that now through people like you, Brent.
Blessings,
mr. t
My opinion on this is that the 10% tithe is an old covenant command that does not apply to the new covenant.
In this new covenant everything, 100% belongs to God. Everything we have and are should be dispensed according to what is best for the Kingdom.
I like John Piper's take...we are at war, so we ought to think like the country did during WWII. During WWII the country came together and used every resource for the war. Folks rationed gas, sugar, tires, etc.
In my opinion the problem today is that the western church is distracted. The average Christian does not understand they are at war. They think it is peace time. Churches are busy building buildings, sound systems, gyms, and parking lots...bla bla bla! Without God's vision for His church being front and center Christians will not be motivated to sacrifice for the Kingdom. So the tithe becomes necessary in order to get people to give. If the call to war was given, if the leaders truly did what was best for the Kingdom, then I believe their would be no shortage of $$ for the Kingdom. Think about it, do you want to lay down your life for a building project? What if a CPM in a town became the soul purpose of every church in that town and they were willing to do whatever it took to see it happen. I believe the body of Christ would rise from its pews and not only part with whatever $ was needed, but it would also would happily spend their lives in the quest to see God's Kingdom come!
Brent,
I guess it's time to dig deeper and look for the big juicy worms!
I would take issue with several points you make, not that you are completely off base, but if I am reading your comments as you intend it sounds like you are raising to the level of principle the practices or expressions of principles.
Let’s not confuse modern day expressions of leadership and professional clergy with the principle and practice of biblical leadership. You do not have to read far into Paul’s writings to churches he helped form to see that he was speaking from an authoritative, leadership position. In short, he told them what to do and what to stop doing. This did not come from the “average” believer in the church. It came from Paul. There are many verses in the Epistles that deal with the place of leadership. I say this because it sounds like you are advocating a everyone is equal in terms of roles in the body. I do not believe this position is borne out in Scripture.
Now I agree that a professionalism that separated clergy and laity has cost us much as a church. But let’s not equate professional clergy with biblical leaders. The qualifications for overseer and deacons, although applicable to every member is directed towards those whose level of service will be different from the rest of the body. This is not inequality or a lessening of the priesthood of the believer, but, a recognition that within the body, some parts are more prominent than others. Not better, different.
You stated that hospitality and basic needs should be met for those who serve in an itinerate role. Who decides how this is expressed. If I wanted to send you a monthly gift for your work in the states or purchase a home for you, is this wrong according to Scripture. My only concern with the house church movement is a tendency to assume that if you do not see it culturally expressed the same way in Scripture then it is wrong. I’m not ready to go that far.
Okay, you are going to have to show me where Jesus barred any kind of hierarchical structures. Structures do not imply “lording” over someone, at least not in how I think about them. If this is true, then why did the first believers submit to the apostles? Why did the church ask the apostles for help in caring for the widows? Why didn’t they just figure it out for themselves, after all they were all just disciples. The fact is, very quickly some sense of structure began to form. Even today in the house church networks you have leaders who advise and counsel house churches. If they move off accepted practices are they not called into account? Why is this not “lording” over someone.
In terms of reporting, no, Paul and the apostles did not send in monthly reports, but there was an expectation to report. Jesus after sending out the 70 in Luke 10 had them gather back together and report. Paul and Barnabas returned to the Antioch church to give a report. I believe Scripture is clear in its teach of accountability. Also, I think you are stretching your position when you equate a direction or initiative of an agency with the Holy Spirit can’t be part of it. The SBC and the IMB or NAMB does not force anyone not to go where the Holy Spirit is leading them to go. There decision is only can we support you in what you believe the Holy Spirit is asking you to do. No one ever told a missionary or potential missionary NOT to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. If I fell the Holy Spirit is tell me to go start churches in the middle of Atlanta I may not find a single church or agency that agrees with me. Does this mean I should not follow the Holy Spirit’s leading?
Okay, this is going why too long. I agree that our traditions need to be filtered through Scripture and that there are many things we are doing today calling it church that we just cannot support biblically. I would rather approach these issues more cautiously than most. There are some things we do that Scripture is silent on which leads a broader field for discussion.
I appreciate your honesty and pray for you as you walk through this journey as I would hope you would pray for me. There is much we can learn from each other and I’m not sure we are as far apart as our comments may suggest. Take care.
George, hope you don’t mind the rabbit chasing.
Ken,
Oh for the love of Pepsi...can't we just all get along!! :-)
I too appreciate your honesty and have enjoyed your influence in my life from the day we met in 2003 (Frontliners Event). I do not think we are far apart at all, maybe not at all, in our views on Biblical leadership.
Am I raising the “expression of principles” to the level of Principle itself? I will have to chew on that one for a while, but only if you chew on this one? Are you lowering Principle to the level of “expression of principles” in order to justify those expressions?
Let me try to address your exceptions:
As for leadership; obviously there is leadership among the priesthood. I am not advocating for equality of gifting and roles among the brethren. There are different gifts and roles to be played (as you stated above, "...not better, different."). These roles should edify the body for works of service, not turn the body into a passive audience; consumers of religious goods and services.
I am, however, advocating for equality of position among the brethren. Everyone is a priest...we are all brothers and sisters. No one gets a title and an official position (Matthew 23:6-12). Most certainly there will be those with more influence in the group than others. But, their influence will be the product of character and consistency, not credentials. Biblical leadership looks more like a patriarch with his family than it does a boss with his employees. Yes, Paul had authority in the churches he started, but it was not positional authority. It was the authority that is granted by those who are being served to someone with outstanding character and who sacrifices on their behalf, all the while not expecting a living in return. If that living comes...great! But it is not a condition of service.
As for supporting those with more prominent roles in the church; no one decides, on behalf of the assembly, who gets supported and who does not. If you want to buy me a house, which I am not opposed too :-), that is up to you. If you believe the Holy Spirit is leading you to do so then do so! That is not up to some centralized committee to decide, or someone of more influence within the assembly. When the churches were putting together the money for their brethren in Jerusalem, Paul said each one should decide in his heart what to give. Certainly Paul teaches that this is a good thing to do, but he did not force anyone to participate. Yes, he strongly encouraged them, but he did not make them.
Our assembly has discussed giving money to certain individuals and when we came to a consensus about it, we gave with joy. Someone spoke to the validity of the need and we took it before the lord. No one got to decide for the group. We all discerned God’s heart on the need. The cash was collected over a few days and handed to the people in need. But most of the time giving is done anonymously; the giver to the getter without the group even knowing about the gift until the getter mentions their unexpected blessing.
Concerning hierarchical structures, I believe they go against the spirit, if not the letter, of Jesus' teachings in Matthew 23:6-12 and Luke 22:24-26? Yes, there will be leaders among us, but there will not be anyone in a position to fire someone else from their livelihood i.e. senior pastor fires junior pastor because senior pastor does not like what junior pastor said or did. That is lording over someone else. Lording over happens when someone, because of their position, can force someone else in a lesser position to comply, or they will be cut off from their livelihood and place in the structure. Again, anytime centralized money gets involved hierarchical structures are soon to follow. It gets even more complicated when someone is making their living from that centralized pool of money.
Hebrews 13:17 exhorts believers to submit to their leaders. But that submission is voluntary. But in a hierarchical structure, you have to submit or else! Disciples should never force each other to make that choice…my conscience or, do my kids eat? Disciples submit to one another and to their leaders because that is how they demonstrate that they have submitted to Christ. Submitting to a leader because they have the title of leader in an organization is qualitatively different that submitting to them because their life embodies the qualifications of an elder and there is enough relationship with the leader to see them demonstrate their character daily.
On reporting, Paul and the others reported to their family because they loved them dearly, not because the end of the month was approaching and their field coordinator would be waiting on the report. The accountability of a loving family is qualitatively different from the accountability of a supervisor who will put a written evaluation in a personnel file each year.
Concerning initiatives that are handed down from agency leadership, I suppose the Holy Spirit can be “in” an initiative. I guess my problem comes in not seeing that pattern in the New Testament. The only example I can think of is when the decision about circumcision was made by the Jerusalem leadership and Paul. But that was more about proper practice, not strategy. And again, no one had their livelihood riding on whether or not they adopted that position or not.
Your other question about not following the Holy Spirit to Atlanta makes my point. You are forced to choose between the agency and the Holy Spirit. The agency cannot keep you from going to Atlanta, but they can sure cut off your livelihood.
I am not sure what you mean by not being “willing to go that far” with the way things were culturally expressed in the New Testament?
Anyway, this has been good to hash out with you. If we all love the truth, then we have something to build on…Jesus! Because He is the Truth! No winners and no losers, just the Truth!
George, could you make some coffee and pan dulce, these discussions are getting long!
Your Brother,
Brent
Brent,
I promise this will be short. Oh hey George. Are you still hanging around? ;-)
I agree that when leadership means that I can cut off your livelyhood for petty issues and not issues such as moral failure then there is definitely a leadership crisis and for me, not a biblical model. I have never liked the leader / spectator model that seems to be part of many churches. However, even though we cannot prove that livelyhood was at stake, Paul was pretty tough on John Mark in Acts 15. Also, Paul told some assemblies who to dis-fellowship in that group. That's pretty directive. All I am saying is that in practice I do not see a pure form of the priesthood of the believer even in NT churches. We today need to get closer to a priesthood of the believer model, but it was not perfect in the first century either.
I would disagree that Hebrews 13:17 is voluntary. First, it recogizes a difference between leaders and follwers. Second, to submit to these leaders is consistant with other Scripture that deals with submitting to governmental authorities, wives submitting to husbands, slaves submitting to their masters.
On reporting, I do not disagree with you, you just can't prove your point with Scripture, just I can't. We do not know if the church asked Paul to report or if this was an voluntary action. My point is, there was reporting.
On initiatives, the agency is not cutting off my livelyhood, I'm making a choice. If you have a family in your house church that wants to do ministry "X" and the group does not feel that is appropriate for the group to be associated with this ministry, and this family leaves, did you just deny this family Christian love and support? Of course not, every group, even churches or agencies have boundries of work and focus.
By "not willing to go that far" I meant that we can express the same prinicples in culturally relevant ways today that will look different from what we read in Scripture in how these same principles were expressed. I do not feel that my expression of these principles have to look like I live in the 1st century Middle East. For example, we know that the first century church did not have Scripture as we have it today and thus, there was a role for a NT prophet to share the message of God. Today, our gathering as church will look and feel different simply because we have Scripture. I'm not one of those who deny the teachings of Scripture on cultural grounds, but I do believe we need to read and understand the Bible in the cultural context in which it was written, especially Paul's writings. Do you allow wives to ask questions in church, or do you respond as Paul did and tell them to hear the answers at home from their husbands? 1 Cor 14:34ff ;-)
Great discussion Brent. I appreciate the fact that you are causing me to think and look at these issues from a different perspective and viewpoint. I believe this is healthy for all of us.
I'm getting ready for a 6 week trip for training new and veteran missionaries. So I'll have to break from this discussion for a while. Please feel free to make comments over the next several weeks on my blog as we discuss church planting. Many of these same issues will raise their heads again. Blessings upon you my brother!!
Post a Comment