# Can women collect the tithes?



## he beholds (Nov 24, 2008)

I am wondering who should be allowed to pass out the collection plate. 
In our church, and even our old church, it has not been strictly an office-bearer's responsibility. In fact, in our current church, it is always teenage boys who do it. I am wondering if anyone thinks that women should be allowed/not be allowed to do this? My guess is that if teenagers can do it, that means this is not an issue of leadership/authority, so a woman would be allowed.
However, I have never seen a woman do it. 
Thanks!
jessi


----------



## TimV (Nov 24, 2008)

In the PCA where you are it's not an issue for a woman to do it, it's just more customary for men. In the PCA a woman wouldn't be able to participate in passing out the Lord's Supper, though (at least I saw that in an old position paper I read).


----------



## he beholds (Nov 24, 2008)

TimV said:


> In the PCA where you are it's not an issue for a woman to do it, it's just more customary for men. In the PCA a woman wouldn't be able to participate in passing out the Lord's Supper, though (at least I saw that in an old position paper I read).



I've only seen elders pass out the Lord's Supper, and I think that is wise, although I don't know if it is church law. Our elders take a mental note if a member refuses communion, even. (Although I don't know what they do with that knowledge.)

I guess you answered my Q. I did not know if it was just customs or law behind the collection. I am not trying to collect tithes, I have just wondered and hoped that the teen boys did not have some type of authority (real or imagined) over me!


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 24, 2008)

he beholds said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > In the PCA where you are it's not an issue for a woman to do it, it's just more customary for men. In the PCA a woman wouldn't be able to participate in passing out the Lord's Supper, though (at least I saw that in an old position paper I read).
> ...





> Book of Church Order
> Presbyterian Church in America
> 
> 
> ...



Our constitution vests administrative responsibility over this to the Board of Deacons. I do not understand this as permitting delegation of these duties.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 24, 2008)

Prefer a box in the back of the room


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 24, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> Prefer a box in the back of the room



Yes.

The Book of Church Order passage cited reflects some doctrine and only applies to one denomination.

Interestingly, our church does as you say- a box in the back of the sanctuary with no solicitation. The deacons are responsible for collecting, counting and safekeeping funds until they are deposited.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 24, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> > TimV said:
> ...



The key phrase, in my opinion is "to devise effective methods...". That means that the deacons decide who does it & how. If it had meant that only (male, ordained) deacons it would says so.

The use of "devise" means plan (by definition) & oversee(by implication). It does not demand that the function be performed by deacons. It may be, and most often is, but that is not a requirement.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 24, 2008)

> Kevin
> Puritanboard Senior
> 
> The key phrase, in my opinion is "to devise effective methods...". That means that the deacons decide who does it & how. If it had meant that only (male, ordained) deacons it would says so.
> ...



Well, that is one way of reading the constitution here.

However, in context and in practice, I think it does require the Deacons to do this, not delegate it (except that if there are no Deacons, this must be done by the Elders also).

Now, I don't know how a (church) court such as a particular presbytery may have ruled on this, but that is my understanding. It would be a discipline offense to not do so.

The Deacons are actually charged with safeguarding the property which in the case of money collected in an offering means not letting it out of their sight (personally) when it is unsecured.

In practice, this works out with two deacons physically removing the money, escorting it to a secure site to count and record it, and then physically watching the funds being deposited in a secure place (i.e. safe). Two deacons are required to be with this at all times- not only is this necessary for protection of the deacons, and the standard of care in business practice, but there is a biblical principle here as well (let all things be confirmed in the mouth of two or more witnesses).


----------



## he beholds (Nov 24, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> > Kevin
> > Puritanboard Senior
> >
> > The key phrase, in my opinion is "to devise effective methods...". That means that the deacons decide who does it & how. If it had meant that only (male, ordained) deacons it would says so.
> ...



The bold part does happen at our church, but the kids do pass the plates.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 24, 2008)

> jessica "God Beholds"
> The bold part does happen at our church, but the kids do pass the plates.



The local practice you describe may be in conformance with the constitution because the constitution is not quite that task detail specific.

A way I could see that being constitutional would be if the Deacons had "oversight" (literal and figurative) over the collection as it was being taken and then, within their sight, delivered for collation, counting and deposit in a secure location.

It would not be constitutional, legal or ethical for the Deacons to "turn it over to the kids" and depend on them to take it to the back room table for future disposition with the Deacons coming it at a latter time to count and deposit it. Nor would it be permissible to turn the whole process (including the counting and deposit) over to others.

If there was embezzelment (this has actually happened), the Deacons would be held liable for failing to exercise due care. This responsibility cannot be delegated away, and the constitution recognizes this.


----------



## matthew11v25 (Nov 24, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> Prefer a box in the back of the room



I agree. I think a box would solve the issue. I doubt many would have a problem with a woman picking up the box after the service has ended.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 24, 2008)

I misunderstood. I thought that the discussion was who may collect ("pass the plate"). Of course only the deacons may count (or oversee counting) & handle the actual offering, once it has been given.

The first congregation I served on the diaconate, we had an elder (who was a CPA) do the physical count and fill out the deposit slip while he was observed from across the table by 2 deacons.

In other contexts and at other times I have had young men collect by passing a plate, had a "box" at the rear of the room, had deacons collect by standing at the door, and had a basket passed hand to hand, had a basket on a counter, etc. What these all had in common is that these were plans "devised" by and overseen by deacons.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Nov 24, 2008)

At our church it is whomever is ushering (adult males) who pass the collection plates. The collection is handed over to a deacon immediately afterwards.


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 24, 2008)

TimV said:


> In the PCA where you are it's not an issue for a woman to do it, it's just more customary for men. In the PCA a woman wouldn't be able to participate in passing out the Lord's Supper, though (at least I saw that in an old position paper I read).



Men only in that role is absolutely by no means universal in the PCA (I can cite at least 3 example churches, but I won't)


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 24, 2008)

matthew11v25 said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> > Prefer a box in the back of the room
> ...



As long as she didn't pick it up and skedaddle out the back door 

but seriously, only those invested with the authority of managing/accounting for the church's finances should be involved in dealing with the collected offering - this means, in most cases, deacons; or in lieu of a diaconate, elders, I should think.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 24, 2008)

matthew11v25 said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> > Prefer a box in the back of the room
> ...



I also like having an offertory box at the back with no passing of the plate. It gives more time to other parts of public worship and eliminates one stumbling block unbelievers sometimes have about church ("only in it for the money.")

In practice, however, many churches would have a hard time meeting their needs without passing the plate. Without asking, many pastors would say giving won't happen to a sufficient level. It also can be said giving is a legitimate part of the worship. So, for these reasons most churches do pass a plate and there is nothing unbiblical about it.

I would have to disagree with your last statement, at least in my denomination, because this function is understood to be a spiritual one, given as a privilege and responsibility to those God has equipped for the spiritual office of Deacon.


----------



## TimV (Nov 24, 2008)

Believe me, Todd, after being in the PCA Northern California Presbytery I don't find much hard to believe.

Jessica, I looked for several minutes, and while I'm sure I read a resolution from one of the PCA's position papers or (I think more likely) General Assembly decision saying women can't serve Communion, but I can't find it.

Pastor Greco?


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 24, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> Prefer a box in the back of the room



I prefer this too, but I have been thinking a lot lately about giving being a part of worship. And if it is part of worship than it should have a prominent place in worship.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Nov 24, 2008)

Book of Church Order
Presbyterian Church in America




> 9-2. It is the duty of the deacons to minister to those who are in need, to
> the sick, to the friendless, and to any who may be in distress. It is their duty
> also to develop the grace of liberality in the members of the church, to devise effective methods of collecting the gifts of the people, and to distribute these gifts among the objects to which they are contributed. They shall have the care of the property of the congregation, both real and personal,



Our diaconate is large enough to take care of the entire process.

Therefore, in our particular PCA church, the Deacons have decided, based on BCO 9.2 (as cited above) that only the deacons may pass the offering plates and are directly involved in the handling, counting, and banking of tithes and offering.


----------



## he beholds (Nov 24, 2008)

Joshua said:


> A woman _can_ collect the tithes. The question is _may/should_ she?



Ok, this is a fair question. But at my church, where there are teenage boys collecting tithes, why shouldn't women?
Again, this is just a question, and it's probably really aimed at the teenage boys being permitted to do something adult women aren't.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 24, 2008)

he beholds said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > A woman _can_ collect the tithes. The question is _may/should_ she?
> ...



These are good questions.

From previous posts, we can see that one Reformed denomination's Book of Church Order (BCO) gives Deacons the general task of property stewardship. This reflects a doctrinal understanding from Scripture that the office of Deacon is a perpetual spiritual office, part of the governance of Christ's Church, with specific spiritual authority, privileges and responsibilities. The general task includes more specific tasks of collecting, accounting for and safekeeping offerings and other property entrusted to the church.

Earlier, I applied the specific provisions from the Book of Church Order and said how it might be permissible to have teenage boys to do the collection part of this if they were directly overseen by the Deacons. I am not suggesting that is the best interpretation of the BCO, nor that it is a "good" practice, only allowing that technically, it may not be a violation of the denomination's BCO to do it. I am also assuming there is no church court precedent on this point.

But your question is really not what our BCO says or what it might allow, it is if Scripture speaks to this practice. Even though our BCO does reflect what our forefathers in the faith believed to be biblical doctrine, and even though it has been time tested, it does not automatically mean it is right biblically in the general or particular.

So, here's my biblical take on this. Thanks for making me think this through:

The act of giving during public worship is almost an ordinance of worship. There is administrative authority in overseeing it and disposing of it which is spiritual service. It is not merely a perfunctory task; therefore it would seem fit that officers of the church should do it. Only those qualified for office, called to office, and held accountable for those responsibilities before God should do it because it is their spiritual service.

Scripture is not very specific about the tasks given to Deacons. We have only a few general examples but can, be good and necessary inference, I think, reason that they include tasks like this.

One thing to keep in mind is that Scripture promises Deacons who use their office well a spiritual reward (I Timothy 3:13). This ought not be hindered.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 24, 2008)

I believe that giving tithes and offerings is a God ordained part of the worship service.

As such it should be a distinct part of the liturgy. My strong preference is that it should be set apart with a portion of scripture, and a specific prayer, and possibly an admonition.

When it is up to me I do it this way;

1) An announcement, such as "Let us now worship God with our tithes" or "The deacons will now recieve our tithes".

2) The deacons collect the tithes.

3) The deacons present the tithes (by placing them on a table)

4) I say "let us hear now Gods word for giving" or "Hear now the admonition of Scripture".

5) I then read a passage about giving (brief, never more than a couple of verses).

6) I then pray asking God to bless the work for which the money is intended, asking Him to bless financially those who obey him with tithes, and often some brief prayer for a specific diaconal need (if appropriate).

This is based on the work of a diaconal study group I was part of over 10 years ago. A group of several deacons from several (PCA) churches met to consider the duties of our office as considered from scripture, & the confession, and the BCO.

This is how I organise it on a regular week to week basis in the Sunday morning service.

Other times call for other practices in my opinion. As I said above "devise" does not require a specific practice.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 24, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> Prefer a box in the back of the room





I use this practice in the fellowship group I have started. However I do not believe it is suitable for a called worship service. Tithing is a religious duty & should be part of the worship. 

The use of a box removes the worshipping of God with our tithes & offerings from the worship service. I know that this practice has some reformed advocates, but in my honest opinion, it is pietistic. 

I have a concern that this would (could?) be a violation of the RPW, however I would not be prepared to dbate that point as I am still considering it.


----------



## SRoper (Nov 25, 2008)

TimV said:


> In the PCA a woman wouldn't be able to participate in passing out the Lord's Supper, though (at least I saw that in an old position paper I read).



Really? I'm curious where you read that? The BCO doesn't specify distribution, but I'm uncomfortable with going up and taking communion from a woman.

Edit: Sorry, I missed where you said you can't find it presently.


----------



## TimV (Dec 17, 2008)

*Serving communion*

I'm sorry, but I can't find the thread to which this belongs. There was a thread a few weeks ago where I said I'd read that there was a PCA GA ruling that said only Elders could administer communion, but I couldn't find it. I found it, and I wonder if there are any Mods who remember the thread could attack this to it. It was only a recommendation, but here it is:


Your Committee finds that there is one overriding factor which forces us to the conclusion that we have reached that only Teaching Elders should be allowed to administer the Sacraments in the PCA. And that factor is the clear prohibition of any other performing these tasks by our Confessional Standards. The Confession of Faith, Chapter 27, Section IV, states: "There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained." In addition, Larger Catechism Question No. 176 states: "The Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper agree, in that the author of both is God; the spiritual part of both is Christ and His benefits; both are seals of the same covenant; are to be dispensed by ministers of the gospel, and by none other." If the PCA were to make the major change of allowing Ruling Elders to administer the Sacraments, it would be necessary that major changes be made to our Confessional Standards. While the Standards must never be set above the Scriptures as the rule of faith and practice, yet we have certainly given strong testimony to their lasting quality and trueness to the Scriptures, and changes should only be made when there is clear and overwhelming evidence, biblically, that they are wrong. We find no such evidence in the case of administration of the Sacraments. The administration of the Sacraments, by its very nature, is a proclamation of the Word of God by example, and as practiced consistently throughout most of Reformed Church history, should only be done in conjunction with the preaching of the Word. The continuation of this practice is necessary to continue good order in the Church. 
Recommendation No. 8: 
That the General Assembly affirm that in keeping with the Confessional Standards of the Church, only properly ordained Teaching Elders may administer the Sacraments. Adopted 
PCA Position Papers: Report of the Ad-Interim Committee on Number of Offices (1979)


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 17, 2008)

Tim -- Is this the thread you had in mind?

http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/can-women-collect-tithes-40420/


----------



## TimV (Dec 17, 2008)

Thanks to the Mod who moved this, and for those reading that's the reason for the repitition. 

Found it:

Your Committee finds that there is one overriding factor which forces us to the conclusion that we have reached that only Teaching Elders should be allowed to administer the Sacraments in the PCA. And that factor is the clear prohibition of any other performing these tasks by our Confessional Standards. The Confession of Faith, Chapter 27, Section IV, states: "There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained." In addition, Larger Catechism Question No. 176 states: "The Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper agree, in that the author of both is God; the spiritual part of both is Christ and His benefits; both are seals of the same covenant; are to be dispensed by ministers of the gospel, and by none other." If the PCA were to make the major change of allowing Ruling Elders to administer the Sacraments, it would be necessary that major changes be made to our Confessional Standards. While the Standards must never be set above the Scriptures as the rule of faith and practice, yet we have certainly given strong testimony to their lasting quality and trueness to the Scriptures, and changes should only be made when there is clear and overwhelming evidence, biblically, that they are wrong. We find no such evidence in the case of administration of the Sacraments. The administration of the Sacraments, by its very nature, is a proclamation of the Word of God by example, and as practiced consistently throughout most of Reformed Church history, should only be done in conjunction with the preaching of the Word. The continuation of this practice is necessary to continue good order in the Church. 
Recommendation No. 8: 
That the General Assembly affirm that in keeping with the Confessional Standards of the Church, only properly ordained Teaching Elders may administer the Sacraments. Adopted 
PCA Position Papers: Report of the Ad-Interim Committee on Number of Offices (1979)


----------



## TsonMariytho (Dec 17, 2008)

This is an interesting side issue (who may serve communion). I personally think the WCF framers would have done better to put this verbiage in the BCO, rather than the WCF.

Since the scriptures do not give a command prohibiting administration of the ordinances/"sacraments" by non-elders, it's hard to elevate this teaching to being an object of our faith -- which is the kind of thing that should be in the WCF.

However, the BCO is a great place for it, because it is admittedly a really good idea. The elders are in the best position to judge the proper administration of the ordinances, and to ensure all things are done "decently and in order". The flock is "under their care". Communion is an ordinance of the corporate church, where they are to "rule" by Christ's appointment.

1. A silly example of when it might be OK to violate this teaching of the WCF: few Christians on a desert island, where an ordained elder is not to be found.

2. A more serious and plausible example: in a time of persecution, when the church goes underground, and a few gathered Christians somewhere do not have an ordained elder.

Do we really believe that believers in such a circumstance should forgo baptism and the Lord's Supper, simply because they don't have an elder? I think a fair reading of the New Testament would indicate they must follow the Lord's commands for his Church as "decently and in order" as possible, which would include the obedience of a new disciple of undergoing Christian baptism, and "doing this in remembrance" of the Lord's death until he comes.

(Note: I didn't have to take an exception to this, because I subscribe to the LBC, and I think the framers there made the wise decision to make the language a bit more ambiguous than in the WCF. Another more educated Reformed Baptist may disagree with me here, which is fine -- I will likely learn something as a result.)


*WCF: *IV. There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.[10]

*LBC:* 2._____ These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.​


----------



## TimV (Dec 17, 2008)

> This is an interesting side issue (who may serve communion). I personally think the WCF framers would have done better to put this verbiage in the BCO, rather than the WCF.



The WCF framers had been dust for a couple hundred years before the BCO came into being


----------



## TsonMariytho (Dec 17, 2008)

TimV said:


> > This is an interesting side issue (who may serve communion). I personally think the WCF framers would have done better to put this verbiage in the BCO, rather than the WCF.
> 
> 
> 
> The WCF framers had been dust for a couple hundred years before the BCO came into being



Hey, I was supposed to learn something new from a Reformed Baptist!

:^)

EDIT -- OK, looks like I should have said "Westminster Directory of Public Worship", rather than BCO.


----------



## SueS (Dec 18, 2008)

In our PCA church it is the adult men (not necessarily officers or ushers) who pass the plate. Ocassionally some of the teen boys do it was well, usually in the evening service, and I believe the rationale for this is that it is a good way for them to begin assuming adult responsibilities within the body.


----------



## Gloria (Dec 18, 2008)

he beholds said:


> I am wondering who should be allowed to pass out the collection plate.
> In our church, and even our old church, it has not been strictly an office-bearer's responsibility. In fact, in our current church, it is always teenage boys who do it. I am wondering if anyone thinks that women should be allowed/not be allowed to do this? My guess is that if teenagers can do it, that means this is not an issue of leadership/authority, so a woman would be allowed.
> However, I have never seen a woman do it.
> Thanks!
> jessi



Before I became a member of a PCA church, I'd seen more women than men as ushers. I was an usher in high school. *ha*

In my current church, deacons and other male members collect tithes.

-----Added 12/18/2008 at 09:43:54 EST-----



Scott1 said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> > Prefer a box in the back of the room
> ...



Interesting!


----------



## shackleton (Dec 18, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> Prefer a box in the back of the room



I have been to a few churches that do this and I really liked it. It looks less like the church is begging for money. One can give if they want to and in the churches that did have a box the collection was about the same and maybe even more.


----------

