Tithing

Status
Not open for further replies.

crhoades

Puritan Board Graduate
Wasn't sure to place this under Ecclesiology, Law, or Worship...

What are PB'ers views of the tithe?

Binding/Non-binding?
Has it passed away in the New Covenant to replaced with good will offerings?
Should non-tithing members of a church be addressed by the session? if so, how?
Since it was part of the OT priesthood under the Mosaic Covenant, has it now passed away because it was a shadow?
Are OT sanctions still applicable?
What are the confessions and church practices regarding it?
What were the reformers/puritans views of it?

I've searched the board and haven't found a comprehensive thread on this issue. I've began reading on this topic and seek wisdom of those who have already plowed that row before.
 
OLD COVENANT giving:

"Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year. And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always. And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; [or] if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee: then shalt thou turn [it] into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: and thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household, and the Levite that [is] within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee. At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay [it] up within thy gates: and the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which [are] within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest." Deut 14:22-29 KJV

"A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the Lord; it is holy to the Lord. . . . The entire tithe of the herd and flock--every tenth animal that passes under the shepherd's rod--will be holy to the Lord." Lev. 27:30,32 NIV.

"Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me." But you ask, 'How do we rob you?' "In tithes and offerings. You are under a curse--the whole nation of you--because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the Lord Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it. I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not cast their friut," says the Lord Almighty. Mal. 3:8-12 NIV

"Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone." Luke 11:42

NEW COVENANT giving:

"Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. . . . Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness. You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God." 2 Cor. 9:6-8, 10-11 NIV

"And here is my advice about what is best for you in this matter: Last year you were the first not only to give but also to have the desire to do so. Now finish the work, so that your eager willingness to do it may be matched by your completion of it, according to your means. For if the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what he does not have. Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality." 2 Cor. 8:10-13 NIV

One of the most severe curses in the history of Chrisitian teaching is the attempt to bind the conscience with guilt-giving. This manipulative dogma has been preached continuously in every sect and professed non-sect. What answer shall we give to those who demand a large portion of our money as a legal requirement of the gospel?

The most common (though not exclusive) dogma of guilt-giving is that of the tithe. We have those who preach single-tithe, double-tithe (Joseph demanded one-fifth, right?) and even triple-tithe (the Worldwide Church of God, until the last few years when it changed). Virtually all of the tithing 'requirements' are directed to a particular church, organization, or preacher that supposedly has the God-ordained 'appointment' to collect and utilize it.

Many denominations considered 'orthodox' are absolutely dogmatic about tithing as a Christian duty. It is often preached that "if you are going to come here and be a part of this work of God, the changeless law of the Lord demands a tenth of your gross income." That means it is to be given nowhere else except to that local non-profit corporation. Otherwise, one is accused of robbing God--which implies a serious doubt of salvation. This is not occurring in one isolated congregation--but in virtually all of those in a particular denomination. Including those who claim to be 'liberated' from vain tradition. The seminaries train the ministers to preach it as a 'must.'

It has been taught publicly by 'televangelists' that only those who tithe will be in heaven. No exceptions. If one listens carefully, it is clear that the required giving involves more than 10% of gross income and is to be given only to teachers who supposedly have everything straight. There are an infinite number of examples. An arrogant, institutional churchianity of many centuries has thrived and prospered in proportion to how much it has preached guilt-giving.

What shall we say about the old Mosaic tithing law? Well, it doesn't even resemble the tithing preached in churches today. Not in the slightest. What we have is another reinterpretation in an attempt to impose law-covenant requirements in the age of the gospel. Let us review the other items that persons have 'recast' to attempt bringing them into the grace-covenant:

1. Sunday rest as the Sabbath of the fourth commandment (or, in some cases, a continuation of Saturday).

2. Water baptism 'for the remission of sins' as a new covenant of circumcision.

3. The church building and institution to replace the temple and synagogue.

4. The clergy/laity distinction and one-bishop rule to replace the priesthood.

Another Item is the gross reinterpretation (at best) of the Mosaic tithing requirement under discussion. It is a direct slap in the face to what Paul taught about giving. Finally, it is a return to the former elements of the law that condemn and drive men into sin. It should be rejected totally as a vain regulation that demands contempt for our liberty in Christ.

The tithe required in Deut. 14 can be summarized as follows:

1. It was agricultural only and did not apply to money at all.

2. It was on the 'increase' only.

3. Only the tithe of every third year was given to the Levite. This gift also had to be shared with the strangers in the land, orphans, and widows.

4. The tithe of the other two years was stored up for thanksgiving celebrations. It could be exchanged for money if an appointed place of worship was too-distant. Upon arrival at the appointed place, the money could be spent on any party supplies that were desired. We must keep in mind, though, that this was a party 'unto the Lord' and not one for sheer pleasure and drunkenness.

5. It is likely that more produce and meat was burned than was given to the Levites and the poor. If the usual practice of sacrifice in the former covenant was followed, any excess of the increase tithe in the two years would have been burned to the Lord as an offering. I can picture some persons with wide-open mouths replying with Judas, 'why this waste?' God's ways are not our ways.

6. A great blessing was pronounced on those who were faithful to this law.

The 'blessing' of Deut. 14 and that of Mal. 3 are exactly same thing: Malachi is repeating Moses. It is a very great distortion to isolate Malachi 3 as a grace-covenant requirement for God's people today.

Well, by now it probably seems that God did not require a lot in the former covenant in terms of giving. Very true. Additional offerings beyond the tithe were encouraged but not required.

In the covenant of grace, we have an infinitely better motive for giving than under the law. Our basis is the joy of the gospel. God doesn't state an amount that he requires: we are to give in proportion to the blessings of the gospel in our lives. Additionally, there is no one proper recipient of our gifts. It can be the Christian education of our children, a worthy Christian ministry, a local congregation or pastor faithful to the gospel, Christians in true need, or a ministry of one's own. Even a party to reach the unsaved. Christ said to make friends for eternity by using unrighteous mammon.
 
From the PCA Book of Church Order:

CHAPTER 54

The Worship of God by Offerings

54-1. The Holy Scriptures teach that God is the owner of all persons and all things and that we are but stewards of both life and possessions; that God´s ownership and our stewardship should be acknowledged; that this acknowledgement should take the form, in part, of giving at least a tithe of our income and other offerings to the work of the Lord through the Church of Jesus Christ, thus worshipping the Lord with our possessions; and that the remainder should be used as becomes Christians.

54-2. It is both a privilege and a duty, plainly enjoined in the Bible, to make regular, weekly, systematic and proportionate offerings for the support of religion and for the propagation of the Gospel in our own and foreign lands, and for the relief of the poor. This should be done as an exercise of grace and an act of worship, and at such time during the service as may be deemed expedient by the Session.

54-3. It is appropriate that the offerings be dedicated by prayer.
 
54-2. It is both a privilege and a duty, plainly enjoined in the Bible, to make regular, weekly, systematic and proportionate offerings for the support of religion and for the propagation of the Gospel in our own and foreign lands, and for the relief of the poor. This should be done as an exercise of grace and an act of worship, and at such time during the service as may be deemed expedient by the Session.



The above rarely happens. Instead our giving is used to support the heat and an overpaid pastor. His house, His car, etc etc...
 
Originally posted by The Lamb
The above rarely happens. Instead our giving is used to support the heat and an overpaid pastor. His house, His car, etc etc...

Yet another issue overall that needs to be addressed. Not only *should* tithing be required, but also *for what purpose*.

Should not the pastor be paid from the tithe? Muzzle an oxe an the like? Or are you against overpaying them? I think there is another thread on this if I remember right...
 
Well I am against a "law binding" tithe.

10% of our collection goes to the poor

75% to salaries and perks

10% to missions

5% to deacons fund


So I believe what the confession says is supposed to be done with it does not happen
 
If you believe your church mismanages its funds, I would consider the necessity of going somewhere else--somewhere that you can go where Christ is not publicly scandalized by poor stewarship.

If this is not an option, then I suggest designated giving--only give to the deacon's fund (if that's where you think the money ought to go). Or only give designated funds for missionary enterprise. Personally de-fund your overpaid minister. Vote with your dollars or your feet.

But if others give to support the minister, or other things you don't agree with, remember, everyone is giving individually "as he has decided in his heart to give," and every other person has to respect that. The general fund is going to get divided up as the session or consistatory determines (or the congregation voted at the annual meeting, whatever the rules say). If you've done what you can and still don't like it--either uproot the bitterness, leave it in God's hands, and resolve to remain undisturbed by the matter; or find a new place where you can give your gifts with a clear conscience.

I'll just add here at the end that in my view, unlike the everlastingly binding moral law of say, Sabbath keeping, tithing is a biblical principle, which I distinguish from a law or commandment. Tithing is a matter of discipline. It was enforced as a law under the OT administration because the whole nation was the visible church in its minority (by which I mean "under age" and not "of age," which is how Paul puts it in Galatians 4:1f). With freedom comes responsibility. What was the discipline under the OT supposed to teach? Does the adult cast off the benefits of the discipline he learned as a child? Only the fool does.

Today God is not is the business of micromanaging the finances of his children. "OK, 10% of your allowance here, 20% there, 5% for candy and comic books." That was then, this is now. Now we are like the servants given the several talents from the Master. "Here you go. I'll be back in a while and we'll go over the books." Tithing taught discipline, and it also pointed to the fact that all that we have and are is owned--lock, stock, and barrel-- by God. And there is a day of reckoning.
 
There is a lot more that can be said on the subject of tithing. As a former deacon speaking, I believe it is a moral principle (first seen in the story of Cain and Abel, continued with Abraham, spoken of by Malachi and Paul, etc.) that is binding today. I do not believe it is an element of worship (therefore, it should take place on the Lord's Day, but not in worship). It is to be done cheerfully. The minister is worthy of his labor and should be rewarded accordingly. The diaconal ministry is another primary place where tithes should go. There are additional excellent resources to be found here.

[Edited on 5-26-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
 
I am not sure this is what Bruce meant, but I have to disagree. The Christian who designates all his giving is in rebellion. Period. No Session should permit that. It is the task of the elders (together with the deacons' input) to determine the Church's stewardship of funds. Would we allow each congregant to be a law unto himself with respect to other areas of church government? Excommunications? Submission to pastors? Teaching? No. But we would allow them to be a law unto themselves with funds.

Whether it is a tithe or a NT freewill offering (makes no difference to me, for if anything the NT demands are higher than the tithe) the resources are the Lord's, and the proper authority established by the Lord for the building up of the Kingdom is the Church. And the proper authority over the Church is the elders, duly chosen and elected by the congregation.

Anything less is rebellion.
 
:amen: to what Fred said.

It would be arrogant on my part if I were to arbitrarily decide what is the best use of the Lord's tithe.
 
Originally posted by crhoades
Wasn't sure to place this under Ecclesiology, Law, or Worship...

What are PB'ers views of the tithe?
Binding/Non-binding?
Has it passed away in the New Covenant to replaced with good will offerings?
Should non-tithing members of a church be addressed by the session? if so, how?
Since it was part of the OT priesthood under the Mosaic Covenant, has it now passed away because it was a shadow?
Are OT sanctions still applicable?
What are the confessions and church practices regarding it?
What were the reformers/puritans views of it?

If I may, I'd like to return back to Chris's original questions. I'd like to know the answers to them also, especially the third question and the last two.
 
In response to Fred's statement and conclusion, I would say/ask:

1) I would not expect a properly submissive, intelligent, and contented churchgoer to fail to concede to his session their lawful authority, and honor the approved budget, and give in the general offering without (too much?) designations. But, how much discontent (from wrongdoing) is to be tolerated or endured, and just gone-along-with?

2) How much "designation" is too much? On what ground is that determination made?

3) As to the "rebellion" part, I agree that rebellion can be involved in a person's stance vis-a-vis his giving (which is one reason I did not endorse the Lamb's position, but pointed out the obligation he had to his conscience, and to respect the consciences of others), But further I must ask: where does the principle apply: "While it was in your hand, was it not fully at your disposal?" (Acts 5:4)

4) The history of our Presbyterian church is replete with records of defunding--by committed Christians choosing to "obey God rather than men." In Machen's case, it led to his conviction and defrocking, for contumacy. But he was undoubtedly in the right, and the PCUSA undoubtedly sinful and wrong in their procedures against him.

5) What I think is needed somewhere in the principle Fred advocates is a worked-out set of criteria for determining how far off the mark any church body has to be before our own duties to God must be folowed, and the demands of the leadership ignored in His favor.


Fred, now here's my comment:
I think that the "rebellion" part is only explicable if you accept the moral regulation, that is LAW of tithing, and that that tithe is literally NOT your property, but (whether given or not) is the church's property, thus wholly eliminating the individual giver's discretion. I would argue that in this view there must be some % (which would ordinarily be the advocated tithe), only beyond which may, possibly, an argument be made for discretionary giving.

In other words, under the threat of "rebellion," it could be declared that ALL monies, without exception, even above the tithe, must to be given to the local church to be used as only the leadership determine. Only sessional approved "allowances" for designated giving would constitute legitimate individual choice or discretion. (i.e. "We say you may choose to give up to x amount of your tithe, or y amout of the total beyond your tithe, to either A, B, or C, or a combination of all three). Do you see with me how legalistic this has to become in order to even permit designations at all? ALL designations become suspect--"Are our 'critical' categories getting shorted by this manner of giving? Hmmmmm."

I would further argue that what this sort of view demands, is the kind of legislative regulation, found in the Old Testament, and repeated in the New. But this is precisely what is lacking in the New Testament. But, supposing it could be found, one must find THE TITHE per se demanded, and barring some further specificly regulated % allowed for "discretionary giving," NO discretionary giving is allowed to be TAKEN OUT OF that tithe. Otherwise, how do you determine if you've failed to give the requisite "portion" of the tithe over to the discretion of the Session?

Thus, I find that this principle is the necessary conclusion of the position you advocated : NO DISCRETIONARY GIVING ALLOWED unless it comes out of the 90% "discretionary" income supposed to remain at a person's disposal after the tithe. Of course, all or most of these problems are obviated if one denies that giving is regulated by law in the New Testament. This does not turn church government on its head (as I believe, Fred, you think it does). The church controls fully what has been given to it generally. And there is plenty of that, and will always be plenty of that in a well-ordered church. And they are responsible--Yea, it is the height of godly stewardship--to honor the designations of the people. Acts 5:4 is emminently applicable to ALL church giving. And the parable of the talents, Mt. 25:14ff. And 2 Cor. 9, esp. v. 7. And 1 Cor. 16:2.


For an historic defense of the alternative view that I subscribe to (or one very similar), I encourage you to read--and hopefully pray that you shall read--Professor T.E. Peck (a good southern Presbyterian), Collected Writings, vol. 1, "On the Moral Obligation of the Tithe." (Banner of Truth)
 
Bruce,

To answer quickly - time presses right now - I believe that the NT places a greater responsibility on the believer in the area of money, just as it does in every other area of life (to whom much is given... )

Therefore, while I will not go to the mat for a continuation of the OT tithe (Owen would not either), I see the tithe as the base for Christian free-will giving. The Christian is called to give above and beyond the OT, as is seen in the offerings for the tabernacle.

I agree that there are certain, narrowly defined circumstances in which a Christian may by conscience refuse to fund something. The example of Machen is relevant. He sought to redirect his funds away from activities that worked against the gospel. I have found that 99.99999999% of "designated" giving bears no relationship to this. It is all about what I want, what I think the church should do, what I think is important ministry - as the Lamb's post proves. He has decided based on his own authority - and without ANY facts as to what the minister's real needs are - that "ministers are paid too much." I stand by my statement.

My belief has been as follows:

1. The Christian must give at least 10% of his income to the local assembly for the building up of the Kingdom (the tithe principle)

2. Because the NT requires more than the OT, he should give more, either to the church, or missionaries, or other ministris he deems important.

3. The church determines what is best to do with all funds given to it. The sole exception that I would make to this would be designations to a building fund that I was assured were over and above 10% (why? because a building fund is as close a church gets to a separate ministry)

4. The elders (with the consulation of the deacons and the congregation being informed - no secrets) are the proper ones to determine how the church's funds are to be spent.

To move away from this is to invite chaos. What if someone designates funds for "scholarships" to the local Billy Graham crusade? For a mission trip with a left wing social justice group? For the Message version of Bibles? I could go on and on, and these are not fairy tales.
 
A very helpful book is Gary North's Tithing and the Church http://www.freebooks.com/docs/21a6_47e.htm

I do recommend it with a couple of reservations. He does make a strong case for the abiding validity of the tithe being binding because it is not traced back to the Mosaic covenenat but rather to Melchizadek... I would be interested for others to read this book and critique it. It is what led me to ask the above questions in the first place. I have handed it to my pastor as well.

The second part is an interesting expose behind recontructionism and the points North disagreed with Rushdoony...For what it's worth.
 
Fred,
Thanks for the response. And I'd say more but I too will be brief, for I have other stuff on the plate also. I agree that the tithe is a starting point for NT giving. I think we differ somewhat (a little bit) on how exactly that principle is grounded in this age. And I think that, apart from the hypothetical "applications" I made, my analysis (above) is not far off the mark from the way you've described your position.

Unless the church monitors its parishoner's paychecks, I can't see how a church that demands the tithe with no strings attached can accept any designated giving without inviting unanswerable questions. So, for all practical purposes, the church must either accept such gifts and so designate them, or tell the people it will not generally accede to such "requests" or "suggestions," and they shouldn't expect their wishes to be granted.

I know the kinds of causes to wich you refer (in the last paragraph). As one who thinks designations should be honored if made, I would return the gift (if it had a named giver), and tell them in the church's name we would not be supporting that "ministry," and why not. If the gift was anonymous, I would ignore the "suggestion" and place the funds entirely at the Session's disposal.

Entirely beside our exchange, I would be interested to know if you had ever read Peck's essay, and how it compared with other materials you have read on the subject of tithing, how it might affect your thinking, etc. It's not well known, but I wish it were...

Peace,
 
Bruce,

I can't remember if I read Peck. I think I have, but I will check again.

I also think you are correct about not accepting designated offerings. My approach would be (and this was our policy at Grace) to let the congregation know that we did not accept designated offerings, except in specific circumstances and with certain provisions (being over and above). If a designated offering was given, we would decline it.
 
It occurred to me that tithing is not mentioned in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Why do you suppose that is? How did the early reformed churches raise money?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top