« Missionary Appointment Service | Main | Prayers for the Kaufman Family »
Tim Guthrie: Moving Forward…Part 4b
Posted by Robin Foster | April 11, 2008
The Money Facts
…and so we continue. When one deals with the structure of the flow of money one cannot get away from the two hot topics that we mentioned in the previous section.
What percentage should a church give to the CP?
and
What percentage should the state conventions keep?
A church is referred to in scripture as the storehouse. It is the place that the tithes and offerings are to be brought. No where can we find the Bible advocating that the church tithe. We Southern Baptists through the years have tried to make that connection and to some degree sold the idea to those who are considered Senior Adults today. I challenge the worth of that approach and I also challenge the idea that it will make a big difference in total money.
One, it is adding to Scripture with man’s ideas to think that it is a good idea for the church to tithe. Simple reasoning would cause us to ask the question “to whom should the church tithe?” No answer can be given. One man several years ago challenged this idea and said that the church was to set an example for the families in the church by tithing. Nice approach yet not Biblical. The church is the people! So the people need to tithe and not the corporate church. We Pastors need to return to preaching and teaching stewardship without fear. If we stay with the Biblical role of individuals tithing and giving above the tithe–their offerings, we could do so much more. Teach it and DO IT! Lead by example.
It is at this point that we experience the SBC idea that is often floated about the 10% rule. It goes something like this: “Just think what we could do if all gave 10% to the CP. The megas alone could change the CP if they would give 10% like the rest.”
Now I realize that this has been stated and shouted for years. Yet the fact is, the megas would not be able to give what they do give if they abandoned their giving approach and adopted the 10% rule. Why? They would not be reaching and ministering to the same number of people. Caution, however, must be understood here. I believe it is a sin for a church to only give 2 to 3 % to missions due to unbalanced “fluff” ministries and staff positions. So balance is needed, I believe, and practicing such balance. Our church does give at the current time 11% to CP and total missions giving surpasses $145,000 per year.
A church needs to give to missions, yet it must also not allow the ministries and reach of the local church to be affected. We have many small churches who give 13 to 17% and cannot hire the staff nor fund ministries to reach people in their own cities. Those churches are fading out and will die. They are not helping the CP or missions. We need strong churches reaching people and discipling them in all areas (including stewardship) in order to fund the needed resources for missions. This is one fact that we in the SBC had better grasp, and quickly. Think about it. I would rather have 6% from a church with a $800,000 budget, that is growing and discipling, than I would have 13% from a church with a $230,000 budget that is approaching death.
Now take the same thought and apply it to the state and associational levels. What are we doing to reach people vs. maintaining the structure. It is true that some local associations have made huge strides in re-thinking their role. I firmly believe that the state level must also do the same. Yes, a few have. Yet, I still ask “What happened to the original 50/50 standard?”
Some say the SBC is too fat. I challenge you to prove that. What organization is too fat at the National Level? Little of the % of money that gets to the SBC stays in the national organization. Yet, if one looks at the state level (not all) you will find buildings galore, huge payrolls, programs and costs that few use and more. Yes, there are those who will immediately decry this part. Prove me wrong. Add up the costs to maintain all that the typical state has. You could surely find ways to streamline and put the money into reaching people.
Remember the idea about advertising? You can add to that many more effective outreach tools and real helps. I think that the SBC needs to operate more like a fine tuned lean convention rather than a US Government-looking structure that never can get enough money.
More to come…
Topics: Cooperation, Cooperative Program, Guest Author, IMB Issues |
April 11th, 2008 at 5:49 am
Tim G,
You use the same reductionist methodologies to present your case here as does the emerging church movement in presenting its case against modernity.
You make these statements as facts without data to prove them. Yet, you demand someone to prove you are wrong.
At best, this is your opinion. At worst, it is not a good one.
Tim G, It is time for you to address Dave’s questions to you and deal with it properly. You have not really answered him. You said we would discuss these issues.
Several things have arisen in these comment threads that you have simply ignored.
I do appreciate your efforts here, but your reactions are more like that of a person in the emerging church movement rather than a SBC guy.
cb
April 11th, 2008 at 7:14 am
A couple things. I think the “storehouse” referred to in scripture where tithes are brought is the Jewish temple, not the church.
Second point. I’m happy if people tithe, but tithing as some sort of Christian duty or rule is, in the opinion of many Christians in and out of the SBC, not biblically supported.
I do agree that SBC churches should be good stewards of what they receive and are accountable to God for how they use His money, but they are not obligated to tithe to the SBC. They ARE the SBC.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:46 am
I don’t have the numbers for 2007 handy but I actually did a blog post regarding our churches giving for the 2006 year last March so I looked it up in my archives to share that here.
20% total that comes in goes straight to missions: 12% to the Cooperative Program, 3% to Yuma SBC association, 3% to CrossRoads Mission, 1% to NewLife Pregnancy Center, and 1% to AZ Baptist Children’s Association. Our small church gave over $105,000 to mission causes, including Katrina Relief that year… you can figure out our intake with a bit of multiplication on your part. We probably average about 200 but don’t quote me on that. We have lots of winter visiters and so our numbers, and finances, fluctuate greatly between winter and summer.
Our treasurer writes these checks on Monday morning before our bills are paid. There is a reason for this. The #1 thing is that we are commanded to tithe and this is what our church has determined as our percentages. Many years ago (before my family were members), the church was meeting in the fellowship hall to save money on electricity. One of our wise, elderly women stood up at a business meeting and told everyone that until we got our act together and quit worrying about money and let God really be in control of it, we would never be able to meet anywhere but the fellowship hall (or something like that). The church determined that night to step out on faith and they raised their giving to somewhere about 12 or 13% and increased the giving every year after that until they reached the 20% mark. Bills are paid after our giving commitments because we trust God to provide for all our needs on top of our giving.
Ms Gladys was very wise and correct. Our giving, individually and cooperatively, must come from a complete change of heart as to who the money really belongs to. Whether a church has thousands of members, hundreds of members, or tens of members is not what is important. What is important is that they each seek God’s will and put their trust in Him. Only then can God be glorified and growth abound.
God bless,
Sallie
April 11th, 2008 at 7:56 am
1) Where does scripture refer to the church as the storehouse?
Malachi 3:10 was written hundreds of years before Pentecost.
2) Forcing churches to tithe is adding man’s ideas?
The whole Cooperative Program is “man’s idea.” I like it, but it is not revealed in scripture. My church leads our state year after year in CP giving (small state, but…). But it is all man’s ideas.
I love the SBC, but much of what we do is man’s ideas, not revealed in scripture. Why apply this standard to 10% giving.
3) The entire discussion fails to understand SBC polity.
We are autonomous, and the denomination cannot mandate or even “strongly suggest” a giving amount. It is voluntary.
4) It is a sin for a church to give only 2 or 3 percent?
A sin? Sin? To say you disagree with it - your right. To call it sin is to slander people with whom you disagree, but who have the right to make conscientious decisions under the Lordship of Christ.
5) “yet it must also not allow the ministries and reach of the local church to be affected.”
The idea that giving to CP missions would negatively affect a church’s ministries has not been my experience. Giving generously usually brings greater blessing.
6) Are you suggesting that only healthy churches should give to the Cooperative program, or that older, plateaued or declining churches do not help the SBC by their giving?
You said, “They are not helping the CP or missions.” That is a complete misunderstanding of the concept of the CP. It is the widow’s mite of small churches that supports the CP, not just the shiny shekels of the megachurches.
To say that the small, struggling churches do not help the CP or the missions program is unconscionable.
You might want to think through some of this, Tim.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:22 am
A Tennessee pastor was helping my previous church on a mission trip. He made the following statement. (Nearly a quote)
“There are two kinds of churches. There are big churches that are doing God’s work and there are little churches that are doing nothing.”
In some of your comments, I can hear the faint echo of his beatification of the Big Church.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Brother Tim,
The Apostle Paul was making his way back to Jerusalem and along the way he met Barnabas at another house where they worshipped with the church and then Paul says to Peter, “Hey, we need to collect some additional chrēma for the sake of those suffering for the gospel in Jerusalem, because there is great need.
Tim, the real answer to your question is “whatever it takes”! There are no percentages worthy of discussion. We as Christians seem to have lost the sense of ministry, the guiding of the Spirit, the real reason we are ministers of the gospel of God. The important thing about the discussion on chrēma is “what is being done”, not “how much”. We simply need to collect what is necessary.
The SBC has somehow fallen into a corporate budgeting mindset that gives some sort of kudos to churches that give certain percentages. That is just whimsical nonsense. It is not biblical. It is not Christian. It is certainly not how the Apostle Paul approached the gospel at all.
The money thing with the SBC is a big distraction. One thing is certain, ….There is a lot more money in the pockets of those that associate with the SBC than is given to the gospel ministry. Who needs the money? Why do they? Where is the suffering? If church members took the time to know the answers to those questions,…. Giving to the gospel worldwide would be up threefold!
Blessings,
Chris
April 11th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Let’s see,
1. cb, I did answer Daves questions.
2. My recommendation about % amount was what is seen in churches (non and SBC) and proven over the years as healthy. It was not my mandate. Not my words.
3. To not tithe is sin. The New Testement raised it from 10% to beyond. The minimum of 10% was never removed nor was it ever negated.
4. Please re-read my part about a church approaching death vs. a church that is growing. It is a proven fact all over the convention. I did negate the use of the money, just stated a fact that if we could help them to get healthy, the ability of a small church reaching people would have years of mission support in it’s future vs. death.
5. No echo of “Big Church” only. Just fact of what even Dr. Page said at the Small church conference.
Dave, I did not say we force man to tithe. I did say that we should teach the principle and live it. It is biblical.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Brother CB,
I am not Tim G. and I know that he can defend himself. However, I cannot leave this one alone. You say; “You make these statements as facts without data to prove them. Yet, you demand someone to prove you are wrong.” After reading his article, for the life of me, I cannot find the statements he has made as facts without any data. Could you point me to them?
Brother Bill,
Same first sentence to you that I wrote to Brother CB. :>) You write; “but tithing as some sort of Christian duty or rule is, in the opinion of many Christians in and out of the SBC, not biblically supported. Would you not agree that Malachi 3:10 would be something Paul had in mind when he wrote 2 Corinthians 8-9? Now, I will agree that we are speaking of a specific offering here. Paul, if you remember, in 1 Corinthians 16:2 reminds the church that they were to set aside (give) this amount on the first day of the week. While the New Testament does not specifically state that we are supposed to give 10% (a tithe) it certainly does not advocate closing the books of the Old Testament.
Sister Sallie,
Sounds like Ms. Gladys’ words of wisdom has served your local congregation well.
Brother Dave,
In your #1; are you advocating no supporting your local church with your tithes and offerings?
In your #2 & #3; I believe you need to re-read Brother Tim’s post.
In your #4; I believe you have pulled that completely out of context. It appears to me that Brother Tim is saying that a church of 1000 that has 300 ministerial staff members and 200 support staff members and has a Worship Center that seats 4000 and Educational space for 5000 and gives 2 to 3% to missions would be in sin.
In your #5; Once again you appear to be quote mining. I remember in my first church, they could only afford to pay me so much. I accepted and agreed to the amount. I was single and quite honestly could afford to live off of the salary that a married couple with children could not. However, they were specifically looking for a single person for that very reason. You know what? They could afford to pay the salary for a Pastor with a family. But, they wouldn’t because back in 1952 when they completed their facility they began paying 200 per month into a Building Fund for the next sanctuary. They had $800k in the bank in 1991, when I came. They were only giving $3k per year to CP and $2k for Lottie Moon and $1k for Annie Armstrong, which was part of a $50k The pastor salary was $11k, and they had a bulletin budget of $2k. The rest of the budget was to pay insurance, lights, heating, and then we had to save for a rainy day. I believe that is what Brother Tim is speaking of concerning giving 12% to missions but not reaching their community.
As for #6; I have absolutely no idea what you are referencing. Sorry.
All of this to say, I believe Brother Tim G. is making some valid points. It seems that some are using CP giving and Missions giving synonymously, thus causing others to miss the point.
Blessings,
Tim
April 11th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Brother Tim,
It looks like you and I were posting at the same time. I hope I did not disagree with you. But, if I did, then I guess we disagree. :>)
Blessings,
Tim
April 11th, 2008 at 9:26 am
tim r,
you are correct. good job.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Tim R,
I don’t think I was quote mining. Tim G has a habit of making statements against others, then, when challenged, he basically says that is not what he said.
I referenced the quotes to establish what he said.
Some of your comments make me wonder if you even read what I said.
1) Tim said that the church is identified as a storehouse. I just pointed out that there is no scripture that makes that point.
If you want to call the church the storehouse, fine. Just don’t say that the Bible says that. The storehouse in Malachi 3 was an actual storehouse - a storage bin outside the temple.
Your inference borders on the ridiculous. I give through the local church and encourage others to do the same. But Tim was using a scripture out of context, then calling church-tithing a “man-made idea.” Can’t you see the irony?
2&3) I think my inferences and interpretations are accurate to what he said.
4) What you described would be a miracle, not a sin.
My point is that Tim has no right to decide for everyone else what giving level is a sin and what isn’t.
He has decided who is and is not a liberal. Now, he wants to determine which churches are in sin and which are not.
It is not his right to impose his opinions as the will of God.
5) My point is simple - investing in missions is a good idea for everyone, not just healthy churches or big churches.
6) If you read Tim’s post, you might understand my comment #6.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:16 am
I noticed that you did ntdo toucht the “storehouse” comments.
1. Does the SBC teach the “priesthood of every believer”? If so, then it should not teach tithing. The OT priest who received the tithes has been replaced, not by pastors, but by every believer.
2. Does the SBC teach that the OT Temple which had a storehouse for some of the tithes (not all- Neh 10:37b) has been replaced with the Temple of the body of every believer? If so, then again the doctrine of NT tithing is wrong.
3. I have been attempting for 8 years to get some high level SBC leader to enter dialog with me on tithing and they all run for the hills. Put on your running shoes. I can prove from the SBC’s own web site that it did not teach tithing until the 1963 Faith and Mesage and that it did not even attempt to teach tithing before 1895. It is a new and a false doctrine for the church.
4. I have not found a single OT tithing principle which is taught in the NT church. I have been interviewed by Moody Broadcasting, the Wall Street Journal, Charisma Magazine and CBS News and still nobody wants to defend the SBC position.
http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id39.html
5. My web site has a 19 point essay and I challenge yu to refute even one of them if you are so right and I am so wrong. My PHD thesis was on the subject and there are many SBC theologians who agree with me.
http://www.shouldthechurchteachtithing.com
In Christ’s love for the truth
Russ Kelly
April 11th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Tim G:
Do you tell your church members they are sinning if they do not tithe?
April 11th, 2008 at 10:40 am
I haven’t read Mr. Kelly’s writings, but I agree with him at least in part.
There is no New Testament teaching on tithing. The key NT teaching on giving (2 Cor. 8-9) never even mentions tithing.
However, I object when some (don’t know about Mr. Kelly) use that as an excuse to give paltry sums.
The NT standard is not tithing, but cheerful and generous giving that demonstrates a heart of love for Christ. That is way more than moving a decimal point and writing a check.
2 Corinthians 9:7 says it clearly. Each of us should give WHAT WE DECIDE to give, not a preset amount.
However, the Macedonian standard is giving “as much as they were able and even beyond their ability” out of “severe poverty” and “overwhelming persecution.”
To me, NT giving goes far beyond the 10% standard. Sacrificial, intense, joyful giving as an expression of love for Christ, not adherence to a legalistic standard - that is the NT ethic.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Tim G,
As a pastor and advocate of the small church, I did not view your post as having a “big church” bias. I understand your thoughts about the huge amounts larger churches give irregardless of percentages and I am grateful for their support.
I am a supporter of “stroehouse tithing.” I believe it to be biblical and have preached a sermon series on it. You give me something to think about when you say that the concept of a “church” tithing is not biblical. Without having researched it, my sense is that you are correct, however I am willing to keep my options open on that issue.
Thank you for a thought-provoking post.
Les
April 11th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Les, I support storehouse giving as well, just like I support the CP.
They are workable options to accomplish God’s work. They are NOT biblical mandates.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Tim G,
I do agree with your last statement….
“I think that the SBC needs to operate more like a fine tuned lean convention rather than a US Government-looking structure that never can get enough money.”
The problem is that the SBC and its entities have in the past paid more attention to market pressures than ministry needs and have been led that direction. I know these things first hand….my wife worked professionally at the BSSB, now named Lifeway, for over 20 years and she and I have personally viewed the increase in worldly corporate philosophy and lack of biblical leadership within the organization. Basically, the business pursued at Lifeway is a function of the world’s expectations and what works best to sell product. IMHO the BSSB was dramatically more effective and had more meaningful impact in churches 30-40 years ago. The materials now are certainly more “glossy”, but lack “biblical doctrine”. “Great taste less filling”…..as some have said. I know there are well meaning individuals trying to steer Lifeway back to a more biblical foundation, but it has a long way to travel in one stationwagon.
Lifeway is just one example of how leadership can impact the bottom line of the convention. It will continue to be a struggle for the SBC to define itself as something less than a “US Government-looking structure”, without a wholesale change in philosophy which boils down to a wholesale change in leadership.
There are some that get it….but they are the minority party.
Blessings,
Chris
April 11th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Paul said to give cheerfully and not out of obligation. He gave instructions on how to receive offerings which is fine, but he doesn’t contradict himself. The church receives offerings given cheerfully and without obligation. To say that not tithing is a sin necessarily means that tithing is an obligation.
Also, if we are not going to close the books on the OT as someone said, then Christians are obligated not only to tithe their money, but their livestock and crops (those that have them).
The church should preach sacrificial giving. And stewardship, for those are clearly and unequivocally NT principles. Tithing is not.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Tim G.,
The tithing question is an easy one…. Tithing is not a requirement of the new covenant. Any pastor misses the mark when they attempt to teach tithing as the standard of giving to the Christian church.
What we have been given in the new covenant is of much greater value than a tithe, and the response or duty to the gospel eclipses the small requirement of the Law.
Philippians 4:13-19 I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. (14) Nevertheless, you have done well to share with me in my affliction. (15) You yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone; (16) for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs. (17) Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account. (18) But I have received everything in full and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God. (19) And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus.
The scent of a tithe quickly looses is aroma compared to the riches of Christ in the new covenant church. Church members that begin to understand how their needs are supplied, have no problem being a liberal giver for the sake of the gospel which truly reveals “the profit that increases to their account”.
Blessings,
Chris
April 11th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
#14 Dave
In 1 Cor. 9:13-14 Paul is saying that the Corinthian church should support him because he is a minister of the Word. Then he appeals to the OT system of tithing as his model and authoritative support. As the temple tithe supported the priest, the church tithe supports the minister.
I agree it is not a mandate. But is it a “principle” in the NT?
#19 Chris,
“Any pastor misses the mark when they attempt to teach tithing…” Did the Great Shepard miss the mark, Matthew 23:23?
Rick
April 11th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Rick, may I point out that the new covenant was enacted AFTER Mt. 23:23 and that the church was established in Acts 2. Jesus is clearly instructing PHARISEES on how to follow the Mosaic law. It was not an instruction to the New Testament church.
Why, Rick, is there not a single church-directed teaching on tithing? Why does every teaching of the apostles on giving neglect to mention tithing?
Chris is absolutely right. The NT standard of giving is as almost as much beyond the OT standard as the sacrifice of Christ is superior to the OT sacrificial system.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Dave,
Not trying to pick a fight. But, what is your interpretation of I Cor. 9:13-14?
Are you suggesting that the words after the New Covenant are surpassing, more clear, or better than the words of Jesus in the gospels?
Rick
April 11th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
The teachings of the apostles are God’s specific directions for the church (sorry, my mild, limited dispensationalism is showing). They are not superior to the teachings of Jesus, they are just more directly pointed at us.
I am not sure what your question is about 1 Corinthians 9:13-14. It seems a pretty straightforward teaching. As the priests of the OT drew their living from the grain offerings of the people, those who lead the church should derive their living from the church offerings.
He is defending his right to draw a living from the offerings of the people.
The passage says nothing about tithing.
I am not sure I get your point?
By the way, I love theological discussion, as long as it focuses on ideas and does not devolve to the kind of derogation of character that some resort to.
I would love to hear what you are infering from that passage, because I am not seeing anything that applies to this discussion.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
edit: “grain offerings and meat offerings”
April 11th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Russ Kelley,
Priesthood (1) The body of those who represent God and give His instructions to people as well as interceding with God and offering sacrifices to Him; (2) all believers for whom Christ has opened the way for personal intercession with God and responsibility to represent God to the world. Ex 19:6; 1 Pe 2:5; Rev 1:6.
Priesthood of believers The belief that every Christian has direct access to God through Christ without a human mediator and that every Christian is to serve as a priest on behalf of others.
In His Name
Wayne
April 11th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Tim Rogers,
I was sure you go after me over the reductionist statement relating to Tim G’s methodologies for this research.
I was sure you would correct Tim G about storehouse tithing not being a NT concept.
You are slipping. Or it may be that you are intending to have your name nominated as President of the SBC by Bart Barber?
Tim G,
I tend to strongly agree with Dave and Chris here. A Christian should give joyfully in actual proportion to how God has blessed them to give. That is way beyond a tithe.
Where do you get the idea that having a church tithe 10% is a senior adult thing. The cat in Greensboro who was pushing that was not a senior adult. Most senior adults would laugh at you for that statement.
In that statement you, again, sound like an emerging church guy rather than a SBC guy.
Tim Rogers can disagree all he wants to, but you are not using enough data to make this post be anything more than an opinion.
Tim G, If every church in the SBC gave 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, etc, there would be far more money in the CP than there is presently.
I just can’t help but think you are catering to certain party lines in this portion of the post. Most all mega, large, middle, and small churches could do better than they do in CP support.
Some are doing what they should. Some are doing too much (at the expense of not taking proper care of their pastors). Most could do better.
Tim G, you are giving some Mega-churches a pass. Using your rationale about a healthy church let me ask you the following:
Is a mega-church with 11,000 members with averages of 1,800 in Sunday School any more healthy that a church with 400 members with averages of 170 in Sunday School?
The mega-church gives less than 1% to the CP while the small church gives 27% to the CP. The mega-church baptized 97 people in 2007. The small church baptized 20 in 2007
The mega-church gave more dollars to the CP than the small church. That is a fact. But is it more healthy?
Tim G, you are using reductionist methodologies to make your point. You are not using adequate research methods to collect data to make this post any more that your opinion.
cb
April 11th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
BTW, SBC TODAY guys,
Can you get some anti-spam words like: mean, nasty, hateful, dirty, pagan, hoodlum, etc. we can use when we want to rag real hard on someone.
These Christian virtue words make me feel guilty all the time.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Brother Rick,
Matthew 23:18-23 “And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.’ (19) “You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? (20) “Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it. (21) “And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. (22) “And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it. (23) “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
This is a wonderful passage pointing to the reason that tithing is woefully short (tutor at best) of the new covenant understanding of giving and the announcement and advancement of the gospel.
If we are obligated to the offering on the alter, that is everything. God has provided the alter and the sacrifice, but the Pharisees only wanted to tithe to it…, they did not have faith that wanted the “Spirit of the Law in Christ” that dwells within it ….. never understanding the weightier provisions.
Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
The Apostle Paul was echoing the weightier provisions…..
1 Corinthians 9:9-16 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING.” God is not concerned about oxen, is He? (10) Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. (11) If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? (12) If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ. (13) Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar? (14) So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel. (15) But I have used none of these things. And I am not writing these things so that it will be done so in my case; for it would be better for me to die than have any man make my boast an empty one. (16) For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel.
Paul was not asking for sustenance as a means to hinder the proclamation of the gospel. He is making the point to these immature fledgling Christians at Corinth, that they somehow are not getting the “weightier provisions” any more than the Pharisees were. Paul made it clear that he used none of these things…he would rather die….than to inhibit the gospel. The Apostle Paul knew and understood the importance of gospel and the generosity of those that love the Christ of the gospel.
Blessings,
Chris
April 11th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Dave,
I think that Paul is using the OT as a model.
I see it like this:
OT Tithe supports Priest.
NT Tithe supports Paul.
Now, I am making the interpretive understanding that Paul has tithing in mind since he in fact points to it in the OT.
So, I think as an interpreter the onus of the burden of proof is to show that Paul was not thinking specifically about tithing in the church. Since, tithing was a well known and practiced principle.
If this be correct, then can we conclude that Paul was teaching a “principle” of tithing in the church? (BTW, remember I already agreed that it’s not a NT mandate.)
Rick
April 11th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Chris,
You might consider altering your “alter” to the spelling “altar.”
Jesus affirms tithing in Matthew 23. No dispensational way around it.
In I Cor. 9 Paul is saying “I could of if I wanted too” but “would not for their benefit” vs. 15.
Rick
April 11th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Rick, your argument is a little hard for me to follow.
Where is tithing mentioned? The offerings of the temple were not tithes as such, except for the grain offerings.
You are building on a foundation of sand here, I think. You create a reference to tithing when Paul doesn’t even mention tithing. Then you build your NT teaching of tithing on the reference which you have created.
I am just not seeing any reference to tithing anywhere here.
And, in all that, its seems you are missing the point. All Paul is saying that as the OT sacrifices and offerings fed the priests, the NT offerings feed the apostles, prophets and pastors. The subject is paying church leaders, not tithing.
This is no foundation for a NT teaching on tithing, is it?
April 11th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
The tithe is the minimum. In the NT, as I stated, the giving is raised. The 10% should be understood with this mindset as a min standard and the approach should never ever have to have it as a factor for we give beyond.
I referenced the 10% concerning CP - from one standpoint - in the hundreds of churches that our Stewardship Ministry has assisted, we hear the 10% idea concerning CP from Senior Adults all across the country. And yes, even some young ones mention it. In fact it was mentioned on the last comment stream by a young Pastor.
I will say this also: when a Pastor ceases teaching Stewardship (the full Biblical perspective) he then puts the whole church and his ministry at risk. We might want to think about that. How many churches are failing financially every year? How many churches did Dr. Page say were dying?
April 11th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
On what NT verse do you base the teaching that the tithe is a minimum standard?
Isn’t the NT standard what each Christian decides to give to express their love for Christ? (2 Cor 9:7)
I agree generosity is a sign of love for Christ, but where do you get the authority to set a standard?
April 11th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
No one is advocating neglecting the biblical perspective on tithing. We just disagree as to what the perspective teaches.
Tithing is part of the Mosaic Law, given to the Jews, to support the Temple. We are not Jews (well, most of us), we are not under the Law, and we don’t have a temple.
No matter how you parse it, to say that Christians MUST give at least 10% makes it a law..
Nine percent, cheerfully given, is not a sin.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Dave,
When Paul states “Don’t you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?” he is referring to Numbers 18:8-24 (ck. vss. 12 &21.) That is the theological context of Paul’s verse. The obvious implication is: OT tithe supported the Priest (like) the NT tithe is to support Paul. The burden of your position is to disprove the theological context in Paul’s mind and prove that Paul explicitly means something other than his referenced point. The subject is how are we to pay church leaders? Answer, through the tithe.
I’m suggesting this may be a principle in giving. I wouldn’t go as far as a foundational teaching on tithing.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
The standard was raised but never done away with. That is the basis. Why would anyone be happy in their love relationship with the Lord to give less than the law. Jesus did so much more! So should we. The grace of the NT is not an excuse to lower the standard.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
nor is the tithe all about paying the staff. It is in the entire picture of the church being all she should be. Through grace, we joyfully give (beyond) thus impacting our world and our own lives.
Question:
If the tithe is done for, why the issue made by a few on churches (mega) not giving 10%? Sounds somewhat like a socialistic approach with a spiritual twist?
April 11th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I don’t even disagree with the logic, Tim. But you are making an assertion of moral dogma without a solid basis.
It is my fundamental quarrel here. You shared a lot of opinions without giving biblical foundation for them. But you state your conviction as if it is morally binding on everyone else.
To give 2 or 3 % is a sin, you said.
The tithe is binding on us as a minimum.
Look at Rick above. He has opinions, but he does nto enshrine them as moral obligations on everyone else.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Les,
Thank you for reading my post as written..and for your thoughts.
TG
April 11th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I have not heard anyone but you raise the 10% issue. So, I can’t answer your last question.
What percentage a church gives is its decision.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Brother Rick,
This has nothing to do with the system known as Dispensationalism. Most of those types of systems fall prey to error along the way. (sorry for the alter/altar goof)
Your interpretation of the necessity of the tithe sells Christ really short. Christ goes way, way, way beyond the law, and we should teach our flock the gospel message concerning Christ and you then you will have cheerful givers. That was His point in the Matthew passage.
You may be missing what I am saying as well. If anyone wants to look back at the Law as a tutor or reason for giving, so be it…but they are looking and working in the wrong direction. The problem is that the Law brings death, but, Christ has freed us from the Law…..so giving is so much more than some meager 10%. 10% is laughable. There is no percentage worthy to put out as the mark. That is just silly.
Brother Tim G,…..you and I have differed on very little in the past, and I am not disagreeing about asking someone to give money or other things to the ministry, but churches are not failing financially because the Pastor is not teaching the law of giving (tithe). These churches fail because they do not hear the gospel enough. They probably fail because all the church family hears is the Law and they have themselves strapped to a building note and bus note and all the upkeep costs, etc. So, if the pastor intends on getting paid and getting all the bills paid, he resorts to “Spiritualized Stewardship” messages, telling the flock that they better ante up (and don’t forget that God is watching).
The Apostle Paul didn’t have building and bus debt.
Blessings,
Chris
April 11th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Dave,
Being a poor steward is a sin. I have not said teach the law. I am advocating the teaching of Stewardship which includes all of the above. Most churches do not even teach simply that.
Chris,
Read above and remember, adding the motivation is something that I did not do. In fact, I serve in a ministry that tries to assist in avoiding what you are speaking of. Too many churches approach the whole area from a very detrimental position.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
I hear you Brother Tim,
It is great to see a cheerful giver, …being the ones that know Christ and the power of his resurrection, of those,…. I have known some that gave a quarter $0.25 and one that gave a check for $250,000 once a year…yet both of equal value in Christ’s economy. It is difficult to put a percentage of worth on those two gifts in the New Testament church….except that possibly both of the gifts were at 100%.
(I bet a lot of pastors would rather have the second person)
Blessings,
Chris
April 11th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
1 Cor 9:13 is not solely a reference to tithing. It is a reference to ALL of the means by which OT lLevites and priests were supported. Therefore, if the “even so” of 9:14 refers only to 9:13 instead of to 9:7-13″ then Paul would be teaching the church tol copy ALL of the OT means of support.
The “minimum” argument is seriously flawed. The only people in the OT who were required to tithe were the farmers and herdsmen who lived inside of Israel. If you were not a farmer or herdsman then tithing did not apply. If you lived outside of Israel or were a Gentile then tithing did not apply. The premise is totally wrong.
Most Christians should give more than 10% but that is no reason to teach that all must begin thier level of giving at 10%. Many are giving sacrificially when they give less than 10%. That is my chief complaint with tithing. There is no percentage in the NT for the Church.
Wayne, your defintion of “priests” from a secular dictionary does not impress me. We must define our words from God’s Word. Your defintion does not limit priests to paid gospel workers and makes no sense in refuting my argument. NT pastors are paid like the OT prophets by freewill offerings. Paul refused any pay regular because he was preachign but accepted some support because he was poor. When is the lst tiem you preched a sermon on Acts
20:29-46???
I ask again, Why did it take the SBC until 1963 to merely insert tithing texts into its Faith and Message? None appeared in the 1925 statement!!!The SBC encyclopedia says they were too busy growing through evangelism to focus on stewardship. Perhaps we should try more evangelism.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
The article said:
“Think about it. I would rather have 6% from a church with a $800,000 budget, that is growing and discipling, than I would have 13% from a church with a $230,000 budget that is approaching death.”
That is all superficial. What if the “church approaching death” is actually shrinking because they are getting more Biblical? Biblical living turns people off. We should care more about what is taught and how people live than how much they give to the local church in dollars. Giving time can be even more powerful than dollars, especially in spiritual growth and development. I wish the church would be as concerned with measuring spiritual maturity of its members as it measures their financial giving.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Lets see, Matt 23:23 for starters in the NT. And then the idea that somehow Grace began at the cross? Grace was present in the OT. And then, how about the reality that God inspired both the OT and NT and that what was not changed or eliminated is still applicable? Hmmm, I am hearing some Scoffield, some Sproul, and some “not sure”.
I agree that men should never put pressure on men about giving. I also agree and have witnessed time and time again, that when the clear Biblical application of stewardship is taught - God gets more out of us than we would ever dream and NEVER is human pressure used.
And…what about poor stewardship being sin?
April 12th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Tim G You cannot justify your position according to the new covenant because christians are their own priests and the old covenant is history. The storehouse is a place where the priests kept
their farm and heard products and is not valid
today. matthew 23: 23 was Jesus telling his deciples that the pharasees sat in moses seat. see verse 2 because
at that time before the cross they lived under
the old covenant
HEBREWS 7 KJV
[12] For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
[13] For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
[14] For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
[15] And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
[16] Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
[17] For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
[18] For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
[19] For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
[20] And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
[21] (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
[22] By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
[23] And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
[24] But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
[25] Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
[26] For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
[27] Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
[28] For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
——————————————————————————–
Heb.8
[1] Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
[2] A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
[3] For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
[4] For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
[5] Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
[6] But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
[7] For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
[8] For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
[9] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
[10] For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
[11] And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
[12] For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
[13] In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
——————————————————————————–
April 12th, 2008 at 7:38 am
In Matthew 23 Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees, people under the law, regarding the law.
If we tell people that not tithing is sinful, how is that not putting pressure on them?
Poor stewardship is a sin. Proper stewardship in the new covenant is to give cheerfully and sacrificially. What that entails in terms of percentage is up to each believer (priest).
Paul was the apostle to the gentiles. His letters were to gentile churches, people ignorant of the law. If tithing were an essential of church life he likely would have mentioned it. He was not hesitant to school them in the law when he needed to make a point.
April 12th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Brother Tim G.,
Absolutely, ….salvation is by grace alone through faith alone for all time. Anyone that is justified,… is justified exactly the same way. That’s the reason that tithing is a simple thing to understand for the New Covenant church. The people who make up the new covenant church are not concerned with the tithe. (God provided the tithe for the nation of Israel, but not all Israel is Israel). The new covenant believers are completely concerned with Christ, even those that belong to the nation of Israel.
The Apostle gives great instruction about all sorts of things in Galatians 3 & 4 to illustrate the futility of the Law. The Law, including the tithe, simply led us to Christ.
Galatians 3:17-26 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. (18) For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. (19) Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. (20) Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. (21) Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. (22) But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. (23) But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. (24) Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. (25) But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (26) For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
If we preach the means of stewardship as a tithe, we are standing in the road looking back at what was given in the Law because of transgressions as the solution. Conversely, Christians don’t look down the “Law” road, we look to Christ and walk with Him. That does not mean that we don’t ask people to give money. I commend my flock all the time about their liberal giving. They have no problem giving out of what God supplies, because they understand the gospel. Liberal giving comes from a heart tuned to Christ and walking down the road with Christ where the Law becomes a dim reminder and hopefully distant reminder of the things that God has provided along the way. But, if Christ has not shut out the darkness of the tithe, by fulfilling all…..then someone has missed the message of what giving truly is.
Blessings,
Chris
April 12th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Chris,
One last comment on this subject.
After extensive research on non-profit giving trends in the US, I would hardly say that your people or nearly any other church for that matter could be praised for their “liberal giving.” (Exceptions are the Building Bondage Campaigns) The fact is that 50% of your regular attendees rarely give anything and 20% of your people are carrying the financial burden of your ministry. Truth be told, the average for family unit giving is 2.7% of income and shrinking.
There is 94 billion dollars of church debt in American with the SBC holding 44% . In other words, American Evangelicals spend as equally on interest for their building loans as they send to missions.
So, at least in practice, the OT law greatly surpasses the new covenant by about 7% .
April 12th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Rick:
Interesting days in the lives of most churches are coming when that 20% have passed from this life to Glory.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Brother Rick,
You have hit the nail on the head with these atrocious statistics that represent religious financial thinking. The church has and will understand giving only when the gospel is proclaimed with clarity, precision and often.
What a horrible statistic and testimony for the churches that makes up the SBC! (44% or $35-40B of debt.)
You are correct that there are churches that fit into your statement …. “The fact is that 50% of your regular attendees rarely give anything and 20% of your people are carrying the financial burden of your ministry. Truth be told, the average for family unit giving is 2.7% of income and shrinking.” That trend needs to be addressed immediately by the overseers of those congregations.
Thankfully, the church that I worship and fellowship with now does not fit into that tragic mold. We don’t even pass a plate at the beginning or end of the service. We have a little box on the edge of a table that people leave their offering; we have zero debt, we have very little expenses, and all the families contribute…with about 80% of our revenues going to local and world missions (the other 20% is for rent, printing, etc., and we are already looking for ways to get rent and other things below 10%). God continues to bless our small band of believers.
Our church is not perfect by any stretch (we are miserable sinners) but, it is possible to give abundantly and preach the gospel, and evangelize the world.
Blessings,
Chris
April 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Chris,
Most excellent!
May we all follow your churches giving example.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I think the massive amount of debt mentioned reflects the “big church” mentality of the SBC. More and bigger buildings. Gymnasiums, theatres, bowling alleys, etc. How can we counsel our people about debt when our churches are in such debt? Nearly every prominent person in the SBC hierarchy is a mega-church pastor. The system feeds on itself. Look at the ruffled feathers in the blogosphere over the idea that a small church pastor might run as president of the SBC. This is beyond the money issue but it is related. If your church is so big that the pastor doesn’t know you by name, it’s too big.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Covenant Theology Hermeneutic: Everything in the OT carries over to the Church except that which is specifically anulled after Calvry.
Dispensational Hermeneutic: Nothing in the OT carries over to the Church except that which is specifically repeated after Calvary to the Church interms of grace and fair.
Southern Baptist Hermeneutic: Not sure. We pick what we want to bring over and we reject what we do not want to bring over. No consistent hermeneutic exists. Pick and choose. We pick tithing and we reject multiple wives, unclean foods, Saturday Sabbaths and heads of households being priests.
Statistics: Do you want a good statistic? How much of the OT tithe went to foreign or home missions? Zero percent!!! How much did Paul’s sending-church in Antioch pay for his missionary work? Probably zero!!! What is my point? The NT does not follow OT patterns.
You want to teach tithing? O.K. then—
(1) Teach 20% or 23 1/3rd%
(2) Teach that only one family in the church can received tithes.
(3) Teach that tithes are only food from inside Israel
(4) Teach that the people give their tithes to the Levites (ushers, deacons, choir, musicians, builders and polilticians). (Num 3; Num 18:21024; Neh 10:37a; 1 Chron 23 to 26)
(5) Teach that the people should bring their tithes to the Levitical cities (Neh 10:37b; 2 Chron 31:15-19).
(6) Teach that priests only get one tenth of the whole tithe (Num 18:24-29; Neh 10:38)
(7) Teach that only the Levites and priests bring portions of the tithe to the Temple storehouse (Neh 10:38,30; Mal 3:10)
(8) Teach that those who receive tithes cannot be allowed to own or inherit property.
(9-25) There are many more of these.
Oh no, we cannot possibly teach any of those. We have changed all of that to fit our own purposes.
Russell Earl Kelly, PHD, Author of Should the Church Teach Tithing?
April 12th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Chris,
Praise the Lord; Your church is very much like Our Church here in Bonham, TX. Adrian Rogers wrote a book on Kingdom Authority and it is about Total Surrender. I have an excerpt from that book on my Blog Here. So that is the outcome of Preaching the Whole Gospel and why your Church is Disciplining Born Again Christians. If ones Heart is convicted they would want to participate in the Building of the Body of Christ and follow the Holy Spirit in all endeavors for Christ Church. I personally know that Our Lives changed when we become obedient with Faithful Tithes to the Lord.
In His Name
Wayne
April 12th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Russell,
I will humbly disagree with what you have written. But that is ok. I am sure you will disagree with what I have written. I believe in the tithe, teach it the Biblical way, believe the Bible teaches it even in the NT. And wow have I and many others seen God do a great work when it is taught as it should be.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Tim:
What do you mean by –”when it is taught as it should be.”
April 12th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
And does “the biblical way” assume that any who disagree with you are unbiblical?
April 12th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Tim, this is one reason I think some reform is needed in the SBC.
If you want to believe and teach tithing - fine. But that doesn’t seem to be enough for many in the SBC. It seems to be essential to question whether those who disagree with you are biblical. Or to call them liberal. Or to question the reality of their baptist identity.
Why not just hold your belief as a personal conviction? Why do you feel the need to describe it as “biblical” which implies that those who see things differently are not?
April 12th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Dave Miller:
Excellent comment!! Sadly, it is either agree with some in the SBC or they label you as a liberal or as to holding to unbiblical views.
April 13th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Jax Dog,
If you cannot work with the pastor the church has called then leave. Go somewhere you can help to advance the work of the Kingdom. I am sure no one has chained you to a pew against your will.
Go to some church where the pastor is struggling and help him. Help the church to see its biblical accountability to care for its shepherd.
I will make it simple for you; Get a life. You are wasting this one.
BTW, If you are going to use Mac Brunson’s name in a comment, sign the comment with yours.
cb
April 13th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Dave Miller has posted relating to this series. it is worth reading by everyone who has read or commented here.
cb
April 13th, 2008 at 8:56 am
FBC Jax Watchdog
I have removed your comment from this stream, but I will allow C.B. Scott’s rebuke to you stand.
Thanks C. B.
Robin Foster
April 13th, 2008 at 9:35 am
tom and dave,
it seems that you all think that we conservatives expect everyone to believe exactly like we do, or else we will call them liberal. that’s not the case. at all. we conservatives disagree on many gray areas of the bible, and we respect the other as a christian. but, when people deny the clear teachings of the bible….then, we call them liberal. if they deny the essentials of the faith…we call them heretics.
tom and dave, i’d bet you that none of us conservatives believe everything that the other one does. i’d go so far as to say that none of the conservatives that you’d call the establishment crowd believes 100% like i do on things. scott and i would disagree on matters of soteriology…on minor things. robin and i would disagree on some things….gray areas of the bible…things that the bible doesnt really spell out clear. there may be some mid tribbers out there…..i’m pre trib. and, it’s ok that they’re mid tribbers. they’re wrong.
but, i respect thier opinion. i dont agree with john mcarthur 100%…but, i consider him a great man of God who believes the bible.
but, when you have people who go against the clear teachings of the scripture….who believe in things like….women pastors….or that homosexuality is ok….or that the bible contains errors…..then, yea, i’d call them wrong, and i’d call them liberal. if you were to tell me that Jesus didnt really physically rise from the dead…then, i’d call you a liberal. but, if you said that you believed that angels were six feet tall, i might say..well, i dont know about that…but, i wouldnt call you a liberal.
david
April 13th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Yes, David, that is precisely my problem. I think that some conservatives take issues that are secondary in nature, or denominational tradition, or personal conviction, and judge others who do not agree.
Look at Tim’s statement above.
“I believe in the tithe, teach it the Biblical way…” The clear assumption there is that his teaching is “THE” biblical way and that any who disagree are unbiblical.
“…when it is taught as it should be.” What assumption is to be drawn that those who teach differently than he are not teaching what they should.
Essentially, he made agreement with him on tithing as a biblical mandate.
You accused anyone who sips a glass of wine of being liberal, a serious insult to millions of Christians who love Jesus and the Word, but disagree with you on this issue.
The role of women in the ministry of the church is important to me, and I believe that the pastor position, as well as elders and deacons, should be reserved for men. But to call people liberal who disagree? Ridiculous.
A liberal is someone who denies the truthfulness of the Word (inerrancy) and denies the fundamental doctrines of the faith. It is a serious accusation and you should be careful about throwing it around just because you disagree with someone.
Someone who holds to inerrancy and the basic doctrines of the faith is not a liberal.
April 13th, 2008 at 10:23 am
dave,
no where did i call someone who sips on whiskey, or wine, or beer, a liberal. i believe that you are referring to my post on my blog. i said that someone who believes most of the things, or all of the issues that i mentioned, was a liberal. i did not say that someone who drinks in moderation is a liberal. i said that someone who drinks would make me wonder about them….big time. but, i did not say that that one issue would make them a liberal.
now, i believe that they are foolish for drinking, according to proverbs….i believe that the bible teaches that to drink just to get high, or for pleasure is foolish, and of course, getting high on alcohol, or drunk is sin……but, that’s another post for another time.
also, tim g. believes that tithing is what the bible teaches. what’s wrong with him saying that he believes that? i didnt see anywhere where he called anyone a liberal for not believing in tithing. i think that you are jumping the gun big time on tim g. personally, i believe that the nt teaches giving….a tithe is just where we ought to start. but, if tim g. beleives that the bible teaches a strict 10% tithe…and, he may not believe that…and if he believes that that is what should be preached and taught…then, ok. i respect his conviction. i may not agree with him….but, does he not have the right to say that he believes that’s what’s taught in the bible and should be taught everywhere. does he not?????
david
April 13th, 2008 at 10:29 am
I never criticized his right to believe in the tithe. I affirmed it.
I am criticizing his statements which imply that those who disagree with him are unbiblical or not teaching “as it should be taught.”
April 13th, 2008 at 10:50 am
dave,
take off the “those mean, narrow minded establishment glasses” for a little while and go back and read what tim g. wrote in comment #57. i just dont see it like you and tom see it.
david
April 13th, 2008 at 10:51 am
i read what i wrote and it would be more clear if i had said….”those mean, narrow minded establishment GUYS glasses”
david
April 13th, 2008 at 10:55 am
I don’t know what Tim meant. But I think I have dealt fairly and accurately with what he said.
April 13th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Dave Miller:
Excellent response to 007!!
April 13th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
tom,
why are we not surprised at your comment in #72? sigh!
david
April 13th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I thought it was an amazingly insightful comment, David. Any time anyone agrees with me, I consider them intelligent, well-spoken, and correct.
Here’s one for you, David.
Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, a smart Volunteer fan and a dumb Volunteer fan were standing around a $100 bill. Who gets the money?
The dumb Volunteer fan!!
Everyone knows there’s no such thing as Santa.
There’s no such thing as the Easter Bunny.
And there’s no such thing as a smart Volunteers fan!
Sorry. Was that unkind?
April 13th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Dave Miller,
I love it.
Vol,
Can I have $50.00 of your new found $100.00?
cb
April 13th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
dave and cb,
yaaa yaaa yaaa blaaaah blaaaah blaaaah
imho, that joke was not too funny.
david
April 13th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Mr Guthrie
You wrote: I believe in the tithe, teach it the Biblical way, believe the Bible teaches it even in the NT. And wow have I and many others seen God do a great work when it is taught as it should be.
……………..
You have a captive audience eagerly awaiting your next post where you will tell all of us in great detail
(1) why you believe in the tithe (give texts please), (2) how you teach it in the biblical way (give texts please), (3) how you believe the Bible teaches it even in the NT, and (4) how it should be taught.
Take as much verbage as you need becasue I want to challenge each and every thing you ay from God’s Word. In the meantime please tell me where my heremeneutics and logic are wrong in the ffollowing:
…………..
Matt. 23:23 Woe to you, scribes [teachers of the law: NIV] and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law — judgment, mercy, and faith; these you ought to have done, without leaving the other undone.
Luke 11:42 But woe to you, Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God; these you ought to have done, without leaving the other undone.
Although they occur before Calvary, Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42 are the only “New Testament” texts available for those who teach tithing. In support of tithing, Eklund admits, “The New Testament does not record Jesus’ practice of the tithe. However we do read about the many accusations made against Jesus by the Pharisees. . . . If Jesus had been guilty of neglecting the tithe, obviously the charges would have been made publicly. . . . Jesus could have declared the tithe invalid. In fact it would have strengthened his condemnation of the Pharisees. Yet he made it very clear that the tithe was still expected. . . .”[1] Another pro-tithing author writes, “What do you say to people when they say that tithing is only in the Old Testament? Well, they haven’t read the Bible! They need to read [quotes Matt. 23:23].”[2]
However in rebuttal to New Covenant tithing, a seminary textbook on the principles of interpretation deliberately chose Matthew 23:23 to illustrate the opposite point. “The Scriptures themselves offer us a way of sorting out which commands have continuing relevance for our lives and which ones have been rendered obsolete by God’s having declared their usefulness to have ended. Even though the law is one, we are taught in the Bible to distinguish at least three different aspects in that one law. Jesus authorized such a stance when he used the concept in Matthew 23:23 that some things in the law were ‘weightier’ than others. It is this ranking and prioritizing within the law that establishes the moral aspect of the law as higher than its civil and ceremonial aspects. In this verse, justice, mercy and faithfulness are heavier and weightier than the rules for tithing spices, evidently because the former reflects the nature and character of God.”[3]
Even though uninspired persons designated the four Gospels as so-called “New Testament” books, most thinking Christians realize that, in reality, the New Covenant did not begin until the very moment Christ died on Calvary. The blood of Christ, the blood of the New Covenant, or testament, sealed and ratified the New Covenant and ended the Old Covenant or Mosaic Law once for all time. When Jesus cried “It is finished,” the veil in the Jerusalem Temple was ripped from top to bottom exposing the formerly Most Holy Place to the view of all who looked. At that very moment, in the mind of God, the entire sacrificial system with its laws, its priesthood, and its ordinances ceased to have relevance (Heb. 9:24-26). Thus Matthew 23 and Luke 11 are events in the context of the Old Covenant, not the New. They cannot properly be called New Covenant examples.
Luke 11:41 But rather give alms [charity: NAS; to the poor: NIV] of such things as you have, and, behold, all things are clean to you.
1. In Luke 11:41 true cleanliness of the conscience is achieved through freewill giving to the poor as compared to mandated giving of the law.
Gal 4:4-5 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
2. Jesus was BORN while full obedience to the Mosaic Law was required of Jews. Jesus LIVED while full obedience to the Mosaic Law was required. And Jesus was KILLED while full obedience to the Mosaic Law was still required from Jews! The time-context of Matthew 23:23 is purely Law and is not part of the New Covenant of grace for the Church.
Jesus was the perfect law-keeper. He perfectly obeyed all of the commandments, the judgments, and the ordinances which applied to him. He obeyed all of the social and ceremonial parts of the law as taught by Moses in the Old Covenant, and he commanded the crowds and his disciples to obey the scribes and Pharisees. By taking on humanity as a Jew under the jurisdiction of the law, Jesus encouraged other Jews to strictly obey the Mosaic Covenant. Thus he fulfilled every minute detail perfectly. Jesus had to be sinless in order to redeem those under the curse of the law. Compare John 8:46, Romans 3:20, and Hebrews 4:15.
Matt 23:1-2 Then Jesus spoke to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.
3. Jesus was telling his disciples about the sins and the woes (curses) he was placing on the Pharisees (who did tithe). He was not addressing the church under the New Covenant. Verses 1 through 3 are crucial for a correct understanding of verse 23.
Matt 23:2-3 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do …
4. Jesus was condemning the scribes and Pharisees because of their evolved position as interpreters of the Law. Notice that the priests are out of the picture. This is the context of verses 2-12 before the woes on them begin. He was speaking TO his disciples ABOUT the dishonesty of their interpreters of the Mosaic Law. He was not discussing matters relating to the New Covenant church. He was “abasing” or “humbling” them with 8 woes from verses 12-36.
5. “Woe to you, scribes [teachers of the law: NIV] and Pharisees …” Follow the word, “you” in verse 23. It is absolutely clear that the “you” of refers to the “scribes and Pharisees”! “You” does not refer to Jesus’ disciples or to the church! The scribes and Pharisees were the ones sitting in Moses’ seat –not his disciples. They were the ones interpreting the Law –not his disciples.
The Pharisees were hypocrites concerning tithing! Alfred Edersheim explained how the Pharisees actually paid less tithe than did others. When John Hyrcanus (135-100 B.C.) enacted a new law which required the buyer to pay tithes rather than the seller, the Pharisees vowed to only trade within their own fraternities, or chabura. Thus, while others paid certain tithes every time produce exchanged hands, the Pharisees declared all except the first time to be “free” from subsequent tithing (p. 215). In addition to this, the rabbis had excluded themselves from Jewish local taxation. Thus, while the typical citizen paid at least an extra ten percent (10%) in local Jewish taxation, the Pharisees had that much extra to pay in tithes–and boasted about tithing (p. 52). Therefore, in reality, the Pharisee paid less tithes in two different ways than others who did not boast.[4]
6. “Hypocrites”: The scribes and Pharisees (the preachers of Jesus’ time) were the hypocrites –not Jesus’ disciples. They were the ones who had exaggerated the Law to make it a burden. And they were the ones who refused to obey the very laws they had exaggerated! Jesus was not disciplining his disciples!
7. “For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin …” The “you” is still the scribes and Pharisees from “woe is you scribes and Pharisees”! As interpreters of the Law they had exaggerated it to include ordinary garden spices which the Law had never intended. The Mishnah and Talmud (not the Bible) defined tithes as “everything eatable, everything that was stored up or that grew out of the earth.”
The Pharisees prided themselves with scrupulous obedience to circumcision, Sabbath-keeping and tithing. They wanted the Jews to think that they could observe these three rites even better than what was expected from the Law. Meticulously counting micro-small spice seeds was