Thread: Tithing Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030078
Posted by Villz (# 15365) on
:
Tithing - many churches I have had involvement with 'encourage' their members to give 10% of their income, either to them or at least to them and missions etc. Is this a biblical principle which Christians should follow?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
No. The welfare state does a lot of things that was covered by tithing in the OT - healing the sick, educating the young, caring for the unemployed etc.
So our taxes are part of our giving.
[ 02. April 2016, 15:40: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
The older I get the more I come to the conclusion that the only Biblical principle one can draw is that everything belongs to God, so we should hold to it loosely and give of it freely - but not with our brains in neutral (wise as serpents, gentle as doves etc.).
I've also heard teaching to the effect that if you want to be truly Biblical re. tithing then the tithe was (so it was said) a minimum, not a tick-box target, and that actually if you gave in all the ritual ways required you would end up giving much more. For the avoidance of doubt, the core thrust of the sermon was "this is what tithing was, this is why it's a bit mad to say it applies to all Christians everywhere for all time, but these are the principles we can draw from it. Now go away and sort out your personal position with God, and without anyone leaning on you to pony up."
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Very occasionally I find myself listening to "Christian" radio in the car. I was informed by one of the speakers that the tithe applied to the money given to the church only, and any further charitable giving should come on top of that. It seemed to be the sort of church where the money contributed to the pastor's car etc. I was not impressed. They had texts and everything to back it up. Probably from Leviticus.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
For people on low incomes (or those, say, supporting a child at University) 10% is a huge amount. For those on higher incomes it may be a bigger sum in sheer monetary terms, yet be much easier to give.
In other words, a flat-rate percentage tithe is inequitable; it may put enormous pressure on some while letting others 'off the hook' too easily.
[ 02. April 2016, 17:44: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Very occasionally I find myself listening to "Christian" radio in the car. I was informed by one of the speakers that the tithe applied to the money given to the church only, and any further charitable giving should come on top of that.
Rubbish -that's just being greedy for church funds.
Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
The older I get the more I come to the conclusion that the only Biblical principle one can draw is that everything belongs to God, so we should hold to it loosely and give of it freely - but not with our brains in neutral (wise as serpents, gentle as doves etc.).
I've also heard teaching to the effect that if you want to be truly Biblical re. tithing then the tithe was (so it was said) a minimum, not a tick-box target, and that actually if you gave in all the ritual ways required you would end up giving much more. For the avoidance of doubt, the core thrust of the sermon was "this is what tithing was, this is why it's a bit mad to say it applies to all Christians everywhere for all time, but these are the principles we can draw from it. Now go away and sort out your personal position with God, and without anyone leaning on you to pony up."
We have some CAP ( Christians against poverty) clients in our congregation who are not expected to give anything, but everyone else is encouraged to pray about how much they should give. My reading of the Bible says at least a tenth.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No. The welfare state does a lot of things that was covered by tithing in the OT - healing the sick, educating the young, caring for the unemployed etc.
So our taxes are part of our giving.
No.
Taxes are part of the cost of living in a society. They are for our benefit. We pay taxes, of which a very very small portion goes to the things you mentioned, because we benefit when everyone thrives. Businesses thrives when there are not homeless people sleeping on your storefront, when you can find employees with some minimal education, when people have the skills and abilities to earn a living in order to purchase your products. We all benefit from the things you outlined, so they are not "charity" they are paying our fair share.
quote:
Originally posted by St. Gwladys:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
The older I get the more I come to the conclusion that the only Biblical principle one can draw is that everything belongs to God, so we should hold to it loosely and give of it freely - but not with our brains in neutral (wise as serpents, gentle as doves etc.).
I've also heard teaching to the effect that if you want to be truly Biblical re. tithing then the tithe was (so it was said) a minimum, not a tick-box target, and that actually if you gave in all the ritual ways required you would end up giving much more. For the avoidance of doubt, the core thrust of the sermon was "this is what tithing was, this is why it's a bit mad to say it applies to all Christians everywhere for all time, but these are the principles we can draw from it. Now go away and sort out your personal position with God, and without anyone leaning on you to pony up."
We have some CAP ( Christians against poverty) clients in our congregation who are not expected to give anything, but everyone else is encouraged to pray about how much they should give. My reading of the Bible says at least a tenth.
I agree. We give not because there are poor people (although there are). We give not because we're going to go to hell if we don't. We give because that's who are are-- or who God calls us to be. The tithe is a helpful measuring stick to give us a sense of proportion. It is beyond some people's means-- that's OK. For the vast majority of us, we can afford far more than a tithe-- and we should. Not again, because of great need (although there is that) but because giving is one of the ways we experience the abundant life Jesus talks about-- by nurturing generosity and a connection to every other living soul.
Giving is a gift. One of my favorite verses about tithing is Deut. 14:22-
quote:
Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always.
But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away),
then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose. Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice.
And do not neglect the Levites living in your towns, for they have no allotment or inheritance of their own.
I love this because it shows the tithe not as a dreary obligation, but as a joyful celebration-- so much so that it would be fully appropriate to spend your tithe buying a couple of rounds down at the local pub-- just as long as your raise your pint in a toast to the Lord who gave you all things. And bought a round for your local underpaid clergyperson. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[qb]
[QUOTE]Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God...
...buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice.
And do not neglect the Levites living in your towns, for they have no allotment or inheritance of their own.
I love this because it shows the tithe not as a dreary obligation, but as a joyful celebration-- so much so that it would be fully appropriate to spend your tithe buying a couple of rounds down at the local pub-- just as long as your raise your pint in a toast to the Lord who gave you all things. And bought a round for your local underpaid clergyperson.
Yup, tithe is a party. You get to share in the fun. The tithe is NOT intended to be a drain on you that takes from you to give solely to someone else.
Moses model - let people know what is needed, ask for voluntary gifts, no pressure, no obligation, no specific amount or percentage required, tell them to stop bringing gifts when you have enough.
(I've never seen admission that "we have enough.")
Paul's model - ask people to put aside a bit each week to be taken to the poor in Jerusalem - whatever amount each person chooses, no pressure, no specific amount or percentage expected or demanded.
God loves a cheerful giver. Whatever gives you joy to offer (without depriving those legitimately dependent on you), that's what you give, without comparison to what anyone else gave or what bible verse someone is using to try to guilt you into uncheerful law-based giving.
Also watch out for "law-based" refusal to give - "he doesn't deserve any help" or "it should be the government's job to meet that need" or "I gave last month" - sometimes we talk ourselves out of joyful giving by being too coldly "rational."
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No. The welfare state does a lot of things that was covered by tithing in the OT - healing the sick, educating the young, caring for the unemployed etc.
So our taxes are part of our giving.
No.
Taxes are part of the cost of living in a society. They are for our benefit. We pay taxes, of which a very very small portion goes to the things you mentioned, because we benefit when everyone thrives. Businesses thrives when there are not homeless people sleeping on your storefront, when you can find employees with some minimal education, when people have the skills and abilities to earn a living in order to purchase your products. We all benefit from the things you outlined, so they are not "charity" they are paying our fair share.
As was the tithe in the Old Testament. The point is that the purpose, in part, of the tithe was to address the same social needs which are now addressed by taxation.
And, of course, the pious Jew would give charity above and beyond his obligations to tithe. The purpose of the tithe was to keep the whole social shebang of Israel going. It wasn't charity, but an obligation, and thus equivalent to modern taxation/National Insurance.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
There is also the point that 'my taxes are my tithe' immediately lets the very wealthy right off the hook. (Looking at you, Donald Trump.)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No. The welfare state does a lot of things that was covered by tithing in the OT - healing the sick, educating the young, caring for the unemployed etc.
So our taxes are part of our giving.
No.
Taxes are part of the cost of living in a society. They are for our benefit. We pay taxes, of which a very very small portion goes to the things you mentioned, because we benefit when everyone thrives. Businesses thrives when there are not homeless people sleeping on your storefront, when you can find employees with some minimal education, when people have the skills and abilities to earn a living in order to purchase your products. We all benefit from the things you outlined, so they are not "charity" they are paying our fair share.
As was the tithe in the Old Testament. The point is that the purpose, in part, of the tithe was to address the same social needs which are now addressed by taxation.
Really? How exactly would buying wine & drink and consuming it with your family as outlined in Deut. 14 address the social needs being addressed by taxation?
The fact of the matter is, despite Republican rhetoric to the contrary, precious little of our taxes go to social services-- unless you count corporate welfare and, of course, propping up that impoverished military-industrial complex.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No. The welfare state does a lot of things that was covered by tithing in the OT - healing the sick, educating the young, caring for the unemployed etc.
So our taxes are part of our giving.
No.
Taxes are part of the cost of living in a society. They are for our benefit. We pay taxes, of which a very very small portion goes to the things you mentioned, because we benefit when everyone thrives. Businesses thrives when there are not homeless people sleeping on your storefront, when you can find employees with some minimal education, when people have the skills and abilities to earn a living in order to purchase your products. We all benefit from the things you outlined, so they are not "charity" they are paying our fair share.
As was the tithe in the Old Testament. The point is that the purpose, in part, of the tithe was to address the same social needs which are now addressed by taxation.
Really? How exactly would buying wine & drink and consuming it with your family as outlined in Deut. 14 address the social needs being addressed by taxation?
The fact of the matter is, despite Republican rhetoric to the contrary, precious little of our taxes go to social services-- unless you count corporate welfare and, of course, propping up that impoverished military-industrial complex.
Can't speak about the US, but in the UK the four biggest government spenders are Pensions (£150bn), Health (£140bn), Welfare (£110bn) and Education (£80bn). These four departments are responsible for over half of Govt expenditure (total about £800bn - 2014 figures).
So hardly a small portion, I would have thought.
And, for the avoidance of doubt, every penny is well spent, as far as I'm concerned, though I'd quite happily see the fifth biggest spender (Defence at £40bn) have its budget slashed.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No. The welfare state does a lot of things that was covered by tithing in the OT - healing the sick, educating the young, caring for the unemployed etc.
So our taxes are part of our giving.
No.
Taxes are part of the cost of living in a society. They are for our benefit. We pay taxes, of which a very very small portion goes to the things you mentioned, because we benefit when everyone thrives. Businesses thrives when there are not homeless people sleeping on your storefront, when you can find employees with some minimal education, when people have the skills and abilities to earn a living in order to purchase your products. We all benefit from the things you outlined, so they are not "charity" they are paying our fair share.
As was the tithe in the Old Testament. The point is that the purpose, in part, of the tithe was to address the same social needs which are now addressed by taxation.
Really? How exactly would buying wine & drink and consuming it with your family as outlined in Deut. 14 address the social needs being addressed by taxation?
The fact of the matter is, despite Republican rhetoric to the contrary, precious little of our taxes go to social services-- unless you count corporate welfare and, of course, propping up that impoverished military-industrial complex.
Can't speak about the US, but in the UK the four biggest government spenders are Pensions (£150bn), Health (£140bn), Welfare (£110bn) and Education (£80bn). These four departments are responsible for over half of Govt expenditure (total about £800bn - 2014 figures).
Surprised to see military spending doesn't hit the top five-- but then, we're so skewed that way in the US.
However, I would point out that Pensions, Education and Health are not "welfare" or charitable services-- they are exactly what I said-- services that every citizen benefits from. So again, only a small portion of your taxes (the £110bn for welfare) are replacing the charitable activities of tithing.
But you've skipped over my main question re Deut 14-- how does your view of taxes= tithing fit with the depiction of tithing in Deut 14-- as a joyful celebration, even drinking-- of what God has done?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Just NO. They're NONE of them worth it. St. Paul was a TENTMAKER. Tell me what you propose to DO. Tell me what it costs. SHOW me. Show me the difference you're making. What did Jesus say? GIVE IT TO THE POOR. If you want to make a difference MAKE IT. Personal and tangible and anonymous. But paying someone for conducting a lecture in the middle of a concert YOU provide once a week?
HOW is that being Jesus?
It does my head in.
In organizations that ALL, to a MAN, justify murder. Whilst performing witchcraft.
That's different from the religion of ancient Babylon HOW?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Wasn't the OT tithe to provide for the priests and others Levites who owned no property and were entirely dependent on others? As they could not produce anything part of the tithe went to them, but it wasn't the major part, whatever the overall percentage was.
(xp with Martin60, if anyone was wondering)
[ 02. April 2016, 23:44: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I think the majority did go to the temple, the priests, and the Levites, though apparently from the passage mentioned above, some of it was to be used to party. I like that idea.
Levites could own homes and such--they just couldn't own hereditary farmland, as none was set aside for their tribe to inherit.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
They got 10% You had to spend ANOTHER 10% on feast days. Plus offerings. And another 10% every third year for the poor. If you're less than 10% of the population and you don't have to worry about making a profit from farming or artisanship, you just rake in the money and the food, you're going to be a pig rolling in ... clover.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I'd like to see citations for those other 10%s. And as for living like a pig in whatever, I think it's pretty clear from the OT that people then, as now, shirked their responsibilities for the support of God's house and full-time servants. Twas ever thus.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'd like to see citations for those other 10%s. And as for living like a pig in whatever, I think it's pretty clear from the OT that people then, as now, shirked their responsibilities for the support of God's house and full-time servants. Twas ever thus.
I have occasionally heard claims there was a total of 30% tithe, plus an expectation you'll give more, much like some churches teach that you "owe" 10% "to God" (which seems to mean that specific preacher's church, not any other church nor any other legitimate need like helping the poor) "plus offerings."
To me, expecting people to pay 30% plus to church on top of 25% (more or less) to government screams abuse.
The OT clergy were kept well fed by receiving all the sacrifices, which were the best of the grain and sheep etc.
We live in an economically more complex era when giving clergy plentiful food and a free house isn't full support.
Should clergy be full time church workers dependent for support on the congregation? That's a whole other issue.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I agree with Martin somewhat in sentiment if not in detail.
Ex-Restorationist "apostle" George Tarleton described tithing as legalism sneaking in the back door rebranded as a "kingdom principle".
Like so many Dead Horse issues, it suggests a cherry-picking approach to Old Testament laws. Tithing isn't used once in the New Testament as the basis of the cheerful giving to which we are enjoined (the tithing Jesus commends in passing is the Old Convenant one, to worshippers at the Temple).
More insidiously, tithing teaching is often supported by a bait-and-switch in which the local church, not God, becomes the recipient (as others have alluded to, "the first 10% goes to the church, the rest wherever you like"), and the largest user of those funds is almost always the church itself, for payroll and/or facilities.
This is especially blatant when practiced by churches who largely pride themselves in preaching that Old Testament worship was all mere types and shadows of the genuine article (the latter being the contemporary Church and the priesthood of all believers) and look down on bells, smells and other liturgical worship forms as an anachronistic throwback to the Old Covenant - except for this one tiny but significant financial detail, which somehow is preached as anything but a type and shadow.
The church I help lead needs money to function, and before becoming self-employed I spent quite a few years myself being wholly financially supported by what I hope was cheerful giving, but there's no way I could preach contemporary giving patterned exactly on Old Testament tithing today.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
There are references to tithing supporting widows and refugees, at Deuteronomy 14,28-29 and Deuteronomy 26, 12-13 as well as the Leviticus and Numbers verses laying down monies to the priests and the verses quoted by cliffdweller on tithing for celebrations at Deuteronomy 14, 22-26. (Verse 27 tells us not to neglect the Levite living in our community.) There are also instructions for the sabbatical or jubilee year in Deuteronomy 15 which includes supporting the poor and dedicating the first born.
This article gives an overview of some of the Biblical references in relation to tithing.
These articles from the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph show HMRC tax statements with graphics of the proportion of UK taxes taken towards welfare in 2014 (£1,024 of £23,000 salary, £1,529 in £30,000 or £4,111 of £60,000) ~ 4.45%, 5.1%, 6.85% of gross salaries.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
I am one of those who believe that God requires 100% of our money but that a deliberate thinking about how to serve God in giving 10% is a good practice.
I agree with Adeodatus' analysis of 10% effect, however, I am afraid I wish the church would work on tithing as it is fairer than flat rate which is what people seem to think as the alternative. I have seen too many people giving 30% or 40% of their disposable income who are really poor (i.e. after paying for housing have maybe £30 for everything else and still put £10 in the plate)*. While people who have a comfortable income give around 1%.
Jengie
*Case I am thinking of was a student in a rented room with all services included but the cost of the room was just short of their income. So that £30 covered food, clothing and transport. Yes it was a while ago.
[ 03. April 2016, 08:23: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I lived the citations - which you can make up - for nearly 30 years Lamb Chopped. And even in the last 10 have experienced guilt at NOT. Now I don't. The last shred of feeling that I should be paying for a seat in the theatre is gone.
I support a friend who 'evangelizes' middle aged and old men who are already 'converted' because despite that he has done one huge work in the life of ONE broken man.
So yes, I'll put bread on the water of that pond.
As in ALL claims, show me. Justify it. Not just in the false authoritarian rhetorical slant of this:
Wherein have we robbed thee?
transcended, contextualized AT THE TIME in this:
And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
“Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?
God was a socialist 3000 years ago.
The lovely C13th building I can spit on with a following wind from my front yard and the lovely guy in a dog collar who gives a liturgical year lecture there once a week is NOT God's house and priest.
I am.
As my previous vicar told me when I said the church was letting down a friend: "You ARE the church".
Since then only I have been to that friend.
What you want GIVE.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I have occasionally heard claims there was a total of 30% tithe . . . .
According to The Jewish Encyclopedia, the problem is that the descriptions of the tithe(s) in Numbers and Deuteronomy aren't really consistent.
quote:
According to the Rabbis, the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy are complementary to each other (comp. Tithe, Biblical Data); consequently there can be no contradiction between them. Thus there were three kinds of tithes: (1) that given to the Levites as stated in Num. xviii. 21 et seq., and termed "the first tithe" ("ma'aser rishon"); (2) the tithe which was to be taken to Jerusalem and there consumed by the landowner and his family, and which was termed "the second tithe" ("ma'aser sheni"), it being taken from what remained after the first tithe had been appropriated; and (3) that given to the poor ("ma'aser 'ani"). Therefore two tithes were to be taken every year except in the seventh year: Nos. 1 and 2 in the first, second, fourth, and fifth years; Nos. 1 and 3 in the third and sixth years.
Based on this understanding, it ends up being 20% for six years, then no tithe in the seventh year.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Rubbish -that's just being greedy for church funds.
Anyone can look at their church budget and determine whether it's "reasonable". A typical church would expect to employ clergy, musicians, and probably some kind of admin/secretarial person. It needs a building, which needs to be maintained, heated, insured and so on, and the building needs contents.
It's not too hard to determine the basic operating costs for the kind of church you want to have, and divide by the number of families to get the amount that the average family needs to contribute in order to have that. It's also easy to determine how your family stands in financial terms with respect to the community average.
None of this pays for any charitable work - this is the basic operating cost of having a church like the one you have. If you don't want to (or can't) pay that much, you have to decide what you can do without. Lose the building? Replace the full-time clergy by someone who's just employed to say Mass on a Sunday?
But a few dozen people putting a tenner in the tin doesn't buy much of anything.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
A typical church would expect to employ clergy, musicians, and probably some kind of admin/secretarial person. It needs a building, which needs to be maintained, heated, insured and so on, and the building needs contents.
I suspect that the reality of most British churches would be to employ part of a Minister (or pay a parish share or the equivalent), and possibly pay an honorarium to a musician and - if they're lucky - an administrator. But many churches are run exclusively by volunteers, apart from stipendiary clergy.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I agree with Adeodatus' analysis of 10% effect ...
Er ... wasn't it mine? ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
English churches also have to pay for the fabric of the building, contrary to the belief of many. Although the site may be owned, the cost of the building repairs, maintenance and general upkeep has to be found from parish giving or fundraising, along with the Parish Share to pay for the minister, or share thereof, and share of the diocesan costs (legal team, etc).
Much of the diocesan support team will be covering several roles to keep the diocesan costs down. And lots of roles will be covered by volunteers.
(This voluntary support by volunteers is going to get tougher to find as the retirement age increases.)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I think there's broad agreement that
a) non-profit organisations, including the church require a minimum of income to operate
b) generosity, including but not limited to financial generosity, is or should be a Christian characteristic.
But both of these are long way from "tithing", as in giving 10% of income, to a Church and/or mission, being a "principle" that Christians should follow (the implication being they are bad Christians if they don't, probably by mustering Malachi 4 in support).
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
AFAICT - and the Jewish Encyclopedia article seems to back this up - the tithe was levied on agricultural produce and payable by the landowner. I can't see any evidence that hired workers or artisans would have been subject to the tithe (though I might be missing something).
I'm not sure what this proves except that trying to transpose policies from one economic system onto a completely different system doesn't make much sense.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
AFAICT - and the Jewish Encyclopedia article seems to back this up - the tithe was levied on agricultural produce and payable by the landowner. I can't see any evidence that hired workers or artisans would have been subject to the tithe (though I might be missing something).
I'm not sure what this proves except that trying to transpose policies from one economic system onto a completely different system doesn't make much sense.
Agreed. However, we (well, some of us, anyway) do tend to think there are underlying "eternal principles" behind the "historical particularlities" of Scripture. So, I would argue that while the exact mechanisms of the tithe are certainly not applicable outside the specific context, there are some underlying principles that are. Things like the importance of generosity-- and regular generosity, as a thoughtful spiritual discipline, not as an impulsive response to the sad puppies/swollen bellied children w/ flies on their faces advertisements (although there is a place for spontaneous generosity as well-- and the two seem to be related). The notion in Deut. 14 that giving is not a dreary obligation, but a gift-- a joyful celebration of all that God has given us. And a certain ecclesiology-- that when we gather together as a Christian community, we similarly give of both time and treasure to support our ministry together. When we do this, we may find, as noted above, that 10% is not a reasonable amount for some-- but we may also see that for most of us, it is too little.
In general, I think we see this sort of transition throughout the NT-- a move from rigid, external obedience to "rules" to a more organic obedience that is a natural outgrowth of relationship/ transformed heart.
[ 03. April 2016, 15:13: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
...the tithe was levied on agricultural produce and payable by the landowner. I can't see any evidence that hired workers or artisans would have been subject to the tithe (though I might be missing something).
...trying to transpose policies from one economic system onto a completely different system doesn't make much sense.
I have noticed that and wondered about pottery makers, carpenters, workers of gold and silver, etc.
I have heard people insist you must tithe any gifts received, even though the giver will have already tithed on his success before giving part of it to you as a gift.
A clergy person in an aging church said the insistence years ago that people "tithe on the gross" is biting churches now because it means amounts withheld from wages to fund future pensions were tithed back then, so the pensions received today owe no tithe.
Interpreting laws for max yield today trips us up tomorrow.
Anyway, however tithing was done in OT, we are not under law. Figure out what if any support you think reasonable for you to give to your church, to charities, to individuals in need, and give the amount of your choice that you can genuinely be glad to give - service, money, possessions, time, talent. (And do NOT respond to efforts to manipulate you. This is tricky because some beggars, charities, and churches specialize in manipulation.)
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
originally posted by cliffdweller
However, I would point out that Pensions, Education and Health are not "welfare" or charitable services-- they are exactly what I said-- services that every citizen benefits from. So again, only a small portion of your taxes (the £110bn for welfare) are replacing the charitable activities of tithing.
But you've skipped over my main question re Deut 14-- how does your view of taxes= tithing fit with the depiction of tithing in Deut 14-- as a joyful celebration, even drinking-- of what God has done?
Now I'm confused, cliffdweller. My exact contention is that the tithe was precisely not charity. It was an obligation on every Israelite, to ensure that the worship of YHWH (who, of course, was the personification of the Jewish State) was carried out, and that the then equivalent of our civil service (the priests, levites etc) were adequately resourced to carry out the duties of holding Israel together. The spiritual duty of carrying out generosity to the widow and orphan was the expectation of the pious Jew, but was not imposed in the same way as was the tithe. Of course, we know the tithe was often honoured more in the breach than the observance, but despite this, there was an obligation to pony up in a way that there was not for charitable giving.
As for the Deuteronomy passage, it is not uncommon for modern taxation systems to allow taxation revenues to be used to encourage behaviour that the authorities deem valuable. Thus, in the UK there is, for example, Child Benefit. Basically, any child under the age of 18 brings to the family a monetary credit, paid out of general taxation. This can be used by the family for any purpose, but doesn't affect the tax liability of the family. What is not allowed is for the family to discount their tax by the amount concerned. This seems to be, allowing for cultural differences, not that different to the idea of feasting your friends. You accrue some benefit for a defined activity, but you do have to provide the money.
[ 03. April 2016, 21:12: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
While the economic benefit may or may not be similar, that does not seem at all to be even remotely similar to the purpose of the tithe as outlined in Deut 14, which is what I was asking you to respond to
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
While the economic benefit may or may not be similar, that does not seem at all to be even remotely similar to the purpose of the tithe as outlined in Deut 14, which is what I was asking you to respond to
But there seems to be more than one tithe described in Deut. 14 and elsewhere. The tithe you have described indeed seems like a celebration. But the tithe for the poor seems more like enforced charity and the tithe for the Levites seems pretty much like a tax.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Yes. But it was the Deut 14 tithe I was specifically asking Jolly Jape to respond to in the 2nd half of my question
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
While the economic benefit may or may not be similar, that does not seem at all to be even remotely similar to the purpose of the tithe as outlined in Deut 14, which is what I was asking you to respond to
Well of course it's not an exact parallel, after all, we aren't a Bronze age theocracy, but I think the principles are similar enough to inform our understanding; beneficial activity encouraged by tax breaks. As always, though, YMMV. Pax.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
While the economic benefit may or may not be similar, that does not seem at all to be even remotely similar to the purpose of the tithe as outlined in Deut 14, which is what I was asking you to respond to
Well of course it's not an exact parallel, after all, we aren't a Bronze age theocracy, but I think the principles are similar enough to inform our understanding; beneficial activity encouraged by tax breaks. As always, though, YMMV. Pax.
No, I don't think so. The purpose and intent of the tithe described in Deut 14 has nothing whatsoever to do with creating beneficial economic activity. That may or may not have been a happy byproduct but it very clearly was not it's purpose.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by cliffdweller
However, I would point out that Pensions, Education and Health are not "welfare" or charitable services-- they are exactly what I said-- services that every citizen benefits from. So again, only a small portion of your taxes (the £110bn for welfare) are replacing the charitable activities of tithing.
Now I'm confused, cliffdweller. My exact contention is that the tithe was precisely not charity. It was an obligation on every Israelite, to ensure that the worship of YHWH (who, of course, was the personification of the Jewish State) was carried out, and that the then equivalent of our civil service (the priests, levites etc) were adequately resourced to carry out the duties of holding Israel together. The spiritual duty of carrying out generosity to the widow and orphan was the expectation of the pious Jew, but was not imposed in the same way as was the tithe. Of course, we know the tithe was often honoured more in the breach than the observance, but despite this, there was an obligation to pony up in a way that there was not for charitable giving.
Yeah, I think I/we got going on two parallel tracks because I was responding to this comment, not by you, but by Leo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No. The welfare state does a lot of things that was covered by tithing in the OT - healing the sick, educating the young, caring for the unemployed etc.
So our taxes are part of our giving.
You responded to my response to Leo by talking about the difference between taxation and charitable giving, and how some tithes seemed to fit the taxation model and some seemed to fit the charitable giving model. But I was still stuck on Leo's comment, which really doesn't have to do with the mechanism behind the contribution but rather as to what the funds were used for. I read your comments through that filter, but it sounds like your comments were really talking more about the mechanism for raising the funds rather than the purpose for which they were used.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
@ cliffdweller:
Ah, I see. That does make sense.
BTW, I wan't really talking about beneficial economic activity as such, rather economic assets used to promote activity which is beneficial in "softer" terms, hence the choice of Child Benefit as the example. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Was it not Chrysostom who said that our tithe was to be made in three forms; a third to the church, a third to relieve suffering, and a third to charities? Or is that a bit of urban legend patristics?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Was it not Chrysostom who said that our tithe was to be made in three forms; a third to the church, a third to relieve suffering, and a third to charities? Or is that a bit of urban legend patristics?
I don't know if it's an urban legend or not, but there are stories of Orthodox couples who later were recognized as saints who followed that model.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Give at a level which makes you really think about how you handle your money. It's not so much about what we give but about what we keep back and how we use that.
A "tithe" that amounts to 10% for everyone is both legalistic and not in the spirit of the NT. For some, 10% is a fraction of their disposable income, for others to give 10% would put them in need.
We should all consider seriously what we need, what we might give and what other needs there are. Of course prepare for your future but don't forget to be generous in the present.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Agreed. However, we (well, some of us, anyway) do tend to think there are underlying "eternal principles" behind the "historical particularlities" of Scripture.
Yes, I agree with this.
What I am tempted to do is to link the fact that the tithe was imposed on landowners with the jubilee year concept elsewhere and claim that the Old Testament is really advocating some form of Georgism, but I think that might reflect my own political preferences rather than Scripture ...
[ 04. April 2016, 06:23: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I think tithing might make more sense if churches (I'm CofE) had more autonomy over how they spend their income. At the moment we have a parish share that is set regardless of the income of parishioners, with no account taken of the number of second homes (which is our neck of the woods is a real issue) or of how incomes generally are rising or not. We're also proscribed from spending our money as we would wish - for example we can't use free professional services for things like architecture, structural engineering, etc - but must use those 'approved'.
We had a recent visit from our diocesan finance guru who stood in the pulpit (not a wise choice IMO) and stated that a rise in giving of c7% should be the norm for everyone: this at a time when annuity rates are pitiful. I took some pleasure in asking how I was meant to increase my giving by 7% when my salary - set by the parish - had only increased by 2% and when actions demanded by his office had contributed to my losing over £1,000 of tax free income: he had no response.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Whatever happened to the concept of personal responsibility? Any amount ( however codified or commanded) thereby relieves the giver of responsibility. A post above celebrates the only principle that matters; i.e. everything belongs to God. Thereafter all is a matter for personal responsibility and decision.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
In this country's political discourse, "personal responsibility" is a dog whistle for "fuck the poor."
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: In this country's political discourse, "personal responsibility" is a dog whistle for "fuck the poor."
The Dutch PM calls this the 'participation society'. It means exactly the same.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
How fortunate we are, then, that not every usage of a phrase has to be interpreted in the context of US political discourse!
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
As someone who stands in the wake of the reformation, I'm sceptical about legalism when it comes to matters of tithing (or more generally, giving), but at the same time a backlash against legalism is sometimes used a bad excuse for people to be tight-fisted.
There must be a reasonable middle whereby the Church teaches a sound theology of money, sacrifice, etc. without trying to peer over people's shoulders to make sure they're giving an appropriate amount.
I'd like to be able to say it should be left up to people's consciences, but then one risks the problem Mousethief raises, whereby some people (yes, even christians) develop blind spots in their moral theology when it comes to finance.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...stated that a rise in giving of c7% should be the norm for everyone: this at a time when annuity rates are pitiful. I took some pleasure in asking how I was meant to increase my giving by 7% when my salary - set by the parish - had only increased by 2% and when actions demanded by his office had contributed to my losing over £1,000 of tax free income: he had no response.
Yup, one of his breed announced to the church gathering that everyone should give more each year because everyone gets more each year, social security increases each year. I hadn't had a raise in my income in several years and the government had already announced that Social Security increase would be completely absorbed by the Medicare premium increase. His assumption "everyone gets an increase each year" was way outdated economically.
They need money so they invent ways to "justify" demanding money instead of doing the work of improving the ways they explain what the money is used for so people can develop their own reasons to give more (or less or differently). We no longer (if we ever did) live in a world where people blindly do whatever the church organization tells them to do.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
We had a recent visit from our diocesan finance guru who stood in the pulpit (not a wise choice IMO) and stated that a rise in giving of c7% should be the norm for everyone: this at a time when annuity rates are pitiful. I took some pleasure in asking how I was meant to increase my giving by 7% when my salary - set by the parish - had only increased by 2% and when actions demanded by his office had contributed to my losing over £1,000 of tax free income: he had no response.
If they were smart, they would increase your salary by a large amount, you would increase your donation by the same amount, and the treasurer would claim Gift Aid on it. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by BabyWombat (# 18552) on
:
I am much conflicted regarding tithing, but feel strongly it must be a personal decision and not an “expectation” established by the church. Yes, parishes have budgets, as do dioceses. Oddly, households must adjust their budgets based on their income: no pay rise in an inflationary financial cycle means cuts at home. Yet parishes and dioceses appear to want to do the reverse: adjust their income based on their budget.
Many years ago I was on the “stewardship committee” of my parish, making the pitch for pledge dollars. The parish had an endowment worth well over $1,000,000. On my list was a poor family: lived in a shabby trailer, husband worked at minimum wage, two small children. They depended on the wife’s parents for new clothes and toys for the children. There were other families in the parish like them. I made a very ‘soft sell’ to them regarding a pledge, and was hard pressed to disagree when the wife said “If the church roof leaks, you can fix it. If ours leaks, we can’t.”
More recently I served as half of a two person self-supporting clergy team (or here in the US “non-stipendiary clergy“) for the same parish. We replaced a full time rector who received a salary of around $45,000, plus housing and utilities, health insurance and pension contributions. The parish paid the secretary, the organist, the full time sexton (who also received housing), the man who plowed the snow and the one who picked up the trash. They did not pay either priest. My colleague and I both worked full time day jobs for our income. We spent evenings and weekends making hospital visits, handling regular services, funerals, weddings, chairing parish meetings. I usually rose at 4 AM to write sermons when I was up on the preaching rota. It was very hard to not allow “leanness of soul” to creep in! Did we tithe? – no. Did we give? Yes. No, my actions did not pay the heat bill, but I pray to God they warmed some souls.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BabyWombat:
Oddly, households must adjust their budgets based on their income: no pay rise in an inflationary financial cycle means cuts at home. Yet parishes and dioceses appear to want to do the reverse: adjust their income based on their budget.
Parishioners often seem to want the same services for less money, rather like the way they want to pay less in tax, but receive the same level of services. That's understandable - everybody would love to pay less for the same stuff - but it doesn't usually work like that.
If you want a certain level of service, it requires a certain amount of work. That work can be hired, or it can be performed on a voluntary basis by parishioners, but it has to be done one way or the other.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Parishioners often seem to want the same services for less money
True.
I think communication is often neglected. The people are told "we need $600,000" and few details about why.
I'm told it's inappropriate to tell people any budget details because that opens the door to people making their own comments about which programs they think should be funded or cut, but the people elected the vestry (board of elders, whatever) and only that governing body have any right to debate specific expenses.
I have suggested do like public radio - describe the costs in ways people can picture and relate to - invite people to "sponsor" (pay the cost of) one month of Sunday school, one week of having clergy, one choral anthem (including the music purchase and music director's time getting familiar with the music and leading rehearsals). If the music program is quickly fully subscribed but no one wants to pay for a month of Sunday school, either the program or the way it is done does not have the support of the people! Is it failing to meet real needs or has it's purpose and method been poorly explained?
One church I visited had a large entryway lined with signup sheets listing specific small needs people could volunteer to meet - bring 2 lightbulbs (stated kind) to replace the burned out bulbs in the hall, cut the grass (pick one of these dates), fix the drip on the sink faucet, etc. Lots of small projects easy to do by someone with the skills, many cost no money to do but saved the church the cost of hiring.
Not saying either of these are great or universal, only that people don't naturally relate to the abstraction of large yearly budget amounts, they relate to amounts they deal with daily themselves and specific purposes they personally value.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I wonder if tithers likely to be more 'satisfied' with or more committed to the church than people who just give whatever they feel like giving. Are non-tithers in a tithing church less happy than non-tithers in a non-tithing church?
It might be thought that non-tithing churches are more relaxed about how much attenders/members give, but although I've never been part of a church with a culture of tithing, I've still had to endure endless pleas for more money; in fact, in my church role I often had to make such pleas myself. The experience has only reinforced my sense that churches are too often endless guzzlers of money.
If you don't belong to a wealthy congregation there are only two solutions: your church either needs a reliable external source of funds, or else it must go organic and cut the need for money right down. 'Giving to God' can be done privately.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Three thoughts.
1. Giving works differently in large churches and small churches. The former tends to be more budget- and business-oriented; in the latter there is more of a sense of "family" and people give spontaneously when a need is made known.
2. People need to know that their money is being spent wisely and responsibly; this means that the Treasurer needs to make a clear presentation at the AGM of where the money has gone (and be prepared to field questions). Certainly in our church both the annual budget and he accounts are presented to church members' scrutiny and approval.
3. While I don't go for "pressurised" appeals or for tithing, folk do need to be presented with the real costs of running a church and basically told that, if that's what they want, they need to pay for it. Strangely enough, people seem more willing to pay for "tangible" things such as equipment or maintenance than for less quantifiable mission and outreach projects.
[ 04. April 2016, 22:33: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I still am troubled by the thought, in my double-minded way, that I should pay for my seat and that of the poor if any came. But they don't. I get to fellowship, to swim with a shoal, baa with the flock and should pay for what that costs. But it's offset by my disagreeing with just about EVERYTHING that is thought, said, sung and done. And NOT. Not said. Not sung. Not done. Disagreeing with the fact that the right things aren't said, sung and done. At least I can say that. Although since my mother's fall in December my attendance has collapsed. And I'd be going alone if I did. I've done too good a job of deconstructing it all for my wife! How back-slidden we are!
In my previous char-evo church I couldn't say a thing. I'll be moving back to the area and I won't go except to learn from the poor. How to serve them in prayer and other group work without superstition. In a totally superstitious environment. I wouldn't dream of wasting my time on the services or stiflingly repressive home groups. Last time I had to drive 10 miles to one. Never again. Am I obliged to pay because it's the only organization I know (along with others even worse in their 'worship' and beliefs) that lifts a finger to the poor?
If I went to the cathedral, that would feel different. I'd feel a transaction had been done and needed paying for. As in theatre, cinema, restaurant.
The Quakers, Methodists-&-Baptists, multiple Anglican outlets and others are all in walking distance. Might have to try the first two.
And pay for my ticket.
Perhaps that's what those of us with money for now should do. Just pay our way as we would for a plumber. If only I could get a fellowship as worth the money as my dentist.
As for the 'charitable', 'works' impulse, I'll investigate if I can do more outside church. Prison visiting. That kind of thing. I've done it before. Time is money after all.
So thank you for helping me work this out. If I go, I should pay. And if it doesn't deliver, take my money elsewhere.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
It does cause a lot of bitterness when one is financially strapped and then the church hits you up for a contribution to some cause or other when you *know* they're sitting on grant money, endowments, what have you.
One of the aspects of our current host congregation I dislike the most is that every freaking activity has a price tag attached to it--6 bucks for the seder education meal (I got hit up for this right after my husband lost his day job), 15 for the ladies' night, "donation" baskets at every potluck and soup supper and doughnut table. Heck, 20 bucks just to enter the hall for the privilege of bidding on donated silent auction items. And they wonder why our Vietnamese people don't come (think elderly, fixed-income, no savings, Medicaid dependent).
It shames me when I have to pick up a blank "end of year" giving statement. This past year they dropped us off the offering envelope list entirely, which is good stewardship, though embarrassing. Our monetary giving is sporadic, in the form of cash not-in-envelopes. By far the bulk of our giving is service and time. But that isn't recordable or tracked... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I slink around a lot.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
By far the bulk of our giving is service and time. But that isn't recordable or tracked...
I have occasionally asked why churches put it in the bulletin when someone donates $25 one time for flowers for that Sunday but people who donate 2 hours (plus gas money) every week to provide a choir are never named. Is one donation of flowers worth so much more than 50 weeks of Wednesday evenings?
A friend on a vestry looked surprised, and agreed it was an imbalanced appreciation. (Not that anything changed.)
I currently donate little cash, but have agreed to be at least once a month the "2nd adult" necessary for kiddie Sunday school to exist. I suspect that donation of getting up extra early (for me) to sit with the kiddies is a more functionally useful gift to the church than a few dollars, but as LC says, dollars is what gets measured.
I would like to see the bulletin used to express occasional appreciation of time gifts. If they are going to name the flower donor, why not also each week name one of the choir members, or one of the sunday school teachers, or one of the staff not named in the short list of important people, so every year just about everyone gets acknowledged for their ongoing non money donation?
But I don't run a church (which is probably a real good thing!)
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0