|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Tithing
|
Villz
Apprentice
# 15365
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 3 | From: South Shields | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
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."
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
St. Gwladys
Shipmate
# 14504
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
"I say - are you a matelot?"
"Careful what you say sir, we're on board ship here"
From "New York Girls", Steeleye Span, Commoners Crown (Voiced by Peter Sellers)
Posts: 3333 | From: Rhymney Valley, South Wales | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
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."
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
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.)
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I agree with Adeodatus' analysis of 10% effect ...
Er ... wasn't it mine? ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
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.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
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.)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Yes. But it was the Deut 14 tithe I was specifically asking Jolly Jape to respond to in the 2nd half of my question
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
@ 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.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
In this country's political discourse, "personal responsibility" is a dog whistle for "fuck the poor."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
How fortunate we are, then, that not every usage of a phrase has to be interpreted in the context of US political discourse!
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
