Benevolence via Tithes & Offerings

[Pavel Mosko]

The subject is essentially about using your tithes and offerings to help needy people you know as opposed to giving them to your local church. What do you think of this?

Personally I have done this sort of thing from time to time, especially when I was in between churches, or knew of a friend, or someone who had an urgent need. There are various problems and potential problems that can come with this, but I think this sort of thing can be very positive if done judiciously.

 

[SkyWriting]

The subject is essentially about using your tithes and offerings to help needy people you know as opposed to giving them to your local church. What do you think of this?

Personally I have done this sort of thing from time to time, especially when I was in between churches, or knew of a friend, or someone who had an urgent need. There are various problems and potential problems that can come with this, but I think this sort of thing can be very positive if done judiciously.

My boss gave me permission to take solid chunks of aluminum from our recycling container at work. I leave these where panhandlers normally hang out. Over time this "converts" them into junk dealers and they stop panhandling. They just disappear from the corners.

 

[SwordmanJr]

The subject is essentially about using your tithes and offerings to help needy people you know as opposed to giving them to your local church. What do you think of this?

Personally I have done this sort of thing from time to time, especially when I was in between churches, or knew of a friend, or someone who had an urgent need. There are various problems and potential problems that can come with this, but I think this sort of thing can be very positive if done judiciously.

Another way to ask your question is to do a slight change in perspective:

Is it morally upright to hand over the primary, largest share of one's giving to an organization that absorbs most of what's handed over to them, in support of the facility and its staffing, and from which the "giver" benefits directly from their own "giving?" Is that REALLY a type of "giving" when one benefits from his own "giving?" Not really, but many people get a warm fuzzie from it, and have done so for so long that they have no capacity for conscious misgivings about their own illusions and misguided beliefs; all the time thinking they're genuinely "giving to God."

When you give to meet genuine needs first and foremost, and then hand over whatever is left, if anything, to your local, institutional church organization, then there is no moral crisis in doing so, because in most cases you will have done far more right than most.

It's inevitable that some will object to this by, again, holding up the needs of the institutional organization and its real estate, operational costs, and staffing salaries. Frankly, such arguments are unfounded where scripture is concerned. Arguing that the hired "pastor" is somehow entitled to remain a perpetual burden upon the people, that too is unfounded. I know a number of ministry hirelings who are gainfully employed because they choose to not allow the full extent of their needs to be a perpetual burden on the people to whom they minister. The entitlement argument from scripture about the ox and the grain, which is mostly misapplied, falls flat when we see the example Paul set forth in his own life.

So, you do far better than most when you give to meet genuine needs first and foremost. You alone will answer to the Lord for how you gave. Leaving it to others is like thinking that one will be allowed to stand before the Throne of God, point the finger at your "pastor" and blame him for you believing lies rather than to exercise proper responsibility for your beliefs, and how you ensure your "giving" is truly GIVING. When you give to meet needs, you receive no earthly benefit in return apart from what the Lord provides for you. Giving to churchianity is, in most cases, receiving benefit back from one's own alleged "giving," which isn't "giving" at all, but rather paying one's dues like they would the Elk's Club or Moose Lodge.

Jr

 

[Pavel Mosko]

It's inevitable that some will object to this by, again, holding up the needs of the institutional organization and its real estate, operational costs, and staffing salaries.

lol yeah that was definitely one of the major objections I expected.

When you give to meet genuine needs first and foremost, and then hand over whatever is left, if anything, to your local, institutional church organization, then there is no moral crisis in doing so, because in most cases you will have done far more right than most.

That is what I figure as well. Actually it is more a conscience issue, where I have seen some churches not really steward the money very well but on the other hand I can see lots of times where some times that money can make a huge difference in somebody life when they are about to have utilities cut off, be evicted etc. Interestingly enough I had even heard some "Faith" Bible teachers (Prosperity Preachers) preach against this (Marilyn Hickey to be exact) which I thought was very interesting. Her message which quoted maybe one verse from Proverbs actually went against more verses of the Bible!

So, you do far better than most when you give to meet genuine needs first and foremost.

Yes there is that verse in James which speaks about "true religions from above" is helping widows and orphans, which I believe supports the saying "Charity begins at home". I also tend to site it for folks that like the saying "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship!" Those things are not mutually exclusive or religions are not all negative or the equivalent of Phariseeism etc. there is a positive take on that concept.

Thanks for posting!