Question 3

[dies-l]

Can anyone cite a comment in this thread where somebody said it's legalistic to voluntarily give any particular amount of money?

The made-up faults in this thread are growing by the hour.

Post #40

I said: Tithing out of a sense of requirement is legalism. Tithing out of desire is grace.


You said: "Tithing" is legalism; "giving" is grace.

At this point in the conversation, I had explained that "tithing" merely means giving 1/10 of one's income and does not imply any sort of motive. And, I indicated that it is the motive (tithing out of requirement vs. desire) that makes something legalistic. You responded as indicated above, in disagreement with this.

If this is not what you meant, then please feel free to clarify. I do want to be sure that I am understanding you correctly.

 

[2thePoint]

Post #40

I said: Tithing out of a sense of requirement is legalism. Tithing out of desire is grace.


You said: "Tithing" is legalism; "giving" is grace.

At this point in the conversation, I had explained that "tithing" merely means giving 1/10 of one's income and does not imply any sort of motive. And, I indicated that it is the motive (tithing out of requirement vs. desire) that makes something legalistic. You responded as indicated above, in disagreement with this.

If this is not what you meant, then please feel free to clarify. I do want to be sure that I am understanding you correctly.

I thought I had already clarified: you can't keep using a loaded term like "tithing" and make it mean "ten percent and nothing else". Tithing is a specific Christian term for a commandment to pay 10% of one's income, and "giving" is only possible after that. That's what "tithe" means in Christianity. If your personal conviction is to give 10% or 2% or 40%, what is that to me, and why tell the world how much you give? This whole thread has been debated between one side that considers the tithe mandatory and the other that does not. For the side that believes it's mandatory, that is legalism. For those that pay 10% but do not consider it mandatory, I never had a problem with that. Yet as I said, if you don't consider it mandatory, then why talk about it at all? I don't say how much I give because it's nobody else's business. Why do you talk about it in public then?

 

[dies-l]

I thought I had already clarified: you can't keep using a loaded term like "tithing" and make it mean "ten percent and nothing else". Tithing is a specific Christian term for a commandment to pay 10% of one's income, and "giving" is only possible after that. That's what "tithe" means in Christianity. If your personal conviction is to give 10% or 2% or 40%, what is that to me, and why tell the world how much you give? This whole thread has been debated between one side that considers the tithe mandatory and the other that does not. For the side that believes it's mandatory, that is legalism.

Thank you for clarifying. I do disagree with your understanding of the word, though, as I have always heard the term used in relation to voluntary giving. I have yet to go to a church that makes its members give anything, let alone a full tenth. I have been to several churches that encourage members to voluntarily give 1/10 of their income, and these churches have always called it a "tithe". So, I don't think that the idea of the tithe as a mandatory or commanded action is at all universal within Christianity.

But, I guess we just have different experiences with churches.

For those that pay 10% but do not consider it mandatory, I never had a problem with that. Yet as I said, if you don't consider it mandatory, then why talk about it at all? I don't say how much I give because it's nobody else's business. Why do you talk about it in public then?

2 reasons:

(1) My own experience: At one point, I believed that "generous" giving was throwing in the extra pocket change that was in my pockets. Others shared with me that they voluntarily tithed to the church, and it helped me to realize that biblical giving is not about throwing your leftovers at God, but about making Him a priority in your budget. So, I learned from those who told me about voluntary tithing that giving is a more fulfilling spiritual discipline if it is substantial, planned, and budgeted. Just like I plan ahead and budget to pay my mortgage, my car insurance, my utilities, and so on, I find it to be a blessing to me to plan ahead and budget for my giving. And, like many Christians, I use the OT tithe as a model for budgeted giving. So, I talk about it, because I believe that it is a good spiritual discipline. And, I would say that it is distinguishable from the generic "giving" in that giving is not necessarily planned or budgeted for. So a gift might be wholly sacrificial or it might be leftovers. And, there is a huge difference between these. When I budget a portion of my giving, I am blessed by this, and I want to share this with others.

(2) At one point in my life, I believed that a tenth of my income was an impossible amount for me to give away. Because others shared with me their experiences with voluntary tithing, I learned that it was possible. I also learned that the majority of those who did it found that their finances were no worse off and very often more solid after they started the practice than before. So, I share my experience, which is that I began giving an amount that I considered excessive, only to find out that the practice strengthened, rather, than compromised my financial picture.

Mind you I am not talking about health and wealth, prosperity stuff here. I am by no means wealthy by American standards. And, I have always been filthy rich by global standards. When I began tithing, God didn't begin pouring money into my lap at every opportunity. It wasn't returned to me seven fold or any such thing. I simply began a spiritual discipline and found that the discipline changed my attitudes about God, the church, and money. And, when my attitudes changed, my actions changed. And, when my actions changed, my situation changed. And so on.

 

[2thePoint]

Thank you for clarifying. I do disagree with your understanding of the word, though, as I have always heard the term used in relation to voluntary giving. I have yet to go to a church that makes its members give anything, let alone a full tenth. I have been to several churches that encourage members to voluntarily give 1/10 of their income, and these churches have always called it a "tithe". So, I don't think that the idea of the tithe as a mandatory or commanded action is at all universal within Christianity.

When I say "mandatory" I don't mean that they force anyone (though one Baptist pastor tried to get people to give their checking acct. numbers for automatic withdrawals!). What they do is browbeat people and fill them with guilt by claiming that not tithing means "robbing God". It's mandatory as in failure to do so is a sin against God, because they say the Bible commands Christians to tithe. This is beyond "encouragement". That is what has been done in every church I was ever in, over several denominations.

At one point, I believed that "generous" giving was throwing in the extra pocket change that was in my pockets. Others shared with me that they voluntarily tithed to the church,

I never tell anyone that throwing pocket change into a collection plate could qualify as Biblical giving. I have repeatedly stated here that giving is what people do because they care and want to help. The amount is irrelevant; the heart is what matters. But it is simply not possible to give voluntarily if one believes it is a sin against God not to do it. We don't call it voluntary if we refrain from stealing, for example. Sure we can choose to sin, but it's sin we're talking about. With tithing, it can't be voluntary if it's required, because it specifies an amount and a particular recipient ("the church").

Just like I plan ahead and budget to pay my mortgage,

Those are bills; giving is not any kind of obligation. We give to those in need, and the needy are not always the same people.

I also learned that the majority of those who did it found that their finances were no worse off and very often more solid after they started the practice than before. So, I share my experience, which is that I began giving an amount that I considered excessive, only to find out that the practice strengthened, rather, than compromised my financial picture.

This "give to get" is not giving but investing. "If you do this, you will be blessed", when applied to "tithing", is used as a hook or incentive. But the proper incentive is love; we are to give to those who cannot repay us, and not because we think God will rain down blessings.

Mind you I am not talking about health and wealth, prosperity stuff here.

The difference is only in degree; the principle is the same.

I simply began a spiritual discipline and found that the discipline changed my attitudes about God, the church, and money. And, when my attitudes changed, my actions changed. And, when my actions changed, my situation changed. And so on.

A "spiritual discipline" is the opposite of giving because someone needs it and you care about them. The attitude should change first of course, but not because of "discipline" but because of love.

 

[Jerushabelle]

It's rather impossible for any Pastor to claim that not tithing means "robbing God" when God Himself spoke the words. That would be sort of a copyright infringement!

 

[dies-l]

When I say "mandatory" I don't mean that they force anyone (though one Baptist pastor tried to get people to give their checking acct. numbers for automatic withdrawals!). What they do is browbeat people and fill them with guilt by claiming that not tithing means "robbing God". It's mandatory as in failure to do so is a sin against God, because they say the Bible commands Christians to tithe. This is beyond "encouragement". That is what has been done in every church I was ever in, over several denominations.

I am sorry that this has been your experience. It has not been mine.

I never tell anyone that throwing pocket change into a collection plate could qualify as Biblical giving. I have repeatedly stated here that giving is what people do because they care and want to help.

I didn't mean to imply that that was your position. I was stating what my belief used to be.

The amount is irrelevant; the heart is what matters. But it is simply not possible to give voluntarily if one believes it is a sin against God not to do it. We don't call it voluntary if we refrain from stealing, for example. Sure we can choose to sin, but it's sin we're talking about. With tithing, it can't be voluntary if it's required, because it specifies an amount and a particular recipient ("the church").

But, here's the thing. When I tithe, I do so because I want to. It is not required, and nobody but my wife and I would say anything to me about it if I chose not to. I do not believe that I will be punished by God if I don't tithe, and I don't believe that I am entitled to a reward because I do. So, as far as I can tell, that would make it voluntary. But, you are right, if it were required, then it would not be voluntary.

Those are bills; giving is not any kind of obligation. We give to those in need, and the needy are not always the same people.

Fair point. But, many of my bills are voluntary. I could choose to do without a cell phone, but I choose to pay a cell phone bill. I could choose to do without internet, but I choose to pay my internet bill. I could choose to live in a smaller home, but I choose to live where I do and pay the mortgage. Likewise, I could choose not to tithe, but I choose to give a tenth of my income to the church, as a regular part of my giving.

This "give to get" is not giving but investing. "If you do this, you will be blessed", when applied to "tithing", is used as a hook or incentive. But the proper incentive is love; we are to give to those who cannot repay us, and not because we think God will rain down blessings.

Do you see loving and being blessed as mutually exclusive? I am blessed when I love people, not necessarily because I have something to gain from them, but because love is a discipline that grows me. Giving is an act of love that results in personal growth. This is not a "give to get". This is an observation that when we practice spiritual disciplines we grow spiritually. That is the point of discipline.

The difference is only in degree; the principle is the same.

Nonsense! One says, "do x and you will be given a reward." The other says, "practice doing x regularly and you will become better at doing x". This is not a difference "only in degree". It is fundamental philosophical difference.

The prosperity gospel is the equivalent of "Do 20 pushups every day, and God will give you a cheeseburger."

What I am saying is the equivalent of "Do 20 pushups every day, and you will grow stronger and will be more able to do pushups."

If you see these as varying degrees of the same principle, I fear you are misunderstanding something.

A "spiritual discipline" is the opposite of giving because someone needs it and you care about them. The attitude should change first of course, but not because of "discipline" but because of love.

How is discipline the opposite of caring? Discipline is very often a result of caring and a great demonstration of love. For example, I love my wife, and so I want her to be treated with respect. I also know that I naturally have a temper and can be prone to say disrespectful things. So, I practice various disciplines to better control my temper and my tongue, so that I can better show my love to my wife and to anyone else.

Likewise, I love my church and I love those who benefit from my church's ministry. I also know that I tend to be a stingy, selfish, and fearful person when it comes to money. So, I practice the discipline of regular, substantial, budgeted giving so that I can learn to be more generous and less fearful about my finances, so that I can better love others with my material resources.

 

[2thePoint]

I am sorry that this has been your experience. It has not been mine.

It is the experience of many; there are many websites discussing the problem. It's a form of spiritual abuse.

But, here's the thing. When I tithe, I do so because I want to. It is not required, and nobody but my wife and I would say anything to me about it if I chose not to. I do not believe that I will be punished by God if I don't tithe, and I don't believe that I am entitled to a reward because I do. So, as far as I can tell, that would make it voluntary. But, you are right, if it were required, then it would not be voluntary.

This is exactly what I've been saying. But "tithe" is still a loaded Christian word that means "a specific requirement of God". And again, there's no point in divulging the percentage you choose; nobody else needs to know. Many who talk about tithing adopt a "holier than thou" attitude and look down their noses at anyone who doesn't accusing them of robbing God or not loving or being worldly, etc. Not saying you say that, but it's very, very common. It would be most helpful to stop saying how much you give.

I could choose to do without a cell phone, but I choose to pay a cell phone bill. I could choose to do without internet, but I choose to pay my internet bill. I could choose to live in a smaller home, but I choose to live where I do and pay the mortgage. Likewise, I could choose not to tithe, but I choose to give a tenth of my income to the church, as a regular part of my giving.

And choosing not to do those things is not "robbing God". That's my point.

Do you see loving and being blessed as mutually exclusive?

Of course not. But I do believe that giving with the motive of receiving is not giving at all. I should give just because it makes me happy and makes God happy (not to mention the one in need), not because I expect to receive blessings in return. They're always greatly appreciated, but there is no necessary one-to-one correlation between the two. So whenever someone says "I began to tithe and someone gave me a car", they're seeing tithing as 'give to get' and 'cause and effect'.

Personal anecdote: A family I know here in town started to tithe. Not long afterwards, someone made it possible for them to buy their first home (they had rented for decades). They immediately correlated the tithing to the house as a stamp of divine blessing on tithing. But a few months later the main wage-earner was fired from his job, and they are living off retirement and public assistance. Did they correlate that to the tithe too? Of course not; they chalked it up to "testing". See the problem?

Nonsense! One says, "do x and you will be given a reward." The other says, "practice doing x regularly and you will become better at doing x". This is not a difference "only in degree". It is fundamental philosophical difference.

That isn't the argument I was responding to. Before, the idea was that if I do $X I will receive $x in return. And I can be a better person without giving a dime, but my time and talents, my advice, my hospitality, etc. Tithing is never done on anything but money, which others have pointed out was never Biblical.

How is discipline the opposite of caring? Discipline is very often a result of caring and a great demonstration of love. For example, I love my wife, and so I want her to be treated with respect. I also know that I naturally have a temper and can be prone to say disrespectful things. So, I practice various disciplines to better control my temper and my tongue, so that I can better show my love to my wife and to anyone else.

You're overgeneralizing my argument; I never said that discipline is the opposite of caring. What I said was that the caring must come first; while your anecdote had the caring come second.

I will respond to the rest later; have to run.

 

[dies-l]

It is the experience of many; there are many websites discussing the problem. It's a form of spiritual abuse.

I don't discount that. There are a lot of shady "churches" out there.

This is exactly what I've been saying. But "tithe" is still a loaded Christian word that means "a specific requirement of God".

In your experience, perhaps. But, like I said, not in mine.

And again, there's no point in divulging the percentage you choose; nobody else needs to know.

When I was a new believer, I found it helpful to know how other people determined how and what to give. And, many people give as a percentage of their income. That was helpful for me to know.

Many who talk about tithing adopt a "holier than thou" attitude and look down their noses at anyone who doesn't accusing them of robbing God or not loving or being worldly, etc. Not saying you say that, but it's very, very common. It would be most helpful to stop saying how much you give.

And, I hope you don't see me as being "holier than thou". Like I said, the only reason I bring it up is to share my own experience with giving. FTR, I have not and will not share "how much I give". I share only a principle that I follow as a baseline for determining what I can afford to give.

And choosing not to do those things is not "robbing God". That's my point.

I agree. Malachi is misused at times, such that people forget that tithing for Christians might a good discipline, but it is a not a legal requirement. And, as others have pointed out, the OT tithe does not translate perfectly (or even very well) to a modern economy.

Of course not. But I do believe that giving with the motive of receiving is not giving at all. I should give just because it makes me happy

Hmm. Giving because it makes you happy? Is happiness not a blessing to you? (FTR, this is the very type of blessing that I was talking about).

and makes God happy (not to mention the one in need), not because I expect to receive blessings in return. They're always greatly appreciated, but there is no necessary one-to-one correlation between the two. So whenever someone says "I began to tithe and someone gave me a car", they're seeing tithing as 'give to get' and 'cause and effect'.

I agree. To say, "I will tithe, and God will give me a car" is foolish and unbiblical. To say "I will give generously and I will use the tithe as a baseline for my giving, and God will teach me to be a more generous giver" is entirely different.

Personal anecdote: A family I know here in town started to tithe. Not long afterwards, someone made it possible for them to buy their first home (they had rented for decades). They immediately correlated the tithing to the house as a stamp of divine blessing on tithing. But a few months later the main wage-earner was fired from his job, and they are living off retirement and public assistance. Did they correlate that to the tithe too? Of course not; they chalked it up to "testing". See the problem?

I see the problem, and that is why I place the prosperity "Gospel" in the same category as the Jehovah's Witness "Gospel" or the Mormon "Gospel". All of the above are false gospels.

That isn't the argument I was responding to. Before, the idea was that if I do $X I will receive $x in return. And I can be a better person without giving a dime, but my time and talents, my advice, my hospitality, etc. Tithing is never done on anything but money, which others have pointed out was never Biblical.

My opinion and what is taught at my church is that tithing and giving is a principle that should permeate a person's life. It should not be all about money. We should give just as generously, if not more so, of our time. As a new homeowner of a very old house, I have been very blessed to be a part of a body of believers who are very generous with their time and not just their money.

You're overgeneralizing my argument; I never said that discipline is the opposite of caring.

Actually, that is almost exactly what you said. You said: "A "spiritual discipline" is the opposite of giving because someone needs it and you care about them." But, perhaps, I misunderstood.

My point is that giving as a "spiritual discipline" is entirely consistent with
"giving because someone needs it and you care about them." I consistently see how the local church meets the needs of people in the community and around the world, and I want to participate in that both physically and financially. And, part of the way that I do that is by practicing a specific discipline of budgeted giving (i.e., tithing).

What I said was that the caring must come first; while your anecdote had the caring come second.

I think you misunderstood. In both anecdotes, I discipline myself because I care. I don't care because I discipline myself. So, in both cases:

Love ==> Discipline ==> Greater skill in the acts of caring

I will respond to the rest later; have to run.

Thanks. I must say that the conversation seems to be going a little more smoothly now.

 

[2thePoint]

I do think we're still talking past each other, but wanted to finish my response.

Likewise, I love my church and I love those who benefit from my church's ministry. I also know that I tend to be a stingy, selfish, and fearful person when it comes to money. So, I practice the discipline of regular, substantial, budgeted giving so that I can learn to be more generous and less fearful about my finances, so that I can better love others with my material resources.

Part of the problem is in defining "church". We think that it isn't a real church without a building, pews, a stage, a pulpit, a choir/praise band, a mortgage, utility bills, property maintenance, a parking lot, lights, salaries, benefits, and all the other money-draining aspects of what tradition has defined as "church". So we think that it's only right to support this traditional model. And I agree.... if one joins a club, lodge, or business, one should support it with membership dues.

But that's not what Jesus came to establish. Never is the church described in terms of officers or buildings or paying bills, but as one Body with many parts, a spiritual "building". Our giving should always be to help the truly poor, which includes missionaries who give up their homes and lifestyles to take the gospel to foreign lands. If people want Christian clubs that's fine, but not everyone can afford to support them, and true charitable giving should never be wasted on making ourselves more comfortable "in church" instead of feeding the starving or sheltering the homeless.

"God's work" doesn't need a budget or an accountant, in contrast to the line most preachers give. It doesn't need all the trappings of traditional religions to go forward. All it needs is a community of believers who care about the lost and the poor. People, especially in this age of instant communication, have shown their ability to band together for a cause without any officers or planners or institutional structure. If there were suddenly no "churches" as we know them (a distinct possibility with the impending economic collapse), God's work would not skip a beat--- and might even pick up speed.

That's all I have to say.

 

[Jerushabelle]

There sits our God, unchanging from the beginning of time on forward.
We can sit and debate together about which parts of His word we don't think are applicable to our current lifestyle but what matters is our obedience in the face of His desires. We serve Him. We don't advise Him what works for us and what doesn't. Where do we get the idea that we can do this?

 

[toolite]

Those who say the tithe is 10+%, what exactly is a biblical tithe, money?

It was never money but, we make that word say what we want.. that's why when we are made to live that word - we start crying..lol.

My point really is not to debate the tithe those who gain and profit from the tithe are going to say yes and those who understand and truly have a relationship with God may see different.

All The Glory Belongs To God Forever!

 

[Mr. Donut]

If we accept that all we have belongs to God why do we argue about giving Him what is His?

 

[Mr. Donut]

How was The Temple built?
Was it not also through the money given to God by the people?- a freewill offering, where everyone gave as their heart led them.

The "freewill offering" was also called to maintain not only The Temple, but also The Synagogues. The Synagogue was/is the Jewish equivalent to our church.

How are churches to exist without the support of the members?- need doesn't dictate doctrine. Not only that, but are you a member of a church, or are you the church who gets together with other likeminded believers?

God has clearly called us to be generous, that is not doctrine it's The Word of God.
We, the true believers, are members of The Body of Christ which is The Church.
Foot, hand or eye but not the whole. Only part.
Parts need each other or they fail to bear fruit and we know what Yeshua says about unfruitful parts...

 

[2thePoint]

If we accept that all we have belongs to God why do we argue about giving Him what is His?

We're not. We're just trying to keep some churches and clergymen from pilfering it.

 

[Svt4Him]

The "freewill offering" was also called to maintain not only The Temple, but also The Synagogues. The Synagogue was/is the Jewish equivalent to our church.

No it is not. The Levitical priesthood have some strict rules and regulations, so no, it's nowhere near our church. Actually, gatekeepers are more in line with church, as that is the origin of the word, in part.

God has clearly called us to be generous, that is not doctrine it's The Word of God.
We, the true believers, are members of The Body of Christ which is The Church.
Foot, hand or eye but not the whole. Only part.
Parts need each other or they fail to bear fruit and we know what Yeshua says about unfruitful parts...

Sure do. I also know what God says about those who, through their traditions, make the word of God useless. I heard a pastor say the tithe goes to God, first, and if you can help others after, that is alms. Therefore if you can just afford a bit, give to the church then if you should have anything left, help your mother, help the widow.

As for parts needing each other, I agree, although I have no idea what you're getting at with the unfruitful part. If the belief is that because one tithes to the church they are fruitful...well, enjoy the kool-aid.

 

[Thorwald]

The pastor is wrong to extort from you..God already knows what you need and will provide..we are told to seek first the Kingdom of God and everything else will be added to us..God will help us whether we give money to the church or not.

This is true. God gives to 'good and the evil'. The church pastors/ministers never tell us, to consider what help that we may have given already, to the needy outside of the church. How many people have given to others on the street, or to neighbours, etc.? Also, we have to be sure that our tithes are going to who we believe, are the right people, and being used properly. There should be an 'accounting' of the tithes, to the congregation. It is written, that 'charity' is great in the eyes of God, and covers many of our sins.

 

[Mr. Donut]

We're not. We're just trying to keep some churches and clergymen from pilfering it.

Are you sure?
Your posts seem to define "some" as "all", if I am incorrect please tell me.
However, I have heard this argument many times before.
Many seem to bundle all "clergymen" together much the same way they want to brand "all" churches.

If the church you give to "pilfers" your money demand to know why they are not doing the work they have been called to do. Ask why they are stealing from God, the poor, the homeless, the widows and the orphans. And continue asking until you get an answer.

Sorry I don't agree with the "all" implied in many of these posts.

 

[2thePoint]

Are you sure?
Your posts seem to define "some" as "all", if I am incorrect please tell me.

Not all churches teach tithing as a commandment.

However, I have heard this argument many times before.
Many seem to bundle all "clergymen" together much the same way they want to brand "all" churches.

I've done no such thing.

If the church you give to "pilfers" your money demand to know why they are not doing the work they have been called to do. Ask why they are stealing from God, the poor, the homeless, the widows and the orphans. And continue asking until you get an answer.

"Churches" as tradition defines them don't get my money. Needy people get my money--- and my kids' outgrown clothing and toys, coats, shoes, etc. I don't belong to any clubs or lodges that require membership dues. If I find a teacher I really learn from, I buy their books or send them donations.

What I don't do is pay the salaries of professional orators or musicians, vacations, buildings, new carpet, sound systems, ...

 

[Jerushabelle]

Every church I have ever attended provided an accounting of my giving each year. Also, I have always had the option of requesting where I wanted my money to go by notating my check. I could apportion it as I chose; to the pastor's salary, to the building fund, to the mission field.

 

[Jerushabelle]

What I don't do is pay the salaries of professional orators or musicians, vacations, buildings, new carpet, sound systems, ...

A pastor is not a professional orator. A pastor is a servant of the flock he has been called by God to lead and teach. It's not a career. It's a calling.