Tithing

[lovemysoldier]

Did you read my post above?



I think this is a great desire.



No, that is not what the tithe is about. The tithe was a form of sustenance for a people that could not have such without it. And the tithe was never currency: it was always livestock or produce. What you can do with your resources is give as gifts, offerings, and almsgiving. Do you understand the differences that I am presenting?

m.d.

I still don't get it. The lightbulb has failed to turn on.

I understand about the Levites and how they were appointed to priestly duties and that they were not able to have their own livestock, etc. etc. I understand that because of their higher calling, God commanded that they be taken care of by their brothers and sisters so that, in my opinion, they would not be distracted by worldly things. I feel that the currency at that time was different than ours. Our modern day world revolves around money. Money must be used to buy food and the simple necessities of life. So, from my understanding, the type of currency that was originally used for tithing has changed, but the essence of tithing has not altered over time. We are still called to give with love and without measure to support God's people and His greater cause.

Muffler Dragon, I thank you for being so kind and helping me with my growth and I look forward to reading your next post.

 

[Nemo0213]

Is this a question or an accusation? If you do not mind, would you provide for us any verse that reveals that our giving to man-made organizations that most choose to call "church" is synonymous with giving to the Lord? How do those buildings glorify the Lord? How does their absorbing the vast majority of people's giving exemplify obedience to the Word and Will of God? What can we therefore say about the heart condition of those who claim to know the word of God, and yet still teach that which is demonstratably false?

I am not saying that giving to a church building fund is tithing that would be a gift if thats what you wanted to do with your money.

So, what you are saying is that choosing not to give to man-made organizations is synonymous with loving money? How much more faithful is that man who gives to the family down the street whose husband and father lost his job, rather than giving to the local neighborhood "church" organization that does little to nothing for those living next door? Sorry, but this rings very hollow when one considers the track record organized religion has earned with such devotion to its building projects and operational expenditures.

Giving to man made organizations isn't necessarily wrong. I agrre that organized religion doesn't have a spotless track record. But name me anything that does that involves humans. If I might point to the book of Acts the first believers sold all they had and put it into a communal pot so to speak.
Acts 4:34-35

Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

And laid [them] down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
So since you speak about giving money to the family down the street do you also live in a christian commune? Give all you have to this commune? Put yourself under the authority of the leaders of this commune? The doling out of money to the needy is the job of the "church" so to speak. If you just give to whomever then you will be taken advantage of. There is a few verses where Paul covers this. About people who take advantage of the generosity of the "church". Now don't take me wrong there Swordman007 I am not condemning giving to the needy. But you are condemning giving to a church. If the church you are giving to is more worried about there building and high tech toys, then wouldn't you have bigger matters to concern yourself? If you are a part of something like that shouldn't you be reevaluating why you attend there?
I tithe out of personal choice. I am not saying you have to tithe, but saying people who tithe are not doing the will of god, who are you to say that? You can not tell what is in a mans heart.

That may be true for those who do have a problem with greed. I give some to charities, and hold most of it to build our new home, which I will be using to lend a helping hand to those in need, such as abused women and children so that they have a safe place to go for a roof over their heads and hot food to eat without having to worry about paying. It will have other uses as well that can and will be to the glory of the Lord.

That is great! I hope it works out.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Something to keep in mind is that the tithe was never currency (money) per the Old Testament - it was always animals/grain/produce. There was currency (money) even back to the day of Abraham, he bought Sarah's grave with 400 shekels. So you can see that even though there was money in OT times, it was never equated to be something you tithed off of.

So the question becomes, if in the Bible the tithe is never money, why do we today somehow think that has changed?

 

[muffler dragon]

I still don't get it. The lightbulb has failed to turn on.

No problem. I used to be a tither, so I'll just try to get back into the mindset and understanding.

I understand about the Levites and how they were appointed to priestly duties and that they were not able to have their own livestock, etc. etc. I understand that because of their higher calling, God commanded that they be taken care of by their brothers and sisters so that, in my opinion, they would not be distracted by worldly things.

That could be the case.

I feel that the currency at that time was different than ours. Our modern day world revolves around money. Money must be used to buy food and the simple necessities of life. So, from my understanding, the type of currency that was originally used for tithing has changed, but the essence of tithing has not altered over time. We are still called to give with love and without measure to support God's people and His greater cause.

Actually, money was present during the time of the tithe. There is a biblical reference that shows money and tithe in the same context:

Deuteronomy 14
22"You shall surely tithe all the produce from what you sow, which comes out of the field every year.


23"You shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God, at the place where He chooses to establish His name, the tithe of your grain, your new wine, your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and your flock, so that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.


24"If the distance is so great for you that you are not able to bring the tithe, since the place where the LORD your God chooses to set His name is too far away from you when the LORD your God blesses you,


25then you shall exchange it for money, and bind the money in your hand and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses.


26"You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.


27"Also you shall not neglect the Levite who is in your town, for he has no portion or inheritance among you.


28"At the end of every third year you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in that year, and shall deposit it in your town.


29"The Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance among you, and the alien, the orphan and the widow who are in your town, shall come and eat and be satisfied, in order that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do.

The tithe could be exchanged for money when someone would have to travel long distances (in this particular case). The second part that I highlighted shows that there was actually a "tithe party" (so to say). This also does not sound very much like a modern-day tithe doctrine stance.

Muffler Dragon, I thank you for being so kind and helping me with my growth and I look forward to reading your next post.

You're welcome. Ask on...

 

[muffler dragon]

Something to keep in mind is that the tithe was never currency (money) per the Old Testament - it was always animals/grain/produce. There was currency (money) even back to the day of Abraham, he bought Sarah's grave with 400 shekels. So you can see that even though there was money in OT times, it was never equated to be something you tithed off of.

So the question becomes, if in the Bible the tithe is never money, why do we today somehow think that has changed?

(btw: nice response on the other thread that could be labeled "flammable: proceed with caution")

 

[Andyman_1970]

(btw: nice response on the other thread that could be labeled "flammable: proceed with caution")

No problem Bro, I got your back.

 

[Swordman007]

I am not an expert on tithing and would like to learn more if everyone would care to explain and/or share with me their beliefs.

Tithing is a personal issue under the New Covenant. It is also true that there is yet to be discovered even one "preacher" who ever taught ALL the truths surrounding the OT tithe. I think Paul summed it up well when he said that every man should give whatsoever he purposes in his heart.

Here is a tragedy that is, unfortunately, repeated in varying degrees across this country: I was once told of an "elder" within a "church" who was a "faithful tither." He was looked upon as an icon to be mimmicked. His "pastor" paraded his example every week. The problem with this man was that the power, water and telephone to his home had long since been shut off for non-payment, and he had bill collectors banging on his door every week, but he tithed faithfully.

What, then, is the problem this man created? God did not see fit to deal with the utility problem for him, even though he was a faithful tither. These are the kinds of people you never hear about. We are only told of those who came into money after giving, or who received something signifigant after giving faithfully, but we never hear about those who suffered in spite of giving. If that subject comes up, then it is assumed that those people must have had sin in their lives for the blessings of the Lord to not rest upon them. That is so shallow, so base. It is the escapist route that most take to defend the idea of nothing but blessing coming to those give faithfully.

That so-called "elder" was wrong on a number of counts, which is to say that he had basically pitted God's word against itself by way of his actions and his testimony. Paul said that the man who does not see to the needs of his own house is worse than an infidel. That man was causing his family to suffer at the hands of tithing. That is not the Lord's mind on tithing, it was the mind of that "elder" and those who were foolish enough to think that he was someone to be looked up to. Any time we see someone causing one principle of God's word to suffer at the hands of another is clearly the type of man Jesus described when addressing the type of man who is tossed to and fro, like the waves of the sea, therefore unstable in all his ways.

To whom much is given much is expected.

This was not in reference to tithing. The context was talking about something much more important than money. I would encourage you to read that section of scripture once again, and then share with us your thoughts about the actual subject matter, and its importance.

The first Christian church shared all that they had with each other and with the needy.

Which does not point to tithing, but rather to that which was beyond mere tithing. They had all things common.

This selfless love was everything that Jesus represented to me. If we are called to love and serve each other, how can it realistically be done without money?

Money is a minor aspect of that which Jesus spoke. You said it yourself when you made mention of "selfless love." Money is only an object, or a tool if you will, that we can use to meet needs, but certainly not the core ingredient of that to which you have referred.

Wouldn't it be better to give a needy person food or money instead of telling them that they will be in our prayers?

Absolutely. However, organized religion teaches that the primary portion of people's giving is to be given to the institution itself, which is nowhere taught in the NT. We all know that organized religion absorbs most of what is poured into its coffers. That is completely antithetical to what we see within both the Old and New Testaments.

The law doesn't force me to give, God's love drives me to.

Good point. However, when people do not exercise responsibility in their giving when giving to an organizations that will most certainly abuse the primary portion of the people's giving, will the Lord hold only the so-called "leadership" responsible? No. The giver is equally responsible for giving to what is most assuredly going to be wasted on things rather than used to meet needs.

Dr. Don Dean

 

[Swordman007]

Please explain to me why you found my beliefs unfounded? I really want to know so I can grow stronger in my faith.

That is a great attitude. Hold to that and you will indeed find the answers. One thing I would like to inject is that it is imperative that you do your own study, therefore taking proprer responsibility for what you believe rather than believing what you have been spoon-fed from the pulpit.

God's love is what should drive people to help the church and their fellow man, not the desire to obey a law.

How do you define the "church"? Do you think that organized religion represents the local Church? If so, then that is an error that is common among most professing believers. Not one of the institutional "church" organizations I have ever observed through my many years of ministry and teaching has ever represented the local Church. The local Church is all true believer within a given city or town, and the immediate surrounding locale, not a building and the people who meet within for the purpose of liturgical "service". There are many unsaved people within the walls of organized religion, but there is not one unsaved person within the Church. Do you now see the difference?

My intention of my previous post was to illustrate that God wants us to serve our fellow man with love and vigor the way Jesus did for us, using all of the gifts and resources available.

Which is an admirable endeavor that we do not see organized religion attempting to live. They preach it, but they do not live it.

Isn't that the essence of what tithing is about? To give and love without measure to God's people and for God's cause?

Tithe means "tenth". Having all things common goes far beyond a mere tenth.

Dr. Don Dean

 

[Swordman007]

Giving to man made organizations isn't necessarily wrong.

In and of itself, no. I agree with you. However, when we pour the majority of our giving into insitutions that we know abuse it, that is the thrust of my point.

The primary, first fruits if you will, of the giving portrayed within the scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, demonstratably went for meeting needs, not for edifices and their operational costs. Today, it is the edifice and its operational costs that absorb the vast majority of believer's giving. That is what I am labeling as being wrong.

It is not only wrong for the so-called "leadership" within organized religion to abuse the primary portion of what is given, but the blame also rests upon the heads of the congregation for allowing their giving to be abused in such a manner. They are in essence lavishing the vast majority of their giving right back upon themselves rather than meeting the needs of others. I would agree that organized religion does have benevolent outreach programs, but that expenditure, within most institutions, is only a very small, minute portion of what is poured into them.

I agrre that organized religion doesn't have a spotless track record. But name me anything that does that involves humans.

Do you honestly think that this serves as an excuse for the blatant abuses of what is given? Why not let the thief off the hook simply because none of us has a "spotless track record"? Is not organized religion guilty of theft by not utilizing the "first fruits" of believer's giving for its commanded and demonstrated outflow within the word of God? We would not allow an individual thief off the hook for that excuse because that alone would create utter chaos, so why would organized religion be worthy of a consideration that an individual would never be offered?

If I might point to the book of Acts the first believers sold all they had and put it into a communal pot so to speak.
Acts 4:34-35

Wrong! I would ask you to point out the word "all" to me in those passages. Can you find it? Think about what you just injected into those passages. What sense would it have made for believers to impoverish themselves into living in the gutters and alleyways, therefore no longer being able to live and to give? They sold posessions, yes, but it does not say that they sold ALL their posessions, therefore becoming a burden upon others. Just wanted to point that out before you go to any other extreme.

Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

They certainly would have lacked if they had nothing left, but to live off what others could give. They did not create some new economy of poverty, but rather of having all things common. Giving where there was need, but not to the point of their own families lacking.

So since you speak about giving money to the family down the street do you also live in a christian commune?

This is non-sequitur reasoning. It also is not representative of that which is portrayed within the NT.

Give all you have to this commune? Put yourself under the authority of the leaders of this commune? The doling out of money to the needy is the job of the "church" so to speak.

Fortunately, this too lacks any representation within the NT.

If you just give to whomever then you will be taken advantage of.

I never suggested blind giving. You would indeed have valid points if they had anything to do with what I actually said.

There is a few verses where Paul covers this. About people who take advantage of the generosity of the "church". Now don't take me wrong there Swordman007 I am not condemning giving to the needy. But you are condemning giving to a church.

For the sake of clarification, I have never condemned giving to the Church. I have only condemned the majority of believer's giving being absorbed by organized religion (there is a vast difference), which has historically demonstrated its inability to do with what is given in accordance with the word of God.

If the church you are giving to is more worried about there building and high tech toys, then wouldn't you have bigger matters to concern yourself? If you are a part of something like that shouldn't you be reevaluating why you attend there?

I do not "attend" anything that resembles organized religion, therefore it is not a concern to me personally. The topic of this thread has to do with the popular perception of tithing. I agree with what was said earlier in this thread by someone else, in that if professing believers followed the scriptures more closely, organized religion would not be anything like it is today.

I tithe out of personal choice. I am not saying you have to tithe, but saying people who tithe are not doing the will of god, who are you to say that? You can not tell what is in a mans heart.

Jesus said "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." The bottom line is that I am not judging any man's heart, and I know that you cannot produce one statement of mine where I engaged such a judgment. I have, however, demonstrated from the scriptures that what we see going on today and historically is clearly antithetical to the commands and the examples laid out for all to observe within the Bible. If the primary (first fruits) of your giving is going to support organized religion and its operations, then that is on your own head.

I do not know what is in your heart, but I do know that if you willingly support, with the majority of your giving, that which indirectly benefits only the membership of a particular group, architecture, lawn care, parking lots, furniture, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, then you are the one who will answer for your own giving to that which is inferior to the more glorious examples within scripture. I do not have to judge your heart when your actions themselves bring to light the error in your understanding.

The righteous examples within scripture clearly are in opposition to what most professing believers are doing, therefore it is by that standard that I am judging, not by a standard of my own making. If you think I am in error, then by all means, you show me where real estate and all the other trappings of organized religion are anywhere portrayed within the NT. I would very much like to see it.....if you think you can come up with legitimate examples.

Dr. Don Dean

 

[Swordman007]

Something to keep in mind is that the tithe was never currency (money) per the Old Testament - it was always animals/grain/produce.

.....except for when the tithe was sold, if getting it to the appointed place was too far away. Then the money was used for the tither to buy whatever "his heart lusteth after," even strong drink. (GASP!) (HORROR OF HORRORS! THEY COULD DRINK STRONG LIQUOR WITH THIER TITHE SO LONG AS THEY DID NOT FORESAKE THE LEVITE!!!!!) John Calvin must be turning over in his grave knowing that the general populace is aware of this, for we do not read of his ever revealing that to the ignorant masses to whom he preached.

There was currency (money) even back to the day of Abraham, he bought Sarah's grave with 400 shekels. So you can see that even though there was money in OT times, it was never equated to be something you tithed off of.

Very good point.

So the question becomes, if in the Bible the tithe is never money, why do we today somehow think that has changed?

Oh. Haven't you heard? Socially engineered theology has gained equal footing with scripture.

Dr. Don Dean

 

[Andyman_1970]

The primary, first fruits if you will, of the giving portrayed within the scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, demonstratably went for meeting needs, not for edifices and their operational costs. Today, it is the edifice and its operational costs that absorb the vast majority of believer's giving. That is what I am labeling as being wrong.

It is not only wrong for the so-called "leadership" within organized religion to abuse the primary portion of what is given, but the blame also rests upon the heads of the congregation for allowing their giving to be abused in such a manner. They are in essence lavishing the vast majority of their giving right back upon themselves rather than meeting the needs of others. I would agree that organized religion does have benevolent outreach programs, but that expenditure, within most institutions, is only a very small, minute portion of what is poured into them.

I couldn't agree with you more!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[YahwehLove]

Wrong! I would ask you to point out the word "all" to me in those passages. Can you find it? Think about what you just injected into those passages. What sense would it have made for believers to impoverish themselves into living in the gutters and alleyways, therefore no longer being able to live and to give? They sold posessions, yes, but it does not say that they sold ALL their posessions, therefore becoming a burden upon others. Just wanted to point that out before you go to any other extreme.

Now see, I missed that entirely
I just read it and all it says it that if they were posessors of houses or lands.
It doesnt say if this was the house they lived in or not.
For all we can tell it may have been houses and lands they they did not live in.
I mean, common sense says they had to have a roof over their heads.
huh. I just ''assumed'' it meant they sold all they had all this time .

I think some study is in order tonite

 

[lovemysoldier]

I have read and studied the subject in question and this is what I have concluded:



When Jesus redeemed us with His blood and freed us from the law, animal sacrifices were no longer required but our duty to care for our clergymen remained intact. I agree wholeheartedly about tithing being the practice of animal sacrificing but I see Deuteronomy 14:27-29 as being a two part order. The first part of the command was for tithing using animals and such and the second part was to meet the needs of the church.



In the New Testament, the first believers beautifully illustrated God’s will of meeting all the needs of the church by sharing everything that they had and selling all of their possessions and giving the proceeds to those in need. I am in no way saying that God requires us to sell all of our possessions. I am saying that we are still called to give with love and without measure to support God's people and His greater cause.



The illustration of the widow’s offering captures HOW God wants us to give. He doesn’t want us to give robotically without feeling; He wants us to give with our HEARTS.



Deuteronomy 14:27-29

27 And do not neglect the Levites living in your towns, for they have no allotment or inheritance of their own. 28 At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, 29 so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.



Acts 2:43-47
The Believers Meet Together
43A deep sense of awe came over them all, and the apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders. 44And all the believers met together constantly and shared everything they had. 45They sold their possessions and shared the proceeds with those in need. 46They worshiped together at the Temple each day, met in homes for the Lord's Supper, and shared their meals with great joy and generosity-- 47all the while praising God and enjoying the goodwill of all the people. And each day the Lord added to their group those who were being saved.



Luke 21:1-4
The Widows Offering
1While Jesus was in the Temple, he watched the rich people putting their gifts into the collection box. 2Then a poor widow came by and dropped in two pennies.[a] 3"I assure you," he said, "this poor widow has given more than all the rest of them. 4For they have given a tiny part of their surplus, but she, poor as she is, has given everything she has."

 

[Swordman007]

Now see, I missed that entirely
I just read it and all it says it that if they were posessors of houses or lands.
It doesnt say if this was the house they lived in or not.
For all we can tell it may have been houses and lands they they did not live in.
I mean, common sense says they had to have a roof over their heads.
huh. I just ''assumed'' it meant they sold all they had all this time .

I think some study is in order tonite

It is always good to see someone willing to go into the scriptures to verify ALL that is said within their earshot. Even though I teach Systematic Theology and Philosophy, I STILL have to go back to the Source at times to allow my thinking to be set straight by the written word and the Holy Spirit.

Dr. Don Dean

 

[YahwehLove]

It is always good to see someone willing to go into the scriptures to verify ALL that is said within their earshot. Even though I teach Systematic Theology and Philosophy, I STILL have to go back to the Source at times to allow my thinking to be set straight by the written word and the Holy Spirit.

Dr. Don Dean

Whats amazing is that after so many years, there is still so many odds and ends to clear up.
I know the problem is that I was indoctrinated into certain things and Im still trying to clear my head of them.

There are some things that I may eventually get around to asking you thru a PM or 2 if thats ok

 

[muffler dragon]

I have read and studied the subject in question and this is what I have concluded:



When Jesus redeemed us with His blood and freed us from the law, animal sacrifices were no longer required but our duty to care for our clergymen remained intact. I agree wholeheartedly about tithing being the practice of animal sacrificing but I see Deuteronomy 14:27-29 as being a two part order. The first part of the command was for tithing using animals and such and the second part was to meet the needs of the church.



In the New Testament, the first believers beautifully illustrated God’s will of meeting all the needs of the church by sharing everything that they had and selling all of their possessions and giving the proceeds to those in need. I am in no way saying that God requires us to sell all of our possessions. I am saying that we are still called to give with love and without measure to support God's people and His greater cause.



The illustration of the widow’s offering captures HOW God wants us to give. He doesn’t want us to give robotically without feeling; He wants us to give with our HEARTS.

Dear lovemysoldier:

Would you like for me to comment on your conclusion or leave it be?

Let me know.

m.d.

 

[muffler dragon]

When Jesus redeemed us with His blood and freed us from the law, animal sacrifices were no longer required but our duty to care for our clergymen remained intact. I agree wholeheartedly about tithing being the practice of animal sacrificing but I see Deuteronomy 14:27-29 as being a two part order. The first part of the command was for tithing using animals and such and the second part was to meet the needs of the church.

To me, you may want to tread the "clergy = Levitical priesthood" very carefully. In truth, there is no correlation. This is a pattern that I saw in the last church I attended. The people in the pulpit (and the choir) were considered part of the Levitical priesthood. This is a fallacy. It goes into an arena that few realize they tread: that they want certain parameters of the Torah, but only on their terms.

One major difference between clergy and Levitical priesthood is that modern-day clergy are not restricted in income, occupation or ownership. This, once again, comes back down to context. The modern-day tithe doctrine has no support from Scripture when evaluated in the proper context.

As for the rest of your post, I think this definitely falls within the realm of almsgiving, gifts and offerings. Therefore, I see no need for incorporating a modern-day tithe doctrine.

m.d.

 

[Swordman007]

Whats amazing is that after so many years, there is still so many odds and ends to clear up.
I know the problem is that I was indoctrinated into certain things and Im still trying to clear my head of them.

This is an indictment against us all, for we are all imperfect in our knowledge, but we know the One who is Perfect in every way.

There are some things that I may eventually get around to asking you thru a PM or 2 if thats ok

I am the servant of all my fellow believers.

Don

 

[Swordman007]

My being a bit more of a critical thinker has brought me to another question that most people tend to avoid on account of the deeper implications:

Why do professing believers blindly hand over the primary portion, the first fruits, of their giving to institutional "church" organizations? Organized religion has historically taught that it is the proper place for believers to deposit their "tithe". What floors me about this is that I have yet to read a criticism from any knowledgable believer, scholar, or regulr member of organized religion, who calls into quesiton how the "tithes" are handled by organized religion.

When one studies the OT system of tithes, it consisted of a tenth of the crops from the fields, the orchards, and the herds, not of wages earned in exchange for labor and/or expertise. The Bible nowhere equates wages as being a form of increase. Wages are a direct exchange of one's time and efforts for money and/or goods. However, organized religion has been falsely teaching, for more than 1000 years, that the people's wages are a form of increase, which is without support from the scriptures, and such thinking defies reality. It also defies the biblical definition of the tithe. Some have tried to say that money did not exist, which is pure nonsense based upon not only scripture, but also history itself.

That is the first of two breaches of crdibility organized religion has perpetrated. Now we will deal with the second breach along this same vein: Assuming that the wages given to organized religion, under the guise that tithing is allegedly a legitimate practice, organized religion is not at all doing with the "tithe" what the Bible commands and exemplifies. We see within the OT that 99% of the tithe was used to support the Levite, the orphan, the widow, and the stranger in the land, not for the temple upkeep, synagogues, or any luxury such as we see today with real estate, architecture, sound systems, cathedral organs, programs, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. What we see going on today is basically those who give a "tithe" actually lavishing their giving right back upon themselves through membership privileges, voting rights, etc., etc., which is not even remotely envisioned anywhere in the word of God.

So, when men stand behind their podiums and drive the stake of tithing through the hearts of their audience, they are teaching a false doctrine, for organized religion is not necessarily the work of God in this world. The Lord has certainly used institutional "church" organizations to His glory and His purposes, but that does not mean that they are God-breathed, for the Lord used a wicked man such as pharoah to demonstrate His glorious power to His people, so why not organized religion that sees itself as being representative of the Kingdom of God?

Summarily, handing over the primary portion, the first fruits, of one's giving to that which is known to abuse what is given, ultimately, is a poor exercise in responsible giving on the part of each true believer who does this.

Dr. Don Dean