Here is a fascinating thing: almost every church I have ever been to, whether as a member or just visiting, did not agree that tithing was mandatory. Yet, I cannot think of one that did not use the terminology “tithing” in relation to giving. This is a problem. Why is it that churches which claim to be against tithing still retain the language of a concept that is not applicable to Christians?
A Lack of Faith?
Why is the legacy of tithing, via language, still present in churches which claim to have nothing to do with the practice? I have no easy answer, nor do I want to take what some might consider an obvious answer of nefarious motives. At the same time, I have to wonder if there is a lack of faith at the heart of the problem.
There is no question that church staff and churches in general, are some of the most underfunded operations in existence. For the work that these people do, they have to bear a lot of struggle and risk because their beneficiaries will not pay for the service that they provide. I have tremendous respect for any pastor who leaves a stable vocation for the sake of the gospel to go into what is a known financial mine-field. Because this is the case, I have no doubt that it is difficult to teach proper application of what God’s Word says about giving - perhaps the financial difficulties are so great that church leaders are willing to take money given in an erroneous understanding of giving, and be silent about it, as a consequentiallist action. In other words, it is ultimately correct that the believer give - therefore, why he gives (even if he feels under compulsion from an unbiblical tithing rule), is not as important.
Imagine if a person came up to a pastor on a Sunday morning and said - “I am ready to commit my life to Jesus,” but then followed with, “because I heard that Jesus can fix my marriage, get me a new car and help me pay my mortgage.” The man is coming to Jesus, but his motives are wrong. Is it correct that the pastor just run with this, even though this man has no idea why he actually needs Jesus? No. If the pastor goes through the sinner’s prayer with this guy, it’s not going to mean anything to him- a waste of words and time. But if the pastor explains why he actually needs Jesus, he risks losing this man’s enthusiasm. But any good pastor would risk it, because he knows that it is correct and because motives matter, not the form of results. By the same token, giving is important, but not gifts which are given with unbiblical motives such as obligations, tithes and leader’s approval.
God himself rejects those sacrifices and offerings which are given to him out of incorrect motives.
Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: “Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat meat. For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. And walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you’ (Jeremiah 7:21-23).
Biblical Principles Encourage Pure Motives in Giving and Receiving
Stress about paying the bills is something everyone deals with - but this does not justify circumventing our responsibilities to both give and receive biblically. I believe, by the way, that the bible teaches a proportional giving model - giving as one is able, regardless of such pharisaisms as percentages, gross versus net and so on. Giving is another way to worship God and articulate faith. It’s also a way to live out biblical principles of supporting the work of the gospel and those who minister. It’s an essential and indispensable part of the Christian lifestyle, and in the same way it is given, so should it be received.
Clearly there is a mutual struggle with giving among both those who give and those who receive. For those who give, to do so freely and without compulsion takes maturity, wisdom and a willingness to articulate faith with money. However, it is clearly not a walk in the park for those who receive, who must be willing to correct, rebuke even reject money which is given with an unbiblical attitude.
Friend, May I offer an alternative interpretation of Malachi for your study.
From: Tithing is not a Christian Doctrine
www.shouldthechurchteachtithing.com
Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
Malachi 3 is the Most Abused Tithing Text in the Bible. The “whole” tithe never was supposed to go to the Temple!
A. Malachi is Old Covenant and is never quoted in the New Covenant to validate tithing (Lev. 27:34; Neh. 10:28-29; Mal. 3:7; 4:4).
B. In Malachi 3:10-11 tithes are still only food 1000 years after Leviticus 27:30-34 and Numbers 18:21-28.
C. Malachi’s audience had willingly reaffirmed the Old Covenant (Neh.10:28-29). The blessings and curses of tithing are identical to and inseparable from those of the entire Mosaic Law. The rain in Deuteronomy 28:12, 23-24 and Leviticus 26:1-4 is only obtained by obedience to all 613 commandments. Galatians 3:10 (quoting Deu 27:26) “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continues not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” Trying to earn God’s blessings through tithing only brings curses for failure to keep all of the law. See also Galatians 3:19.
D. Beginning in 1:6 “you” in Malachi always refers to the dishonest priests and not the people (also 2:1-10; 2:13 to 3:1-5): “Even this whole nation of you –priests” (3:9). In 1:13-14 the priests had stolen tithed animals vowed to God. In Nehemiah 13:5-10 priests had stolen the Levites’ portion of the tithe. God’s curses on the priests are ignored by most tithe-teachers (1:14; 2:2 and 3:2-4).
E. Point #12 of the essay. The Levitical cities must be included in a correct interpretation of Malachi 3:10. Most tithe-recipients lived outside of Jerusalem.
F. The 24 courses of Levites and priests must be included in a correct interpretation of Malachi 3. Normally only 2% of the total Levite and priest work force served at the temple one week at a time. Subtract wives, males under the age of 30 and daughters. Therefore 2% did not require all of the tithe. See 1 Chron 23-26; 28:13, 21; 2 Chron. 8:14; 23:8; 31:2, 15-19; 35:4, 5, 10; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 11:19, 30; 12:24; 13:9, 10; Luke 1:5.
G. Nehemiah 10:37-39 is the key to understanding Malachi 3:10, The people were commanded to bring their tithes, not to the temple, but to the nearby Levitical cities. Verse 38 says that the priests were with the Levites in the Levitical cities when they received the tithes.
H. According to Nehemiah 13:5, 9 the “storehouse” in the Temple was only several rooms. The real “storehouses” were in the Levitical cites per Nehemiah 10:37b-38. Only the Levites and priests normally brought tithes to the Temple (10:38). Two rooms in the Temple were far too small to contain the tithe from the entire nation and 98% of the Levites and priests lived too far away to eat from them.
Therefore, Malachi 3:10’s “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse” only makes contextual sense if it is only commanding dishonest priests to replace the tithes they had removed from it or had failed to bring to it.
While the 3:10 of the Law in Malachi is so important to tithe-teachers they ignore the 3:10 of the Gospel in Galatians and 2nd Corinthians. Perhaps those wanting to enforce the 3:10 Law of Malachi should also enforce the 3:10 Law of Numbers. They share the same context.
Christian giving is freewill, sacrificial, generous, joyful, regular and motivated by love. That is enough to provide the needs of the Church.
Russell, I understand that you are highly interested in pushing your previously written essays, but you might want to TRY reading the blog entry before posting comments in the future. The blog ASSUMES that tithing is not a legitimate concept for New Testament followers of God, and wants to investigate why even churches that agree with this still use the word “tithes”. We are all smart enough here to know where it comes from (Malachi), and many of us agree that it is inappropriately used given New Testament context. Why is it though that the term is still used?
Colin, I think the answer is that human tradition has shifted the meaning of the term. Pastors using this MAY mean an obligatory 10% offering, or they MAY mean whatever recurring amount God has laid on your heart to give. In both cases, an “offering” would be a special burden to give in addition to what you normally would. I fully agree though that the term is confusing, and rather than simply go with the flow pastors who oppose obligatory giving should speak out against it. Obligatory tithing is little different than the sale of indulgences by the Catholic church in the days of Luther, a way of funding church efforts by guilting the churchgoer into contributing by fear of God. This is NOT what Paul and the apostles taught, NOT what Jesus required, and NOT what today’s churches should teach.
The Christian is called to a much higher criteria than a 10% for God 90% for me breakdown. We are to view 100% as God’s, and use ALL of our resources for His glory, including meeting the needs of those around us and acting as a unified body in service to Christ. I’ve corrected my own pastor on this a number of times, and though he still holds the mistaken view that believers are obligated to give 10% on the first day of each week, at least he no longer states as often that 90% of what you make is yours to spend as you see fit. (His doing so during offeratories was actually something that made me delay becoming a member of this church.)
This is bold stuff. I would love to be a fly on the wall for one of those conversations.
Good article. I think that pastors revert to obligation as a means of keeping ministries afloat. To me, this demonstrates a lack of faith on their part. I don’t say that as a criticism, but an observation. If you believe that God will meet your needs “according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus” then you don’t have to use high pressure sales tactics and fear to manipulate people.
However, there is something to be said about genuine motivation that involves the communication of responsibility concerning giving. Consider how Paul spoke in 2 Corinthians, chapters 8 and 9.
At some point, I’m probably going to have to write an article (probably more like two or three) about this because I think there is a lot of confusion in this area. I, for one, was confused about it for a number of years. And only now am I beginning to get some light on giving and receiving. Actually, I began to ask the Lord about it last winter and understanding has come as a result of that along with poring over the scriptures.
However, without writing an article right now, let me just share this bit of often undiscovered truth: giving is an attribute of grace. Therefore, compulsion to give goes out the window, but ability and desire to give is greatly and supernaturally increased. I know a minister who gives in excess of 30% of his income, and he lives quite comfortably. He lives a lifestyle of giving. In fact, when you go to his church there is an entire bookstore full of teaching CDs that he gives away for free every week.
I think the tithing debate is flawed on both sides of the argument. The motive on one side seems to be to avoid giving any substantial amount of one’s substance, and the other side seems to be wanting to put people back under the Law. (Of course, not everyone belongs to either extreme.) But it seems to me that the motive should be to give as much as relatively possible, not to meet a legal commandment but as an act of love. And I think the New Testament scriptures on the matter concur.
Chris, I firmly agree that Christians ought to be giving. That giving though should NEVER be out of a sense of obligation. Rather, we should joyfully give out of the prompting of the spirit. I also agree that for the most part, giving joyfully will likely be more than 10%. That is why I was so frustrated with my pastor’s suggestion that 90% belongs to you. That is an entirely non-biblical concept. Everything is God’s, we are stewards of His commanded to maximize return, and God measures “return” by positive impact on those around us. So yes, our goal likely should be to “give” as much as possible for the benefit of those around them.
One thing I would add onto this excellent article (and comments): churches need to be careful not to make it appear that “real” giving goes to them first and then to other charities/mission work second. I hear that a lot where you have to give your “tithe” to the church, and other charitable opportunities are secondary. It’s all the Lord’s work, and maybe for some, giving to missionaries is a better stewardship of their money than giving to their local church. That doesn’t dampen the need to give freely, just that one should realize that helping out a family down the street is no different than giving money to your church.
I would argue though that giving to a paid employee of the church isn’t “giving” so much as it is paying a promised debt. No church should consider any expense prior to any promised compensation to their staff, and I have and will give “dedicated donations” to pay a fair wage to the staff before I will contribute to a general offering. Paul is explicitly clear that we have a HIGHER duty to pay our spiritual leaders than we do to our other debts, and this isn’t really a case of “giving” so much as paying for a service rendered.
Honestly, I do like the idea of using a local church as a primary funding source. A church should be a workgroup seeking to collaboratively serve its role in the body of Christ. Ideally, it should be able to better research charities and missions opportunities, and to collaboratively work to maximize the services of its membership. Practically though, I see many churches failing to understand the heart of their members, and therefore failing to involve themselves in the ministries that matter most to those members. I see no strong argument from Scripture that Christians have any other obligation to their local church beyond that of compensating for services rendered. (That said, we SHOULD be meeting the physical and spiritual needs of other believers and our communities, either through church funded ministries or directly.)
Good points. I guess it really depends on your church.
Atanamis: I agree with your comments.
In general: just in a few months of being in England, I am cognisant of how much more I could have given in the US. We were very poor by US standards, but, and maybe people in the US just can’t understand this - we were so much more wealthy than we are now. In terms of purchasing power and comfort of lifestyle - I would say we have less than half of what we had in the US. If even the poorest in the US, such as us, could give more - than how much more the wealthy?
I mean it is comically outrageous how wealthy people are in the US. I think the reason we never realised this is because of the comparative wealth around us. It just seems normal to have working, newer appliances, two cars, forced-air heating, ac, newer housing (40 years or newer), and so on.
Even with that, we are able to give here. After meeting all of our basic needs here, we give what is left. In this US, this amount would have been astronomical - maybe 40-50% - and we were living below the poverty line.
dear friends,
i must commend all of you for your great insights. i have been kicked out of my bible study group because i am against tithing. i belong to one of the richest churches here in the philippines. like most of you, i am against tithing. i would rather give money to charitable institutions which i do up to now. but i was told by my bible study group leader to tithe first before giving to the needy. and i stood up against that. so, i was kicked out hehehe. but i have no regrets whatsoever. the truth has set me free.
God bless.