Jambo Jandals

seems like noone is game to comment!
Noone likes to talk about $ or more interestingly people aren't that keen to say how much they have and how they spend it.

One comment i do have is that people seem to distinguish the missions budget from the church budget. I don't think this was so in the early church. I think you would have given to the church and then money would have been divided between those that needed it. At EBC i think our system implies that missions is an extra - and if you can afford it. It is a shame that the missions offering is constantly listed seperately and we have no conviction to set a goal and meet it. Yet missionaries rely on the money for day to day expenses just as our pastors do. What do you think that says?
 

Good point anonymous. Do you think that the seperation actually reflects the churches desire to seperate a standard and missions offering or is it more a case of acknowleging that individuals want/do contribute to certain mission projects. We tend to get back to the point that people are willing to give to people/organisations that they can easliy align themselves with, those with personally similar ideals. Is it a case of the Church being unable to support all missions organisiations putting out their hands so individuals would prefer to manage their own contributions? It would be another interesting pole to see how much the congregation contributes individually to their own prefered missions organisiations. I think we would be surprised.
 

Sounds like one question worth considering is: are we to give to the Kingdom of God or the local church?

I reckon there's heaps to unpack in that question...for example, in asking that question, what might we mean by the KoG?
 

Would you consider that God has established His church locally in order to further His Kingdom. In my thinking, that would mean give to the local church who then distributes as God leads. I think the main issue that comes from this line of thinking is that there is no freedom for individuals to contribute where they feel lead. Would the issue then be should we as individuals rely on God directing our funds or should we give to the body we are committed to (local church) and trust God leads them to distribute the funds where he is directing?
 

Would you consider that God has established His church locally in order to further His Kingdom. In my thinking, that would mean give to the local church who then distributes as God leads.

Yep, certainly possible. Also, encourages a community mindset rather than individual.

HOWEVER, if the church is strong on saying: "we are a community...you just give and we will direct where the money goes" then the elements of guilt creep in when you truly don't believe in the cause(s) that the money is going to.

Moreover, while God may have instituted the local church (but did he?) to further his kingdom, what happens if the church really is doing nothing to this end?
If you believe that, essentially, our giving is to the kingdom, then you may have problems with the idea that 10% goes to your local church, right??
 

Do we need to "believe" in something to be able to give to it? Is our giving dependant on what happens to the money or should it be given out of obediance to God and his request for a percentage of the blessings He bestows on us? I dont ever recall hearing that we should give God our tithe as long as we believe in the project it is being used for. Maybe another point of discussion? I believe our tithe is not a gift, not a donation, not an option, not for charity. It is not negotiable. We are given a pretty clear directive as to what we should be doing with our money. The choice is ours to either obey or not.
 

Okay, so under no circumstances would you withdraw financial commitment to a church?

"We are given a pretty clear directive as to what we should be doing with our money. The choice is ours to either obey or not."

What is that directive? A tithe? What are you talking about here Dan, what is so clear?

The NT view of money as I read it is not prescriptive (ie. 10%). Rather the overriding principles of the NT is to sacrifice everything...to lay everything before God.

So my point is not that we can choose how much to give and where to give it -- as though it's completely up to us.

I actually think we commonly separate our concept of giving (generally) and break it up into financial giving, time giving, grace giving, love giving etc. We apportion different "amounts" depending on what it is.

On money, then, I think tithing is a copout -- God doesn't ask us to give 10% of ourselves to Him he asks for 100%.

The passage of the rich young ruler I think could be understood by substituting "sell everything you have" with "give up anything that stops you giving yourself 100% to me".

So I actually advocate a far more sacrificial way (which I know I suck at, but do try). However, I don't support blind adherence to the local church. While in most instances I think we can probably give to the local church in faith that the money is being used for Kingdom purposes, I am certain this is not always the case. Surely both as a community and as individuals we need to be discerning also?

We could say that the community is likely to have it right and therefore the one dissenter is always wrong. Yet how many individuals have stood up against corruption and injustice? Gandhi? Jesus? Various individuals in manipulative churches like the Presbyterian one in Melbourne highlighted on TV a few months ago?

In answer to your question "do we need to believe in something?", Iwould say "yes" and "no".
I don't think we always have to be passionate or absolutely certain about everything our money is going to, but we do have to have a general sense or belief that it is Kingdom building in its motivation\intentions\outcomes.
 

Steve,

I have taken some time to digest your comments, sorry for the delay.

Any Christian who loves the Lord should desire to give everything to Him. I agree with you on that but I also think that there is a difference between giving of money and giving of self. As far as money is concerned, we can and should give more than ten percent (a tithe). Tithing is just a starting place -- not a maximum limit. Tithing is only a reminder to us, and to Jesus, of the intent of our heart, and the place of importance He has in our life.

Some may say they could show their love better by giving whatever they felt like, instead of a set amount such as ten per cent. However, the attitude behind that approach is wrong. Since the Garden of Eden man has been trying to do things his own way -- instead of the way God prescribed -- and man's way has always caused trouble. God said the tithe was His (Leviticus 27:30). He showed us through the Old Testament Law (and never said otherwise in the New Testament), tithing was acceptable worship. Why try to invent a new method?

Giving based on need is not Biblical tithing but giving of alms. (It is not worship but a good work.) Tithing is not to meet God's need (or the church's needs), but to worship God: to put Him in His rightful place: first!

People invent all kinds of excuses to not give at least ten percent of their money to God -- such as the epistles not teaching tithing. Is the virgin birth of Jesus taught in the epistles? (No, but the virgin birth is still true!) How many times does God have to tell us something for us to believe it?

There is not much direct teaching in the New Testament concerning tithing. One reason may be because the Lord wants a love relationship with us, not just a legal obligation from us. However, that surely does not mean we should do less in a love relationship than they did in the Old Testament under the Law.

With respect to giving soley to the local church, it is a means for tithing to take place. How many people regularly give a tithe and distribute their income to multiple places?
 

Hey Dan -- thanks for the response.

My last comment, I guess, was a bit of a general theology of giving...I will try and stick to what you have said in this one.

"there is a difference between giving of money and giving of self."

What, then, do we mean by giving of self? Is giving of self a concept that involves completeness? If so, it includes giving of money...the two are inextricably linked. In practical terms, yes, giving money is obviously a different practise, however, the attitude (source) from which giving of money comes from must be the same as that of giving of self. Jesus is obviously different from the Holy Spirit, but we cannot separate them in terms of essence. I reckon the same idea applies here.

"Some may say they could show their love better by giving whatever they felt like, instead of a set amount such as ten per cent."

On tithing, I don't believe it is correct teaching which I will explain next. The response, however, is not one of "I can do what I like". This, I believe is a misunderstanding of Christian Liberty and the call to disipleship. As I have said, Jesus' response to the rich young ruler's question about inheriting eternal life was "if you already obey the ten commandments, well then now all you have to do is sell everything you have and give to the poor". This is really homing in on the attitude required for Christian discipleship: we give our all (in everything) just as Christ gave all for us. It starts with an attitude which manifests in practise (like how much money we give).

"Since the Garden of Eden..."

Here you talk about God's giving of the law humankind's constant turning from God's way to attempt to do things our way. I agree.
However, do we believe we are under the law of Leviticus 27:30? If so, are we also under the law of Deuteronomy 22:11 "do not wear clothes of linen and wool woven together"? We must ask ourselves why we follow some laws and not others.

To find a more appropriate example, the sacrificial system was set-up because of our sin since the Fall right? Don't we believe as Christians that Jesus provided the once-for-all sacrifice? Therefore, we are no longer to practise the sacrificial law? Moreover, Jesus' act also set us free from the law generally. If so, then why not tithing? Tithing seems to be convenient rather than biblically correct. It is almost like a safety net...moreover, I think it does become a cop-out for giving 100% -- in fact, I think it causes opposition to the overriding principle\attitude that we are to give 100%.

"Giving based on need is not Biblical tithing but giving of alms. (It is not worship but a good work.)"

I'm not arguing for giving based on need. In fact, I think one of the key problems with teaching about money and giving is that it only happens when a church has a need and is, therefore, skewed by circumstances rather than building a biblical theology.

On the brackets, this is a big part of what I struggle with: the idea that worship cannot include giving alms.

"the Lord wants a love relationship with us, not just a legal obligation from us. However, that surely does not mean we should do less in a love relationship than they did in the Old Testament under the Law."

I absolutely agree. As I have been arguing, I think the Gospels and Epistles suggest we are to give everything -- this, then, is more not less than the 10% of OT giving. The point is though, we are not obligated by law, we are compelled by the cross.

"With respect to giving soley to the local church, it is a means for tithing to take place."

This is part of the whole problem for me. Whoever said the local church was to be the receiver of a tithe?
It is not at all that I am unwilling to give to the local church, but I struggle with teaching that it is prescribed in the bible that I am to tithe to the local church...I just can't see where it comes from.

Finally, while I have contrasted OT principle of tithing (10%) with the NT principle of everything (100%), I actually think that the idea of sacrificial giving runs through the OT also...