Yesterday I preached on giving and to the chagrin on many I didn't advocate the doctrine I call "monetary tithing." Now I used to...and I did it with great fervor and intensity. However, after repeatedly examining the arguments on both sides I find myself unable to continue to teach that Christimas are to give 10% of their incomes to the church. Recognizing that I might be wrong I will try to resist being a dogmatic "anti-tither." I said yesterday that "many, if not most of the arguments for monetary tithing are based on scripture twisting and human reasoning." I do believe that. I also mentioned that there are few (very few actually) pro-tithing arguments which I find to be tenable. Given the pros & cons of both sides I lean toward the "free will" giving camp. So, let's give and give as we "decide in our hearts."
PS. It appears that the early Restoration Movement leaders also were not tithing advocates. Many in the a-cappella churches still oppose "monetary tithing" as a requirement in the New Covenant. I wonder if "monetary tithing" might come from the Baptist ifluence that abounds in our churches today...
4 comments:
I agree David. But does it make sense that we should "decide in our hearts" to give less than they HAD TO give in the O.T.? I think one of the reasons why the N.T. leaves it open-ended is so that we won't feel compelled to stop at 10 percent.
"Oh Mr Russell, you can pay me whatever you'd like for babysitting." Did he give less or more?
I understand that view. Here's the question: How about doing better than 23-25%? That's what they did in the O.T. theocracy of Israel = 10% for Temple/Levites, 10% for national festivals, 10% every 3rd year for the poor, approximately 2% for other required giving. I agree that many of us should be giving well beyond 10%. I think some folks use the tithe to give less than they should which is another interesting problem.
So that first 10% should go to the evangelists, right?
Now that's the kind of tithing I can agree to!
Post a Comment