Taxes as tithes?

[zoegirl]

The heart certainly needs to surrender all. If we are giving 10% because, like Aninias, we have agreedy heart, then absolutely we are in the wrong.

If we are like the widow who gave what she could then our hearts our in the right. There is nothing wrong with budgeting and being a good steward with what we have. But a good steward always has a heart to what his MASTER would want. In prayer and reading God's word, we should be both wise and compassionate with what we have.

If someone wants to give a set amount, fine. But that doesn't excuse them if a fellow believer--especially a fellow church member--is in financial need and they do nothing to help them (which, as we've seen from our passages, means a lot more than just saying a prayer with them).

absolutely

[Jac3510]

The heart certainly needs to surrender all. If we are giving 10% because, like Aninias, we have agreedy heart, then absolutely we are in the wrong.

If we are like the widow who gave what she could then our hearts our in the right. There is nothing wrong with budgeting and being a good steward with what we have. But a good steward always has a heart to what his MASTER would want. In prayer and reading God's word, we should be both wise and compassionate with what we have.

The stewardship issue is really key. I steward is one who takes care of something for someone else. The question, which you highlighed, zoe, is this: what would the MASTER want (not what would we want)?

What is the end goal for Jesus when it comes to finances? Is it to have a fat retirement account? Is that what Jesus wants? Forgive me, but I have my doubts about that. There is certainly nothing wrong with having a good retirement plan in place, but that hardly needs to be viewed as primary (from a Christian perspective). I think Jesus is more interested in us using our wealth to help others. We should plan for retirement in the same light. I don't want to be an unnecessary burden on anyone, so by helping take care of myself, I am taking care of others.

All I'm saying is that "good stewardship" can be taken the wrong way. Taking $10,000 and turning it into $100,000 may not be good stewardship at all, because to make that return you could well have turned down opportunities for ministry in which Jesus was far more interested.

[zoegirl]

True,

But some people's gift and talent are making money. And why wouldn't they invest it IF they then use it for ministry or continue to make it grow?

The parable of the talents shows one aspect of this. It was the servant's heart of keeping the money and not using the money (or more broadly) his talents FOR his Master. But the Master praised those that put the money to work and made money.

God can use the10,000, sure, but if a person's heart is in the right place, why should he turn that 10,000 nto 100,000?

We have lost that idea of philanthropy. So many hospitals and charities were started by people with money.

However, the heart and the attitude towards the money is what defines, I think, whethetr we are doing HIs will.

[Jac3510]

I don't disagree, zoe. I'm married to someone with just that set of gifts and just that vision. Monetary investment, in and of itself, is not bad. While I would disagree with you that the parable about the talents has anything to do with financial investment (although the principle that is being taught by the parable certainly can apply!), I certainly agree with your general thought process. In this world, it takes money to minister, and there need to be people who can make money to fund much of the ministry we would like to do.

With that said, the context of this discussion is the tithe and how God expects us to use our money. Most individuals don't have that vision or gift. I fear that many Christians who embrace your correctly stated position will use it just as the Pharisees did to avoid taking care of their parents. We can spiritualize our greed in any number of ways. AGAIN, I want to emphasize that I firmly believe that there are those people who do approach this issue correctly, and who are interested in making money with money for the purpose of using that money for ministry.

But let's make this all very practical. What does driving a new car have to do with philanthropy or building a large portfolio? Nothing. All it does is cost you $400 a month in payments plus $200 in insurance, not to mention the depreciation that goes along with it; all that, when a $5000 reliable car could be bought in cash and driven for three years. Or what about the $300,000 house we absolutely have to buy? I got a promotion, and my income is now $75,000, so I can afford the payment. I've earned it, and hey, I'm tithing, so since I'm doing my part, I'll buy this. How many luxuries do we buy, at at what cost? The cable, 52 inch high definition TV, season tickets to our favorite sports team, etc.? And in our own church, we have families who can't pay their rent.

And what about the local church generally? Who can justify the tens of millions of dollars spent on large, extravagent buildings that are used once a week? But no worries, because we will take up a special offering for a canned food drive that will feed a hundred homeless people for a week! We have pastors who request six figure salaries from their congregations, and churches in whic 90% of their budget goes to paying staff. It is not just the individual who has bought into the idea of luxury. It is the corporate church as well.

So yes, if someone wants to build and invest so as to create a large portfolio that can be used to undertake a missional vision that God has placed in their heart, then I will be the first to support their cause. No, the second, because God Himself, being its Author, will support it first. But as for the rest of us--and even those who are engaged in such activities--the demand to take care of our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ is absolutely paramount, which demands modesty in our own lifestyles.

I'm sure you agree with all of this, zoe. I'm just clarifying my own stance for others who could have misunderstood me in the first place.

[BavarianWheels]

...Or what about the $300,000 house we absolutely have to buy?

I want to live in your world...
.
.

[Jac3510]

...Or what about the $300,000 house we absolutely have to buy?

I want to live in your world...
.
.

I'm not sure if you mean that as under or overexageration. There are places where $300K will buy you a near mansion. There are places it will buy you a fairly modest house. I figured the income estimate in my hypothetical would make that clear. Places where $300K is the base price for many homes also have much higher average incomes.

In any case, I'll try to make my point still clearer: we excuse living in luxury because we've "done our duty" by paying a tithe, or by claiming we're building a portfolio that can be used for ministry, or some other spiritualized reasoning. Jesus called for modesty. He calls for loving one another by deeds and not by words alone. In short, we're called to surrender all to one another. No less.

[BavarianWheels]

...Or what about the $300,000 house we absolutely have to buy?

I want to live in your world...
.
.

I'm not sure if you mean that as under or overexageration. There are places where $300K will buy you a near mansion. There are places it will buy you a fairly modest house. I figured the income estimate in my hypothetical would make that clear. Places where $300K is the base price for many homes also have much higher average incomes.

In any case, I'll try to make my point still clearer: we excuse living in luxury because we've "done our duty" by paying a tithe, or by claiming we're building a portfolio that can be used for ministry, or some other spiritualized reasoning. Jesus called for modesty. He calls for loving one another by deeds and not by words alone. In short, we're called to surrender all to one another. No less.

I simply meant that a $300k home is rare in my area. I could not afford my own home in today's market and I certainly don't live in a mansion.

Living modestly would be slightly difficult if one were to put Malachi 3:10 into action.
.
.

[Jac3510]

I simply meant that a $300k home is rare in my area. I could not afford my own home in today's market and I certainly don't live in a mansion.

As I said, in areas with higher cost of living, incomes are usually higher. In Southern California, average home income well above the national average. In '99 (ten years ago!), the median household income was around $60K. (link

Further, today, the average home price in Southern California is around $250K (link). Certainly, you can get homes much, much more expensive than that, but you can also get them for less, as you can anywhere in the country.

My point is that people don't need that kind of luxury, specifically if it hurts one's ability to help those around them. What caused this present financial crisis? People buying more home than they could afford. In short, basic greed. If Christians had been busy practicing the NT ethic on money, none of this would have happened, because people would have never gotten into a situation where they spend all they made and more on themselves trying to "keep up with the Jones".

Living modestly would be slightly difficult if one were to put Malachi 3:10 into action.

Beyond the fact that this OT law, which we are not under, even under the most generous interpretation, how would that make it difficult to live modestly? Even IF God promised to make a person rich if they tithed, which is a lie from Hell, how does that prevent this newly blessed rich person from living modestly and giving more generously to those around him in need?

[BavarianWheels]

I simply meant that a $300k home is rare in my area. I could not afford my own home in today's market and I certainly don't live in a mansion.

As I said, in areas with higher cost of living, incomes are usually higher. In Southern California, average home income well above the national average. In '99 (ten years ago!), the median household income was around $60K. (link

Further, today, the average home price in Southern California is around $250K (link). Certainly, you can get homes much, much more expensive than that, but you can also get them for less, as you can anywhere in the country.

My point is that people don't need that kind of luxury, specifically if it hurts one's ability to help those around them. What caused this present financial crisis? People buying more home than they could afford. In short, basic greed. If Christians had been busy practicing the NT ethic on money, none of this would have happened, because people would have never gotten into a situation where they spend all they made and more on themselves trying to "keep up with the Jones".

If you saw my house you'd know that I didn't buy for the home. It's the dual lot size and location that make it now above what I could afford if it were sold today. I simply made (or making) a good purchase. Were a wealthy investor to buy our property, they would certainly mow down the structures and build a much larger home. Just because my property is worth close to 3x what I initially signed to pay the mortgage company, doesn't mean I'm living in "that kind of luxury".

Living modestly would be slightly difficult if one were to put Malachi 3:10 into action.

Beyond the fact that this OT law, which we are not under, even under the most generous interpretation, how would that make it difficult to live modestly? Even IF God promised to make a person rich if they tithed, which is a lie from Hell, how does that prevent this newly blessed rich person from living modestly and giving more generously to those around him in need?

I didn't mean for it to be viewed as a binding law today, but you seem to always go that way when the OT is mentioned. Fine. It is an OT "law". God will bless and open the windows of heaven and still pour down blessings on those that test Him on this. God's word is God's word. I merely mentioned to insinuate that if God were to pour blessings down as mentioned, the blessings are for the individual to enjoy also. If God blesses, it's certainly meant to be enjoyed as well as shared. IOW if God were to rain down $1 Million on me, I'd pay some bills with that blessing and get a few toys as well as give back at least His 10%. This would definitely leave me living better with a paid-off home and no car payments. I would still have 70% of that million left to share, invest, and save.

It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.

Wouldn't this person being put in charge of ALL the master's possessions be well paid? And wouldn't this servant live a little better than the rest? How many CEO's of large companies do you know that live well below their financial abilities? Earned wages = Earned living.
.
.

[Jac3510]

If you saw my house you'd know that I didn't buy for the home. It's the dual lot size and location that make it now above what I could afford if it were sold today. I simply made (or making) a good purchase. Were a wealthy investor to buy our property, they would certainly mow down the structures and build a much larger home. Just because my property is worth close to 3x what I initially signed to pay the mortgage company, doesn't mean I'm living in "that kind of luxury".

If you go back to my original statement, I was talking about people spending excessive amounts of money on large homes and other luxury items that, essentially, strap them for any leftover cash, when makes them unable to help a fellow believer. Debt is bondage. If someone comes across a phenomenal deal where they get a $10 MILLION house for next to nothing, then hey, good for them. That's not what I'm talking about.

As far as your particular case, congratz on getting a good deal. I'm, again, not talking about good deals. I'm talking about normal situations, which is confirmed by the statistics I posted.

I didn't mean for it to be viewed as a binding law today, but you seem to always go that way when the OT is mentioned. Fine. It is an OT "law". God will bless and open the windows of heaven and still pour down blessings on those that test Him on this. God's word is God's word. I merely mentioned to insinuate that if God were to pour blessings down as mentioned, the blessings are for the individual to enjoy also. If God blesses, it's certainly meant to be enjoyed as well as shared. IOW if God were to rain down $1 Million on me, I'd pay some bills with that blessing and get a few toys as well as give back at least His 10%. This would definitely leave me living better with a paid-off home and no car payments. I would still have 70% of that million left to share, invest, and save.

1) This isn't your promise. Sorry. The people who could test God on that promise was ancient Israel. So, unless you are an ancient Israelite, you can test God on it all you want and nothing more will come of it.

2) I don't know the last time I saw cash falling from the sky. I have a problem with ANY Christian paying $1 million for a home. That's simply not necessary, not for anyone. For an investment property that will generate larger incomes that can be used for ministry? Fine. For a home, that's ridiculous. On the other hand, if you manage to get a $1 million home for a modest price, then more power to you. That's the modesty I'm talking about.

But more to your point, if I got a random million bucks, then if I'm in debt, I clearly need to pay all that off before I start giving it away. But that begs another question: how much debt are you in, and for what? Am I going to have to pay off a massive house, two cars, and a boatload of credit card debt? Why do you have all that debt in the first place? To quote Dave Ramsey, "Debt is dumb." The person who is in debt is a slave to his creditor, and we are called to live in freedom. The extent to which I am in debt is the extent to which I am unable to serve God's people. So I have a choice. I can purchase things I don't need out of selfishness and rob from both others and myself the blessing of giving to others, or I can live within my means and leave myself open to the grace of giving when such an opportunity arises.

Wouldn't this person being put in charge of ALL the master's possessions be well paid? And wouldn't this servant live a little better than the rest? How many CEO's of large companies do you know that live well below their financial abilities? Earned wages = Earned living.

Notice when the servant is put in charge of his masters possessions. When the master returns. So until Jesus comes back, that has nothing to do with our income in this life.

And if someone is so blessed with having a large income, then they are that much more required to help their brothers in need. It is simply wrong to live in excessive luxury when people around you are starving to death and having their utitlities cut off. The first believers sold their possessions when they had to to help one another.

Now, on the flip side, what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours. You don't have any rights to my things, nor do I have rights to your things. How much you give is between you and God. I cannot, then, if I am poor, insist on you selling your house, getting a smaller one, and then giving me the difference. Remember what Peter said to Ananias. He could have given however much, or little, he wanted to give. What I am talking about is a person's individual responsibilty toward God and His people. Faith without works is dead, and if someone has the financial means to help others and refuse to, then they are sinning. Likewise, if I put myself in a position to not help others financially because I am too busy spending my wealth on myself, then I am considering myself more important than others, which is in direct violation to Paul's exhortation in Phil 2.

Riches aren't evil. The hoarding of riches and the refusal to help those around us is.

[ageofknowledge]

I'm not sure what is hard to understand about his reasoning? He's talking about personal surrender to Christ and absolute commitment by the believing community to one another's welfare (an idea that's certainly never been picked up in western Christianity). One of the major problems I have with the "tithe" is that it makes people feel like they have "done their part." "I gave my 10%," they'll say. They've done God their weekly service and are free to use the other 90% on themselves. That's a stark contrast to early Christianity. In addition to Acts 2:42-47, which jlay quoted, I would ask you to consider Phil. 2:3-4-: "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others [more important] than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others" (NIV, my translation change in bracket). This also goes along with a proper biblical understanding of James 2 "Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?" God is far more interested in helping hands than in praying lips. In fact, if I may quote an atheist on how to raise children to be good atheists:

• Get some hands-on, face-to-face charity in there. Show them how good it feels to help someone. Tell them this is the Atheist way (which is true) - hands that do are much better than lips that pray.
  
  On a related note, see if you can find people on TV who are praying instead of helping, and point it out.

“NJ Dave” is New Jersey State Director and Director for Youth and Families. Email him at N.J. Office of American Atheists.

All this to say, preachers who preach the tithe are missing the boat. If someone wants to give a set amount, fine. But that doesn't excuse them if a fellow believer--especially a fellow church member--is in financial need and they do nothing to help them (which, as we've seen from our passages, means a lot more than just saying a prayer with them).

Bottom line, j is right. We're not asked to surrender 10%. As the old hymn says, we're asked to surrender all. All to thee my Blessed Savior, I surrender all.

Well when your income is about 4k a year down from 75k a year while you watch your body deform because you can't afford any medical care or insurance as in my case and still give God 10% of that 4k + your heart then you already have surrendered all and remained steadfast. I don't just sing songs about it like you do while you plot your next holiday vacation... lol.

[ageofknowledge]

And if someone is so blessed with having a large income, then they are that much more required to help their brothers in need. It is simply wrong to live in excessive luxury when people around you are starving to death and having their utitlities cut off. The first believers sold their possessions when they had to to help one another.

It's not going to happen most of the time. Christians love to sing the songs and hug, etc... but when they see their deformed brother limping around the church property it's simply not their problem. You don't work you don't eat.. crippled or not. That's the reality.

[zoegirl]

I don't disagree, zoe. I'm married to someone with just that set of gifts and just that vision. Monetary investment, in and of itself, is not bad. While I would disagree with you that the parable about the talents has anything to do with financial investment (although the principle that is being taught by the parable certainly can apply!), I certainly agree with your general thought process. In this world, it takes money to minister, and there need to be people who can make money to fund much of the ministry we would like to do.

With that said, the context of this discussion is the tithe and how God expects us to use our money. Most individuals don't have that vision or gift. I fear that many Christians who embrace your correctly stated position will use it just as the Pharisees did to avoid taking care of their parents. We can spiritualize our greed in any number of ways. AGAIN, I want to emphasize that I firmly believe that there are those people who do approach this issue correctly, and who are interested in making money with money for the purpose of using that money for ministry.

The fact that people MISUSE a principle should not mean that we don't TEACH it. IT just means that we should be even more aggressive in our teaching of being proper stewards of our talents, our money, our time, our bodies, our relationships, etc. Of course, this speaks more to a general lack of scholarship with regards to the bible and application of its principles.

I certainly don't have that gift as mcuh as my sister does, but I try to invest what I can, budget what I can.

But let's make this all very practical. What does driving a new car have to do with philanthropy or building a large portfolio? Nothing. All it does is cost you $400 a month in payments plus $200 in insurance, not to mention the depreciation that goes along with it; all that, when a $5000 reliable car could be bought in cash and driven for three years. Or what about the $300,000 house we absolutely have to buy? I got a promotion, and my income is now $75,000, so I can afford the payment. I've earned it, and hey, I'm tithing, so since I'm doing my part, I'll buy this. How many luxuries do we buy, at at what cost? The cable, 52 inch high definition TV, season tickets to our favorite sports team, etc.? And in our own church, we have families who can't pay their rent.

I certainly agree with you about the excesses. I have no disagreement here... Growing up, my father was very frugal. With six kids, we only had three basic cereals (cheerios, kix, or bran flakes), oatmeal or eggs. Nothing fancy. WE only ate out once a week (that was to McDOnalds for the longest time and then Pizza Hut), and part of our allowance was getting to buy a candy bar once a week. My dad would buy powdered milk to supplement the real milk and he would mix and dilute it in with the real milk. I don't remember that to be a long period of time but there were some times where stretching resrouces was the order of the day. When we were driving my dad would buy old Volkswaon beetles and rebuild the engines himself. At on point we had 4 rebuilt 1970'sish beetles.

Smart use of resources.

And what about the local church generally? Who can justify the tens of millions of dollars spent on large, extravagent buildings that are used once a week?

Oh yes, agree here. I don't hve a problem with healthy regard for aesthetics, for God is a God of beauty. But there needs to be a wisdom about it. WE can have an attractive, less expensive church.

]
But no worries, because we will take up a special offering for a canned food drive that will feed a hundred homeless people for a week! We have pastors who request six figure salaries from their congregations, and churches in whic 90% of their budget goes to paying staff.

Perhaps, however, that 90% of the budget is also because people are not giving If one has to pay 4 pastors a remotely basic salary but you are only collecting enough to pay for building expnses and the pastors salary, it *could* be because people don't even give enough. Just saying...I don't doubt what you say is true (although I would have to say, not really in the churches I have been to....most of the pastors are struggling as it is)

It is not just the individual who has bought into the idea of luxury. It is the corporate church as well.

Of course, corrupt peopl;e will produce a corrupt organization.

So yes, if someone wants to build and invest so as to create a large portfolio that can be used to undertake a missional vision that God has placed in their heart, then I will be the first to support their cause. No, the second, because God Himself, being its Author, will support it first. But as for the rest of us--and even those who are engaged in such activities--the demand to take care of our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ is absolutely paramount, which demands modesty in our own lifestyles.

I'm sure you agree with all of this, zoe. I'm just clarifying my own stance for others who could have misunderstood me in the first place.

Yep, no problem....I think we are i agrement

[Jac3510]

Zoe, as I figured, you and I are in complete agreement. We certainly ought to teach these things. As you can tell with me, I'm just very, very cautious about being sure people have this one right. It's personal with me, as I've seen too many very close friends and family suffer because of the church's selfishness, and worse yet, I've seen them justify that selfishness by standing behind principles only half-taught. To that end, I particularly appreciate your comment about the lack of scholarship and general understanding of biblical principles at large, because, at base, I think that's the fundamental problem.

AoK - I have no clue where you got the idea that I sing songs about my giving (I've not talked about anything I've given anywhere in this thread), and I certainly have no idea where you got the idea that I plan my next family holiday (as if even if I were to do so, that would be wrong).

It's deeply apparent that you know absolutely nothing about my financial position, and nor will you. I'm glad you give a set 10% of your income. Like I said, to each his own. I certainly hope that you don't believe that you are obligated biblically to do so, but I will leave your motivation between you and God. Further, you are a perfect example of what I am so angry at the church about. It is a crying shame that your church or general community of believers feels no need to help you in your particular situation. And the sad fact is that a lot of people probably can't, but not because they don't have the income, but because that income has been taken away by car payments and large mortgages and credit payments and what not. And where did they get all that debt from? From buying things they couldn't afford. In other words, by being selfish. In so doing, they have robbed both themselves and you the blessing of giving.

[zoegirl]