ain't that a kick in the tithe..?
What do you guys think of this..?
10% is not enough
I found it through shlog.com, Shaun Groves' blog. So there's a discussion going on over there, as well.
And speaking of not giving... tune in again soon for, "Who'd'a thunk it?" or "I take over the world via apathy".
posted by caparoon @ 11:41 AM
21 Comments:
Carolyn and I have really enjoyed getting away from the 10 percent thing.
We want to give to our church and stuff, plus spontaneously. So far, so good. We want to have fun with it.
I've been a bad blog friend (haven't been spending enough quality time online) but I always enjoy reading all your stuff. Glad the gig went well! (I've got one tonight, as it should be: Just me and my guitar! Yeah! Oh...boy...)
Brant
One of my questions on this tithe thing, as well as the role of deacons, which our council is examining right now.. is "How does this look when taken out of the church model in which I currently participate?"
So, for instance, if I put those things in the context of a home church, how do they look? On the face of it, at least, I think it looks more "1st century church." But it bears a lot more study on my part.
I'm interested in studying the NT mandate to continue the OT tithe. I've always thought that our proof-texting has been a little weak. But there is still definitely a biblical command to live a life of giving--both of self and resources--that exceeds the old standard of 10%, or even 22%, regardless of what we end up thinking about The Tithe.
Yes, you have been a bad blog friend. But fortunately so have I, so we're even. I read you, but even before you turned off the comments, I didn't comment much.
I've yet to see the video of the gig. ..I don't even know why I want to--video tapes almost always feel worse about it rather than better. Even if you do a good job, video sucks the life out. But I still do!
You will rock, just you and your guitar. You've got that rare ability to not practice, not memorize, and just show up and randomly play things in an enjoyable manner. Maybe it also has something to do with your ability to screw up, and then laugh at yourself as much as--or more than--everyone else. : ]
Give us a commment every now and then, and I won't stop believing you love me. ; ]
Biblically-correct arguments aside, I have to say that the author took many intellectual liberties in trying to make his points, even though I heartily agree with some of them, such as it is better to obey than to sacrifice.
But I can't help but think that he's got a vendetta against rich people. Not just mean & abusive rich people, but all rich people.
"Rich" is relative, of course. 10 years ago, as a full-time student, I would have considered someone earning what I make now as "rich", whereas right now I consider myself as far from "rich". Of course, those people living in the barrios would laugh at me for saying that...heck, I own a water-resistent wristwatch for goodness' sake.
That said, I couldn't help but take exception to his thesis, "for this reason I can no longer advocate tithing." The "reason" in question is merely a rhetorical example of one family "self-righteously spend[ing] $90,000 lavishly because, after all, they have tithed."
Just because one person has the capacity to spend more after tithing is no reason to do away with the practice. To the believer, what he does with those $90,000 is extra weight on his consience, not an unfair windfall or a license to live loosely. The author's own argument later on -- that giving money to the common good should be the goal, as opposed to donating our legalistic quotient -- only serves to underscore his overt assumption that "rich" people donate nothing beyond the self-righteous minimum.
(Unfortunately, as recovering sinners, it's easy for us to fall into the trap of giving "enough", having met a legal requirement. But the New Testament has plenty to say on giving, beyond tithing. I shan't go on about it.)
It is as though the author refuses to include wealthy people in the Body of Christ. On the one hand, he exhorts all Christians to live like true believers, sharing their resources as the Spirit leads. On the other hand, he assumes rich believers won't ever do that...and so he erroneously concludes that the problem lies with the institution of tithing.
In one sense, the Church is merely a body of recovering sinners. As such, I'm sorry to say that if it weren't for the institution of tithing, I'd bet the only churches we'd have today are the mega-church variety, bouyed by the 5% who would give generously.
Color me cynical.
-Keith
Don't put the biblically-correct arguments aside; they're the only ones that actually count. : ]
That said, yes, I think the author's political stance is clear. Don't know that he necessarily excludes the rich--but he's certainly not a "flat tax" guy, either.
But I don't really care about his politics. ..which is probably because I don't really care about his "supporting" arguments. I only care about his main point, and the aforementioned biblically-correct arguments.
The only "churches" that we have today *are* bouyed by the giving of a generous few. We have the statistics to prove it. Nothing cynical about that. It's just the truth.
But that has nothing to do with The Church/The Body/The Bride. I don't think that there is more or less of it based on the institution of the tithe.. well.. possibly less.. but certainly not more. : ]
Some Biblical arguments will always be a little too difficult for me to navigate, being ignorant of Greek and Hebrew. But I found flaws in the author's reasoning, which undermines whatever theological arguments he may espouse.
One that stands out is from his list of the problems with tithing: "Tithing is unjust: 10% is not enough for the rich and too much for the poor." Well, blame it on God, whom the author would probably agree is "just".
Now, to question one Biblical argument he made...how is it that we should be totally distinct from Israel? Have we not been grafted in to this people? I'm not advocating full-fledged devotion to Mosaic Law or anything, but for the author to write off tithing as "explicitly Jewish", for the "descendents of Jacob" seems like a dismissal of the House from which the Messiah came...and into which we've been adopted.
Determining which facets of the Old Testament are still valid will always be a problem in the Church. But for the author to sumerily write off tithing just because it's an Old Testament thing doesn't quite do it for me. Maybe he's not exactly doing this, as he does offer some problems with the practice of tithing...but mostly from a pragmatic perspective. And the fact that Jesus never teaches his followers to tithe is simply because He preached something way bigger than financial sacrifice, even to the rich young ruler.
And yes, as the author entreats, let us banish snobbery.
-Keith
I don't have time to quite go through this comment right now, but right off the top I'd say that flawed reasoning doesn't undermine a theological argument. If it's inherently valid, it doesn't matter that the espouser is inherently fallible. : ]
One other point would be (and I also don't know how "jewish" we're supposed to be exactly..) that we are children of abraham in the sense that we are children of God's grace vs children of the law--basically what Randy said in Sunday's sermon, I think.
I'll look at this more later. Just wanted to get your comment published.
Please, people who aren't keith and I, feel free to jump in.
People like brant and chris.. who are like.. educated and.. theological.. : ]
I don't have much time here either. But I'm just trying to say that the author of this article -- irregardless of whether he's fallible -- used some weak reasoning to build his argument. If he's right, he's right...but he's doing an unspectacular job of convincing others of it.
-Keith
Yeah, I think he leans a little heavy on social reasoning, vs biblical reasoning.
So, not including his arguable arguments, what do you think of the unerlying idea.. that we shouldn't be espousing/adhering to the "tithe" mandate?
Okay, well I read the thing.
Putting it theologically and stuff, I'd say the 10% is "too much for the poor" is a big stinking pile of crap. Putting it theologically.
You're right, he's probably not a flat-tax guy. What's unfortunate is that we can tell that he's not a flat-tax guy from a discussion that actually has nothing to do with taxes.
Anyone else in this room discovered that being generous isn't a math equation? Anyone else discovered that when we give and give, we somehow don't wind up worse for wear in the checking account?
I'm not Joel Osteen. It's just a fact. This is not math.
Poor people -- again, questionable how many we actually have in the U.S. -- should be generous of heart, and, to my knowledge, there is no exhortation, regarding giving, in scripture that includes an asterisk for the bottom quintile of income earners.
I understand the freedom he feels in getting away from a percentage law. It's more fun, more subversive, more hilarious -- precisely BECAUSE it's not math. It's faith, and it's exhilarating.
Brant
Brant! Thanks for joining in.. I was initially taken aback, because it seemed like you were really angry.
Then I realized that I agreed, 100% (not to introduce percentages), with what you were saying.. and I was *more* confused, because it still seemed like you were really angry.
: ]
So.. it still seems like you're angry.. but since I agree with you.. I don't think I should worry about it. (cause hey, if you are angry, you're not angry at *me*..) : ]
I need to spend more time reading these comments.. but i don't have it. And I want to keep the comments coming.
I found another article on this exact subject, which doesn't even touch any of the social concerns prevalent in the Graham article. It's from Stand To Reason, a group I hold in high esteem:
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5624&printer_friendly=1
By the way -- kudos Brant on your colorful assessment of the "10% is too much for the poor" claim. And yes, I've noticed that giving more & more somehow doesn't bankrupt us.
-Keith
Thanks Keith!
And Brant, I re-read your comment, and this morning it doesn't seem angry to me.
But, as i mentioned, I tried to rush. And my brain is a little fried right now.
I should know better than to try and rush through the multi-layered flaky crust of intermingled reason and passion that is Brant Hansen. When will I learn? When..!?
I just re-read my comment, and I seemed angry. I was actually 0% angry. Sorry about that.
I was actually typing speedily, trying to be funny with the "speaking theologically" juxtaposition with the word "crap". It didn't work very well. That's all.
To further our point: Anyone remember the story of Jesus and the widow's mite?
Poor person gives EVERYTHING she has, and Jesus doesn't say, "Hey, let's not get crazy, poor person..." No, He lauds her as an example, now passed down vividly for all nations for two thousand years.
This essay dude is wrong, which is what usually happens when we get Kingdoms confused.
Brant
Okay, good. Now we've established that I don't know what I'm talking about, and neither does this dude.
But I still think that *you* know what you're talking about.. and i agree with you.. so I must be covered. ..right? : ]
Just to be clear--I also feel that the dude in question argues from the wrong perspective. He's got a distinct socialist bent, and he's using it to back up his theology. That's not a good choice.
My interest is in the actual biblical validity of the idea espoused. The STR article does a better job of addressing the theology.
If i remember, he does address the widow.. or maybe that was a SHLOG commenter or something.. but I think it's interesting, because dismissing what the widow did actually logically *undermines* the point he's trying to make--that the tithe isn't valid practice.
An interesting rabbit-track, though, would be to examine whether or not there is an "correct" standard of living for Christians. Always a good time.
Good discussion topic, John. Glad you liked the STR article.
I've often wondered what the Church is supposed to look like in today's world, so far removed from the days of Her emergence. The first century church is a model of good-natured socialism/communism in that everyone shared all that they had with each other who had need.
Of course, this choice of words sounds creepy to us 20/21st Century types who see Socialist Communism as a threat to all things good and decent. But back then it was all centered around the practice of bearing one another's burdens in Christ's love, and it wasn't contrived or coerced. It worked because God's hand was on it, not because it's an economic system conducive to the Best of Human Nature. Quite the contrary.
In a way, however, we still do practice a bland form of early Church socialism -- with the Tithe. Except in cult sects, the Tithe isn't forced or coerced today, either. It's just a very organized way for everyone to know how they can chip in to help...not that it works perfectly...hence this whole discussion. But I call it "bland" because it's usually so very rote, in addition to being a "harmless sacrifice" (oxymoron), too-easily budgeted into a comfortable big-American lifestyle.
-Keith
Brant will probably pop in an clarify this in a way which makes obvious that i'm talkin' outtha side of my neck.. but I'd say that you've gotta be careful and not confuse the political realities of soc/comm-ism with what we see in the early church.
What the followers of The Way were practicing is called "generosity," and it's a NT (or "post-pentacost") command, as opposed to a political ideology.
Unless you see Jesus as the ruler and the people as his subjects and blahblahblah..because we don't, at least not in the political sense as we know it.
So I think you're kind of right when you say that practicing the tithe is a form of socialism, or a compromised form of the "socialism" practiced by the early church.
Because the tithe *is*--and was intended to be--a part of a political situation. The nation in question just happened to be a theocracy. So it is kind of a socialist practice, in the political sense.
And, if we call what the followers of The Way were practicing (generosity) a form of "socialism".. then yes, the tithe is a very marginal version of what they were doing. (because generosity encompasses a whole lot more)
And you're very welcome. Glad to be having the conversation.
I think your last full paragraph sums my point up well. I was trying to stay FAR away from embossing any political structure onto the early church...and to point out that humans could NEVER replicate their generosity as a "system" per se...similar aims, but a totally different modus operandum to make it work.
I'm in no way endorsing socialism, even though it rewards laziness.
-Keith
FWIW, my working understanding of socialism: The public sector, not private, is considered the arbiter of societal benefits. The force of government is used to make person A "give" to person B.
Given this, then, the church can't be socialist, even though some Christians manage to interpret Jesus saying, "Use the government to achieve equality of results" -- but I still can't find that.
Of course, equality and freedom can't co-exist, as it turns out, via socialism, since we're given unequal abilities. We have to pick one or the other. One hopes the church stands for freedom, and then practices a true equality, freely.
Brant
Hi Brant -- do you mean to tell me that some of our brothers and sisters out there are saying something akin to "let us use the government to achieve equality of results"? I suddenly feel sheltered for being unaware of this...and kinda slimy. I know socialists would use Jesus and/or His teachings to further their goals, but I consider them as wolves in sheep's clothing, so to speak...socialists first and believers last.
Again, my ignorance of political science has betrayed me. Please forgive my poor semantics in describing the early Church as "socialist" in nature.
-Keith
I'm guessing your question isn't sarcastic. If it is, forgive me.
But yeah, sure, there are lots of people who espouse this, friends of mine, too. They wouldn't put it thus, but that's it, yes.
Most of it, I think, is their reaction to the Christian Right, and an understandable one at that. But for some reason, the skepticism and tough questions applied to failings of capitalism, for example, aren't applied to the proposed solutions, which range from the charming-but-don't-work, to the obviously-evil-and-don't-work.
And they don't read thoughtful commentators who disagree, while whipping themselves into a frenzy with circular leftward reading material. I know this, because I ask stuff like, "Ever read anything with a countervailing scientific viewpoint on the causes of global warming?" "Um...no, actually...but Bill O'Reilly is such a..." etc.
They're quite aware and apologetic of the Crusades of a thousand years ago, but miss the last hundred years -- the socialist, atheistic regimes that murdered 100 million of their own people -- because that doesn't fit the narrative. They expect little from other cultures, but compare the U.S. to Utopia. The U.S. doesn't come off too great, as it turns out.
Anyway, yeah, I do know lots of evangelicals like that. They don't quite know what works or doesn't work, but they know Jerry Falwell's not cool, so they advocate stuff that hurts more than it helps. They remain largely unaware of history, and of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
This is all IMHO, of course.
Brant
It's *aall* about you, isn't it, man?
; ]
Post a Comment
<< Home