For The Rev: Faith & Finances
“Better to light a candle than curse the darkness”
The Rev needs our help. He asks:
“Was wondering if you could help me …to figure out how to do offerings … I of course don’t believe in tithing, and won’t teach it, but I do think some of the existing people do tithe.
But I wanted to just place boxes or jars on the tables, and maybe a note of explanation that people can put their prayer requests or offerings in the boxes and they will be collected at the end of service. I may or may not mention it from the front.What do you think? I am very uncomfortable about the whole thing, especially when there are visitors. Do you think there should be a prayer, and an offering time?”
As Lionfish does not have ‘all the answers’, I will ask ‘Team Signposts’ take off your ‘Black hats’ for a while and help The Rev out … (that includes you too Lance)
So what do you think?:
-At the heart of the issue why do visitors and clergy such as the Rev feel uncomfortable talking about money in a Church environment?
-Should the Church (The Rev) ask/beg for money from the Front? If so, in what context?
-If The Rev encourages the ‘Tithers’ or mentions the ‘T’ word will he go straight to Hell?
-How should The Rev or any Church go about raising necessary funds for his needs?
(Rev - I will progressively place my own thoughts and questions in the comments section over time – even of no one else does!).
July 29th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
When I attended Beachway Vineyard (before it went off the rails and became one of Phil Pringle’s Christian City Churches) ….they just had an offering box in the back corner of the room…and no mention of the box’s existence was ever made during the service.
People who were regulars just knew it was there….and the church never went without (although it had other issues).
At the time, Beachway was noted for its pioneering ministry (soup kitchen/cafe) on the Scarborough beachfront.
People saw benefit in the ministry, therefore they gave.
And that’s the way I think a church should operate.
If people see value in what a Christian community is doing, then they will give to support it.
If a church has to beg for money (Hill$ong/Revenue/CCC/AOG) ..then to me ..that’s a sign there is something wrong..
Business leaders in particular seem to fall over themselves to give money to the Salvo’s.
Why?
Because they provide an obviously valuable service (despite the shananigans of Employment Plus and the compo payouts to sexual abuse victims..etc.)
‘Thank God for the Salvo’s’ and all that….
I don’t know of anybody who says…’thank God for Hill$ong….thank God for Christian City Church….thank God for Revenue Church..’
And that’s because people instinctively know about the money that is squandered by these cults/churches…usually on buildings and fat salary packages for the senior staff..while the computer monkeys in the office get $24k and very little else has trickled down to actual ministry.
In the Revenue/Hill$ong empire…it works like this…….
They go hard in appealing for money.
They don’t understand how ministry works (social work/counselling/pastoral care)…..so the money is spent on more buildings so they can have more services..so they can appeal for more money for more buildings where they can have more services….where they can appeal for more money…so they can have more buildings and more services…so they……..etc..
This ..again from Revenue Church…
http://www.riverviewchurch.com.au/trust/thehouse/
“Over the past year, we have seen upgrades to the functional areas of our Cafe (fridge and freezer), the installation of our theatre-style seating and a new stage area. We have also upgraded our Bookstore, developed our Parents’ Room, as well as continuing maintenance of our building to keep it looking its best.
Plans for the coming year include continued upgrade and improvement of our function rooms; improved heating and cooling systems and re-branding of our city campus facility, which will mean a new look for the Lounge and information distribution areas, as well as improvements to the signage throughout the building.
In the medium to long term, we envisage the purchase and development of land and facilities to form our North and South Campuses, duplicating our City Campus in order to reach more people. In addition, we are currently investigating the redevelopment of our City Campus to allow us to expand our current facilities and provide parking and appropriate services for our Church.”
Appeal for money…for more buildings..so they can have more services…where they can appeal for more money..so they can have more buildings..and more services….so they can appeal for money….so they can have more buildings..and more services (and improved signage)…so they can……..
They keep growing the empire…on the promise that one day…..all these buildings and all these beautifully fitted rooms will one day…..ummm…….lead to some kind of …..errrr…..ministry………ummm…..
But it never happens…and that’s why people eventually wise-up..and say…’I'm not giving to this empire-building nonsense’…and they start helping out a neighbour or a friend who actually needs the money ..and the money goes to some obviously good use.
In the Rev’s situation……the reputation is there that the money will be put to good use…immediately….(instead of on ‘improved signage’ in a building which has already had more work done on it than the Hyatt…) so…as long as people know where the offering box is……I can’t see a problem with leaving it at that….or even mentioning from the front…’hey…we’re $500 short this month to pay the electricity bill…could someone help us out with that?’……..but if a valuable service is being provided..then people will recognise that….pay for it…generously…and you won’t have to hound them…..(maybe just occasionally remind them… the cost of a smell of an oily rag has gone up with the price of petrol.)
July 29th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Yeah, we don’t do a prayer, or even ask for money at this point. We simply mention if anyone wants to give these boxes are around. But maybe one box in the back would be enough.
Thanks Lance
rev
July 29th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Oh an perhaps we can focus more on what we should do than what we shouldn’t, that would be great.
rev
July 29th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
I always feel like we reduce this question to be one about finding money for the church. I always think that stewardship should be something we talk about as a discipleship issue, rather than a “give us money” issue. That is one of the reasons that Northern has incorporated managing your money as a spiritual discipline.
I think the danger of the thing about tithing and exploitation is that we never feel comfortable talking about money. So make a point of talking about stewardship often.
July 29th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Contrary to current belief, I do not believe that people mind at all if the Church talks about money.
At least I don’t.
People just loathe the feeling of being used or in other words - being made merchandise of. 2 Peter 2:3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=68&chapter=2&verse=3&version=9&context=verse
It is human nature, and it is completely at odds with the Gospel of Grace and unconditional love. Especially when people come to Church seeking “The Truth”.
It is no secret that the Church is far from the ‘beacon of light and transparency’ that it’s should be. Church History is replete with financial abuse by the Church:
-St Paul clearly warns about those who leverage faith for greed.
-The middle ages witnessed the sale of religious relics and ultimately indulgences leading to the reformation.
-Televangelists and a whole raft networked spiritual entrepreneurs selling religious entertainment in exchange for your heart and more importantly – an intravenous drip into your wallet.
-And Mega-churches do not make their complete set of financial statements available upon request. (There is no valid reason for this BTW).
No wonder people are generally cynical with regard to Churches.
On the other everyone applauds and funds the good work ofmany organisations that need to raisie funds in order to fulfill their mission - World Vision, Red Cross, Church based hospitals, orphanges, AA etc.
Rev’s problem, I think, is not in the inherent asking (or not asking directly) for financial support – but rather in building trust and confidence of people to give in an overall environment that puts people at risk of spiritual/financial abuse (because of the wider history and context described above)..
Perhaps a number of basic principles developed into a management compliance framework would help build this trust of those in his care and from those who will financially support him.
I list my own principles in more detail later.
(Also agree with Dan on tecahing stewardship).
July 29th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Yes it is a stewardship issue. The problems I have is because of the abuses of the past and present. On the one hand I do not want to be associated with those users and manipulaters, on the other I know what we do with our money declares where our ture loyalties are.
So it is uncomfortable to talk about money.
rev
July 29th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Please be wary when teaching about money. As I currently attend an AOG large sized church and completed an internal course called something like Managing your Money. The emphasis was on the building of one’s own resources to finance the kingdom. Now for many in leadership at these churches “finance the kingdom” is virtually interchangable with “godly stewardship”. I for one was not impressed that in these sessions BH’s “You Need More Money” and Copeland’s “The Laws of Prosperity” were tipped as life changing books.
So some may come to teaching on money with some baggage from other churches. Just a cautionionay note. However I would be more than happy to hear someone teach true generosity and attempt to convey that all we have belongs to Jesus. I guess what I would like to see taught is more of the old fashioned the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away and how to be content in knowing God is in charge whatever and giving whatever we have when the Lord calls.
July 29th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Oh, believe me I am wary. I am actually not talking about teaching on money, but rather what to do about offerings.
And those two book titles are enough to make me start saying bad words.
I seriously hate that shit
rev
July 30th, 2006 at 12:18 am
Hey Rev, I dunno what the people in your community are like at all, but mine has historically been very much a “this is the end of the line, I’m not sure I can do the church thing” any more kinda community. And asking people to do anything - to put out chairs, help make coffee, or play music - has always been an issue. A BIG issue. And so has money. Money has always been a cause for concern, but we have struggled to raise this because…well, it’s hard to raise.
But I’m a little obnoxious these days.
I often give a spiel, as it’s easier for me to do than a paid member of stuff. Usually I’ll work it into the service, and talk about how we’ve focused on, say, the MDGs in this service, and that we’re supporting various aspects of this, and we need money in order to sustain it. I don’t actually agree with Lance when he says that if people see value in something, they’ll make financial contributions - that’s not my experience at all. I usually frame it as a stewarship, discipleship issue - not a “you must give money” or “we need money because…” kinda thing.
Interestingly, my friends who work at Lentil As Anything have the same experience. That’s a cafe where you pay for your meal what you think it’s worth. You wouldn’t believe how tight some people are…
Um, so…I don’t have any answers. I think it depends on the community. I think that way too many churches talk about money way too much, and put way too much pressure on the people attending. But I know in my church, many people have put a lot of thought into this, and most of us have come to the conclusion that this - as with other issues - is something we need to discuss in our community. And if we’re happy to be confronting in talking about the ecological impact of our lifestyles, then there’s no reason we can’t be a little confronting in talking about money as well.
July 30th, 2006 at 12:19 am
Oh, and Rev…
I think you should trust your gut on this one. Your posts above, and from what I know of you, make it hard for me to think that you would make someone feel abused or manipulated anyone. I have no doubt you would phrase things really sensitively, wisely, and sensibly.
July 30th, 2006 at 12:21 am
And…(sorry, I keep coming up with different ideas)…just back to Lance’s original post…the Salvos run campaigns asking for money…at Urban Seed we ask corporates, members of the church, and many others for money. It’s all about how it’s phrased.
I think if you set up a building fund you’ll be right.
July 30th, 2006 at 10:32 am
What if I set up a building my retirement fund?
the rev
July 30th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Rev, as a Pastor - you are should be entitled to stash a fair amount away for retirement.
As long as your wages and retirement fund iis fair & reasonable.
July 30th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
I have listed some of the principles that I personally would like to see in a Church below.
It’s much more than being ‘about the teaching’.
Authenticity & Integrity
1) Church Leaders should be Leaders and exemplars of Christ-Like Living (temperate, above reproach, demonstrating a life ‘free from the Love of money’). (There is something not quite authentic when Pastors can afford to go on family holiday’s to Paris when asking those less fortunate than themselves to live and give sacrificially).
2) Diligently align and test Business practices and fundraising strategies and teaching with scripture.
3) Spiritual Leaders should be ‘boundary riders’ that keep people focused on pursuing spiritual treasures rather than material treasures. (There is something inherently suspect with a Pastor encouraging their congregation to pursue a ‘millionaire mindset’ rather than ‘to put on the mind of Christ’).
Accountability & Transparency
3) Open AGM’s and detailed audited financials for all related entities – proactively distributed to members and donors on an annual basis. Better still place full set of financials on the Internet. (Donors should not have to ask – you should be on the front foot demonstrating what you are doing with the finances that they gave you).
4a) A model where the transfer of money between Churches (eg. Speaking fees) happens directly and openly between Churches and not into separate accounts of the speakers.
4b) Such inflows and outflows between Churches should be reported as part of the financial statements to Church Members.
5) Money raised for a specific purpose should be reported and used for that specific purpose.
6) Pastors should hold themselves and other peers accountable for their teaching and practices.
7) Clear separation of any Personal Business activities of those employed by the Church from church activities. (Including marketing).
9) Churches should be structured to prevent them becoming ‘inherited institutions’. Unless there is a compelling case against - Board Members should be elected by the Members for the Members. Democratic fovernance has its risks but these can be managed.
10) Fair and reasonable pay for Pastors with open declaration of the Pastors salary and benefits (and that of direct family members) from all activities associated with being a minister of religion as advocated by Tim Costello and Billy Graham.
Orthodoxy
11) All teaching and communications regarding money to be aligned with Orthodox teaching and supported by adequate principles of hermeneutics and exegesis. (This excludes questionable approaches such as ‘Apostolic Hermeneutics’).
12) Commit to teaching and encouraging “responsible, generous and proportionate stewardship and giving by Grace’ – ‘as God has purposed on their heart’ in accordance with the scriptures. (Cor 6:8).
13) Encourage people to read and study the Scriptures – rather than selling motivational books, tapes and events ‘that will change their lives’.
14) Although there is no compulsion on the Christian to tithe we can recognize that Tithing has been practices as a “Tradition” (like ‘Confirmation’ in the Lutheran Church) by some groups with the Universal Church in various contexts since early times (~300-400 AD). People may choose to keep this as a discipline at their own discretion and in accordance with their own conscience – never by compulsion. There is no scriptural precedent for obligatory or storehouse tithing for the Christian.
15) People should be treated equitably – not on the basis of their financial or other ‘contribution’ to the Church. If you have a ‘Stewardship Club’ open it up to ALL interested people (paupers as well as the wealthy).
16) Books, teaching material (especially ‘new teaching’ or revelations) should be tested and audited by a panel of orthodox theologians as well as lay readers.
17) Encourage anonymous giving.
If you can be bothered reading through all of this –then feel free to challenge these principles or add any others
July 30th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
* Universal Church - I did not mean Univesalism - I meant the Body of Christ.
July 30th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
That’s a good list, Lionfish.
Rev, I’ll support the Building The Rev’s Retirement Fund provided there are documented conditions that expenditure be made on slide projectors, a crying room, and a really cool lighting system.
July 30th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Ok folks, apologies all round for the lengthy post…
Lionfish that is a good list but as far as “Apostolic Hermeneutics” goes, I believe Allan Meyer is onto something there.
As far as I can see all Allan is referring to with his take on A.H is that the Apostles of Christ certainly did have an understanding of scripture that far exceeded the context, context, context that one is taught at a bible seminary/cemetary.
Now I don’t for one second agree or believe that this entitles Allan to justify his stance on tithing but let me explain what I do mean.
For instance take Matthew 2.13-15
Here we read of Mary and Joseph fleeing into Egypt as they had been warned in a dream to do so by an Angel.
Matthew then adds this in verse 15 “…that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son…”
The prophet that Matthew is speaking of is Hosea and he uses chapter 11 and verse 1 of Hosea and says here it is, it’s been fulfilled.
However, if you go back and read Hosea and use the context, context, context line of thought then there is no possible way that these two instances are even remotely related. The whole verse says that “when Israel was a child I loved him and called him out of Egypt”. In the context of Hosea it’s obvious God is speaking of the nation of Israel.
There are many instances of this occuring Lionfish and one of the most out of context users is Peter.
In Acts 1, the disciples are gathered in the upper room awaiting the gift of the Holy Spirit (verse 15).
“In those days, Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said… Men and brethren this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus”
Peter says the scriptures from Psalms he is about to quote were “by the Holy Ghost” speaking of Judas (verse 20).
“For it is written in the book of Psalms, let his habitation be desolate, and his bishopric let another take”
Now this verse, Acts 1:20, is nowhere to be found in Psalms as quoted here. It is actually a conjunction of two separate Psalms with many Psalms in between.
The first part is from Psalms 69:25
David in this Psalm is simply asking God for protection from his enemies (verse 1).
“Save me, O God: for waters are come into my soul… (verse 13) My prayer is unto thee, O Lord…(verse 14) Deliver me out of the mire and let me not sink: let me be delivered from them that hate me, and out of deep waters. (verse 18)…deliver me because of mine enemies. (verse 19)…mine adversaries are all before thee”
In context, this is all about David’s enemies.
Now in the verse of which Peter quotes only half in Acts 1:20 “Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents”, he very conveniently leaves off the “and let none dwell in their tents”.
The last half of Acts 1:20 is quoted from Psalms 109.
The inspired heading declares this “a Psalm of David…”
In verse 2, he says “…The mouth of the wicked…are opened against me.” From verses 2 - 19, David calls down curses on HIS enemies. Verse 20 says “Let this be the reward of MINE adversaries.”
Peter borrows only verse 9 out of this chapter of Psalms, throws it together with the first half of Psalms 69:25 and concludes that all these experiences of David are actually referring to Christ.
Hopefully you can see my points in all of this Lionfish?
Allan Meyer is definately right when he refers to A.H but he is most incorrect when he concludes that tithing is a practice that we as New covenant believers should be observing.
WIGGY
July 30th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Wiggy,
There is inherent danger in the Apostolic Hermeneutics which risks the development of a ‘new’ teaching, unorthodox doctrine and cultish practices.
Apostolic Hermeneutics involves standing shoulder to shoulder with Apostles to interpret Old Testament Scripture and apply it out-of-context with disregard for fundamentals principles of hermeneutics and exegesis.
It allows us to use a deductive approach to scriptural interpretation ie. Define our desired hypothesis and find scriptures to support it. This is (from the information I have seen) how Allan justifies his interpretation on Tithing.
(With wry smile and twinkle in eye) I could justify having multiple wives using this approach ie.
1) Old Testament Patriarchs had them (First Mention)
2) Solomon had many wives (second mention)
3) Paul never condemned it (except for Leaders) and infact told Christians to love their wives (plural) in the NT.
Also consider the revelation of scripture in Ephesians 2.
The foundation of scripture / doctrine has been laid (past tense) by the prophets and the Apostles with Christ as the cornerstone.
The canon of scripture has now been closed.
We must BUILD ON these doctrinal foundations by taking an inductive approach and read the scriptures diligently, consider the message yes of all mentions, but in context and using accepted principles of hermeneutics and exegesis.
It is as if we are now witnessing a breed of new apostles, who believe that they stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the original Apostles, hearing directly from God and applying new teaching … in other words not building upon the foundation that has been laid – but adding to the foundation – making a new ‘building’ based upon new (erroneous) teaching.
If that is not happening, then there is the risk that without due consideration to accepted principles of hermeneutics and exegesis. We may even create new forms of ‘theocracies’ with appointed leaders who hear directly from God with ‘New teaching’.
If I am not correct, please let me know where I am wrong – I am teachable.
July 30th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Well I am not sure this is as concrete as you would like bro. I agree, but I don’t think it is as easy as saying the canon is closed. How do we know its closed? Because a certain group of guys said it was? They weren’t even apostles were they? And were they inerrant? How do we know?
Like I said I agree, but the only way to really prove it is an appeal to Catholocism.
I think 16 is pretty ridiculously impractical. So I should send my sermons to a panel of theologians, and lay people to decide if it is okay to teach?
rev
July 30th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Rev re: 16…
By ‘new teaching’ I mean - if youare about to release a book like “You Need More Money” where you are (in effect) announcing a new paradigm that the rest of the Church, and every great theolgian has missed for the last 2000 years … may I humbly suggest that you get that ‘revealation’ or new teaching checked out. It may just be a little off centre.
July 30th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Lionfish -
Mate I see your point and I totally agree with you.
I believe that God in his infinite wisdom chose for the Gospels to be written the way they were and in the time period it was and did indeed give the Apostles special understanding of how to interpret OT scripture.
However, my point is that Allan obviously recognizes how the disciples pulled these OT scriptures out of their natural context and applied them *to Christ*. Now that I believe this is the almighty difference between Allan Meyer and Matthew, Paul or Peter.
The Apostles understood that everything, every single word, number and prophecy is ultimately pointing to Jesus Christ, the word who became flesh and dwelt among us. This is what allowed them to pull scriptures out of their apparent context and say hey, this was fulfilled in Christ.
Where Allan goes wrong is using the same kind of logic as the Apostles (A.H) to establish an “idol of the heart” such as tithing or something related to finance. Pringle, Houston, Copeland, Benny Hinn are all guilty of this too.
They “cherry pick” like the Apostles did with scripture but rather than pointing to Christ, their cherries all point to themselves and their own personal kingdoms.
David declares in Psalms (can’t remember the verse) that “the sum of thy word is truth”. Peter also says in 1 Peter that “no scripture is of its own private interpretation”. So all of it has to add up together and must complement the rest; if it doesn’t you’ve got heresy on your hands.
All I was pointing out in 17 was that if you do go back and look at how the Apostles applied OT scripture, it is indeed at odds with the commonly held context, context, context mindset taught at seminary. Am I saying context is useless and is a total sham? No, not at all.
It definately has it’s place but it is not the exclusive method to understand the scriptures.
Hope that clears up my position Lionfish…
WIGGY
July 30th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Rev,
May I raise a small flag of concern when you make dismiss the work of the HS in the early Church Councils.
No they were not apostles - and they did not create ‘new teachings’ they simply fought against heresies that were dividing the Church. They built upon the foundation (see above) to clarify Truth from error and distil core Church doctrines and ratify the essentials of our faith.
Noticbly ‘tithing’ is missing from the early Councils (if not all) as a core doctrine yet as soon as you become a member/partner of a Contempory Church you are taught this as an essential of the faith and you soon sign up to these groups as part of your ‘Partnership agreement’.
Like the SDA’s with the Sabbath - the AOG/COC/Allan Meyer have turned a minor interpreation into a major ‘distictive’ that provides a pathway to God’s Blessing / favour / salvation.
Thank God for these certain guys, who fought hard to help maintain the Truth of the Gospel and keep us from the bondage of the sects.
July 30th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Wiggy,
I will agree with you in some respects that entire Bible should speak to us. And God can speak to us today through the scriptures - but thank God for context and proper exegesis, lest I take my son up to the Mt Flora Water Tower and sacrifice him after ‘hearing God’ reading the story of Abraham, or jumping into the Lion cage at the zoo (as some zealots have done of late) after reading Daniel and getting a revealation!
We can hear God, extract and apply what we can from the scriptures but we ’should test the spirits’.
Also I agree - Peter also says in 1 Peter that “no scripture is of its own private interpretation”. Yet these guys essential make an entire ‘essential’ doctrine out of Malachi 3:10!
One of the core problems with Apostolic Hermenutics is its ‘realtivity’. Allan himself laments:
.
Thats exactly the problem with Apostolic Hermenutics. It does not resolve. You can justify what ever you want from it - from Tithing to multiple wives! All Truth is realtive to the believer then as it does not reconcile back to the Word of God.
Sadly Allan’s Lutheran forebears would be turning in their graves. I can just about hear their muffled cries of melancholy despair right now - from all the way across the Nullabor.
And dangerously, whilst Allan clings to this loose methodology that offers no resolution, he is known to have dismissed the work of Dr Russell Kelly as ‘failing the Apostolic hermenutics test’. Now C’mon Allan!
Russel has not even tried to justify his PHD on dodgy appraoches to Biblical interpreation. His work is thorough and rigorous and conforms to accepted principles of hermenutics and exegeis that the rest of the orthodox church would agree with:
http://www.shouldthechurchteachtithing.com/
July 30th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
Link should be
http://home.earthlink.net/~russkellyphd/id2.html
July 30th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Last one for the evening. My question is …
Is Allan Meyer the “Ellen G. White” of the ‘Contemporary Church’ movement in relation to his revelation on tithing?
July 30th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Lionfish,
please do not take me to mean I do not accept the canon. But I think the protestant defense of the council of Nicea is not as strong as they like to think it is. I do believe they were directed by the Spirit, and that they came to the right conclusions, however, they were just men. And as men, infering upon them the innerant adjective, is in my opinion the same thing that the RC does with the Pope, which we decry. So things aren’t as stable as we would like them to be.
And in the same vein, the Nicean council affirmed the apocryphal writings, do you support them? and if not (I assume you do not) why do you think they were right about the new testement, but weren’t correct in correcting these?
Not on subject, but what the heck.
rev
July 31st, 2006 at 12:39 am
Rev,
The Council of Nicea did not have an ‘annointed Leader’ or Pope – but a gathering of believers.
Logic, HS and Truth (I believe) were the winners.
Apocrypha were not adopted as Canon until the Council of Trent. (1500’s?)
I agree with Luther “”Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read.”.
My wife has aked me to do some chores. Nighty. Night.
July 31st, 2006 at 4:58 am
Lionfish - from Malachi 2:1 1 “And now this admonition is for you, O priests. -
After chapter 2 no mention is made that the priests were not the focus of the scripture/Malachi. I have heard this preached to pastors at a conference a few years ago that the curse is on the people becasue the priests did not pay tithes. It seems that Malachi is refering to the Priests robbing God and not paying tithes. You won’t hear that preached too many places either. Oh well, just a comment for the heck of it.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:06 am
You are right Macadamia Nut.
Malachi is admonishing the Priests because they areabusing the less fotunate - and not puting the tithe in its rightful place. Kelly also makes this point.
These Pastor should read the whole book of malachi. They take Malachi 3:10 out of context.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:25 am
Lionfish another good post @ 23.
I hope you don’t think I am encouraging people to take multiple wives or to engage in child sacrifice?
That was certainly not my intention in pointing out what exactly A.H are in post 17.
All I was saying was that Allan Meyer is obviously hip to how to the Apostles applied OT scripture and feels that he can use the same technique to justify tithing.
But Allan or anyone who teaches tithing, multiple partners, ritual circumcision, strict sunday observance etc forgets that “first that which is physical, then that which is spiritual” (1 Cor 15.46).
Christ also said “the flesh profits nothing” (John 6.63).
So tithing or circumcision etc were the physicals act observed by physical Israel but now Spiritual Israel (the church) observes a much higher and more profound spiritual act or acts.
This Lionfish is taking “the sum of God’s word” and observing the point Peter makes that “no scripture is of it’s own private interpretation”.
Furthurmore we also know that by the “mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses every word is established” (2 Cor 13.1) So if Allan Meyer, Phil Pringle, John Finkelde, or Brian Houston want to teach and endorse a N.T tithe doctrine they need at least 2 and preferably 3 N.T scriptures that clearly state tithing is in.
Of course there is not even one scripture…
Allan is certainly using A.H but he is not using it to point to Christ as the fulfiilment of all things as the Aposles did. He is also not taking “the sum of God’s word” and he does not have “2 or 3 witnesses” to establish his dodgy doctrine.
WIGGY