Fiach

I remember an American televangelist, last name Tilton who spoke in tongues. He urged people to send in money as "seed" offerings. He actually guaranteed a 10 fold return on the investment. He said this was based on some scripture, but I can't find it.

Basically, you give money to God (via the Preacher) and in some way you will be repaid 10 times more. I can't believe anyone would be so stupid to fall for it. Then I realised that the victims are most likely the sick, disabled, and emotionally troubled who cannot make rational decisions. Tilton and his ilk are parasites on these poor people, mostly Americans and some third world peoples.

Does anyone know the scriptural quote justifying this odd dogma? I thought Jesus preached that a rich chap has less chance of heaven than a camel passing through the eye of a needle.

Fiach

Fiach

Where does Jesus say that he or God (or one and the same if you are trinitarian) need money and want you to give money to God? Didn't he pick up the coin and infer that it belonged to Caesar? "And give to God the things that are God's?" What thing are gods? Human artificial objects of economic exchange or something higher?

Fiach

B. H. Manners

The main scriptures dealing with church contributions are to be found in II Corinthians Chapters 8 and 9.

There are other verse describing how the apostle Paul took money from the Macedonian Christians to support his missionary work. However, Paul (at least in the text itself) had a principle of doing secular work for a living while preaching. There are other verses that seem to insinuate that preachers commonly did receive payment for their preaching though Paul chose not to take advantage of this fact (II Corinthians 11:7-9, I Corinthians Chapter 9). Ironically, the passages where Paul says it is okay for a preacher to be paid for his ministerial work deals has him rebuking the Corinthians for following false teachers in their employ!!!!

No where is it hinted in the NT that the "contribution" was meant to support the building of huge auditoreums, basilicas, armies(!), cathedrals, ect. like the churches have done in the past or do today. I can see paying the preacher as okay (though personally not endorsed as the best route by Paul), buying Bibles and related religious books like commentaries, Hebrew Lexicons, ect. as long as the funds are overwhelmingly set aside to help the poor and sick.

I bet if you look at the budgets of most of your churches a large percentage goes to building upkeep and salaries.

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: B. H. Manners ]</p>

diana

Um, thanks, BH. I knew the answer. I was asking the Xn, because I suspect he hasn't really thought about it.

When I was a Xn, I never doubted the "command" to give money to God. Turns out, it doesn't exist for Xns. There are a couple of inferences from which we can draw the idea that a laborer is worthy of his hire.

The only "taking a collection" examples were requested by Paul for a specific charity, a charity that was quite a ways away, which is why it would be necessary to take up a collection and carry it there. If the charity were easily contributed to through other means locally, this wouldn't have been necessary, either.

You make a good point, Barry. How much of the church treasury goes to charity? Vs. what percentage of it goes to building costs and upkeep?

I always wondered about the "paying the preacher" part, too. Should the preacher preach as his full-time job? Should we agree to pay him a certain amount per month up front?

If we do this, we tend to feel like we're paying him to do those "churchy" things we don't feel like doing, don't we? He is expected to visit the widows and shut-ins, visit the sick and afflicted, etc. We'll do it if we feel like it, of course, but it's his job.

This attitude changes considerably if the preacher works full-time just like everybody else, and doesn't expect to make his living off his "flock."

I just keep thinking that Paul was onto something here (for once ).

d

diana

p.s. This is a sore point with me, because I think the general message of Xnty is that they are to help the needy. I interpret this to mean that they should get off their duffs and go feed the homeless, buy them blankets, help them find work, help them get help, etc. I think Xnty is supposed to be about individual responsibility for charity to one's fellow man.

Instead, we have people passing the offering plate.

When the typical Xn sees someone truly in need, he drives right by.

Maybe because he gave at the office.

Like I said. Sore point. Pet peeve. Bygones.

d

B. H. Manners

I know you knew the verses cited above diana. I just thought a reference would be good for everyone here. You are correct that the "contribution" was for a specific purpose at a specific time, which many of the "liberal" preachers are starting to point out to their flocks.


I agree with you that most of any money donated to a church should go to those in real need.

happyboy

wait a minute, now people....are we expecting logic from the vast majority of christians???

a very confused happyboy <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

doodad

Could be Justus. If altruism is a desirable trait then I hope that those with alternate worldviews would also participate in giving.

I don't think the basic reason for giving to the church by Christians is to appease God. It's done to meet the operating expenses of the church, to finance missions and to provide assistance to those in need, to name a few.

nXile

Hi Diana...I agree with you on many levels, even that it's a sore point with me too...especially the use of "oh I gave money" as a way to distance one's self from the ills of society."

The general message of Jesus was "To Love the Lord your God above all else" and "to love your neighbor as yourself." Add those two statements with the Great Commission: "Go out and share the Good News." And you have the crux of the Christian life.

So "Xns" that drive by those who are in need...aren't living the Christian life. And that's a hard message. This is one of the reasons why the Church (Catholic and Protestant) has softened and lessened "the Good news" throughout the 20th century, mainly so that the Church could "appeal" to more people and get more money and not die. How f'ed up is that?

The irony that I find in the Jesus story is that "the Good news" Jesus spoke of got him killed. It seems the Church is afraid of getting killed. That's too bad. For a number of reasons.

why I give money
note: I know that the Bible does not carry authority with many of you, and I am not quoting here to shovel scripture down your throat, but rather to clarify why I give.

Mark 12:42-44 and Luke 21:3-4
Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury and he sees a poor widow give two copper coins and he says "this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had."

I'll say it again: Giving for me is about my trust in God. However, my trust is not strong, mainly because what is asked of me (and everyone else) goes against everything I've grown up around and in. I keep thinking "But if I gave ALL I had, I'd starve, freeze and die, plus my parents would disown me."

However, just as trust with friends (new and old) grows slowly, so it is for me in my journey with God. And everytime I take a risk and trust God (giving money that I could use to pay bills or sparing time for those in need when under the crunch of a deadline) God takes care of me.

The reason I post this is as a counter-example to the many examples there are of people who seem to give to calm their conscience, or who claim to be Christian but live otherwise (like myself, as I operate from a place of little trust). That's why I turned away from God, because of the hypocrisy of Christians. But, when I revisted the Gospel, and saw Jesus railing against people for the very same thing (lack of authenticity), I came to the conclusion that I had confused God with people's actions.

thoughts, comments?

nXi|e

diana

nXile,

But wasn't Jesus watching Jews tithing? What does this have to do with Xn giving?

Perhaps I didn't express my objections adequately. I don't have a problem with anyone giving. Not only is it considered a cardinal virtue within Xn to give to those who are in need, but this matches my own ethics, as well.

I just wonder why any Xn would give to the church. Every dime that is given to the church--when there appears to be no scriptural precedent for it--is one dime less that can be given to a bonafide homeless person.

d