Tithing - Glenn Conjurske

Tithing

by Glenn Conjurske

The duty of tithing is one of those things which is almost universally held by Christians, cults and evangelical sects alike. The Seventh-Day Adventists preach it. The Mormons do so also. Pentecostals preach it as the way to temporal prosperity, and so do many Baptists. Thirty years ago I heard the testimony of a woman who had grown up in a Southern Baptist church. She said the pastor had only two sermons. He preached every Sunday morning on John 3:16, and every Sunday night on Malachi 3:10, “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse.” Such a story may seem incredible, but it was from a returned missionary that I heard it. This “pastor” must have been determined to fill the coffers and empty the pews. But on the strength of this verse there are very many Baptists who are strong sticklers for what they call “storehouse tithing.” They preach, that is, that the tithe is to be brought into the storehouse, which is the local church. This of course is based upon the spiritualizing of an Old Testament command—-for whatever it may be, the storehouse is certainly not the local church in Malachi. And all of the modern doctrines of tithing are based upon commandments of God which belonged to the Old Testament system of types and shadows, which is now done away. Those who base their doctrine of tithing on these commandments would do well to revive the sabbath also, abstain from pork, and wear a border of blue on their garments.

More substantial is the argument that tithing was apparently a part of the patriarchal religion before the law was given. Abraham gave a tithe to Melchizedek. Jacob also promised a tithe to the Lord, upon certain conditions which he prescribed himself. As to how Jacob actually laid out that tithe, we know nothing at all. Whether he gave it to the poor, supported a prophet, or offered a tenth of his increase in burnt-offerings, we know nothing. We do know that there was no storehouse to which to bring it. Neither was there any command of God requiring this of him. It was entirely voluntary. “Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father’s house in peace, then shall the Lord be my God,…and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.” If this was Jacob’s duty, by the command of God, what business had he to found it upon such conditions? Vows are always voluntary, and Jacob’s was of the same nature as Jephthah’s. Henry Alford well says on this, “It is of the essence of the vow, that this dedication should be voluntary, contingent on a certain event; and it follows that no deduction can be hence made as to the obligatory nature of payment of tithes. It would have been mockery to dedicate to God what already belonged to Him.”1

But there are no doubt many who are blissfully ignorant of all of these considerations, and have a shorter argument by which to prove the duty of tithing. “It’s in the Bible”—-the same argument by which men prove polygamy, and speaking in tongues, and holy kisses, and having all things in common, and foot-washing, and baptism for the dead. Every man finds his own practice “in the Bible,” but he fails to find the other fellow’s, though it is there also. Every vagary and every heresy beneath the sun is “in the Bible,” but it requires both common sense and spiritual sense to make the proper use of the Bible. Lust, pride, and superstition are the real foundations of many practices, yet “it’s in the Bible” settles all.

Though tithing is undoubtedly in the Bible, there is not a single word on the subject in the Scriptures of the New Testament dispensation—-except when speaking historically of the old dispensation. Though Paul speaks much of giving, and spends two chapters in detail on the subject in Second Corinthians, he says never a word about tithing. Some are well aware of this, and counter with the argument that God must expect as much of us as he did of the Old Testament saints. That is no doubt true enough. He expects as much, and no doubt more also, but he may expect something different. And this argument concerning what God is supposed to expect of us is a human assumption, not a command of God, and though the assumption be reiterated a thousand times in tracts and sermons and magazine articles, it will not thereby gain the status of a commandment of God. The fact will yet remain that though Paul says a great deal about giving, yet he speaks never a word about tithing. It may be contended that he need not mention tithing, for the duty was well known and assumed. But this is not true. The Jews were no doubt familiar with tithing, but Paul wrote primarily to the Gentiles, and what could they have known about it? But aside from that, the doctrine of tithing directly overturns Paul’s doctrine of giving. The doctrine of tithing, as it is preached in modern churches, stands directly against Paul’s doctrines of equality and of purpose, as it stands also against Christ’s doctrine of stewardship.

First, equality. Paul says, “For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened, but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want, that there may be equality.” (II Cor. 8:13-14). This equality is destroyed by the doctrine of tithing. The man whose yearly income is $10,000 is left with $9,000 for his necessities, while the man whose income is $100,000 has $90,000 for his pleasures. This is directly contrary to Paul, who contends that the abundance which one brother has is given to him for a supply for the brother who is in need. The doctrine of tithing is very comfortable for the rich. On the other side, it puts a burden on the poor, the very thing which Paul disclaims. “I mean not,” he says, “that other men be eased, and ye burdened.” Yet this is exactly the effect of the doctrine of tithing. The rich are eased, and the poor burdened.

But let it be understood, I have no sympathy whatever with the American principles of communism and socialism, which tax the rich to support “the poor.” This generally amounts to nothing more than taxing the industrious in order to support the lazy and the worthless. This is certainly not what Paul means by equality, for he elsewhere says, “If any man will not work, neither should he eat.” (II Thes. 3:10). If there are lazy men in the church, they ought not to be supported, but starved. They ought to be put out of the church, too. D. L. Moody says—-and says it in a sermon on “Love”—-“A good many people are complaining now that Christians don’t have the love they ought to have; but I tell you it is no sign of want of love that we don’t love the lazy man. I have no sympathy with those men that are just begging twelve months of the year. It would be a good thing, I believe, to have them die off. They are of no good.”2 Yet D. L. Moody was a tender and loving man. Doctrinally, his preaching was much more on the side of love than of holiness.

But then, as the old proverb says, “There is God’s poor, and the devil’s poor.” God’s poor are poor from circumstances or providence. The devil’s poor are poor from laziness and vice. It is God’s poor alone which Paul speaks of—-the poor saints. He is not talking about relieving the lazy and the worthless. His doctrine is that the abundance of the saints who have this world’s goods is to be a “supply” for the poor saints, that there may be equality. God has committed this world’s goods to the rich as a trust—-not for their own comfort or luxury, but as a supply for his poor. If the rich man contends that he has earned his riches by his own labor and sagacity, this changes nothing, for Paul appoints two reasons why we should work, and one of them is to have a supply for the poor. “And that ye…work with your own hands, as we commanded you, that ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.” (I Thes. 4:11-12). And again, “Let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.” (Eph. 4:28). Nevertheless, we must insist that this “supply” is to be given voluntarily—-and when and where and how the giver sees fit. A mandatory taxation to effect this is both the fruit and the root of corruption.

I would also insist that the word “equality” is not to be interpreted in any technical sense, as though Paul were pleading for equality in income or assets. Absolutely not. The language of Scripture is not technical, but the common non-technical language which we all use every day. By “equality” Paul means nothing more than that he would not have one eased and another burdened. He would have the abundance of one relieve the need of another, and should their circumstances be reversed, he would have the same take place in the other direction. So he explicitly says.

But I move on to the second of Paul’s prescriptions, which is purpose. “Every man as he purposeth in his heart.” (II Cor. 9:7). This is purely individual, to be determined by every man for himself. This purpose may take many forms. One may purpose to give a certain percentage. Another may determine to give a certain amount. Another may determine to retain for himself a certain amount, and give the rest. John Wesley’s purpose was to give all he could, after taking care of his own simple necessities. How is any of this consistent with a fixed percentage of one tenth? Why does not Paul exhort them all to faithfully give their tithe? In the verse immediately preceding this one he says, “But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly, and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.” What possible application could such a principle have, if all were expected to give a fixed percentage?

And concerning the nature of the “purpose” of which Paul speaks, he says elsewhere, “Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him.” (I Cor. 16:2). This does not imply any fixed purpose or any fixed percentage or amount, but something done on the first day of the week, according as God has prospered him in the previous week. All men do not have fixed or steady incomes. They may have a large income one week, and little or none the next. Expenses may also vary greatly from week to week. Much less are we to find storehouse tithing here. “Let every one of you lay by him in store,” says Paul. The bounty of the saints need never be brought into any “storehouse” at all, for Paul says of it in II Cor. 9:9, “As it is written, He hath scattered abroad; he hath given to the poor; his righteousness remaineth for ever.” Scattering abroad is not bringing into a storehouse.

It is plain that nothing in these two chapters has anything to do with tithing. Yet some folks, determined to save their doctrine of tithing, will contend that these chapters are concerned with giving “over and above the tithe.” But this is pure assumption. Paul could have said so if he had meant so, but he says nothing of tithing. And how many who tithe practice any such giving “over and above” their tithe? Most of those who have been taught to tithe suppose that in so doing they have fulfilled their whole responsibility. They suppose that one tenth belongs to the Lord, and the other nine tenths to themselves. This is precisely where the main evil of the doctrine of tithing lies.

And this is directly against the Lord’s doctrine of stewardship. A steward is the manager of goods which are not his own, and the Lord makes it perfectly plain in Luke 16 that we are stewards. “If ye have been unfaithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own?” What we have now, in this life, is “another man’s.” If we are faithful with that, we shall receive what is our own—-our eternal reward. And lest anyone mistake the matter, by “that which is another man’s” the Lord refers precisely to our money. “If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?” Now suppose you are hired as a manager—-a steward that is—-of “another man’s” estate. You appropriate all the capital and assets of the estate entirely to yourself, and use it all for your own ends, just as you please. You do the same with nine tenths of the income, while you faithfully lay out one tenth of the income in the interests of the owner of the estate. When you are taken to court for robbing the owner, you will have no plea and no excuse. Yet this is exactly the modern evangelical idea of “stewardship”—-an idea which upon its very face is fundamentally false. It is not stewardship at all, but robbing God.

R. G. LeTourneau—-well known as a wealthy Christian business man—-had for a motto, “Not how much of my money do I give to God, but how much of God’s money do I keep for myself.”3 I cannot pretend to say how well LeTourneau carried out that motto, but the motto itself is a simple statement of the Bible doctrine of stewardship. It is not my money, but God’s. I am the steward of it, having indeed the control of it, and also the responsibility for what I do with it.

Of course we are free to use some of our Lord’s goods for our own necessities. He explicitly orders us to do so. But is it not perfectly plain that the more he commits to us of the unrighteous mammon, the smaller the percentage we ought to use for ourselves? We are not the owners of it, but stewards. He has committed it to us in trust, to be used for his cause. This is the very essence of stewardship, and this it is which the comfortable doctrine of tithing effectually destroys. Even the meaning of the word “stewardship” has been completely destroyed in the modern church, by applying it to such a thing as tithing. Stewardship does not concern one tenth of what God has entrusted to you, but ten tenths. We must all very soon stand before God to “give account of our stewardship,” and it is the utmost folly to suppose we shall give account for only ten percent of our goods. When you inform the Lord that you have faithfully given your tithe to relieve the poor and support the gospel, he will not say, “Well done, thou good and faithful steward,” but “What did you do with the other nine tenths?” Can you give a good account of that?

To some God has committed material wealth, and little of spiritual gift or ability. To others he has given little of material goods, but a profusion of spiritual goods. But all of us are stewards of all that is committed to us. Paul had little of material things—-was often hungry and destitute of proper clothes—-but calls himself a steward of the mysteries of God. Now what would be thought of a steward of the mysteries of God who aimed to use ten percent of his spiritual gifts purely for the cause of Christ, while he used ninety percent to feather his own nest, secure his own glory, procure his own pleasures, and lay up a competency for his heirs? He has no right to use his spiritual gifts so, and neither has the man to whom God has committed material goods any right to use ninety percent of them for such purposes. It all belongs to God, and it seems to me that those who have little of spiritual gifts, but an abundance of material goods, ought to be anxious to get down to “business,” to put those goods to work for the cause of Christ. How else do they expect to lay up any treasures in heaven? Here are the Lord’s explicit instructions for such a case: “Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide youselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.” (Luke 12:33). And this does not concern our income, but our assets. There is nothing about tithing here, nor can there be. The doctrine of tithing tends directly to destroy Christ’s doctrine.

Yet it seems there are a good many Fundamental preachers who suppose that the doctrine of tithing is a plain necessity, in order to keep up the income and the programs of the church, but this is a very great mistake. Indeed, if they preach the doctrine of tithing merely for its effect, it is a very great evil. But the fact is, this doctrine of tithing is very comfortable for those who have money, and it serves actually to dry up the fountains of liberality, and to shrink the treasury of the Lord. Let preachers throw these notions of tithing to the winds, and preach instead the Bible doctrine of stewardship, and this will either fill the coffers or empty the pews, depending upon the spiritual state of the people. The real issue here is devotedness to Christ. When preachers must labor to exact a tithe from the people, what an indication is this of the low standard of devotedness which prevails in such a church. Let preachers preach devotedness to Christ. Let them set the example of such devotedness—-for preaching without example is worse than a waste of breath. Lack of devotedness to the cause of Christ is the real root of financial difficulties in the church, and that lack of devotedness is actually appealed to by many of the advocates of tithing. They do not preach tithing as a sacred duty, but as a business investment. They preach it as the way to financial prosperity. “Tithe, and God will bless you”—-temporally and financially, of course. Books of testimonies are published to prove this. Yet it seems it didn’t work for the apostles, for they were destitute, even lacking proper food and clothes. “We both hunger, and thirst, and are naked,” says Paul, and this he says not of himself only, but of “us the apostles.” (I Cor. 4:9 & 11). Either they didn’t tithe, or it didn’t work. That promise in the Bible which conditions temporal prosperity upon tithing was just suited to the earthly economy to which it belonged. It does not belong to the present economy.

The fact is, tithing had nothing to do with Paul’s doctrine of giving. The real foundation of it was simple devotedness to Christ. Of the Macedonians, who did not tithe, but gave “to their power,…and beyond their power,” he says, “This they did, not as we hoped, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, AND UNTO US by the will of God.” (II Cor. 8:3 & 5). Here it plainly appears that those who give themselves indeed to the Lord, give themselves also to his ministers and to his cause. His cause in this case was ministering to the necessities of the poor saints. To do so they gave beyond their power, “praying us,” Paul says, “with much intreaty that we would receive the gift.” (vs. 4). This is not tithing, but devotedness to Christ. And behold here the vast difference between modern Christianity and the Christianity of the New Testament. The modern preachers must endeavor to extract a tithe from the people, and that often “with much intreaty.” The old Bible Christians, in “deep poverty” themselves (vs. 2), gave beyond their power, and “with much intreaty” persuaded the ministers of Christ to take the gift. Where is tithing to be put into such a picture—-and what possible use could there be for it? Yet today we have a myriad of preachers in Fundamental churches who preach tithing—-and fail to secure even that from many of the people—-and yet call themselves New Testament churches. Methinks a revival of real New Testament Christianity would leave the doctrine of tithing forsaken and forgotten.

When Frances Ridley Havergal wrote, “Take my silver and my gold, Not a mite would I withhold,” this was a simple matter of devotedness to Christ. But it was something more. It embodied also the Bible doctrine of stewardship. The whole poem in which those lines occur, fraught as it is with expressions of personal devotedness, is really nothing more than an exposition of stewardship. I give the original entire, without alteration.

And as she wrote, so she lived. In an exposition of this poem she writes, “`The silver and the gold is Mine, saith the Lord of Hosts.’ Yes, every coin we have is literally our `Lord’s money.’ Simple belief of this fact is the stepping-stone to full consecration of what He has given us.”5 She did not go shopping with her whole income, minus her tithe, and think to do as she pleased with it. As a steward, she writes, “`shopping’ becomes a different thing. We look up to our Lord for guidance to lay out His money prudently and rightly, and as He would have us lay it out.”6 How many tithers have such experience? They have given their tithe, and suppose the rest to be their own, to be used as they like.

Yet it is only fair to add that Miss Havergal believed in tithing also,7 as a minimum of duty, and as a sort of “safeguard,” lest we should say “all” and do little or nothing. Where devotedness to Christ is lacking, such a “safeguard” may seem necessary, yet it seems plain enough to me that a woman with her spirit of consecration and devotedness, who possessed her understanding of the Bible principles of stewardship—-and who wished “all good carpets and furniture were at the bottom of the sea!”8—-really had no need of any such “safeguard.” It appears plain enough also that tithing, as it is generally taught and practiced today, effectually destroys both consecration and stewardship.

Glenn Conjurske