Tithing Does this apply to believers today?

[tango]

I agree but I can also see why churches set up the 10 percent standard, there has to be some round about standard to go by IMO whether or not we willingly donate as much (like who is checking our pay stubs?)

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

There doesn't need to be any particular standard - why does it matter to church leadership if you are giving 48% and I'm giving 3% of what I make?

 

[tango]

I've heard it said that smaller churches (under one hundred in attendance) are called "family chapel churches" because a few families seem to be involved in everything in those churches. They not only give the most but serve the most. I know most pastors would love it if more people volunteered to do more with their time. It is indeed a gift.

I've often wondered how many of those families end up stuck with a job simply because they've been doing it so long nobody wants to step forward because that family "as it all sewn up". If you have the Smiths who are doing just about everything, to the point nobody wants to stand against the Smiths in any form of election or even selection process because, you know, the Smiths won't let anyone else in, one has to ask whether the Smiths really won't let anyone else in or whether they would dearly love to hand over the reins to someone else, if only someone else would step forward. Maybe one year they don't even put their names forward because they'd like a break but nobody else does either because, you know, the Smiths have got that all sewn up for themselves, and then when nobody else volunteers the Smiths accept they'll do it for another year because it needs to be done, only to confirm that people were right all along - the Smiths have it all sewn up and won't let anyone else get a look in.

 

[tango]

Yes, the one church I go to gets money but people to do things is in short supply

Of course volunteer labor can be replaced with paid labor, up to a point. It's just that volunteer labor means that financial gifts go further, rather than being soaked up to pay people to do things that would arguably better be done by volunteers.

 

[psalms 91]

Also I dont really think payiong someone to evangelize and run church functions is the way to go. While I realize it is an aging congregation they should still be able to volunteer to do things. If something doesnt change I can see this church dying in 20 years.

 

[Andrew]

There doesn't need to be any particular standard - why does it matter to church leadership if you are giving 48% and I'm giving 3% of what I make?

It matters I suppose if they depend on a figure but they don't expect it.
They teach that God will somehow bless you financially in return but I honestly don't care about divine gambling lol no offense to anyone who believes that, I personally do what I can to be a good steward of the church either by small donations and or ushering.



Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[tango]

Also I dont really think payiong someone to evangelize and run church functions is the way to go. While I realize it is an aging congregation they should still be able to volunteer to do things. If something doesnt change I can see this church dying in 20 years.

I'd agree with you, but if nobody is willing to volunteer then it means either the functions don't happen or someone is paid to run them.

As long as people are physically capable of doing things they can volunteer, if they so choose. Obviously there comes a point where you can't physically cope with the demands of running functions.

 

[tango]

It matters I suppose if they depend on a figure but they don't expect it.

If income from giving is below expenses needed to operate the church then they need more to be given - it doesn't matter who gives it or what percentage it works out to be. If you are giving 48% and I am giving 3%, we both come to realise that the church needs an extra $2,000 in annual giving so you respond by increasing your giving to 56% and I respond by reducing my giving to 2%, why does it matter to the church as long as they got the money they needed?

I understand that if the congregation wants the church to do things then the money has to come from somewhere. What I give as a percentage of what I make is between myself and God. To be honest if a minister asked the congregation overall to consider increasing giving I wouldn't have a problem. If the minister told me that he expected me to give a certain amount he would soon find my giving dropped to zero. One thing (out of many) that I really respected about the pastor at my previous church was that he didn't know who gave what to the church. He wanted it that way and excused himself from any church discussions that might lead to him knowing how much individual people gave - he wanted to be sure that he allocated his time based on pastoral need without being tempted to prioritise someone who was basically having a whinge but who was a generous donor to the church.

They teach that God will somehow bless you financially in return but I honestly don't care about divine gambling lol no offense to anyone who believes that, I personally do what I can to be a good steward of the church either by small donations and or ushering.

I really take issue with churches that teach that sort of thing. If I give money to the church I regard it as being equivalent, from a purely selfish financial standpoint, to setting fire to the money. Literally - I had it and now I don't have it. If I want a return on it I'll invest it in the stock market or in a business venture. If I give it to the church I don't expect any personal financial benefit to result.

It's not as if blessings are for sale to the highest bidder, or the person who gives $10,000 gets blessed more than the person who gives $100. What Jesus said about the widow's mite seems particularly relevant where this is concerned.

 

[Andrew]

If income from giving is below expenses needed to operate the church then they need more to be given - it doesn't matter who gives it or what percentage it works out to be. If you are giving 48% and I am giving 3%, we both come to realise that the church needs an extra $2,000 in annual giving so you respond by increasing your giving to 56% and I respond by reducing my giving to 2%, why does it matter to the church as long as they got the money they needed?

I understand that if the congregation wants the church to do things then the money has to come from somewhere. What I give as a percentage of what I make is between myself and God. To be honest if a minister asked the congregation overall to consider increasing giving I wouldn't have a problem. If the minister told me that he expected me to give a certain amount he would soon find my giving dropped to zero. One thing (out of many) that I really respected about the pastor at my previous church was that he didn't know who gave what to the church. He wanted it that way and excused himself from any church discussions that might lead to him knowing how much individual people gave - he wanted to be sure that he allocated his time based on pastoral need without being tempted to prioritise someone who was basically having a whinge but who was a generous donor to the church.




I really take issue with churches that teach that sort of thing. If I give money to the church I regard it as being equivalent, from a purely selfish financial standpoint, to setting fire to the money. Literally - I had it and now I don't have it. If I want a return on it I'll invest it in the stock market or in a business venture. If I give it to the church I don't expect any personal financial benefit to result.

It's not as if blessings are for sale to the highest bidder, or the person who gives $10,000 gets blessed more than the person who gives $100. What Jesus said about the widow's mite seems particularly relevant where this is concerned.

I agree 100%.
They want us to use our names so that at the end of the year you can get a tax right off but im not interested in saving money if I am giving money, defeats its special purpose, so cash it is straight in the bucket if I can. Being an usher no one knows if im giving anyway, i like the anonymous approach.
With tithing, they chart down your name and your investments and give you the statement, I assume most churches do that, your previous church pasture sets a good example tho.


Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[tango]

I agree 100%.
They want us to use our names so that at the end of the year you can get a tax right off but im not interested in saving money if I am giving money, defeats its special purpose, so cash it is straight in the bucket if I can. Being an usher no one knows if im giving anyway, i like the anonymous approach.
With tithing, they chart down your name and your investments and give you the statement, I assume most churches do that, your previous church pasture sets a good example tho.

If there is a tax deduction available (which there would be, if you take itemized deductions) then you might as well have it - it's basically free money so you might as well have it even if you just give it to the church alongside your regular donation.

When I ran my own company I routed all my giving through the company and got receipts, so it was fully tax-deductible. Before that there was a scheme available called Give As You Earn which basically meant an agreed amount of money was deducted from your salary and put into a special account tax-free, but you could only use it to give to charities. That meant I could just give money to charities in a manner that was fully tax-efficient without having to worry about receipts and filing forms at the end of the year.

Unless I'm giving enough that it makes a difference to my tax returns I'd rather do the whole thing about giving so the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. I think I can safely say that aside from my wife nobody at church could tell you what I give.

 

[Andrew]

If there is a tax deduction available (which there would be, if you take itemized deductions) then you might as well have it - it's basically free money so you might as well have it even if you just give it to the church alongside your regular donation.

When I ran my own company I routed all my giving through the company and got receipts, so it was fully tax-deductible. Before that there was a scheme available called Give As You Earn which basically meant an agreed amount of money was deducted from your salary and put into a special account tax-free, but you could only use it to give to charities. That meant I could just give money to charities in a manner that was fully tax-efficient without having to worry about receipts and filing forms at the end of the year.

Unless I'm giving enough that it makes a difference to my tax returns I'd rather do the whole thing about giving so the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. I think I can safely say that aside from my wife nobody at church could tell you what I give.

Well I certainly haven't paid enough in tithing this year to expect any tax deductions for it.
Thanks for the info tho I appreciate it.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Lamb]

I give an offering and not a tithe. I always wish I could give more but I give what my husband allows me to give since he earns the money and not me right now.

 

[NewCreation435]

I give an offering and not a tithe. I always wish I could give more but I give what my husband allows me to give since he earns the money and not me right now.

That's the way it should be. There should be agreement between husband and wife about what to give.

 

[tango]

I give an offering and not a tithe. I always wish I could give more but I give what my husband allows me to give since he earns the money and not me right now.

The way some people talk I wonder if they think a tithe is the same as an offering. I think what you are doing is exactly right - you make an offering to the church that you and your husband have agreed. To give an amount that he is not comfortable with giving would show disrespect to him that I don't think would be at all appropriate.

Ever since I've understood the concept of a tithe I've regarded what I give as an offering. Sometimes it so happens that I've given exactly 10%. Sometimes I've given nothing at all for a period. Sometimes I've given way more than 10%. Sometimes I've seen a specific need and, if my wife is happy with the idea, gone ahead and met the need.

Just for good measure, people who earn a set salary and receive the same amount every month may decide to give the same amount each month, whatever percentage that might be. People whose income is lumpy (the self-employed, temporary or casual workers, seasonal workers etc) could quite easily find themselves giving very little during their "down time".