Archive for June, 2005|Monthly archive page
God Hates Fags!
Comments (4)Someone sent me this link today: www.godhatesfags.com
I laughed my head off at this picture. Evidently God doesn’t care about crudeness either. Wow. The really sad part is that this isn’t a joke! Seriously. What’s worse yet is that children are being forced into this.
Well, at least they let their girls wear pants (I thought only lesbians wore pants…?)
But, what do I know…I’m doomed to go to hell anyway: http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/manifesto.html
Tough Questions
Leave a CommentYou ever get those annoying e-mail forwards that have this “scroll down to see…” this or that in them? Well, I got one today that I actually found interesting and humerous and I thought I would “pass it on” here to spare your inboxes. Check it out…
2 TOUGH QUESTIONS
Question 1:
If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three
who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had
syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?
Read the next question before looking at the response for this one.
Question 2:
It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts.
Here are the facts about the three candidates.
Candidate A.
Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologist. He’s had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.
Candidate B.
He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium. In college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.
Candidate C
He is a decorated war hero. He’s a vegetarian, doesn’t smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife. Which of these candidates would be your choice? Decide first… no peeking, then scroll down for the response.
——————————————————
Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Candidate B is Winston Churchill.
Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.
NOT DONE YET–THERE’S MORE……………………..
And, by the way, on your answer to the abortion question: If you said YES, you just killed Beethoven.
Pretty interesting isn’t it? Makes a person think before judging someone. Wait till you see the end of this note! Keep reading…
Never be afraid to try something new. Remember:
- Amateurs…built the ark.
- Professionals…built the Titanic
And Finally, can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:
* 29 have been accused of spousal abuse
* 7 have been arrested for fraud
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks
* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
* 3 have done time for assault
* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
* 8 have been arrested fo! r shopli fting
* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year…
Can you guess which organization this is?
Give up yet?
It’s the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.
Girl Talk
Comments (5)I have been reading Girl Talk (“Conversations on Biblical Womenhood and other fun stuff…”)
The ladies who write there are outstanding, and respectable, who approach things from a Biblical, balanced perspective. I would encourage the reading of this blog for men and women alike.
Here is a great article on modesty entitled “Modesty Heart Check” http://girltalk.blogs.com/girltalk/2005/06/modesty_heart_c.html
Be sure to check out the article before it as well. I believe they have a book with the title “Girl Talk“. (This might be a great book for the Ladies Fellowship of PRBC to go through…)
Defining the Mission
Here is the way my church answered the questions below last Sunday night in group discussion. For the full article on these answers click here
What does a right relationship with God look like? Group One’s Answers:
- Prayer- Listening- Obedience- Study- Action- Purity- Repentance- Dependence- Faith- Consistency
What does a right relationship with each other look like? Group Two’s A’s:
- Mercy- Forgiveness- Unity in heart & action- Love- Honesty- Openness- Respect- Esteeming others- Joyful- Sharing praise- Accountability- Submission- Fellowship- Good Food- Family- Encouraging- Uplifting- Treated as siblings (with respect & honesty)- Digging beneath the surface- Children (involved with the kids)- Living it out!- (From Ryan, age 7: no breaking windows, destroying others things, don’t be mean…lol)
What does a right relationship with the world look like? Group Three’s A’s:
- Friends with sinners- Involved in the lives of lost people- Love the sinner, hate the sin- Compassionate- Heal/help people even though they don’t become followers of Jesus- Sensitive to their needs (real/felt)- Be an example- Longsuffering (not condemning)- Humility- Accepting (community attitude)- Forgiveness- Spirit-led/filled life- Fruit of the Spirit exercised- Not casting pearls before swine
All three groups felt that the answers listed in questions two and three could be used in either one. In other words, they felt that the same way you treat a Christian you should also treat a non-Christian.I was (am) thoroughly excited about this exercise! I am excited because as a body of Jesus’ followers we at least know what we need to be and do. The hard part is applying it! But, what encourages me is that I know that a lot of PRBC is applying these things!The thing we need to ask ourselves now, as a church, is: what are the best ways for us as a church to fulfill these things in people’s lives?
Do you have anything you’d like to add to the list, or think needs to be on there? Post it in the comments link below.
Missional or Maintenance
This morning I preached from John 17 about “The Paradox and Tension of Rightly Living in this World”.
The basic outline was…
The Paradox:
Call out of this world (17:6), Key Word: Election
Sent into this world (17:18), Key Word: Missional
The Tension (resulting from the Paradox):
Still in the world (17:11), Key Word: Community
Not of the world (17:16), Key Word: Separation
Basically, the way I see it is that “Called out” (Election) not only defines what God has done for us, but who we are. We are the called ones. This is our DNA. In conjuncture, we are also the sent ones. Missions is not just something we do, but also something we are; it’s our DNA as well.
I presented that if we are going to be effectively on mission with God (the missio dei) then we are going to have to become missionaries by nature. We’re going to have to think and act like missionaries. “Missions” must not only be a program in our church (we need to support this), but also it needs to become the very fiber of who each and everyone of who the “called” are.
The problem, though, is that so many Christians and churches are in “maintenance mode” rather than being missional. They are simply exsisting. In maintenance mode we sit, as missional people we are sent. In maintenance mode we hold our traditions and preferences dear and preeminent. As missional people we have one goal: use whatever vehicle apporpriate to see the mission through! In maintenance mode culture is our enemy. As missional people culture is our ally in sharing and showing Christ to people. To be missional means we must leave the maintenance mode behind. Instead of sitting we must see ourselves as “the sent ones”, and we must be and do what the Sent One was and did (John 17:16). Maintenance people pattern their lives from others conciences, confessions, and time-honored traditions of the church. Missional people pattern their life after their example, Jesus. They are connected and committed to the world. Maintenance people are not.
That night we followed it up with taking a look at our mission statement as a church: The mission of Pigeon River Baptist Church is to center people’s lives on Christ by transforming their relationships with God, each other and their world through connection and commitment to each. And asking ourselves “what does a Christ-centered life look like”? We broke up into three groups, each group brainstorming and sharing their answeres to each of these questions:
Fantasitc!
With all the hype about FF4 coming out in July, I thought I would post a sweet comic pinup of two of my fav’s from FF4 – Johnny Storm & Ben Grim
Here’s a link to the artist’s site: http://www.imakinarium.net/comic/ABC%20autores/Y/Young%20S/Young.htm
What’s Your Theological Worldview Test
| < | You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan. You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God’s grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.
What’s your theological worldview? |
Anyone who knows me well enough knows I don’t quite line up there, and even though I answered the election question with a Calvanistic answer, I still came out Arminian (well, I believe in depravity….) Good luck taking the test. At the end you can copy and paste the html to post to your blog, or you can e-mail it to me and I will post it here.
Didn’t the Fat Lady Sound Great?
Yep, it’s all over for our boyz from D-town. No more chants of “D-E-T-R-O-I-T BASKET-BALL” coming from the hallowed, booze-filled, quarter-thrown halls of the Palace. No more Championship belts adorning the waists of tall skinny black men with fro’s & beards.
The champs went down in style, though. (Read about it here) I’m thankful for that. After games 1 & 2, I thought we were DOOMED (it didn’t help with the Fantastic Four comercials up & running, taunting me, teasing me into paying 7 bucks to see it). But, the Ston’s roared back in games 3 & 4, and gave San Ann something to fear…the FRO!
Game 5 typified the Piston’s season, and quite frankly, with that modis operendi it’s hard to change mid-stream, or rather, at the ocean’s edge. Detroit had a weird season, and it spilled over into a weird playoffs, and deffinately a weird finals. I thought maybe they had woken up in games 3 & 4, that they weren’t gonna play like the prideful, “wait till we get our butts in the sling” we’ve come to know and love. Then game cinco.
“Can an Ethiopian change his skin, or a leopard his spots,” God asked through his prophet Jeremiah to the people of Israel. And, I add to the ‘Ston’s, “can an inconsistent team play consistently in this finals?”
Game cinco’s blunder of all blunders proved they couldn’t.
Not to bring up a sore spot, but why couldn’t the best defensive team in the league close out on the three-ball? Weird, isn’t? You’d think one stat LB would harp on would be the 3. Nothing changed. Every game, Spurs drain threes like my dad drains em. I bet if Det stops 10% of San’s makes behind the arch, they win the series. 10%. Seriously. They would have won game 5. They would have won last night.
If D-E-T-R-O-I-T BASKET-BALL is going to have a second ring in three years they are going to need to do three things:
1. Keep LB on the bench. If he’s healthy, I think he stays.
2. Add a key component to the bench. I’m not sure what that is, yet. Shouldn’t Darco be ready to go? What about Defino? He’s supposed to be the next Gin-knobly, right?
3. Play with the same sobriety, humility, and intensity that they did when they spanked the Lakers in 5 games.
They have to change their spots.
Good run boyz, you kept me glued. It was history in the making. Everyone counted you all out. Not me. My perdiction: ‘Stons in 7em. I had your backs. I yelled at the crappy officiating (to whom I think, in angst, the MVP trophy should go). It was a great series. Spurs deserved it. And, believe it or not, I enjoyed the fat lady’s song – she sounded great!
Happy Birthday, Carrina!
Today is my wife’s 27th birthday! We’ll be hanging out all day, then going to dinner tonight, then watching the ‘Ston’s win back-to-back Championships! Gotta love her!
Lord’s Table (SCF) – Update
It’s been 48 days now (weird, cause last night I was watching parts of 48 Hours) and here’s where I am at with the Lord’s Table program:
Beginning weight: 232
Current weight: 209
I really haven’t been following the “plan” to a tee, nor have I been excerising like at all (I need to, or at least I “say” I need to). I firmly believe that if you eat what you need to you should be able to be at and live at your ideal weight all your life. Of course, that is my struggle, because I am a confessing glutton. Continue to pray for me and my victory over my abuse of food, and not glorifying God in my eating habits. Thanks for your interest & prayers.
A Quest for Community
Here is an exerpt from a great article on community and the church’s role in bringing it to the world by Leonard Sweet (click here for the rest of the article).
***
The church now enters a world where metaphor is at the heart of spirituality. Propositions are lost on postmodern ears; but metaphor they will hear, images they will see and understand. These come as close as human beings will get to a universal language. Indeed, it seems clearer than ever that metaphysics is nothing but metaphor.
Someday I will hold up my Bible before a congregation, shake it, and yell at the top of my lungs, “This is not a book about propositions and programs and principles. This is a book about relationships.”
The church, not Hollywood, ought to be the world’s greatest image factory. The greatest image in the world, the image that draws people into real, life-giving relationship, is the image of God in
Jesus the Christ.
I want my community
One of the favorite words used in the context of the Web is “community.” eBay is in the business of building communities, they say; theirs is less an information source than a social medium.
The paradox is this: the pursuit of individualism has led us to this place of hunger for community, not of blood or nation but communities of choice.
More than buying and selling, the electronic emporium is about posting messages on bulletin boards, discovering new friends, and launching relationships at the eBay Cafe. One user said, “eBay is bringing people together to do a lot more than trading goods. We are trading our hearts.”
Don’t laugh.
eBay may just be the closest experience of small-town America available to postmoderns. Where else can they find people with similar interests (whale oil lamps, in my case)? Where else can they be drawn into community around a single purpose? Where else can they tell the stories most central to who they are and find people eager to hear them? Where else can they participate so fully and have their lives changed by the experience?
Nowhere else.
Except, perhaps, the church.
And isn’t that what the gospel is all about?
San Ann’s Breakdown
Click here for more.
Freely You Have Received, Freely Give – part 1
Theoblogian
A great article on giving by Leonard Sweet (http://www.leonardsweet.com)
“Freely You Have Received, Freely Give:”
Toward a Post-Tithing, Post-Stewardship, Postmodern Theology of Receiving
“What have you got that you did not receive? If then you received it,
why do you boast as if it were not a gift?”
– Apostle Paul (1Cor.4:7)
“It is not what we eat but what we digest that makes us strong; not what we gain but what we save that makes us rich; not what we read but what we remember that makes us learned; not what we preach but what we practice that makes us Christian.” — Francis Bacon
The mysterious Watergate informant known as “Deep Throat” was right. “Follow the money,” he told reporters Woodward and Bernstein. “Follow the money.”
It’s a lesson the church, fixed on the power of politics in a world where the power paradigms are economic, has yet to learn. Money talks. And how Jesus loved to talk about money. If clergy preached on economics as often as Jesus did, there would be at least one sermon a month devoted to what Douglas W. Johnson calls “a theology of finance,” or “think[ing] about money theologically.” 1 But clergy have historically been reluctant to take a leadership role in the church’s money matters and fund-raising.
There are lots of reasons for this, not the least of which is that nothing has produced more friction over the years between a pastor and a congregation so much as economics. 2 Likewise, some of the biggest fights in church history were caused by economic issues. The Reformation after all began in part as a dispute over stewardship and fund-raising. But generally, stewardship thinking and planning has been led by the laity, not the clergy, who have been slow to appreciate how they can help people minister with their money.
The profusion of fund raising appeals that bombard us daily, from metal mailboxes outside to electronic blinking boxes inside, make it actually more rather than less important that we talk money. Some television evangelists spend an average of 26 minutes of every hour fund-raising. The church has been even more creative over the years in its attempts to attract funds.
In the early twentieth century some innovative rural congregations in Georgia supported their church by a unique raffle which required some skill in horseback riding. For fifty cents one could enter a contest in which each participant would ride as fast as possible under a certain tree. Tied to a high branch of the tree by its legs was a live goose with a greased neck and head. The contestant who reached out and pulled the head off the goose won the fowl.3
In addition to tax support, colonial churches used pew rents, subscription lists, lotteries, and special offerings to underwrite their ministries. Throughout American history, lotteries (including raffles and bingo), bazaars, church suppers, the “talent plan” (which always gets the most local publicity), rummage sales, auctions, coupon redemption schemes, business enterprises like revenue-producing real estate, bond sales and endowment insurance have been some of the ways the church has let money talk in its midst. Our present system, based on the combination of faith and pledge budgets supplemented by free-will offerings and special fund-raising projects, didn’t take root until after the First World War.
What all of these fund-raising gimmicks have in common is their expediency. In a world of give-and-take, Mabel Boggs Sweet used to say, the church does not have enough people who give what it takes. But beyond the fact that the church is filled with members who lose more in change a year ($100 average) than they give to the church a year (23% give less than $100) is the larger issue of whether the church’s money speaks a different language than the language of a mammonized world. Money talks, but in different languages. Is our money speaking the language of Christ, or is our money saying one thing and Jesus another?
The primary monetary language throughout church history has been the holy tax of 10% called the tithe. Something almost mystical hovers about the Jewish tradition of the sacred, separated portion–the special consecration of one nation in the world, one tree in the Garden, one city in the Promised Land, the firstborn in the family, one day in the week, one-tenth of one’s possessions. But the tithe, or what Chinese Christians came to call “fragrant money,” long antedates Judaism and Christianity.
In classical antiquity, according to Censorinus, tithing was no big deal. “They used to sacrifice some part of all these to the gods, more to prove themselves grateful than because they thought the gods needed it. And so, when they had gathered in the crops, before they ate, they made ready to pour the gods a libation; and since they possessed their fields and cities by the gift of the gods, they dedicated a certain portion of them for temples and shrines where they could worship them.”4
Athens citizens maintained their shrines by a tithe; Romans presented to Hercules a tenth of the spoils of war; Hindus and Muslims practice tithing to their faith in much larger amounts than merely 10% (although in Islam zakat, one of the 5 pillars of faith, exacts a good deal less than 10% of one’s income, supplemental voluntary gifts are encouraged and expected). Laying aside a tenth to the gods is an ancient practice, almost as old as the dawning of human history itself. Adopted by the Israelites from the ancient world, tithe-giving was common in as diverse cultures as Babylonia, Carthage, China, Egypt, Greece, Persia, Phoenicia, and Rome.
The history of the institution of tithing has yet to be written. Until then an accurate picture of tithing and the exact shape of tithing systems, which differed greatly over different parts of the world and different periods of history, cannot be reconstructed with surety. The Bible itself reveals different attitudes and approaches to tithing, even within Pentateuchal sources. We do know enough, however, to realize that much of what is popularly known about tithing is wrong.
First, there is no such thing as the “biblical tithe.” The Hebrew people did not give a tithe. They gave two or three tithes. Although Tobit represents a special case, and reflects somewhat the condition of the Second Commonwealth.5 The first mention in the Bible of a tithe tells of Abram giving a voluntary donation of ten percent to Melchizedek, priest of God Most High.6
According to the Holiness Code, set forth in Leviticus7 more than 250 years later, the tithe was given to the priests and their household for the maintenance of the sanctuary and its personnel. Later, according to the Priestly Code, every year the people gave a first tithe or a Ma`aser Rishon which was paid in kind to the sons of Levi, temple personnel at Jerusalem who performed sacred as well as civic duties but who were without an inheritance of the land (Num. 18:21-32). Levitical cities served as royal temple cities where tithes were stored and assigned. The Levites in turn set aside a tithe of this first tithe called Ter’umat ma’aser, to support the priests who used the tithe for the maintenance of the central shrine in Jerusalem.8
According to the Deuteronomic Code,9 every year the Hebrews also paid a second tithe or Ma`aser Sheni. This was originally a first-fruits offering used only at Jerusalem for social purposes (part went for partying–feasts, sacrifices, and festivals which were signs of rejoicing and of glorifying God). Later part of the offering also went for relief of the community’s orphans, widows, strangers, and other destitute persons. Tithes now were eaten rather than given away partly because cultic reform had abolished those institutions previously maintained by the tithe (provincial sanctuaries and their cultic officials). These Priestly and Deuteronomic tithes were most likely one and the same but carried out differently at different stages in response to changed conditions. By the period of the second Temple the two different scriptural readings of the same law came to be understood as referring to two separate tithes. Hence they were combined and harmonized in the Hebrew canon as a double obligation.
Every third and sixth year of the seven year sabbatical cycle was designated the “Year of the Tithe” at which time the religious experience of Judaism obligated a third tithe called the “poor man’s tithe” or “The Welfare Tithe” (Deut.14:28-29). Whether this third tithe laid aside at home replaced the second tithe in alternative years, or was an additional requirement, is still unclear, although most argue the former.10
What is clear is that far from tithing representing a “tenth” of one’s income, the Hebrew tithes of terumot and ma’aserot established by the rabbinical system constituted at least 20 percent annually of “whatsoever is used for food and is kept watch over and grows from the soil,” except the seventh year, when the land lay fallow.11 In sum, the Levite Tithe (Num.18:21-26) was given to support the Levites. The Festival Tithe (Deut.14:22-27) was brought to Jerusalem for a massive party. The Welfare Tithe (Deut.14:28-29) was gathered every three years for the orphans, aliens, and widows. Put the three “tithes” together and you get a total payment of 23 1/3 percent annually. This does not include taxation.
Second, for most of history, the tithe was more like a tax, not a voluntary offering as it is in America today. Of course, when Israel was a theocracy, there was no need to fund government. Before the monarchy there was no need for taxation, so to understand tithing as taxation in Hebrew history is mistaken. Under the kings the Hebrew people paid taxes in addition to the tithe (see I Sam. 17:25; 2 Kings 23:35; Ezra 4:13, 20; Neh.5:4). But in the sense that one has no choice but to pay taxes, tithing was like a tax. Rich and poor alike had to face the tithe collector. Those who were most trustworthy and constant in their tithe collections became candidates for induction into the high order of haberim and ne’emanim. Unlike the secular tax collector (publican), the haber came to be so respected and loved for their scrupulous dealings with people that the very name haber became synonymous with honesty and integrity in administering funds. Both rich and poor were also required to bring their second tithes to Jerusalem each year to be eaten there (although the wealthy could commute their tithes into money, which would then be taken to Jerusalem with an added quarter to be spent for upkeep while visiting the holy city).
Not until the fourth century did the practice of tithing become firmly established in the Christian tradition, although in the second and third centuries there was increasing but conflicting evidence of its usage. After the sixth century tithing became a legal obligation for Christians, under penalty of excommunication and civil punishment, and by the thirteenth century tithing was nearly universally practiced throughout Christendom.
The combination of church tax and state tax imposed tremendous economic burdens on Jews and Christians. At the time Jesus was born, the combined religious tithe and Roman tax approximated 40 percent. Giles Constable has asserted that even after factoring out historical realities from legal documents of European history, no tax can compare with the tithe for “length of duration, extent of application, and weight of economic burden.”12
Third, the New Testament literature says virtually nothing about the tithe. The only two references Jesus makes to tithing are not laudatory, but instead sound an alarm about the entire tithing system.13 In fact tithing’s lack of significance for Jesus, plus Paul’s total silence on the subject, are striking given their emphasis on money and possessions. This silence needs to be seen within a double framework. First, during Jesus’ time there had been quite a bit of urbanization. The city folks did not have to give as much for tithes as their country cousins. Hence there developed resentment among the Galilean amha-arez (“people of the land”) at what was felt to be unfair discrimination. Second, the Rabbis extolled voluntary giving as “acts of lovingkindness” (gemitut hasadim). The New Testament’s concentration on gifts and offerings rather than on tithes was in keeping with the Rabbis. It was also one reason why the Protestant Reformers were critical of a required tithe.
Jesus himself was not a tither. He had no income. As a devout Jew who did not break the law, Jesus would have tithed if he had anything to tithe. But when the collectors came for the temple tax, Jesus had to send Peter to get some money, not from a church treasury, but from a fish.14 The only time Jesus said anything about the tithe was when he argued that tithing was not enough:
“Alas for you, lawyers and Pharisees, hypocrites!
You pay tithes of mint and dill and cumin;
butyou have overlooked the weightier demands of thelaw, justice, mercy, and good faith.
It is theseyou should have practiced, without neglecting theothers.”15
Actually, the Pharisees weren’t at all comfortable about giving tithes to the Hasmonean dynasts (who were also priests) in Jerusalem and would have shared some of Jesus’ reluctance.
The arguments for the tithing system, not as a hard and fast rule but as “a minimum guide to giving rather than a prescribed amount”16 are numerous and strong. First, tithing is a simple, neat, dignified formulaic administration of income which gives priority to the church and its ministry. In the words of Clement of Alexandria, through tithing “we are instructed in piety, and in liberality, and in justice, and in humanity.”17 At a time when real disposable income has risen 60 percent (from 1960 to 1980) while per capita giving to the church has increased only 12 percent, the establishment of some economic baselines and starting points for Christian giving are especially helpful.
Second, tithing fosters disciplined giving, removing liberality from the ups and downs of crisis giving and placing it as part of a daily walk with God. Tithing as a spiritual discipline can actually move people to deeper levels of faith and awareness of God’s presence.
Third, tithers dare non-tithers to find one person who tithes and regrets it. Evidence, they say, is overwhelming: all tithers recommend tithing. 100 percent. People who complain about tithing are those who, if one multiplied their “tithe” by ten and this became their weekly income, would soon starve. Homes where tithing is practiced for any length of time seldom quit because families find, by developing the image of God in them, what home really is.
Fourth, universal tithing would have tremendous benefits for troubled churches. Church members give on an average 1.6 to 2.5 percent of their income. A 10 percent average would increase giving by 100 billion a year, an income presenting churches with a whole host of problems they’ve never even imagined.18
Those who oppose the tithe have marshaled equally vigorous arguments to support their case, and to my mind they are persuasive. First, as we have shown, the tithing principle is not nearly as clear and neat as it first appears. According to the halakhah, some even interpreted the law of the tithe to include not three tithes, but one tithe divided into three parts: one-third for priests and Levites, one-third for the temple treasury, and one-third for the poor. Or in today’s terms, is one tithing net or gross income?
Was not tithing part of the ceremonial law of Moses which had been abrogated, thus making it no more binding than unleavened bread, sacrificial lambs or circumcision (this was the position first laid out by Epiphanius and later picked up by the Quakers)? Did not tithes depart from their Old Testament purpose which was “that there might be no beggar in Israel” and become instead, as one seventeenth century divine put it, a means by which clergy “maintain themselves in ease, and them and their wives and children in pride and idleness.”19
Second, rather than generosity and compassion, does tithing not generate a spirit of legalism and self-righteousness? Constraints to give must come from within, not without, if we are to fulfill the law of Christ to “freely give.”20
Third, the tithe sets too low a standard for the rich, too high a standard for the poor. The tithe is fundamentally a regressive tax levied at a single rate on the rich and poor alike. On the one hand, the tithe entails no sacrifice for today’s affluent. “The tithe is an Old Testament scheme that lets the rich get out of giving”21 is how the president of a major fund raising organization lays it on the line. Might this be why the tithing system as we know it was a lay-led movement at the turn of the 19th century. Tithing is God’s financial plan for supporting the work of the Kingdom, argue tithers like Samuel Colgate of soap, Milton Hershey of chocolates, Henry J. Heinz of pickles, Henry P. Crowell of oats, and John D. Rockefeller of oil, who more than anyone bequeathed to the church the notion of tithing as a 10% gift to God of what we own.22
On the other hand, from the poor’s perspective, the tithe is too much to take, like the government that asked its people to tighten their belts, only to receive the reply: “Send belts.” By the year 2000 the majority of poor will be women, children, and the elderly (most of whom are also women). When in 41 A.D. a famine prevailed in Judea, Antioch Christians sent relief according to everyone’s “ability.” Any system of giving that does not accommodate diversity of “abilities” and economic conditions is both inadequate and insensitive. Tithing does not accommodate prosperity giving–”as God has prospered us.”
Fourth, tithing hasn’t worked!23 Nobody wants to talk about this, but after 100 years of haranguing parishioners to tithe, the church’s giving patterns aren’t changing. A November 1994 article in the Riverside Press-Enterprise estimated that only 5000 families nationwide truly tithe.24
Fifth, tithing is so tied to money that God’s claim on the rest of one’s life can only be applied with great conceptual legerdemain. What is more, it’s application to the world of “money” is increasingly dubious. In the modern world “money” meant “cash.” In the postmodern world money is information. In the modern world we asked people to take the temperature of their commitment to Christ by looking at what they put in the offering plate, and in the high modern era by looking at their checkbook. In the postmodern era one’s temperature can only be tested by looking at one’s list of automatic withdrawals.
Money is being dematerialized. The wealth of our people is in an electronic infrastructure. Of the $7 trillion foundation on which the US economy is based, only $300 billion of this is in cash, and less than 40 percent of this $300 billion is even transacted within the US.25Postmodern culture is a cashless society, a world where “cash is dirty; cash is heavy; cash is quaint; cash is expensive.”26 The only people with whom cash is popular are paranoiacs, tax dodgers, crooks, drug dealers, and churches. Jesus would be pleased with us for the company we’re keeping, but not for the reason we’re keeping it.27 Try and get Federal Express to take cash–they haven’t accepted cash for 10 years. Try and get a rental car company to take cash–you have to sign your life away. Try and use cash to buy a couch from the pricey furniture merchant Scan International Corporation of Silver Spring, Maryland. They’ll refuse to sell you the couch before they’ll take your cash.
Finally, tithing tends to give definition rather than direction to stewardship. “The theology of stewardship is buried under the legalism of tithing” is how one critic puts it.28 By divorcing giving from the more complex, more comprehensive issue of stewardship, tithing encourages the attitude of leaving God “a big fat tip.” By only identifying stewardship with financial concerns, tithing fosters a spirit of giving akin to paying the tax on a bill, even if it is God’s sales tax. In short, tithing may provide Christians with the will for giving, but not the way.
What would a post-tithing method of church fund-raising look like? To be continued…
"If It Isn’t Rough It Isn’t Right"
or, Sheed Happens pt. 2
Well, well, well, guess who showed up last night? Sheed! And, he wasn’t stoned (well, maybe he was stoned by Crawford!). I’m shocked that the ‘Stons beat the Spurs in game 6, on the road, against their biggest opponent, Joe Crawford, the offical who officially does all he came to squelsh the Piston’s game, especially Sheed’s.
If Crawford isn’t reffing, ‘Stons by 15-20 in that game. There is no way the Spurs could contain Sheed for 4 quarters. What was his line anyway: 21 minutes, 16 points, 3 rebs, 3 blocks? He scored 7 of his points in the last 5 min of the 4th as he came out after being pined for so long from cheap foul calls. He had a HUGE offensive reb with a put back that I think sealed the deal.
In the first q, Sheed was heating up big time. Every time he got the ball he made something happen. I was feelin him, and I knew then he must have read Mitch Album’s “call out” article in yesterday’s paper.
He’s got to do it again, Thurs, if he truly wants redemption. As Ricker says, “he owes us”.
How about Billup’s quote: “If it isn’t rought, it isn’t right!” Somebody put that on a tee some where and you’d sell millions!
I’ll close with Big Ben: “It’s close…can definately taste it.”
Sheed Happens!
9 hours later, I am still in dismay…how could Sheed allow Big Shot Bob to have a WIDE OPEN look for the dagger and the championship?
This after I spent some time holdin you up, Sheed, to my buds who want to condemn you because you are not the typical role model (understatement of the century!). I defended you when they said you were a liability – I took Scoop’s position – “He’s MVP of any team, and perhaps the League.” “Whaaa?” they replied, “Are you smoking dope, PT?” Nope, but apparently, Sheed was.
Seriously.
I was on the phone to with my bro, Ricker, as we both anticipated our Stons being up 3-2 going back to the Alamo. Earlier in the convo I told Rick that I thought Sheed looked stoned. “Really?” Well, later on, he said, “didn’t you say Sheed looked stoned?” “Yeah,” I replied. “Well, I think you might be right.” Rick, like I’m ever wrong! Then to prove my observation, Sheed almost blew the game by pulling a Weber – thankfully time had already run out on the clock!
Of course, at the end of the OT, with a 2 point lead, all Det had to do was defend the three and make San Ann make a big play…so what’s Sheed do? He bites on the inbounds, doubles down on Ginably (mispelt on purpose), and Big Shot Bobby nails the 3-ball, side pocket, and kills Det’s chances of repeating!
Thanks to a stoned Sheed, my perdiction (Stons in 7) will likely not happen. (Seriously, if Det wins game 5, then this series goes 7, and my prediction has a shot, cause Det can win in San Ann – and all you who doubted my power would have to recognize my prophetic…whatever, now it’s hopeless, cause “Sheed happens!”)
Then…THEN, to top it all off and extend my marvelous mood today about the game that I stayed up late to watch (which is another story all together – stupid time slot by ABC!), when asked about the play, Sheed says… “I decided to double Tim Duncan down low, but [Horry] got the ball back and knocked down the shot.”
Whaaa…!? You doubled down on Ginably, you…
The dude was on something, man. Seriously. Rick knows. Rick saw. I’m a stoner from way back — we just know these things. He calls time out when he doesn’t have one. He doubles down on Ginably in the corner (no way to recover), and lets the GREATEST 3-point shooter in Finals HISTORY have a WIDE OPEN look, and in the post game interview can’t even recall what happened.
As they say in Det-town, “Sheed happens!” It most certainly did…
