11 more reasons to abandon the institution

A Summary of Historical Reasons to Reject Tithing

For the following reasons which have been supported by many ­ reputable authorities in this chapter and elsewhere in this book, tithing cannot be supported as a valid doctrine found in early post-biblical ­ history.

One: It is certain that Jewish-Christians in Palestine continued to send tithes to the temple as part of their obedience to the law (Acts 15 and 21) at least until A.D. 70. Post-biblical history proves that most of these never abandoned the Mosaic Law, refused full fellowship with Gentile Christians, rejected Paul, later split into factions, and disappeared around the end of the fourth century.

Two: Jewish Christians, like Paul, who had been trained in the strict traditions of the Mosaic Law would have never accepted full-time support for teaching the Old Testament Sacred Writings concerning Christ.

Three: Jewish Christians viewed tithing as purely law, which they specifically ordered Gentile Christians not to obey (Acts 15 and 21).

Four: Jewish Christians were taught to earn their living through a trade and not depend on charity. Both Jewish and Christian sages were ­ supported by the communities through support of their trade.

Five: The secular crafts and trades of many rabbis and later church leaders are recorded in history. Many church historians comment on the fact that the early church leaders sustained themselves by a trade (rather than by tithing). This is documented by numerous footnotes in this book, especially the chapter on First Corinthians 9, Acts 20, and this chapter.

Six: The church was early considered “un-licensed (or illegal?)” and it was ­ considered an “outlaw” since approximately A.D. 80. The Romans required all citizens to register their livelihood and proof of sustenance. For at least the first two hundred plus years after Calvary, anybody claiming to be a full-time gospel worker would have been arrested as an insurrectionist who had no evident means of support such as a trade.

Seven: Since Christians were sporadically killed by mobs and the government for much of the first three centuries, it seems improbable that the earliest leaders would openly reveal themselves (by not having an obvious trade) that they were full-time church leaders.

Eight: When the New Testament was written, very few, if any, of the churches were organized into a ruling-bishop system which would require or sustain a full-time minister. The churches were too primitive, too small, too poor, and often had to hide from the authorities to meet. Church buildings did not exist because they would not have been tolerated until about A.D. 200 and did not flourish until after A.D. 260 before being destroyed again in 303.[11] Persecution varied widely around the Roman Empire.

Nine: The earliest churches did not distinguish between “clergy” and “laity” for several centuries. Gifted lay members preached and carried out other functions which were later restricted to full-time ordained clergy. For example, a gifted “administrator” may have been in charge while another gifted person “preached” and another gifted person “taught” the Word. This fact would preclude giving tithes when numerous laity exercised their spiritual gifts.

Ten: It is very likely that even slaves held leadership roles as elders and bishops in the early church. The noted scholar, F. F. Bruce, says that “Pius, bishop of the Roman church towards the middle of the second century, if not a slave himself, was at any rate the brother of a slave; and Callistus, bishop of the same church in the early part of the third century, was an ex-slave”.[12] Slaves would certainly not accept tithes for their sustenance!

Eleven: Perhaps the best post-biblical argument against tithing in the Ante-Nicean church is the church’s overall attitude towards Christian virtues, ethics, poverty, and asceticism. To state it plainly, “Poverty was ­ considered a virtue, especially among the clergy!” While still retaining fresh memories of the first apostles and disciples, the miracles of the first ­ century, and, while still expecting a soon return of Jesus Christ, the pre-Constantine (pre-A.D. 325) church, was a charity organization which received offerings only to serve the poor, widows, and orphans of society. See Philip Schaff’s detailed comments in my chapter on First Corinthians 9.

from http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id15.html

bored stiff

another day in the office. i am often bored to death sitting inside the 'four walls' of the church - what am i supposed to do, come up with programs to start? after i've done a little preparation for the weekend service i'm often at a loss as to what to do. i really enjoy working with sound systems and cleaning house, but how profitable is that in the big picture?

one of the best things i do is grab a book and head to the local coffee shop. i get some reading in. i am able to soak up some vitamin d outside. and i often run into people from church or the community and strike up a conversation.

the irony of conflicting philosophies

the two things i enjoy most about going to church are playing music and preaching. it is highly ironic that these two elements have little value in my definition of 'ministry' and how i see the kingdom of God.

1. music is one of many mediums in which we can connect with God. 'worship' music in american churches has in large part become a hyper-feminine exaggeration of the real deal; we have placed far too much emphasis on what we feel during a corporate singing experience and judge how good it was by how many goose bumps we were able to raise. our lyrics often reflect our feelings and stray from focusing on who God is and what he has done. and our music leading has become highly egocentric: we love our rock stars, even in church. worship is for the most part how we live our lives 24/7 and what we do for a few minutes during a 'worship' service is only a small part of our relationship with our God.
2. preaching is also egocentric: lets all gather around the wise one and listen to what he or she has to say. there is little or no interaction and the pressure is on the preacher to deliver a good message each week so the preacher spends too much time during the week whipping up another barn burner and spends less time with people. aren't we supposed to be coming together and all of making a contribution? but that would not be feasible in a large group... but when did large groups become important?
3. i appreciate that liturgical churches make the sacrament of communion the central focus: who Christ is and what he has done for us and is doing for us today...
   

the return

i grew up attending church
sunday morning, sunday evening, wednesday nights, and an occassional special service on another night
uffda (that is scandinavian for wow or whew)

then i became a pastor and practically lived inside a church building

when i went to bible college i had to leave my third year because i was overloaded with church culture. i guess the same thing happened after 15 years as a pastor. i had to get away from church culture and just be the church.

be the church. we don’t ‘go to church’ because church is an invisible distinction of people who believe in Jesus. so all the rest we attach to ‘church’ tends to be superfluous.

i haven’t been attending a religious institution on sundays for five years. upon returning i observed many things that are non-essential to my faith. i’ve always been a non-conformist and as a result i accumulate a lot of questions about why people do what they do (social psychology).

i have a lot of questions after my first sunday back, even if my reggae version of a worship song was well received.

one thing is certain though, the people are warm and kind; i can be friends with these people.
the local 4th of july parade was a really big deal. people were setting chairs out on the street at 7am for a 3pm parade.
the rodeo is a really big deal. all three nights sell out and people crowd in to see brave men and women grapple with large animals – it is a real hoot.