Christian Tithe?

[Behold]

I addressed you the way I did

I'm not discouraging giving to non-Christians.

What i did, in my previous post, was explain what can allow giving, tithing, or offering, to be made easier, if a person is having a struggle with it.
Most do.
I then stated some concepts, some ideas, some options, for their consideration, and then i talked about how i give.
Which is to the poor.

You then responded and chastised what i wrote as this :

"This is more akin to Christian Liberalism"

So, i pointed out that if you believe that giving outside the church walls is "Christian Liberalism", then that is because you are not outside them enough to know better.

Giving to the Hurting is a God Thing, Randy.

Its not "christian liberalism or modernism, or an "ism".
Its just doing good..unto others.
Its just Love.
Charity.

 

[Randy Kluth]

What i did, in my previous post, was explain what can allow giving, tithing, or offering, to be made easier, if a person is having a struggle with it.
Most do.
I then stated some concepts, some ideas, some options, for their consideration, and then i talked about how i give.
Which is to the poor.

You then responded and chastised what i wrote as this :

"This is more akin to Christian Liberalism"

So, i pointed out that if you believe that giving outside the church walls is "Christian Liberalism", then that is because you are not outside them enough to know better.

Giving to the Hurting is a God Thing, Randy.

Its not "christian liberalism or modernism, or an "ism".
Its just doing good..unto others.
Its just Love.
Charity.

Yes, I did that because the subject at the time was the comparison of OT Tithing and NT Giving. To replace NT Giving to Church or to ministries as a "Tithe" with just "Giving" misses the point at best, or confuses others, at worst.

NT Giving is not a "Tithe" at all! What we're really talking about are 2 elements that in principle existed with the OT Tithe, supporting the ministry and testifying to the means of redemption. In the NT sense we do not do that by charitable giving, whether digging a well for the neighbor for free, or by throwing a birthday party for a fellow employee at work.

If we're to give in an equivalent way with the OT Tithe at all, it must be by supporting the ministry and by testifying to Christian redemption. Charitable giving has nothing to do with the Tithe at all!

Paying our bills, whether utility bills or food and house bills are a matter of living responsibly as Christians, and has nothing to do with the biblical sense of a "Tithe." Neither does being charitable have anything to do with the "Tithe."

We are to be charitable to all, and has zero to do with the OT Tithe. That's why I said there is no equivalency between the OT Tithe and NT Giving. To meet the need for Tithing you suggest charitable giving. Do you see the problem I have with that?

I completely agree with you, however, that we should be charitable always, with both fellow Christians and pagans. God sends His rain upon the just and the unjust. Thanks for listening!

 

[Behold]

NT Giving is not a "Tithe" at all! What we're really talking about are 2 elements that in principle existed with the OT Tithe, supporting the ministry and testifying to the means of redemption. In the NT sense we do not do that by charitable giving, whether digging a well for the neighbor for free, or by throwing a birthday party for a fellow employee at work.

The original "tithe" was not given under Moses's Law, or beginning with the New Covenant and is actually related to Melchezedek .

So, there was no "church" then.

People argue about "is the tithe for now", or ........ "do we have to tithe"..
Consider also that if a Believer does not belong to a Local church,....... then tithe to who?

I teach my students that giving is what God does, so, the more we give.....the more in His likeness are our deeds.

Then i teach them...... "feed $$$$$ the one who is feeding you the word of God and you are growing thereby".
Whomever that is....
TV
BOOK
Can be many different situations.

Then, and because the born again members here are my brothers and sisters, who might be struggling with giving, i said...>"find a way to give into a ministry, or ... so that the money , or the time you are tithing, helps the hurting", and i didnt mention giving to their church as they are already not doing that.....because they dont want to do it., or they would be doing it.
Their Minister can brow beat them about that......i never will.
So., Sometimes, you just need to find that perfect outlet ministry that makes you CHEERFUL to finance.

God loves a cheerful giver.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The original "tithe" was not given under Moses's Law, or beginning with the New Covenant and is actually related to Melchezedek .

So, there was no "church" then.

I know, and that underscores my point, that there is no direct equivalency between the OT Tithe and NT giving to the Church ministry. Many Christians, in particular pastors, who wish to put Christians "under law," to give to their financial needs, often argue that the Tithe is a universal principle in the OT. And they argue that this is true because Abraham gave to Melchizedek well before the Law and the Tithe was put into motion.

But there is no direct correlation between the Tithe Abraham paid to Melchizedek and the Tithe Israel had to pay under the Law. The only comparison is that a tenth was giving to a priesthood. The conditions in which they were given were very different, but they did involve a tenth given to a priesthood. One was done out of gratitude, and the other "by law."

On the other hand, if we wish to compare some kind of "universal principle" between OT Tithing and NT Giving, it would have to be based on the principles involved in the OT Tithe, and viewed in the light of Christian redemption. The OT Tithe was given to support the ministry, which involved providing a redemptive remedy for Israel's sin, to keep them in good standing with God.

By contrast, NT giving would be to a Christian ministry, and would not be based on the agricultural model, nor on the need the priests had to provide a redemptive substitute for Christ. The NT equivalent, then, would be giving to Christian ministry, who would declare the redemption that Christ already won for us at the cross.

There would be zero sense of a "tenth," since that specific number only applied to the need for priests to both live and make offerings to God on behalf of Israel. Such offerings, given on behalf of redemption, are no longer needed.

Only a ministry reflecting the *testimony of that redemption is necessary. A "tenth," therefore would today be an arbitrary number. There is, in fact, no NT number at all!

This has nothing to do with charitable giving, but rather, with the need to support the ministry of the Church, which is very much a part of NT teaching. We give, 1st of all, to poor Christians in need. But we also act in a charitable way towards pagans and even our enemies, when led to do so. This is part of our own ministry and testimony to Christ's love in us.

People argue about "is the tithe for now", or ........ "do we have to tithe"..
Consider also that if a Believer does not belong to a Local church,....... then tithe to who?

We don't "Tithe," or give a "tenth," at all! But if we are to recognize the universal principle involved in the requirement to give to the Levitical priesthood, then the NT equivalent would be our need to support Christian ministers today, and not just a requirement to give to the poor. To replace the requirement to support the ministry with random acts of charity is, as I said, more like Liberal Christianity than a form of NT "Tithing."

I don't at all mean to imply that you are a Liberal Christian. I don't think that at all. In fact, I think your suggestion that we show our charity not just by giving to ministries but also to God in other ways is legitimate and very spiritual. I'm just adding caution to this, since the public often gets things wrong if things are not spelled out clear enough.

Sorry, you do say a lot of good things. Sadly, I only touch on some negative aspects, which tends to deflect from the good points you're making. I err on the side of caution because I know how the public tends to take things if there aren't enough caveats.

 

[Behold]

But there is no direct correlation between the Tithe Abraham paid to Melchizedek and the Tithe Israel had to pay under the Law.

Except that the idea of "tithe" started with Melchizedek...........no law, no New Testament Church.

I do know that Paul expected the Local Churches to Give to Him, if he planted them.
Whether this was a "tithe", can be debated, but i think it was for their benefit to teach them to do it, and so that they could realize by God blessing their giving, that its a circle. Tithing, giving, is a loop........
We give and it goes up and God takes it and makes it MORE, and back it comes.
Giving does not go into a black Hole, unless the "church" is a fake.... Otherwise, It goes into God's return., "pressed down, shaken together, and running over". as manifested blessing.

Jesus speaks about giving a cup of water to him, when we give to others......
What you've done unto them, you've done unto me.

There is this person, he may be a true believer, and all he does is build water wells in poor countries or anywhere this is really needed.
That's a good ministry.
Thats a much better ministry then giving to a Pastor who then builds a larger building to celebrate himself.

Ive seen them on TV.....at times....and not all are like this one.....say...>"ive got a 2 million dollar TV debt to pay every month or i lose all my stations"

See that?

"me me me me me me me".....>"look at my church, it holds 20,000 and we are growing"....

I give to ministries, sure, but, mostly i give to someone who needs food and shelter.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Except that the idea of "tithe" started with Melchizedek...........no law, no New Testament Church.

You seem to be making it a "law?" Just by calling it a "tithe," you are requiring Christians to give 10% of their income. How is that not a law?

Furthermore, nothing was "started" with Melchizedek. It was the 1st instance of a "tithe" that I know of. But no "law" began at that time, and was intended to be applied from henceforth!

I do know that Paul expected the Local Churches to Give to Him, if he planted them.
Whether this was a "tithe", can be debated, but i think it was for their benefit to teach them to do it, and so that they could realize by God blessing their giving, that its a circle. Tithing, giving, is a loop........

As I've been arguing, "giving" is not "tithing." However, the word is used that way, regardless of whether you think you should have to give a "tenth" or not. So let's just call "supporting your local ministry" a "tithe." How much do you have to give? It's not a "tenth!"

We give and it goes up and God takes it and makes it MORE, and back it comes.
Giving does not go into a black Hole, unless the "church" is a fake.... Otherwise, It goes into God's return., "pressed down, shaken together, and running over". as manifested blessing.

You see, "giving" is a separate subject from the "tithe." The tithe normally is a term applied to supporting a ministry or church. But it's evolved to mean a tenth spread out between the church, other ministries, and giving charitably.

Using that definition is absurd, as I've already explained. To give to the poor on your block, while thinking that is part of a required "tenth, is absurd. Thinking you can dole out gifts for friends and relatives as part of a required "tenth," while ignoring the needs of the ministry, is not the "tithe!"

The "tithe" under the Law was for supporting the priests in their testimony to the need for redemption from sin. Offering animal sacrifices to God was a way of telling Israel how desperately they needed to walk by the word of God and forgive others.

The tithe to Melchizedek was merely a way of saying "thanks" to God for giving Abraham a victory over his enemies. There was nothing at all *required* in it!

Jesus speaks about giving a cup of water to him, when we give to others......
What you've done unto them, you've done unto me.

There is this person, he may be a true believer, and all he does is build water wells in poor countries or anywhere this is really needed.
That's a good ministry.
Thats a much better ministry then giving to a Pastor who then builds a larger building to celebrate himself.

You shouldn't go to a church if a pastor celebrates himself instead of Christ. But you should be involved in an assembly of believers, with mature Christians present, whether it is in a church building or in somebody's house. And a full time shepherd over that flock needs to be supported by the group financially so that he is free to do his job for the Lord.

Ive seen them on TV.....at times....and not all are like this one.....say...>"ive got a 2 million dollar TV debt to pay every month or i lose all my stations"

See that?

"me me me me me me me".....>"look at my church, it holds 20,000 and we are growing"....

I give to ministries, sure, but, mostly i give to someone who needs food and shelter.

Some of the greatest ministries are satellite broadcasts, which reach millions of people with the Gospel message. Feeding someone on your street just reaches that one person with a need he will satisfy only for a day. The bread of life feeds the soul, and we need to focus on doing that for as many people as we are able.

 

[marksman]

Yes, Israel was cursed for giving the tithe in an inappropriate way, just as 2 sons of Aaron were cursed for offering "strange fire." The Law had to be upheld in a sincere and appropriate way, as long as that system remained in place.

God never judged Israel for not keeping the Law of sacrifice when He allowed the Babylonians to destroy the temple. Quite frankly, they *couldn't offer sacrifices in exile, because the conditions for doing so properly were not in place. They had to be in Jerusalem, they had to offer them in the temple area, and they had to be offered by priests doing their official duties.

In the same way there is no curse for Israel not offering animal sacrifices today because not only was the temple torn down, but Christ became a different kind of final sacrifice, making animal sacrifices unnecessary. The same thing, then, would go for the tithe, which not only provided the priests with a living, but also provided them with the sacrifices to offer. Being no longer required, the tithe was no longer in play, and there was no curse for not doing that.

But there is a curse for trying to put Christians back under the Law of Moses. Galatians was written to make that perfectly clear.

Gal 1.9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
Gal 3.10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”

It is important, I think, to recognize that there are two different curses spelled out here, one making it a curse to reject the Gospel of Christ in favor of the Law, and two making it a curse to try to find justification under the Law. The Law was designed to amplify and to underscore the fact Man has sinned and is condemned as a sinner under the Law. There is no permanent release from the condemnation of the Law under that system.

At the same time, the Gospel of Christ declares that there is a remedy for the curse of the Law apart from the system of the Law, by relying exclusively upon the grace of Christ. And rejecting that Gospel so as to continue under the curse of the Law perpetuates that curse, and reaffirms the fact that redemptive remedies that had been made available under the Law had only been temporary and never were able to remove the curse of sin.

What has that got to do with pharisaical judgment?

 

[Behold]

You seem to be making it a "law?" Just by calling it a "tithe," you are requiring Christians to give 10% of their income. How is that not a law?

Furthermore, nothing was "started" with Melchizedek.

I called it giving, tithe, offering..cheerful giving
Read more carefully.

And the initial tithe started with Melchizedek. and it was started, prior to Moses Law, as proven by being in in the scripture.


Dont let these get in the way of your opinion, Randy., and be sure to note that "tithe" means 10. a tenth.

New International Version
And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

New Living Translation
And blessed be God Most High, who has defeated your enemies for you.” Then Abram gave Melchizedek a tenth of all the goods he had recovered.

English Standard Version
and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

Berean Standard Bible
and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then Abram gave Melchizedek a tenth of everything.

 

[Randy Kluth]

What has that got to do with pharisaical judgment?

Adventageous seemed to condemn Netchaplain, declaring that anyone who does not believe in a NT Tithe is under a curse, as suggested under the Law (Mal 3.9). He was declaring him to be a "Pharisee" for posing as a "chaplain" while at the same time promoting freedom from the law of the Tithe.

And I agreed that there is indeed a curse for not following the Law, but that there is also a curse for continuing under the system of the Law while forfeiting Christ's release from the Law--a system called Grace.

Netchaplain is not a "Pharisee" as I see it. He is only upholding Paul's interpretation of the "curse of the Law," which maintains judgment against those who live by the Law and yet are unable to be perfect under the Law.

I was agreeing with you that contrary to Netchaplain being a "Pharisee," it was Adventageous who was acting like a "Pharisee," passing false judgment on legitimate theology. To try to uphold the Law, including the law of the Tithe, is to reestablish the Law as a system--something Paul utterly condemned. But I have no problem trying to extract from the Law certain immutable principles that exist for all time regarding the nature of God and human morality.

 

[Behold]

And I agreed that there is indeed a curse for not following the Law,

Randy, your Legalism is shining again.
Let me expose it, again.

"Christ is the END OF THE LAW, for Righteousness".

"The Law is the power of sin". "The strength of sin is THE LAW".

"Christ came to redeem us from the Curse of the Law".

The born again, are "not under the law but under Grace".

Randy, when you try to put MOSES LAW on a NEW COVENANT Born Again Believer, you become this...: Galatians 1:8

Did you want to stay there?
Are you sure?

 

[Randy Kluth]

op: Christian tithe?
no such thing:

Israel (Judaism), under prophecy/covenants/law:

View attachment 29426

Body Of Christ(ianity), under Grace, According To The Revelation Of The Mystery:

View attachment 29427
----------------------
Precious friend(s):

Grace, Peace, And JOY In Christ, And In His Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided (+ I and II)! ← More 'Bible Contrasts'...

Yes, as I understand it, Melchizedek gave a "freewill offering," as opposed to the law of the Tithe under the Law of Moses. Israel was positively required, under the Law, to give the tenth of their produce, or agricultural/farm product. And it was for the support of the Levitical priesthood and for their offerings to God on behalf of Israel.

This was in contrast to the tithe paid to Melchizedek, which was strictly an offering of thanksgiving to God for a single military deliverance, a gift one time, as opposed to the law of the tithe, which required annual, compulsory gifts to the temple. And Abraham paid a tithe of "everything," which would include money, farm products, agricultural product, etc., as opposed to the law of the Tithe, which was strictly from the farm. And Abraham paid Melzhizedek from the spoils of a particular battle, for which he was grateful--it included delivering his nephew Lot. By contrast, the Law was given not from spoils, but from the farms of those who lived in Israel and were descendants of Jacob.

None of this applies to Christians today, many of whom are not Jewish, do not live in Israel, do not live under the Law of Moses, do not have farms, and have no further need to have priests offer sacrifices for our redemption. And unlike Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek, we do not have to be grateful for what God did for Abraham. We can be thankful to God for what He does for us each day, not by paying a Tithe, but rather, by offering ourselves in various ways in service to Christ.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Randy, your Legalism is shining again.
Let me expose it, again.

"Christ is the END OF THE LAW, for Righteousness".

"The Law is the power of sin". "The strength of sin is THE LAW".

"Christ came to redeem us from the Curse of the Law".

The born again, are "not under the law but under Grace".

Randy, when you try to put MOSES LAW on a NEW COVENANT Born Again Believer, you become this...: Galatians 1:8

Did you want to stay there?
Are you sure?

You've completely misunderstood me. I was not asserting the continuance of the Law, but rather, asserting the eternal principle that *under the Law* those who did not properly keep the Law were "cursed."

Paul was asserting the same by declaring that those, under the Law, who did not keep the Law, were cursed. Malachi declared the same by saying that those who did not properly keep the law of the Tithe were cursed.

Paul's point is very clear, that if we wish to remain under the Law, we remain under a system that proves we need redemption. Under the Law, Israel required a continuous offering on behalf of their sins, to keep them in good relationship with God. But the continual failure to keep that Law, as a nation, always leading to national apostasy and exile, proved that the Law, as a system, could not save Israel. The nation had to be divided between true observers and false observers.

It is for this reason that Christ came to establish a system apart from the Law, so that the Law no longer stood as a condemnation of mankind for their sins. His system of Grace provides forgiveness for those who truly abide in him without hypocrisy.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I called it giving, tithe, offering..cheerful giving
Read more carefully.

I read you very carefully, and you are not hearing the argument I'm making. By calling it a "Tithe," after the order of the Law of Moses, you are trying to reestablish the authority of the Law of Moses in the NT era. The Law of Moses *does not* apply to the Church. It does *not* apply in the NT era.

If you want to call it a "tithe," as in "church offering," in a redefined definition, I have no problem with that. I believe Christians should practice regular giving to church, as in paying a bill, because church is a business that requires financial, reliable support.

If you want to call this a "tithe," I have no problem with that. My argument, if you listen carefully, is that we must, in order to do this, redefine "tithe" to mean something outside of the Law of Moses. We dare not use the authority of the Law, as in Mal 3.10, to demand obedience to the law of the Tithe under that Law!

And the initial tithe started with Melchizedek. and it was started, prior to Moses Law, as proven by being in in the scripture.


Dont let these get in the way of your opinion, Randy., and be sure to note that "tithe" means 10. a tenth.

I've asserted that a Tithe is a "tenth" from the very beginning. Of course, we can redefine "tithe" to mean "church offering" in such a way that it does not have to mean a "tenth." So I don't know why you're arguing against me for something I've not said? Perhaps you don't have an argument at all?

Nobody is arguing, either, that Melchizedek was perhaps the first mention of "tithe" in Scriptures. But that doesn't mean it was the 1st mention of the "Tithe" under the Law. The Law began many years *after* Abraham paid his tithe to Melchizedek. And I've already shown that Melchizedek's tithe is very different from the law of the Tithe under the Law of Moses. You completely ignore this.

 

[Pierac]

"tithe" in scripture.... never included actual cash money.... only food grown from the earth...

Sin= Missing the mark

Giving cash/money as a tithe is just Missing the Mark..... which is... a SIN!!!

 

[marksman]

What a gross mistake, and theft, even robbery of God, to claim such a false theology.

Tithe is still present in the NT, under the NC, and to be returned to Christ Jesus, at the storehouse.

You call yourself a "Chaplain" of Christ? You are cursed with a curse from God Himself.

Mal 3:9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.​

You are robbing God, not merely of means, but, and this more importantly, of persons. Context of Malachi 3? Vs 1. Jesus Christ and the New Covenant.

Hebrews 7, shows that Tithe was returned to Melchizedec (Type of Christ) long before "Levi", and this 'argument' was presented by Paul, under inspiration of the Holy Ghost Himself. Tithe principle goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden.

There is a great woe upon all who devour the Holy Tithe for their own ideas / plans.

​

Heb 7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;​

Heb 7:2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;​

Heb 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.​

Heb 7:4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.​

Heb 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:​

Heb 7:6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.​

Heb 7:7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.​

Heb 7:8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.​

Heb 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.​

Heb 7:10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.​

​

Continue to rob God, and teach robbery, and you will soon see what the cost of such thievery is.

Mat_21:13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.​

​

1Co_6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.​

Repent, and return to God what which is His by Creation and Redemption, before it is too late, and cease from this foolish piracy of righteousness.

Mat_5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.​

​

In other words, those in the Heavenly Kingdom, will call such thieves, lowlifes, and their name will be associated with nothing but contempt and shame, ultimately to perish in their piracy.

Can you tell me how I give my heave offering?

 

[marksman]

10% tithing is the letter of the law that kills. We are to obey the Spirit and give according to His will. And that may be more than just 10%.

I agree. I remember receiving a newsletter from a mission organization that said a Christian village had been wiped out by Muslims and they were asking for donations to buy new houses as they were living under tarpaulins on the street.

The cost for a new house was about $1200. So the tithers would have given $120. but God spoke to me and told me to give $1200, so I did. I could not afford it as I am a pensioner but that is what God said.

When I think back on it, it felt good to know that some homeless Christians had a new home because I obeyed the Lord, not followed the teaching of tithers.

 

[marksman]

And a full time shepherd over that flock needs to be supported by the group financially so that he is free to do his job for the Lord.

Sorry mate but that does not have the backing of scripture. The role of a paid pastor is something that happened during the Restoration and was a continuation of the Catholic priest. WE all have a job to do for the Lord so does that mean we all get paid?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Sorry mate but that does not have the backing of scripture. The role of a paid pastor is something that happened during the Restoration and was a continuation of the Catholic priest. WE all have a job to do for the Lord so does that mean we all get paid?

Perhaps I'm biased, but my brother was for a time a pastor and pioneered a church for the Christian and Missionary Alliance denomination. But some in his congregation refused to pay for him to have an office to counsel others, and they would not even sanction him for going out to counsel people in a public restaurant. His church started out in a public school building. He eventually gave his post to a new pastor. The church continues to do well, but so does my brother!

We are free, but have to decide for ourselves what is best in our view, with respect to God's Kingdom. People have different ideas, and we have different experiences and levels of maturity. We simply need to get along and submit to others, no matter who has the best idea.

My brother found a 2nd career, and did well with it, while continuing to study the biblical languages. He never speaks ill of his former congregation. I think we need to judge whether a church is merely imperfect or apostate. We should never judge as apostate those who are merely imperfect and in a state of growing. We don't want to knock them off the wall.

Whether pastors should be supported is subject to how the church board views the community and its needs. God will judge those who have to make a judgment call as to how to fund any outreach to that community.

We should withhold judgment when in doubt. But thanks for your thoughts. I do agree that all Christians are to be a testimony, whether in their family, among friends, or at work. We are a light, and should not put that light under a bushel!

Our "pay" will come in some form in the future. Pastors, to have time to study, prepare sermons, counsel others, and do the general business of the church must have time, and it's difficult to do two jobs, as our current pastor does. He for that reason neglects doing Bible studies, and neglects a number of church functions we used to have.

Frankly, if our churches were run less like monarchies, as you seem to suggest, I think more ministry would get done. Unfortunately, the pastor has to approve of everything, and that has a chilling effect on those with bold, new ideas.

To be honest, sometimes I wonder why I spent years studying the Scriptures and going through tribulation for the Lord only to share and be constantly derided as ignorant, stupid, or evil. I'd love to get paid for all the abuse I've taken just to help other people who regularly reject that help.

But I'd rather help them regardless, even if they don't feel it right away. That's trying to be like the Lord, who rains upon the just and the unjust and with great abundance, without reproach.

God bless!

 

[marksman]

Perhaps I'm biased, but my brother was for a time a pastor and pioneered a church for the Christian and Missionary Alliance denomination.

That is the problem. Bias comes in when we base our beliefs on our bias.