Not a Matter for Rule-Making

An anecdote only: I won’t try to turn it into a thesis since it’s merely an observation.

The habit of using the Law of Moses as a way of filling in any perceived blanks left by the writers of the New Testament seems well ingrained among the supersessionist Reformers I encounter. For example, there are many discussions online about tithing these days. These almost inevitably take on a quasi-legalistic tone (“What must I do?”).

When you think about it, this makes some sort of sense.

Back Under Law?

At least it’s logically consistent: if the Church is Israel and vice versa, then the default to putting Christians back under law may be as comforting to Reformers as it was to first century Jews. Wrong, but comforting. The Judaizers loved rules and were loath to given them up, even for the freedom for which Christ has set us free. Moreover, the frequency with which supersessionist writers employ the word “tithing” in these conversations is in itself a bit of a legalistic tic. You find the word in the New Testament only in the context of Judaism or in historical references, never once in relation to Christian giving.

Anyway, one of the regular points of discussion is whether believers today ought to tithe the standard Jewish 10%, or adopt the practice of tithing the 23.3% calculated by Frank Viola and/or George Barna in Pagan Christianity, or one of the other percentages calculated by various parties, some running as high as 30%. (To be fair to the authors of Pagan Christianity, they take the position that tithing has been abolished in the Church Age. Their point is that Christians who do want to tithe need to go the whole way with it if they wish to be consistent.)

The Theocratic Pattern

For the record, I agree with Viola and Barna: the tithe is absent from the New Testament, which places no such obligation on the believer. Giving in the church is to be regular (“on the first day of every week”), proportionate (“as he may prosper”), voluntary (“not reluctantly or under compulsion”), enthusiastic (“God loves a cheerful giver”), generous (“whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully”) and discreet (“do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing”). Note that these are all adjectives: how we give is evidently more important to the Lord than the precise amount. Beyond that, the apostles made no rules with respect to giving for the early church.

Some supersessionist Reformers also seem to be under the impression that all Christian giving must be to one’s local church. Again, the NT does not teach this. The idea probably comes out of the default Jewish pattern. Where else would a law-abiding Jew give prior to the diaspora but at the synagogue or temple? He lived in a theocracy. Christians today have numerous other ways to give to the Lord, including mission and parachurch organizations, hospitality, and direct handouts to the needy and to the servants of the Lord in one’s local area. But again, limiting giving to offerings at church makes sense to supersessionists. They too are trying to build a theocracy: why not adopt the theocratic pattern?

10%, 23.3%, 30% or the Whole Nine Yards?

Now, it should be conceded that though we do not all use the word “tithe”, many non-Reform evangelicals do use the lower 10% figure as a starting point for giving to the Lord on a regular basis. To the extent that switching to 23% or 30% is both possible and voluntary, perhaps that is something worth trying if you like the idea. However, to the extent that upping one’s percentage becomes an exercise in keeping up with the spiritual Joneses, it is highly questionable. The Lord is not trying to pit us against one another to see who looks most devout to the treasurer of your local church when he hands out the tax receipts in February.

Further, because we do not live in a theocracy, here’s something to consider before you guilt yourself into trying to give more than you can afford. I wrote about it a couple of years back, but I’ve yet to see anyone in or outside Reformed circles address this issue online, so I’ll repeat some of it here.

When Precedent Fails

There’s very little precedent in the OT that corresponds precisely to the situation Christians find ourselves in today. Bear in mind that until theocratic Israel demanded God give them a king, the average Israelite paid no taxes. Zero. The tithes covered all. Even when taxes were eventually introduced, they were intermittent: a by-product of failed leadership or excessive ambition, and in the case of taxes paid to foreign governments, national sin. As God originally designed it, the average Israelite’s regular tithing covered not just his religious responsibilities but his civic responsibilities as well. His 23% — assuming it was in fact that high — went a long, long way.

Contrast that with the average single middle-class Canadian Christian, who gets hit at source for at least 30% of his income, then pays sales tax on everything he buys to the tune of approximately $4,500 annually, as well as property taxes of $3,500, estate taxes, profit taxes, gas taxes and customs taxes. On average, the Fraser Institute calculates that comes to over 41% of an average family’s income, after which most of us start thinking about giving the Lord his due.

Apples and Oranges

So, you see the problem: comparing modern Christians with ancient Jews is an apples-and-oranges exercise. Regardless of your income, Canadian Christians taxed at source are starting with a much smaller pot than Jews were, and the difference effectively (under-)funds our welfare programs, social safety net and other causes the 23.3% Jewish tithe would have covered. Let’s not even mention the host of causes for which Canadians are taxed at source that the Law of Moses would never have funded from tithes because they are an abomination to the Lord, but all the same deplete the available resources of Christians here because they are not optional like charitable donations are.

Keeping all this in mind, I seriously question whether there is a one-size-fits-all answer to the question of how much Christians ought to give. Perhaps this is why the writers of the New Testament never sought to provide one. Giving is simply not a matter for rule-making.