Tithing

After years of faithful tithing, I revisited the question of Christian tithing. Are Christians supposed to tithe? I no longer think so, and this article gives my reasons.

The Biblical Case for Tithing

Nearly the entire known, public, organized Christian world preaches some form of Christian tithing, though the emphasis varies by degree in different faith communities.

The reasons that Christians are taught to tithe appear to be based in the Bible. There are several New Testament passages that suggest Christians should tithe and most pastors preach those passages at some regular interval in their respective churches.

I listened to those sermons and was a faithful tither for many years.

Then, a friend of mine pushed hard on the subject of tithing. I took the pro-tithing position I had always held, but my understanding of scripture was now much more complete and the old stand-by arguments were shallow and unconvincing. At several places we can find Jesus giving precise editorial on the practice of tithing, and his parables do not simply support tithing as usually taught in Church.

Eventually, it became apparent the debate was centering on the wrong question. The tithing question should be stated a little differently.

Who, under the New Covenant, is to receive another person's tithe?

This question is a simple reversal of the traditional question. It galvanizes the argument and can be answered quickly. There has been a change in law, and a change in priesthood, and under the New Covenant no one receives the tithe. Nowhere under the New Covenant is there anyone, anywhere, who receives a tithe. Curiously Jesus does not receive a tithe, neither does Paul, nor anyone that Paul instructs. There are no examples, and no instruction, because tithing is a practice that is not part of the New Covenant.

Indeed, as I will explain in detail below, those now receiving the tithe are not sons of the Father but usurpers. Therefore, the question of giving a tithe is simple: no one should be giving a tithe.

It should also be obvious that without tithing, there is no source of funds for "church" as we know it. This is in fact the second most common argument for tithing. Even if scripture does not mandate tithing for New Covenant believers, the question is often asked, how would the church function without tithing?

Of course the question is based in an assumption. If "church" is defined by the tithe-supported model we see used widely across the globe, then of course the tithe is needed to support "church." But, scripture describes "Church" differently than we normally experience. That scriptural model for "Church" does not function on a tithe. So, it looks different than most churches today.

By withdrawing the tithe, and returning to a scripture model for funding, we must also rethink church organization that depends on the tithe and return that organization to a scriptural model.

When done, these changes imply a different type of ministry, a ministry quite different than the paid priest that most pastors have become.

This is a very strong position, very much counter to many widely held beliefs across the Christian world.

After considering this position, and praying about it, a picture of how the church is perverted by the false tithing doctrine began to develop. Instead of seeing tithing as the engine that makes everything go, I came to see tithing as the key perversion that messes everything up.

My purpose here is to explain the perversion of tithing and describe what the true church looks like without this source of funding.

To begin this story we look at several passages usually quoted in support of Christian tithing.

Abraham's Tithing

Probably the most powerful argument for tithing, the argument I most respected when I was a tither, was the argument from Abraham's experience.

Abraham, long before the introduction of the Law, tithed 10 percent to Melchizedek, king of Salem. Since Christians are adopted into Abraham's family, he is a primary model that we, as his adopted sons, should follow closely. The argument goes this way... since Abraham tithed, so should we.

The key passage is out of Genesis...

Abraham's experience is discussed in detail in various passages in the New Testament. Abraham's tithing is discussed in most detail here:

The logic goes this way, since Abraham tithed to Melchizedek, a type of Christ, so too, should we tithe to Christ and the way we do that now is to tithe to the local church.

The argument is so full of holes it is sickening, but before giving what I think scripture really says, consider Jesus' own words on tithing, another oft quoted reason for tithing.

Jesus on Tithing

Jesus also editorializes on Tithing. There are 2 versions of the oft quoted passage, one in Matthew and another in Luke. Here is Matthew's version:

Jesus seems to be saying that the tithe is foundational, but that there is more, so tithing is a foundation, and there is more for Christians.

This too, was compelling for me as a young Christian. I wanted to do what Jesus wanted, and if he wanted 10 percent and then some, I would do it. So, I did.

Testimony

The final, and for a long time the most definitive reason for my own tithing was a personal experience with tithing.

I lived for several years on the east coast of the United States, a very long way from my home town on the west coast. I was unhappy and did not attend church. I promised Jesus that I would attend church and tithe when I was able to move back to my home town.

One day, out of the blue, my boss walked into my office and asked if I would move back to my home town to represent our division of our company to a key supplier in my home town. The job would require lots of travel, I would end up with 26 of the following 52 weeks spent on the road.

But, it was a chance to get home. So, I agreed to his offer, and within days began what would become nearly a full year of travel on company expense 1/2 of which was in my home town. Exactly 1 calendar year later I permanently transferred back to my home town.

Within a week of my first visit back to my home town I was invited by someone who is still a friend, to attend his church and immediately started attending weekly. (When I was in town.) At the same time I started tithing 10 percent of my weekly income to the local church. Just like everyone preaches we should do.

Within a week of the date on the first tithe check I was back in my boss's office. My boss called me into his office and said that there was a problem with my pay. Seems the corporation that I worked for had sent auditors through the books while I was out of town and those auditors felt I was underpaid.

The auditors ordered my boss to increase my pay by a little over 20 percent and at the same time ordered an additional 20 percent increase 6 months later, for a 40 percent pay raise across the year. This was on top of what I thought was already a pretty good base salary.

My boss seemed much afraid that I might litigate over low previous pay and took the issue quite seriously.

I, on the other hand, saw the hand of Jesus in the affair and took it to mean that Jesus endorses tithing now. He seemed to have more than returned the 10 percent that I was now giving him. He even returned it within 1 pay period.

This pattern is commonly attested to in the tithing community and now I had my own story to tell for anyone that doubted tithing.

My personal income actually increased over 20 percent each year for the following 5 years from that first steep year. I also dropped the expense of 4 round trip, transcontinental airline flights each year back to see my family. That ramp up in income, and the increase in spendable cash, was dramatic and I readily accepted that this was the result of a decision to tithe faithfully.

Of course I continued to tithe for many more years, not seeing the great mistake in my logic. (See if you can spot it in the passage above, there is enough to figure it out. I'll share the mistake below.)

Problems with Tithing

Against the principle of Christian tithing are several other arguments that don't seem quite as compelling, but are still important.

Early in the development of the church there was a council held in Jerusalem. The council was held to deal with the issue of how much of the law Christians should care about and the result was a simple 4 point summary. The result is printed in Acts.

This is an important summary because it spells out in a 4 point, 1 sentence summary what Christians should care about. Those 4 points use some important Biblical symbols and it means the following 4 things:

• Idols are nothing, but they represent demons, and the first charge is to stay away from things that give demons power to harm.

• Blood is a keyword meaning innocently shed blood or more simply killing. Christians are not to kill. Just as idolatry gives demons footholds, so too does killing bring on blood guilt and all that entails.

• Strangled is simply a description of things found dead, presumably rotting and defiled. In short, be careful about what you eat.

• Sexual Immorality is well defined in the Old Testament and again it deals with protecting your own body from activities that bring on defilement, in this case both physical and demonic.

Nowhere in this quick summary is there any hint of tithing or anything dealing with money. Why would tithing, something that appears important to a healthy Christian life, be left off such an important, central, list of things?

The answer, of course, is that tithing does not belong on this list, so it was left off intentionally. As a young believer, though, this seemed like an argument from silence, so I still tithed, even though it wasn't listed as central.

Reversing My Position

Over time my position on tithing slowly but surely came into line with scripture and I eventually came to the conclusion that most tithing is wrong. Getting there, though, took several steps.

First Exposure

After several years as a regular attender in my neighborhood church I was eventually ordained as an elder and was on the board of directors for the church. From this position I had more direct exposure to the Pastor and since he was involved in promoting regional church unity, I tagged along to many of the meetings and I was given exposure to the leadership in the regional church in the area where I lived.

It became quite obvious through exposure to this group that there is no credibility given by pastors to anyone not themselves supported by the tithe.

I've since found this is a common observation and many others have made it in various ways and using various language. Often intercessors find no one will listen, in part because they are not professional, paid, staff on a church somewhere. They are not ultimately supported by a tithe.

Only occasionally might someone working in a para-church ministry find some sort of ear in the workings of regional Christian communities. Never, though, is it a volunteer who receives an ear.

This seemed very odd to me, but I could not fully explain the problem. It would eventually become clear, but not for a long time after I ran in these circles.

Second Exposure

Eventually I heard Jesus' audible voice calling me into ministry. I quit my by then well paying job and began a life of adventure, following Jesus and working on the things he had called me to.

In those early years there was quite a bit of savings, so there was never much need for money, so I did not care, particularly, where the money came from, I always figured I'd end up in a position similar to all the other vocational ministers I had met and that eventually I would be receiving the tithe of someone in order to have the ear of those whom I thought represented Jesus' church in the region.

One day, under this assumption, I was talking with someone who did not tithe. I, of course, had the testimony I shared above, and believed that tithing was an important part of a mature Christian walk, so I suggested that they tithe to me if they wanted.

The question itself was interesting, and I had never voiced it out loud, but it was something that had been in the back of my mind for years. Logically it went like this, 1) since I'm called to ministry like the vocational ministers I met when I was and elder, 2) therefore it should eventually be that someone else will tithe to me. Of course I did not know the exact form, which is why I pushed this question when I did.

But, saying it out loud for the first time, triggered a deeply spiritual response that for the first time triggered a bunch of related questions. What makes me so special that I should collect someone's tithe?

And, if there is this issue for myself, what makes anyone else so special that they should collect anyone's tithe?

This alternative question was one I had never considered and it was one I could test by reading the New Testament. Who, if anyone, in the New Testament, under the New Covenant, collected the tithe and what were those people like? For, if I was to collect the tithe, then I would become like them, whomever "them" was. It was also the case that whatever I learned about New Testament tithe collectors would also apply to all the vocational ministers in the "ministerial association" that I had met years before. Indeed it would tell me something about the very closed club that is the set of men who live off the tithe.

Studying out this question soon lead to a realization.

Giving of the tithe is perhaps encouraged in the New Testament, but receiving the tithe is clearly not.

Nobody mentioned in the New Testament receives a tithe under the New Covenant.

That means that all the people who live off the tithe are doing so based on an argument from silence.

Of all the key people, Jesus himself, Paul, Peter, and all the rest, nowhere does anyone receive a tithe. In all the various stories that we read about, in no place is there a tithe collector. This office, function, whatever we might expect it to be called, does not exist anywhere in the New Testament.

The answer to the question of what makes someone special enough to collect a tithe is this: No one is special enough under the New Covenant to collect a tithe. There is no one under the New Covenant who collects a tithe.

Whomever, or whatever, those tithe collecting members of the ministerial association are, they are not found in the New Testament, under the New Covenant. I never asked anyone again for their tithe, and lost all desire to do the "vocational thing" and get a job as a pastor, even though that seemed like a very natural fit for the call from Jesus that I had received.

Curiously, scripture actually explains who these members of the ministerial association really are. I'm now glad I did not go down that path. Though it would take some time before I could find the relevant scripture.

Third Exposure

Eventually my initial set of savings ran out. That high paying job had created quite a surplus. When I was initially called I was given use of a house to live in, rent free. I did not know how long it would take, but I had figured that eventually "ministry" would become self-funding, somehow, and I kept up the call until the money was gone.

At this point I figured I needed to go back to "secular" work, and though there have been occasional "tent making" episodes, usually helping family members with things I would have done for free. The money needed to continue with the ministry call has always been there, now more than 3 years since the end of savings.

From first hand experience I can say that someone's tithe is obviously not needed for ministry. Ministry clearly happens without a tithe.

The question, though, is how are we to understand the New Testament references to tithes, and how are we to understand those who collect the tithe?

Anti-Tithing Scripture

As my knowledge of scripture continued to grow, I eventually found there was much more significant New Testament editorial on tithing. That editorial was very harsh towards tithe collectors and it explains why no one described to us in the New Testament, under the New Covenant, is described as collecting a tithe.

The first of the anti-tithing passages is found in the book of Matthew in chapter 17. Note that the tither's would not normally apply this passage, so it is important to understand context and understand why this passage is so key to this debate.

The entire section of Matthew is a series of parables. Those parables are given in the same order as the historical narrative of Genesis. Knowing this map in the order is key, since it both provides the explanation for Jesus' at times odd behavior, but it also unlocks the parables. Jesus is adding nothing new, he's simply expounding on what was already in scripture. (In fact the match goes well beyond Genesis, but that is beyond our scope here.)

Beginning late in chapter 16, especially verse 23 and following, Jesus transitions his series of parables to start an in-order editorial from the history of Mankind itself. Understand that each parable is going to follow in order, in the order of history. The first parable is late in Matthew Chapter 16, and is an editorial about Adam, who inherited earth, but forfeited his soul in the process.

The first parable of Matthew chapter 17 is about The Transfiguration. In this parable a storm cloud envelopes a few disciples who are on a mountain. After the event, they come down from the mountain and are afraid and told not to tell.

This parable is a parable of Noah's flood. The cloud at the Transfiguration is the clouds that in Noah's day brought the rains. The mountain a map to the mountain where Noah's ark came to rest. The warning not to tell is editorial on the entire pre-flood world. We know little of those 6 millennia of human history, and will not know much more until after the resurrection, as the parable so teaches.

Matthew Chapter 17 continues its in-order parables and turns to a boy who is troubled by mute demon. When Jesus is done with the boy he can speak and is in his right mind. This is the same demon that the entire race was caught by before multiple languages were given at the tower of Babel. In the case of the Tower of Babel there was only 1 human language. In effect the human race could not speak. This is the equivalent to the boy's grunts.

Jesus is explaining by this parable how the same demon that had the entire race can still today have individual people. He's also giving simple editorial on what He had done at Babel, which was to cast out this deaf-mute spirit from the race as a whole.

The next parable is the one that concerns us here, the parable of the Temple Tax. Note that this parable must match some story after the Tower of Babel that also deals with tax. To get an accurate fix on this parable we can look at the next parable, which is a little easier to map to Genesis.

The parable in Matthew chapter 17 that follows the Temple Tax is an argument over which of the 12 disciples is greatest. That argument in history was the argument between Jacob's 12 sons that lead to Joseph being imprisoned and sold as a slave to Egypt. Though Joseph seemed the least at that time, he became the greatest when he rose to the job of Prime Minister of Egypt. The least had become the greatest.

So, the Temple Tax parable must apply to what Genesis story?

The answer, of course, is Abraham's tax paid to Melchizedek. This tax payment historical story sits between the Tower of Babel and the argument between the patriarchs.

Knowing that this parable maps this way is important since it is adding to a story used by tithe-supporters who use the Melchizedek passages in Hebrews to endorse tithing. Here, though, is another parable dealing with Melchizedek himself. The following is the text:

The key sentence in the parable is Jesus' question of Peter. From whom do Kings of the earth collect tribute, a synonym for tax or tithe?

Of course the heirs of kings, their sons, will receive what remains of the tribute they so collect, so they have no reason to collect from their own sons, but from others. Kings of the earth collect from people who are not in their family.

Notice how Jesus interrupted the conversation. He is taking authority, as any king does in their own conversations. Jesus is demonstrating his right as king to command the conversation. By doing this Jesus is demonstrating that he is the king.

Peter answers with the obvious point that kings collect from those outside of their families, from their subjects.

So understand the meaning of the parable. Jesus is your King. Jesus created you, as per John chapter 1. You are his son, (or daughter, of course) and his heir. Jesus has no reason to collect tax (called tithe) from you, you are a member of his own family.

Tax collecting, really tithe collecting crosses family lines. Those who are sons of the real king, the king in heaven, have no tithing debt to the king. They are the ones who inherit the king's very wealth.

This parable explains well the behavior I've seen many times in local "ministerial association members." They are a tight club of people who live off the tithe's of others. Now, apply Jesus' standard. Do tithe receivers collect from their own family or from others?

Of course Peter's answer here is the same as ours. Regular Church members are not of the same family as paid pastors. Tithe receivers are collecting from outside of their spiritual family.

This is why so many intercessors have such frustration with paid church staff. Intercessors hear the voice of Jesus in prayer, but paid pastors rarely want to listen, since they often don't know what it means to hear Jesus' voice at all. When individual pastors do know Jesus' voice they often chalk up to manipulation the words of otherwise seasoned intercessors.

So, the question is which side of this gulf are really sons of the King in Heaven? Paid Pastors, or Christians at large? The answer are non-tithe supported Christians at large. Sons of the Father have no tithing debt to the Father, since the sons are heirs.

Understand the strange twist. That pastors and other church leaders are needing the tithe to support their operations means they are not receiving the inheritance due a son of the King in Heaven. Their need to receive a tithe actually demonstrates they are outside the true Kingdom of Heaven.

The parable concludes with directions to Peter to go catch a fish, use the coin found in the fish to pay the tax so as not to offend the receivers of the tax. Note that "fish and loaves" are a type of communion and the fish always represents the blood. This is also what was happening with Abraham in the original story. Abraham had gone to war, in effect to blood, and it was a tenth of those war spoils that were given to Melchizedek.

In Abraham's case his army is marching back across the land from battle and stays at Jerusalem. Jesus is explaining the reason Abraham gave this tenth, this tax, was not to offend Melchizedek, who presumably himself could go to war with Abraham if he so choose. Tribute to the resident king for transit rights is a common pattern, seen even in the wilderness before crossing the Jordan.

This scenario is exactly the same for modern Christians who may have to "transit" an organized church for some reason. You put money in the offering plate so as not to offend the resident king in that place. But, this is not your territory. Do not stay, return to your own land where no tax is due, and pay the tax with money Jesus has provided for the purpose.

This part of the parable has profound additional application. Catching fish is the call given to Peter. Instead of catching fish in the sea, as he was doing before Jesus called him, Peter would go on to catch men instead, a type of fish.

So, Peter does what he's told, catches fish, but parable for unsaved people, and in the mouth of the fish is the money for the tax (really tithe.)

It is important that Peter himself does not receive any money for his own needs from the mouth of the fish. If this was teaching people like Peter to tithe, then Peter would have found a 40 drachma coin and given 4 drachma, 10 percent of it to the scribes.

Instead the story suggests the entire tithe related funding cycle stays out of the pockets of people like Peter who are close to Jesus. Why? Because this is a type of "blood money" and does not belong in Peter's pocket.

I've actually seen this pattern in my own life and ministry. When I know I'm off to visit a traditional church for some ministry related reason, I'm often given the money I need for an offering. Why? So as not to offend the hosts of the place I'm visiting.

Revisiting Melchizedek in Hebrews

The famous passage in Hebrews used to defend tithing suddenly takes on new meaning. Remember, this is written to the Hebrews, those who are under law. The stories in the Book of Hebrews are written to people under law.

This passage is making several more points on this same Melchizedek encounter with Abraham. Remember the context, though, that Hebrews is explaining how the Law was satisfied in Jesus. In regards to the tithe/tax aspects, this Hebrews passage makes 2 key points.

1. The Law allowed a Levite to collect from his brother.

   This would normally be a perversion, like a king collecting tax from his heirs, but under the Law, it was allowed.

2. Everyone descended from Abraham, and here equated to those under the Law, paid the tax of Abraham to Melchizedek.

Remember the principle, that tax is paid across family lines. Taken together the passage in Hebrews, when combined with the passage in Matthew means that Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek is always across family lines.

You can either view Abraham as the father of the faithful, and Abraham's tax to Melchizedek was so as not to offend, while Abraham remained free, or you can look at Abraham's Levitical, or law based children. Those children pay the tax too, either to their brother Levites, a perversion not crossing family lines, or to Melchizedek, a type of Christ, again crossing the family line between sons of the King in Heaven and unsaved sons of the Law.

Rethinking Matthew

Earlier in this report I cited Matthew 23 as a place which seemed to support tithing. The following is that text again:

The problem with using this passage in support of tithing is that it falls within a passage that is lambasting scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites.

Those 2 titles are key to understanding Jesus' whole message in this passage.

A scribe is someone who's full attention is on the text of the Bible itself. Scribes care about the ink and pens used to make copies of God's word. They care about word structure and format. They quote the Greek in their sermons. They are in fact focused on the mechanics of the text. Scribes are not focused on Jesus, nor his Spirit, nor do scribes have any working understanding of YHVH nor his ways. They know about Jesus but they do not know Jesus.

When you see a church sign in front of some church building and they label themselves as a "Bible" church, they are revealing for all the world to see that they are scribal in their orientation. Several mainline denominations are scribal in this sense, focused as they are on the Bible itself and not on Jesus.

The second title Jesus blasts is Pharisee. A Pharisee is someone who's full attention is on the outward appearances or more technically, the liturgy of religion. This focus on externals has 2 related aspects.

The first aspect of Pharisees is how church gatherings work. How they appear to someone watching the service. Is there music? What type? Does it come first? Is there a benediction at the end? Does the service last 55 minutes? These and similar questions draw the attention of people who operate as Pharisees.

The other aspect of Pharisees is the moral code that people follow as they live life. This too is an external care. Moral behavior is usually couched by modern Pharisees in liturgical language. Typically the 4 simple areas listed in Acts are blown much, much wider and the longer list draws the intricate attention of people in the organization.

There are many modern Christian denominations which have a liturgical focus as opposed to say a Bible focus. These denominations tend to have churches that are ornamented well and they tend to have precise orders of service and precise codes of conduct for their members.

Scribes and Pharisees are lumped together by Jesus because in both cases they are making the same fundamental mistakes. They are both practicing a form of law and they ignore 3 key concepts found in canon. Those are, Justice, Mercy and Faith.

The first concept, Justice, means that God is righteous, and he demands from anyone who would approach him a level of holiness that we can never attain. Therefore, it is foolish to try and do this ourselves, as scribes and Pharisees attempt. Jesus is the one who satisfies God's need for Justice, so we must approach Jesus if we really want Justice.

The second concept, Mercy, means that God has provided a way to satisfy righteousness, that satisfaction is through Jesus, and that action provides forgiveness from breaking the law. We cannot impose law on others if we ourselves are under mercy. Insisting someone interpret scripture as we do, perform the rituals that we do, or live an ascetic life like we do are not merciful actions. They reflect a life of someone who does not understand mercy.

The third concept, Faith, means that what YHVH cares about is relationship, an ear to the Holy Spirit, and a willingness to wait for and then do the things that Jesus has spoken into our individual lives. Those things are not simply rote. They are not simply a focus on his bible. They are not focused on appearances or moral code. They are focused on an intimate relationship that involves action on our part when Jesus calls.

Jesus equates tithing mint, dill and cumin to what the scribes and Pharisees are doing. Reading scripture, holding interesting meetings and paying attention to our moral behavior are like a tithe, they are a small, 10 percent, of what it means to be a follower of Jesus. Focusing on these three things is leaving out the important matters.

Jesus is not endorsing tithing in any sense here, but saying that the things that scribes and Pharisees do are like what a tithe is to a whole person's income. They are a small fraction of what YHVH asks of us.

Jesus closes and says that scribes and Pharisees are blind guides because they can only see 10 percent of what it means to follow Jesus. They are blind to 90 percent of what it means to know Jesus.

There is a sense in this passage, one that comes through in other passages in the New Testament, that Jesus actually wants all of our resources, not just a tithe. To the extent that this passage teaches tithing, it teaches that the amount of what Jesus wants from us is everything, not the 10 percent used by the pro-tithing camp. I believe this is indeed what happens as someone grows fully into their relationship with Jesus. There is a parable to this effect...

The Parable of the Talents

As I continued to grow in my understanding of scripture I was hit with another example. This one as part of a longer parable. The parable in question is the parable of the talents.

The punch line includes an important reference to "bankers." Bankers of course give and collect interest. The only people in scripture who both received and collected a tithe are Levites. So, Jesus' reference to bankers is a reference to Levites.

Of course the parable explains that everyone is responsible for advancing Jesus' kingdom in ways that they are able. Each according to their ability. Each according to what they have been given.

The parable makes an important point that everyone is given a different amount of talents. No 2 people are the same.

Jesus' attention turns to the one who only received 1 talent. This is like someone starting life, starting their walk with Jesus. To these people only a small amount is given, and only a small increase is expected. These are typically people who are new believers who don't understand Jesus nor his ways, or who choose not to listen.

Jesus makes 2 points over the person given 1 talent who refuses to use it themselves. First, it would have been better to deposit with the bankers so it could be credited back with interest.

This expression points at Levites, who are pictured here by the expression "bankers." In the Old Testament Levites both collected and gave the tithe, just as bankers collect and give interest.

But with Jesus on the cross, there has been a change in law and Levites have no New Testament place. Who would Levites be now?

Jesus explains who he means as bankers now when he orders the 1 talent forcefully taken and given to the one with 10 talents.

That lone talent is used, and will advance the kingdom, but when forcefully removed the one to whom it was originally given the original holder is not credited with the increase. They have, in effect, buried their talent.

As I considered this parable more completely I began to realize that it lays out 1 aspect of spiritual growth. As we receive back, or grow, increasing the talents we have been given, we can then use those additional talents to grow more talents. Though the story is told as separate cases, the story is also telling a reverse time ordered story.

Everyone thus begins at the bottom of this ladder of spiritual growth. Everyone begins with only a very little bit in order to see what they would do with it. If we are faithful with the little amounts and earn more, then we have a time when our "accounts are settled" or "we are pruned" and then that increase becomes the base from which we can earn even more.

In that sense giving regularly to someone else in ministry may be an important first step in someone's own growth. It may be that there is a place for new believers to contribute, perhaps even regularly, to someone else in ministry. But, this would be for a time and then only until they had ministry of their own.

Note also that this parable is pretty clear that putting talents on deposit is more than nothing, but is still not much at all.

This is similar to the fish who's mouth contains a coin who is given to the scribes. The fish in Peter's case represents a new believer and is similarly pictured as a new believer who has been given a few talents to see what they would do with them. Banking them is certainly a good first start.

Banking talents, though, is NOT a long term answer. Over time we're expected to earn an increase ourselves, not using the services of a scribe or fallen Levite.

Rethinking My Own Tithing Experience

This thought allowed me to rethink my own tithing experience. I could now understand a little more about what was going on when I first started to tithe. I could finally understand the various testimonies I've heard about tithing.

Giving a tithe is something Christians are exempt from. But, giving has a place, especially for new believers. One sure fire way to increase your own talent is to give it to someone already successful at increasing talents. The increase gets credited back to the giver.

What was not clear was what had happened in my own life. I started giving a tithe and my income changed. The linkage was within days and it was hard to not think they were related. Many others have similar stories. So, what happened that I started tithing and my income went up by double the amount?

One afternoon I was praying about this and the Holy Spirit quickened me to what I though was a detail that did not matter.

I had made a vow to Jesus that I would tithe and attend church when I was back in my home town.

The income suddenly changed, not because of a scriptural tithing mandate, but because of the vow itself. I promised Jesus I would do something, and when I did it he was pleased. The income went up, nearly immediately, because I had kept a promise.

I had moved from someone burying talents to someone who was using a banker, but I still had a long way to go before my entire life, the other 90 percent, was focused on advancing Jesus' kingdom.

I believe this is the root of what is going on when people start to tithe. The blessings that follow are not because of a law based claim on God but because we really have started to put our talents on deposit with a banker. We've gone from no talents to using a small talent for a little purpose. At least Jesus gets back an increase, however small.

Holding Back the Tithe

I need to stress another aspect of what tithing did in my own life. When I started to tithe I noticed right away that my spending on "junk" went down. It was clear that the tithe practice had changed my priorities and that I was now much more focused on things that mattered. Where your heart is, there your money will be also. By testing someone's feeling toward giving money to ministry we can test if they have a heart for Jesus or not.

It was clear that my tithing discipline was my first step in a radically reordered life, where the things of Jesus would eventually become central to all that I did. Learning to give freely is in fact an important lesson that everyone must learn.

When I survey people in the pro-tithe/anti-tithe debates it is also clear that the anti-tithe community has a sub group that does not want tithing because they want to spend the money on themselves, while they, themselves, are not yet called into any form of Christian service except that of learning about Jesus.

This aspect undermines the anti-tithing position because it is sometimes promoted by people who are bad witnesses. People in this position usually use the money to support a slightly different lifestyle, so it looks like the money is spent well.

People in this position are using the lack of a Bible mandate for tithing as cover for not heeding the Biblical mandate for giving, including all of oneself, to the cause of Christ.

This is another, important, aspect of why Jesus sometimes rewards tithers with more income, even though tithing itself is unscriptural for New Covenant believers. When we start worrying about how Jesus wants the money spent, we are demonstrating that we are being faithful in little things. He can then entrust us with more.

As I've moved more towards a total full time focus on Jesus, it has become obvious that the natural, most healthy, form of living is where we only keep income that we must have for food, clothing, and shelter, or other clear ministry needs, and that we should attempt to give away everything else. We must ask, prayerfully, over how we spend every dollar, not just the first 10 percent of our dollars. This is well beyond a typical tithe, and much more difficult to learn. Much more difficult, than say, deciding to give away 10 percent by rote to some local institution.

Note also that once you're focused on using everything you've been given to advance Jesus' kingdom, you tend to have little sympathy for those who claim to be advancing the kingdom, but waist more resources than you do. The economics of typical churches suddenly matters, and it becomes obvious why these institutions are not mandated in Scripture.

May I suggest that someone who understands my line of reasoning here, who does not understand sacrificial giving, may want to decide, as a matter of a vow to Jesus, to give away 10 percent of all they receive. But, don't give it all to 1 place. Take responsibility for praying over, and then disbursing, all of that money, doing so bit-by-bit. This is in fact what, fundamentally, Jesus has rewarded, when people have started tithing. Once the tithing disciple is mastered, Jesus will then ask for more, not less, and the ratios will go up, not down.

I remember meeting a man who had 5 children and his argument for not tithing was his need to take care of his family. Though I did not know how to answer the man at the time, these days I would answer this way: Amongst the income that Jesus has given you to raise your kids, he has also given you some, small, talent that you can use to advance his kingdom. When you've demonstrated that you can use that talent, scripture is very clear, you will then be given more.

Vocational Calls

At this point it should be obvious that the New Testament does not endorse what for many is a fundamental aspect of the modern Christian church, that of tithe supported ministry. There is support for giving to someone else in ministry. Paul was supported by the Philippians, but, there are no examples of anyone that can positionally receive another's regular tithe under the New Covenant.

This makes sense because there was a change in law when Jesus died on the cross and that new law does not include intermediaries between YHVH and and his people, the followers of Jesus. There is no longer any reason to fund intermediaries, so the New Covenant does not include that type of funding mechanism.

This begs several more questions, two general ones need to be addressed here. What about all the Godly men and women who heard Jesus' call and entered vocational, tithe supported, ministry? If this isn't biblically mandated, were they deceived? What were they doing?

Let me answer the question of ministry call by first explaining that vocational calls are given to nearly anyone who will ask. When I was younger I felt called by Jesus to be a programmer. Once I understood prayer, and many vocational pastors I have met do not understand prayer at all, I learned to use prayer to solve computer programming problems I encountered at work. This is "vocational prayer" if you will.

I still remember the first time I ever prayed over a bug in a program. After several days of struggle over a hard to fix problem, I prayed, asked Jesus where the bug was. The answer came immediately and the fix was in within 5 minutes. From then on everything I did was by prayer.

The Holy Spirit guides people in their vocations if people will only ask in prayer for direction.

That someone would be called vocationally into an apparent ministry organization not mandated by scripture is no different than someone called vocationally into a modern technical profession also unheard of in Biblical times.

Computer programming is an environment where as much ministry is possible as, say, in a local church. In many instances more so since unsaved people wander the halls of large programming companies. Pretty much any vocation that someone might find themselves in has as much ministry potential as say a clear call to work in a tithe supported church.

Pastors often pridefully elevate their own call since they were called by Jesus to work in Jesus' church. Not so, the joke is on them. They were called to a vocation in a place not mandated by scripture. As we'll see below the place where they ended up vocationally is mocked in scripture, as much so as, say, government service. Both are often working against the things of Jesus.

Bottom line: vocational calls are no different for those called to organized modern churches as those called to other institutions. Neither is fundamentally any better than the other. Neither place is mandated by scripture.

Removing the Tithe

Once we accept that the tithe is unbiblical for New Covenant Christians, the question then becomes what aspects of the modern church experience exist as a consequence of the tithe and how would the average Christian experience change if the tithe was completely removed.

I could not answer this question until very recently and it was the discovery of the answers to this question that lead to the writing of this article. I do think it is possible to describe roughly what a non-tithe, proper New Testament church looks like in rough terms and my goal is to describe what that looks like here.

The use of tithe money is extensive in the Christian world. Nearly every aspect of organized public Christianity is perverted by the availability of tithe resources. Study of the flow of tithe money reveals the ways the church has been perverted. Like solving a criminal case, all we need to do is follow the funds in order to find the problems.

Study of scripture in each of these same areas reveals what a non-perverted non-tithe supported version should look like.

Typical Church Finances

For a time I was an elder in a church and I have also attended various conferences on church finances. What I am about to share are very approximate financial numbers for typical American, tithe supported churches.

Income Levels

The costs of running a tithe-support church are directly related to the numbers of people who attend services each week. Generally speaking, for average size churches, the costs of running the church are about $10 per adult served per week. This number drops some as the size of the church goes up, so what Americans would call "mega churches" can have costs as low as 1/2 of this average.

The average size of an American church is roughly 150 regular attenders, though this can vary considerably.

The average annual budget of this type of average church thus runs about $80,000 to about $150,000 per year. This is the budget supported by the tithers in the typical church.

Pastor Salary

Church expenses can be broken down into 3 key categories. The first, and usually largest item in a church budget is the salary and related expenses for the pastor. In most small churches this salary is the dominant expense, though it varies considerably based on the experience level of the individual. New pastors, fresh out of Bible College, don't command high salaries and the cost to the congregation can be under $20,000 per year. Pastors with many years experience and advanced degrees can command salaries in the 6 figures. This is why you see young graduates starting in small churches in remote locations and why they tend to move to larger churches in larger cities across their careers.

I remember reading a survey of pastor salaries in the Seattle area in the early 1990s. The highest paid pastor at the time, in that area, was working a large church near the University of Washington and he was receiving over $120,000 in total compensation per year, this including the use of a mansion as his manse. More than 10 years later the same pastor is probably receiving over $150,000 in total annual compensation. The average total compensation for pastors across the region at the time was in the $50,000 range. The salary survey also included the total church budget for each position and the average total budgets were in the range of $100,000, so the typical church had a pastor's salary expense of about 1/2 of their total budgets. (The church I was in had a pastor's salary expense over nearly 2/3rds of the total budget, this was because the pastor himself had over 20 years experience so we were paying for significant, long term, experience.)

Of course removing tithe income, and that means totally removing the offering plate from church services, means there are no funds for these vocational positions in church bodies. I'll come back to what replaces this position below. But consider, these ministerial association members, the ones that Jesus excludes from his body, loose their ability to feast at Jesus' expense when the non-biblical tithe is removed.

(A reviewer of this article suggested at this point I had found the "wolf." The references to wolves in sheep clothing points at the nature of sheep skins. This is a slang term representing diploma. This is probably no accident, pastors are usually diploma'd and thus have skinned a sheep.)

Building Expenses

The second most important expense to most church bodies is their building.

This expense varies considerably based on if the building is old, and paid for, or new, with a mortgage. But, older buildings, those without mortgages tend to need more maintenance and the expenses can be roughly equivalent.

Church buildings are expensive to build and care for. Before I was an elder, I had attended another church and was on the building committee. This committee dealt with a $7 million dollar expansion. The committee also dealt with maintenance on the original building. The expenses were considerable.

In the time I was on this committee the roof on the original building had to be replaced. We put on regular, cheap, residential 3 tab roofing material, but out of the entire metropolitan area we were only able to find a couple roofing companies willing to even bid the job. Most roofing companies were unable to bid because they could not find liability insurance for their employees on the very high, extremely pitched roof, the roof of the main sanctuary. The final roofing bid was over 6 figures, requiring extensive scaffolding and repairs to the underlying structure because the repair had been delayed pending finances and a suitable bid.

The building expansion was also a very insightful episode. The church had saved, out of the regular budget, more than $3.5 million dollars in order to build the $7 million expansion. The payments to savings were budgeted and there was also an easy way for people to contribute towards the expansion. Once the remaining balance towards the $7 million cost could be covered by a loan with a monthly payment approaching the budgeted amount, the pastor wanted the expansion started.

A loan was secured. In this very unusual case the new, separate, building was used as collateral on the loan. The new building was a fellowship hall, with large kitchen, dining room and offices on the upper floor and a gymnasium on the ground floor. Because it sat on a different city building lot, and the financing for the building was only 1/2 of the total value, the bank allowed the new building itself as collateral on the loan.

In most churches, the building mortgage is collateralized by the tithing income stream from the membership. It is important to know this since removal of the tithe removes the most common source of building funding, bank loans, from the organized church. It removes the ability of most church bodies to pay for their buildings.

Once I became an elder, at a much smaller church, with a paid-for building, we still had considerable building expenses. Even though the building was paid for, it was our second largest expense. One year the building needed paint and, again, for liability reasons this had to be done by a commercial contractor. The total expenses approached $8,000 for the job.

Elevators are common appliances in many multi-story Church buildings. They alone cost over $100,000 and a maintenance call can run over $10,000. I am aware of 1 case when a seal went out at the bottom of a "piston" type elevator. The $10 part, located 40 feet below ground, required over $10,000 in other work in order to reach and replace it. Like nearly all other modern building expenses this had to be done by a licensed elevator company, it was not something even a skilled church member could repair.

Like pastor salaries, the steady tithing stream of church members is what covers the costs of church buildings. Often congregations hold special funding drives for their buildings because the costs of those buildings cannot be contained within normal funds flows. Removing the tithe as a source of income removes any ability of a church body to reliably cover these sorts of expenses. It also usually removes any ability to borrow from commercial lenders in order to fund construction or maintenance.

Of course scripture offers some important alternatives to church buildings, and church building expenses. I'll get to those alternatives below. It should be obvious here that removal of regular tithing also radically changes the places where Christians gather for worship.

Other Expenses

Above, or better said "after" these 2 big expenses most churches then have a set of much smaller expenses. These include utilities: electricity, water, heating, phones and perhaps janitorial expenses.

This can include accounting and secretarial help and perhaps grounds help, depending on the particulars of individual churches. These expenses, like pastor salaries and building expenses are still relatively fixed. If the pastor is going to preach and the building going to remain open, then these additional expenses must be covered. Today, in most churches, these expenses are covered by the tithe.

Ministry Expenses

Finally, there are often expenses focused on ministry, including fees for the use of worship music, duplicating expenses, travel and expenses related to any specific ministries that the church may undertake. This often includes a "helps" line item where people in need can be helped directly from the church budget. Within the budgets that I've been part of, the pastor could directly grant money to anyone he felt the church should be helping, and that money came from a planned "helps" budget line item.

These types of expenses are usually inconsequential relative to the other church expenses. Unlike the pastor's salary and building expenses, these expenses tend to be variable costs, and subject to the aggregate level of income in the church.

When tithing income is large enough, this area tends to get additional funding. When I was an elder, our small church routed nearly 25 percent of its total budget to international missions. This because the building expenses were generally quite low. If there was additional membership, enough to support a second Sunday service, this area of the budget would go up considerably.

The 25 percent level for missions was considered by most to be an exceptional case. Most churches have trouble budgeting 10 percent or sometimes even 1 percent for missions expenses.

Like the other expenses, ministry expenses are covered by tithes and the removal of tithes radically restructures the ability to cover these sorts of expenses.

What is interesting about ministry expenses is that they are the first in the list to actually appear in scripture. Money for the poor, money for missions, these items show up in scripture with various levels of mandate. The rest of the expenses of a typical church behave as a tax, taking away from the primary scriptural call on local church bodies. Note that in the best cases that tax is 75 percent, in some cases the tax is 90 percent and at times even 99 percent of the moneys received by the local church.

Unlike every other expense mentioned so far, the removal of the tithe actually frees funds for direct ministry. This should instinctively make sense since getting rid of the perversion of tithing actually begins to reset the church back onto its biblical footing. I'll get to the mechanics of this below.

Defending the Tithe

It should be obvious at this point why vocational ministers defend the tithe so strongly. If the tithe is not in place, and if enough people don't practice tithing, then nearly everything about modern church experience will cease to exist.

Ultimately, the reason for tithing has nothing to do with Jesus and his church, and everything to do with the institution which is the church in the world today.

I have not written about it much here, but there is a movement of the Holy Spirit, peaking in 2007, when the key change in the church is the removal of the tithe, and reordering the rest of the church so the external appearances match that of the New Testament.

It helps to understand a little history in order to understand why Jesus is removing these traditional Christian institutions from the church landscape.

The Protestant Reformation

The protestant reformation began in a formal way when Martin Luther nailed his 95 thesis to a church door in Germany. He was trying to reform what he thought was a bad institution and in the end that institution kicked him and his people out.

The reformers, of which Luther was the first, took the existing institution as their foundation, and corrected those parts of it that they saw in error. What was most interesting about the process was the timing. The reforming process was based on a set of prophecies and those prophecies deal with the restoration of the church in our modern era, the 500 years, before the return of Jesus.

The reformation process continued, and every 400 months, roughly 33 years, another reformation hit the Christian world. Each additional change spawned a new set of denominations, picking off a better understanding of some aspect of the New Testament. Martin Luther's key understanding was the concept of Scripture Alone. Other men would follow Luther and each would add additional insight on what scripture said.

What was never altered by the leaders in any of these radical church changes was the way the organized church had a tithe supported, usually salaried, priest.

That word "priest" should surprise many readers. Most Protestants don't think of their pastor as their priest. But, pay attention to the language used by pastors and ministers in the protestant world. Nearly all of them, at one point or another, refers to the front of their meeting place as an altar.

I have never regularly attended any church where the vocabulary of altar wasn't applied to some area at the front of the sanctuary.

Altar keepers, which are pastors, are technically priests.

It should also be obvious that absolutely no one, aside from Jesus himself, is given any responsibility under the New Covenant for Altar-Keeping. There are no New Covenant priests.

Jesus is the single New Testament exception to altar-keeping. Jesus was sacrificed on the altar of Golgotha and he ministers before an altar in heaven. Nowhere did Jesus train up anyone else to take on any altar-keeping responsibilities.

Paul makes the point that we have an altar that we can eat from that those who serve at earthly altars have no right to eat.

Nowhere does anyone like Paul or Peter command church communities to set up altars. This does not exist in scripture. It is an unscriptural concept that perverts the church. The reason this is perverted is because we already have an altar and don't need any man, except Jesus, to stand before another.

I bring up altar keeping here because I believe the tradition of keeping the altar predates the acceptance of Christianity into the priesthood at Rome. I cannot prove it, but this is my belief. The pagan priests in Rome were altar-keepers. Their altars were pagan. Their altars were the places where animal sacrifices had been carried out.

When Christianity was adopted as the Roman state religion, these altar keepers had to change or loose their jobs, so what they did was introduce the altar-keeping practice into the Christian religion.

Those same pagan priests were the Roman descendants of Jeroboam's' priests introduced at the civil war in ancient Israel. This I can prove, but not here. They had originally imitated the Levitical priesthood. In the era when Rome finally adopted Christianity, they reformed their theology and adopted the New Testament, but they become Christian altar-keepers.

I also believe the tithe predates the introduction of Christianity into the Roman world. Tithing goes hand in hand with altar keeping.

Full time altar keepers need income, and they had received some sort of income since long before Rome became Christian. When offerings were edible, the tradition of a tithe did not matter so much. But, with the clear end of animal sacrifice as described in the new testament, priests clearly needed an alternative source of income.

The Old Covenant model for supporting the Levitical priesthood again became the model. Support your local altar keeper with a hefty tax. Support him with a tithe.

It is also important to know that at one point the government at Rome, the Caesar, abandoned the city of Rome for Constantinople, giving the Pope at Rome command over a garrison of soldiers. When that happened the Pope became both leader of the state religion and leader of the government itself.

The tithing tradition really was interwoven with a taxing tradition that had supported the government of the western Roman empire for many centuries.

Tithing is intimately tied to altar keeping and is really a left over of a government sponsored, pagan, state religion.

When a Christian attends and tithes to an altar-keeping institution, that Christian, by looking at the church budget alone, looses 75 to 99 percent of their potential effectiveness. That Christian buries their talent, by giving it to a banker. Jesus gets an effective yield of only a few percent, which was his point in the parable of the talents.

The Church without Tithing

Unhinging the Christian church from tithe based funding has ripple effects across every aspect of the Christian experience. If there is no tithing, then where are we going to meet, who is going to teach, and how, exactly is it to be funded?

When we get these 3 figured out, then, we need to figure out how this impacts all the other secondary things that make up modern Christianity?

I cover the outlying aspects of what this does to Christianity in the sections below. What I want to cover here is what does the Church look like without tithe based funding.

Feeding 5000

Jesus explains what his church looks like in a series of similar parables that are recorded in the Gospels. In each case Jesus feeds a crowd of many thousands gathered in a grassy place out of town along the shore of the Sea of Galilee.

The records are different, suggesting Jesus did this several times. In all cases the essence of the story is the same, though the details vary slightly based on the literary purposes of each Gospel.

Let's work through Mark's version of this parable, step-by-step, so we can see how the church is to function.

The parable begins by setting context, the disciples have gone to a place along the shore of the Sea of Galilee, and have been followed by a crowd. Jesus decides to use the occasion to teach about how the people who have no Shepard will be handled in the kingdom of God.

The first point to make is that Jesus is fully able to teach the people himself, without anyone's help, as he does at the start of this story. He makes the point that these people have no Shepherd, which is important. This sets the context for the entire parable. Ultimately, Jesus is the Shepherd and he does that as he teaches. He is going to spell out, in a massive parable, exactly how he is going to do that.

At the "end of the day" likely parable language for the time when Jesus' own earthly ministry would end, the disciples suggest to Jesus that the crowds be sent away in order to find food in the houses that are around.

This suggestion is the same as suggesting to a new believer who has just met Jesus that they attend an organized church. The suggestion that they "buy" themselves something to eat is even more precisely pointing at the payment known as the tithe.

Often, disciples, and that means modern Christians, think that they need to send people they have lead to Jesus away, so they can feed somewhere else, from someone who does feeding professionally. Within the setting of the New Testament those "feeders" were the scribes and Pharisees so common in the Gospel narrative.

Jesus upsets their preconceptions by telling the disciples that they themselves should give the people something to eat.

This is a shock and they object to the expense. These men don't know that they are exactly the type of people that Jesus intends to use to feed his people.

The fact that they don't have money to buy the food echos at several levels. At the most basic they think it takes money, really talent, to be able to feed flocks of people.

Put in modern language, they don't have a degree, they don't have tithing income, they haven't studied, on and on, they don't think they are the ones that Jesus is using to feed his flocks.

Jesus asks these men to inventory what they have.

In the physical Jesus is about to multiply those loaves and fish across the crowd.

In the Spiritual, in the application of this parable, those loaves and fish represent various lessons that the disciples have that they can give to others in the crowd. Asking the disciples to inventory what they have causes them to see that they do have something to offer.

But, when they look at the crowds they think that they do not have enough to feed everyone. But, they do.

The 2 types of food that are represented here match many other stories at many other levels. The bread, the loaves, is like the bread of communion, and the fish, the blood, is like the wine of communion. These are also a map to the two fallen forms of teaching, the scribes, the text of the Bible or bread, and the Pharisees, those focused on ceremony, or the sprinkling of blood. The disciples are able to supply both, if they let Jesus show them how.

The command to organize the crowd into groups of 50s and 100s, on the green grass provides the organizing principle for groups of believers.

The place, on the growing grass, is a new, growing, undefiled, place where the smaller groups can meet. This is not at the local altar. Other scripture will explain these as homes, commercial inns and otherwise public, government, gathering places. Nowhere in the New Testament is a special building constructed for this purpose because it attracts spiritual defilement. More on that point follows below.

The sizes mentioned here are not always mentioned in the other renditions of this parable so they are probably not as generally important. I suggest this account sets a limit of 50 heads of households, or 100 adults, for these types of groups. This is smaller than the average American church and significantly smaller than the largest Christian groups found around the world. Other scripture sets a bottom limit of 2 or more so the act of gathering is important and ordained, but the size can vary considerably.

It must not be missed that Jesus is the one who orders the feeding using the fish that are available. He will always do this, using whatever is at hand, whatever lesson someone may have available for sharing with the group.

In the physical these people were stuffed. They ate enough to not want any more.

When I've taught groups various lessons that Jesus has given me I've found that they, too, behave like they've eaten a large meal and become stuffed.

The physical act of feeding has the same biological consequences as feeding people lessons from Jesus. Facial expression and behaviors are often similar to eating a large holiday meal.

The question this begs is how do Jesus' disciples do this?

In this case there are 5000 heads of households, or 100 separate groups spread out on the grass. There are 12 disciples, so each disciple must visit at least 8 different groups. Each disciple needs to visit and share with at least 800 different adults, perhaps even more when children are counted.

This idea brings in the first hint of what genuine ministry looks like in the true church. Those who deliver the real meal are itinerant. They travel around between various groups.

Jesus was itinerant himself, having started at his home town. Peter, Paul, and nearly every other person we know much about in the New Testament, they were all itinerant, they traveled around from place to place, group to group.

I believe the itinerant nature of those who are called to spread the gospel is fundamental. Jesus was without honor and he could do few miracles in his home town. Any man of God who stays home will experience exactly the same thing.

It is conceivable that even in this parable that more than 1 disciple had to visit each group, some with fish, some with bread, so the number of people visited by each disciple could be higher still. If each disciple had to visit each group then each disciple had to visit 100 separate groups.

Under this latter scenario each group had a chance to visit with each disciple and eat whatever they had uniquely to offer.

Note how a procession of itinerant preachers, instead of local hired priest, markedly increases the quality and quantity of insight available to the average member of a local fellowship. It also minimizes the risk of a personality cult growing up around any individual men. It also means that when Jesus wants to rebuke a group of believers he has people whom he can use to do that. Not so a paid priest who must keep the crowds happy in order to remain in his job.

Then...

When this is over the disciples pick up 12 baskets full of fish and loaves. This conclusion has a reflection in the physical and the spiritual.

Nearly every time I've visited a group somewhere I learn as much as I give to the group. Almost without fail I go away with more than I had when I came. Anyone doing genuine itinerant preaching sees this effect.

It is also the case that the disciples had more in their hands after they fed the crowds than they did when they started. I have seen this too, and I believe it is the foundation for provision for those in full time ministry.

Eventually, somewhere along the road, someone gives of their material possessions in order to help the preacher on down the road. This is not only the means for funding this sort of work, but, because it is not expected it provides a way to know when Jesus is actually happy with the work.

Of course the parable ends with the counts of those fed.

Itinerant Preaching

Many people reading this will never have had exposure to itinerant preaching, so I want to give an example so you can understand what happens when you move to this model.

In the early 1990s I was a member of an adult Sunday School class that had an unusual format. Each year the class selected leaders. Those leaders were responsible for finding a weekly guest speaker for the class.

Speakers could be anyone, even occasionally members of the class itself. Usually, though, the speakers were outsiders, invited to speak because the leaders of the class had heard that the invitee had something to say.

As I sat in that class and listened to various people come through I was quite stunned by the quality of the presentations that were given to the group. Nowhere, from any pulpit, before or since, have I seen such a procession of strong, anointed, material regularly presented to an audience.

Why?

I believe that when a speaker is otherwise unknown to a group, and can often be allowed speak on any subject they want, if they have a good reputation, that what those speakers give to the group is their very best.

Week after week, what we found in that class, was outside speakers coming in and giving their very best because no one in the group had heard those speakers before. Speakers usually selected what they were most passionate about, what they knew the most about, what Jesus had taken them through. Each week they gave their very best.

Contrast this with the sermon, an hour away in the main sanctuary. Week after week the pastor had to come up with something new and interesting for an audience that already knew him well and had heard him nearly every weekend for years.

Which do you think had better quality?

Of course the PhD pastor had the more consistent, polished style, but hands down, that otherwise a rag-tag class had far better material.

Were there duds? Of course. Some meetings were awful. I actually remember best 1 woman who was well regarded by reputation before coming to the class. But, she lied through her teeth about her subject, we caught it a few days later. It was a wonderful lesson. Anyway, everyone knew that when they spotted a dud, it was only for 1 week, and then the dud would be gone, never to be invited back. Very different than having to wait out a contract on a bad pastor.

We also found that the biggest problem for the class leaders was finding people willing to come to the class to share. Our problem was the fact that we exhausted the local supply.

Part of the problem with this was the fact this was an appendage on an otherwise tithe supported church where 100 percent of the class member's tithes were taxed away by the institution onto other things.

Located independently, with otherwise no overhead, with actual resources substantially less than what is known now as a tithe, that class could easily have supported travel expenses for outside speakers.

Inviting outsiders usually means a commitment to cover travel, or a reputation for covering travel, or someone else who is covering your group's travel.

If travel was funded in some way, the class would have been entertaining itinerant preachers, not just people outside of the class. It would have met the Biblical model that the feeding of the 5000 parable spells out for us to follow.

May I suggest strongly that when scripture provides a model that says the messages are to be delivered through a widely diverse team of itinerant preachers that it is calling out a model substantially better than known to the average church goer today.

You might at this point be thinking that I'm advocating getting rid of the paid pastor and replacing him with an itinerant team. Perhaps even rotating the pastors in town, or the pastors in a particular region of a modern denomination. No, I am not. Pastors as we know them now are unqualified for this position. Jesus must have called someone out and funded their work before they are qualified to share Jesus' own message.

Getting rid of the tithe gets rid of the funding source for church as we know it. No one goes on salary when there is no tithe. The replacements are speakers who are anointed by Jesus to share his message, his food, with his people. The "test" that they are really called by Jesus is provision enough to carry on the call.

When, or if, the funding goes away they must return to secular work, perhaps also to an unpaid position as an elder following a proper biblical model for personal growth. It is important not to "fight" the loss of funding since this is the acid test of whether someone is really called by Jesus, the one who really controls all the money in the entire world.

This means that itinerant preachers should normally maintain some sort of sectarian skill, like Paul's tent-making, in order to support themselves. Marriage and/or children could also cause such a withdrawal from itinerant preaching, though every case is different.

Church Buildings

When the tithe goes away, so too does the building. This is important.

The original temple was actually a tent, later replaced with a building, that was finally located in Jerusalem. When the Babylonians burned down that building the Jewish people began an institution called synagogues. These were local buildings where people could meet and study scripture. Because they replaced the temple, they contained the symbolic replacement for the temple's central altar.

Once the Roman world Christianized, these traditionally Jewish meeting places took on a different theology, and thus a different name: churches. But, at the time of the writing of the New Testament, what today is called a Church was then simply called a synagogue.

Every time someone in the New Testament interacts with someone in a synagogue we are learning about current places of worship, not just the Jewish worship as many suppose. The reason is that in all cases these are altars, miniature versions of the temple, and the people who rule in these places are, as we've discussed already, altar keepers.

Understood this way, many of the stories involving synagogues can be more easily applied to modern situations.

Most interestingly, Jesus began his itinerant ministry when he was ejected from both the synagogue in his own home town, and the town itself.

The full story opens earlier, but the key verses begin here.

Jesus at first was accepted by the people in the synagogue. They knew him from when he was young. Once he starts to speak about what YHVH has shown him, though, he is ejected.

Organized churches really don't like to hear Jesus, nor his message. They want tickled ears and to set their own agenda. This is all supported, or fueled, by the tithe. Remove the tithe and these institutions go away.

Epilogue

Since writing this article I've received a considerable amount of feedback, this is probably one of the most popular articles I've written. There are several more points that could be added:

• Mindless Offering A Tithe is a mindless offering, which is itself a sin. All offerings are to be given with and for a purpose. (There is a proverb which says as much.) The point of an offering is that it is an investment in advancing Jesus' kingdom and we are rewarded based on the quality of these investments. Doing so mindlessly, as in a fixed tithe amount each month, does not meet this qualification.

• Silver Disciples of Jesus are not to take silver on their journey. This is because Silver is symbolic of vindication. A person in full time ministry is vindicated, or proven to be on Jesus' mission, because there is enough silver to do the work at hand. Someone giving silver (money) to someone in ministry is vindicating that person's ministry. Mindless offerings are providing false vindication, and leads to false witnesses for Jesus who use their apparently God ordained funding as the proof they are ordained. This is only true if they are not tithe supported and are very selective in the offerings they accept. (Remember Naaman the commander and how Elisha refused his offering. Sin often follows the funds flows, as it did when Gehazi accepted Naman's offering.)

  By the way, this applies to people on fixed retirement incomes too. There is no way to tell if the person is vindicated because they've taken their own silver on the journey. This also applies to people who have inherited wealth or who have earned significant wealth on their own who then turn to ministry. These are all false forms of vindication hiding any ability to test if their call is genuine.

  In a non-tithe supported scenario the provision becomes miraculous, an essential component of the parable of the feeding of the 5000. This has an interesting corollary. False religions, especially degenerate cults, exist in part because they have a tithe based funding model. They often require their members to prove they are tithing by turning in copies of federal tax forms. Without this tithe perversion the Holy Spirit would never provide the miraculous support to keep these false ministers in office. Christians using this model are thus falsely modeling the Kingdom to others.

So, What Should We Do?

There are various scriptures that do provide guidance as to how we should support local churches and how we allocate our finances. Let me review some of these in the positive, and answer the question many readers have had over this article. Without a tithing doctrine, what are we to do?

Temple Tax

Churches are a fact of life and most people will spend at least some time in them as they learn about Jesus, his Bible, and interact with other believers. Where is the source of funds for churches?

I believe Jesus answered his question when he produced a coin for use as the payment for the temple tax.

This passage, that we've already looked at, appears to set an amount to give when we're attending Church. Remember, currency is based on a single major unit tied to a day's wage, and then fractional amounts tied to 1/100ths of that same amount. A typical, unit of modern American currency that matches a single days wage is the $100.00 bill. Of course many would be delighted to earn that much while others make much more than this. The various translations are unclear as to which coin is produced, some footnotes suggest this is a coin worth 4 units of some form of money. A unit of currency would typically be 1/100th of the days wage. (The Widow's mite is another example.)

In other words, a very rough equivalent would be $2.00 per person per service in church as an offering so as not to offend those who work there.

Now I know that a typical church would have difficulty with this. Costs can range up to $10.00 in small churches per person per service. This funding model would drastically reduce the numbers of churches and those that survived would need to be cathedrals in size. This is probably intended.

It would also mean that there would be no funding for a mortgage. Churches could only be built in the same manner as the temples in scripture, that is through specific fundraising efforts that should completely fund the work. (Mortgage money is a source of defilement, so this is would fix another common church problem.)

Finally, anyone called into full-time service in these sorts of churches would probably need their own independent source of vindication. See the discussion below.

Investment Tithing

Jesus sets out this possibility in the parable of the Talents. In this parable he allows that someone with few talents of their own, say new believers, "Pew Warmers" and such should have at least put their talents on deposit with Bankers.

"Bankers" are a parable term for fallen Levites for which the pastoring profession is a good example. They're mostly following Mosaic Covenant rules, they are receivers of interest, the tithe or interest, just like bankers receive the tithe or interest.

There is an aspect of this parable that is usually overlooked, but appears to be the main point for pew warming Christians.

When Jesus comes, to us in our own individual ministry, the funds that we have deposited with these bankers can be withdrawn.

The tone here is harsh, perhaps harsher than originally spoken. But the parable provides the punch. When Jesus comes, to you, to the person given the talents, that Jesus can withdraw it, for your own account so that you have something more to invest. The following 2 verses suggest this is the purpose.

The talents that have been earned are returned as a reward, which is why banking talents, when there is no other obvious investment, is the right answer. This is redemptive, and allows the investor to then begin to work up the ladder and receive Jesus' larger rewards. Why? Because when Jesus comes to the investor he will withdraw the increase and return it to the tither.

Note that this tithing as investment happens above the token amount, say $2, per service.

Note that in my own life I have a (frightfully long) list of things I know Jesus has called me directly to work on. You're reading an article on a website from a cluster of websites that is in this direct area of calling. So where do I invest my talents? Keeping the server running, of course. Why? Because I can share Bibles, and other educational materials this way. It is how I am supposed to spend my talents to advance Jesus' kingdom.

When I'm called by Jesus to visit a church somewhere, what do I do? I put $2 into the offering, my temple tax, so as not to offend, but I have much more pressing areas to invest for Jesus in kingdom service. I no longer do investment tithing

False Vindication

As my understanding of how finances work generally in the Bible I've come to an understanding of how gold and silver work as symbolic objects.

Most objects in the Bible are themselves symbolic, and the study of the Bible's symbols is an important if oft overlooked area.

Silver as the material used in money, and as the material used for various objects in the Bible, has an important symbolic significance. It represents vindication.

When someone receives silver, say Sarah, she is vindicated in her actions before the giver. Typically, in the Bible's stories, this vindication means that the receiver of the silver is right before God himself.

Gold is stronger than silver, when Gold is used there is a covenant relationship between the parties involved when gold is used.

Abraham buys the burial plot for Sarah using silver, since he is not in covenant with the Hittites. Sarah receives silver, since she is only in covenant with her husband.

Joseph receives a gold chain around his neck in Pharaoh's service since he is under covenant with Pharaoh, as Pharaoh's Prime Minister. The gold symbolizes the relationship. Most of the working surfaces in the Tabernacle are gold, since they demonstrate aspects of the Mosaic Covenant.

Silver is used to betray Jesus, since the Pharisees don't want to covenant with Judas over Jesus. They don't want Jesus' blood on their own hands. Judas cannot keep the silver because he is not even vindicated.

With this understanding of the use of gold and silver and what it means, we can think aga