Been Preaching for 51 years. Only 2 times felt totally satisfied. Something lacking. Spend much time thinking about it. Begins early Monday.

Until next time,
steve

I won’t bore you with summaries of the other posts because you can read them for yourself (and I highly recommend you read them now, if you haven’t already). I am primarily, however, responding to David Rogers’ post…or rather, I should say, I’m attempting to continue the thoughts that David has interjected into the conversation.

David wrote about several roadblocks that he sees in the way of the concept of a “city church”. And in large measure, I agree with what David wrote. But as I read his thoughts on roadblocks, I couldn’t help but think that there was one major roadblock that he didn’t really list. (He sort of touched on this in his fourth roadblock, but I want to flesh it out a bit further.)

Without addressing this roadblock, I am of the opinion that attempting to solve any of the other roadblocks will be an exercise in futility. And in my opinion, this issue would actually take care of several, if not all, of the roadblocks David listed.

That roadblock is pride.

What prevents the body of Christ from being unified in a geographical region? Pride.

David touched on this somewhat in his comment about simple/organic/house churches dismissing the “institutional church” as irrelevant. Now, obviously, many of my readers know that I am involved in an organic church that meets house to house. And I’ve written quite a bit on that topic in the past.

My intent here is not to defend simple church against David’s comment. Because frankly, David is quite right when he highlights certain factions of the simple church adherents as basically ignoring the traditional institution. The only exception I would make to David’s statement is that, as some have already pointed out in the comments on his post, it’s hardly unique to simple/organic/house churches.

The point that I would like to make is that, regardless of the mode of fellowship (institutional, simple, etc.), when anyone shuts anyone else out, I believe that boils down to pride. And without addressing the pride issue, we cannot expect to see any genuine improvement in the area of divisions within the body of Christ.

Recently, on another blog, I read a post about the need for a certain denomination to exercise humility. The author of the post chose to use the phrase “doctrinal humility”. In a sickening twist of irony, the commenters could not get past that two-word phrase. They rushed to defend their lack of humility when it comes to their doctrine. If I may paraphrase, they basically were saying, “We have doctrine that is the most biblical of anyone’s. What are we supposed to be humble about??”

That is exactly the pride that divides. And it is by no means the domain of only one particular denomination. Who among us believes our doctrine is not “biblical”? If we believed that it weren’t, wouldn’t we rush to change it? So to argue that our doctrine, or our ecclesiology, or our system of church, or our mode of baptism, or our position on spiritual gifts is “biblical” is to miss the point.

The only thing over which we are ever instructed to separate from others on in scripture is a compromise of the message of the Gospel. And I would hasten to add that, in the context of the entire teaching of the New Testament, I believe that any separation at all is always with a hope for reconciliation.

So, for a city church to actually be able to function as a city church, there has to be humility. There has to be a willingness to say, “I believe that my convictions in {insert area of doctrine or practice} are based on the revelation of scripture, but I also recognize that those who differ with me also believe theirs is based on the revelation of scripture. Because we are both adherents to the message of the Gospel, I will not allow this area to divide us. After all, my brother or sister may actually be right, and it may be I who am wrong in this area.”

Not too long ago, I participated in a brief discussion on a blog that asked if it’s possible to fellowship and worship together with people who did not believe the same thing about certain doctrines. In the post, the author was offering his compromise, which was to say that we acknowledge a spiritual unity, yet we do not fellowship or worship together with those who believe differently. He used as an example in his post a difference in baptism. Specifically, he was writing from a “believers only” view of baptism vs. “infant baptism”. I offered the following comment:

It’s always refreshing to see other brothers and sisters thinking through these concerns, and I definitely appreciate your heart in these posts….

I think, however, that your solution of “unity in spirit, but not in fellowship” is a step in the wrong direction. And…that’s pretty much what is already going on in the body of Christ today. It strikes me as trying to have it both ways. Unity really means nothing if we can’t actually walk together, in my opinion.

Your example of infant baptism is, ironically, the one that I think is one of the easiest to reconcile. If both sides are approaching the subject with humility and grace, I see no reason why one could not fellowship with the other.

The humility and grace would mean that the one believing in infant baptism would not pressure the other to baptize his infant. And likewise, the one not believing in it would not belittle the faith of the other for practicing it.

It would seem to me that throughout the course of time together, perhaps one might be persuaded to the others point of view, but not because one is demanding it or pushing the issue.

I don’t know if I’m correct here, but it seems to make sense to me. For there to be a “city church”, this type of humility is required. Otherwise, we end up digging in our heels and closing ourselves off to the possibility that we could be wrong.

If we cannot lay down our own pride and humbly relate to our brothers and sisters in the Gospel, regardless of their beliefs about other things outside the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus and our reconciliation to the Father through Jesus, there is no hope of unity. And there is no hope of a “city church”.

_______________________________________

Chain blog rules:

1. If you would like to write the next blog post (link) in this chain, leave a comment stating that you would like to do so. If someone else has already requested to write the next link, then please wait for that blog post and leave a comment there requesting to write the following link.

2. Feel free to leave comments here and discuss items in this blog post without taking part in the actual “chain”. Your comments and discussion are very important in this chain blog.

3. When you write a link in this chain, please reply in the comments of the previous link to let everyone know that your link is ready. Also, please try to keep an updated list of links in the chain at the bottom of your post, and please include these rules at the bottom of your post.

1. Alan Knox, City Church – A Chain Blog
2. Charlie Wallace, City Church: Meeting
3. David Rogers, Roadblocks on the Path to City Church
4. Steve Sensenig, The Major Roadblock to a City Church (this post)
   
5. Paul Grabill, The Resurrection of the City Church: Who Will Move the Stone?
6. Jon Amos, A City Church Thought Experiment
7. James Goetz, The Restoration of the City or Locality Church and Apostolic Leaders
8. Alan Knox, Unity and the Church in a City

Recently, my good friend Alan Knox wrote a very creative post about Starbucks that I would like to recommend. It’s called “A Cup o’ Joe or a Cup with Joe“. I highly suggest that you all read it. Enjoy the comment thread after it, too.

I don’t want to give too much away, but just know that you should read it, even if you don’t drink coffee (you’ll understand, hopefully). Be forewarned, though: It might be a little convicting.

Until next time,

steve

This post started as a response on a post over at The Pursuit, but I decided to just write it here instead. In one of Lew’s “Question of the Week” posts, he asked:

Why do the things that cause us to separate ourselves by denomination have little to do with what God’s Word tells us to separate ourselves from?

Recently, in response to that, a commenter wrote:

…the union of people who have conflicting ideas is really no unity at all.

I think this is 1) a red herring, and 2) a false dichotomy, and 3) an excuse for the utter lack of attempts at unity in the body of Christ.

There can be a lot of “conflicting ideas” in a unified group. The unity is not always a simple function of unity in thought (or better yet, a unity in knowledge), but rather a unity in identification.

I find my identity in Christ. Who I am is found in Christ. Anyone else who finds their identity in Christ is my brother, and I should be able to be unified with them without any problem.

What if we disagree on methods of evangelism? So what?

What if we disagree on the use of certain spiritual gifts? So what?

What if we disagree on exactly how God created the heavens and the earth? So what?

What if we disagree on exactly what/when the millenial kingdom of Christ is? So what?

What if we disagree on exactly how God has “chosen” us? So what??

That need not divide us. Unless we twist any of those things, or a million other “issues” like them, into issues of true fellowship, they are not reasons for division. And if those things divide us, we should ask ourselves: From what do we get our identity?

For example, take a look at some of the leaders of large denominations who say that they can’t “cooperate” in the work of the Gospel with those who have not been baptized by someone in their denomination. Are they really seeking unity? In my opinion, no. They are seeking to defend their particular belief system as the only true and correct belief system.

That is not of Christ. It never has been, and never will be. And it is not those outside of that denomination who are the heretics. It is the one causing division who is the heretic.

Let’s quit coming up with excuses for our division and start really accepting and loving those who confess Christ, and seeking unity with them.

Conflicting ideas? Sure. Ability to fellowship and work together despite those differences? Absolutely — because it is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one Spirit that unites us.

Until next time,

steve

Much of what I would like to say has been said in one form or another in the comments that were posted previously. This has the net effect of letting me know ahead of time that my thoughts won’t be overly controversial to everyone in the discussion! But seriously, it is refreshing to see such thought being given to this topic. I likely will not address everything that was written in the comments, but they are there for you to read for yourself. Instead, I want to share my thoughts, some of which will overlap the thoughts of others.

It is easy, I think, for us to agree that whatever Jesus meant when he prayed for our unity, we’re not fulfilling it. I don’t think I’ve ever come across anyone who says that the body of Christ is experiencing unity at the level that Jesus prayed for. Part of this is because we don’t even agree on what the unity is supposed to look like!

Some options of interpretation that I have come across in my time of examining this passage include:

• Unity = Unanimity — Unity can only come when we fully agree on everything that is believed, practiced, taught, etc.
• Unity = Consensus — Unity means that we “agree to disagree”
• Unity = Anything Goes — Unity means that every person’s belief is valid, and we should never “debate” or try to convince others of our viewpoints
• Unity = Eschatological Perfection — The unity that Jesus prayed for is only possible, and will only exist, when Jesus returns and we are made perfect.

With that in mind, I posed the question, “What is the unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17 and is it primarily (or even solely) eschatological in nature?”

Let me first of all give my thoughts on the eschatology aspect of the question. I think determining the eschatological import (if any) helps us determine what the unity actually is. It also impacts what we believe to be our responsibility toward the unity in question.

In other words, if the unity is primarily (or solely) eschatological, we can easily assume that it is not attainable in this lifetime, and we will generally feel like it’s not even worth trying. If, however, the unity is a present possibility and reality, we will understand our own response to the prayer of Jesus.

As some have already commented, I do not believe that the unity for which Jesus prayed is eschatological. Eschatological unity is almost a given. Why would Jesus take the time to pray for what is essentially a guaranteed part of the future kingdom?

But more importantly, the words of Jesus in John 17 give us ample evidence that eschatology is not in view during this prayer. Verse 21 tells us specifically that the prayer of Jesus for unity is for this purpose: “…so that the world may believe that You sent Me.”

Verse 23 expands on this by saying that the purpose of the unity is “…so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.”

In my opinion, these two statements of purpose that Jesus gave for his prayer for unity remove any eschatological implication from the prayer. The purpose of the unity is to demonstrate to the world that God sent Jesus and that God loves us.

If this is correct (and obviously, I believe it is), then this greatly impacts our understanding of what that unity is and whether or not we should actively be pursuing it. Since it is not a future unity (any eschatological implications must come from outside the text), there must be a present unity for which Jesus prayed.

Within this prayer, Jesus gives some indication as to what the unity should be. Namely, it should be a mirror of the unity that Jesus and the Father share. He compares the unity of us with his unity with the Father in verse 21:

…they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us….

Would we say that the unity of Jesus and the Father is manifest in “you go your way and I’ll go mine and we won’t bother each other”? Yet this is frequently what ends up happening among Christians.

You believe in infant baptism? Then I can’t fellowship with you. You believe in speaking in tongues? You’ll have to have church across town. You believe that the Genesis account of creation is metaphorical? I have nothing in common with you.

This cannot be what Jesus prayed for.

And with that, I will have to hold off on the rest of my thoughts because I am out of time. Comments are open, and I will return with a further post at some point.

Until next time,

steve

I may not be around much on the blog over the next few days, but will try to follow along as much as possible.  I’ll hopefully post my thoughts early next week.

The question: What is the unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17 and is it primarily (or even solely) eschatological in nature?  (In other words, is it a future promise of unity in eternity?)

Thoughts?

To my dear brothers who are involved in the institutional church, please don’t read this so much as an “institutional vs. simple” dichotomy. But prayerfully weigh Phil’s words here and see what points of agreement might be had. Of course, dissenting opinions are welcome in the comments following this post, if one feels it necessary.

Without further ado, then, in my “Wish I Had Written This!” category comes this profound comment from (unwitting) guest blogger Phil on the recent “How (Not) to Judge Someone’s Orthodoxy” post:

Looking back at this whole discussion, I come back to this basic question–What is Christianity? Is it
(a) a set of activities in a sacred place on Sunday morning, with a list of tenets to be subscribed to as a condition of participation, coupled with rules for behavior, enforced by the official leadership

or

(b) a way of living, every day, 24/7, in relationship with Jesus Himself, and with others who also are in relationship with Him.

Going through the words of Jesus Himself in the Gospels, I cannot find anything that leads to (a); in fact, he often rebuked the leaders of the (a) system of the day. I grew up in churches, have been in churches all my life, and my conclusion now is that in most situations, the more of (a) you have, the less you have of (b); in fact, (a) tends to replace and eliminate (b)!

How did “Abide in me” come to mean “Be at the church building every time the doors are open”?

If you want to improve your relationship with someone, say your wife, do you go off to an auditorium and sit while someone who claims to know her better than you do lectures for half an hour? Or would the time be better spent going somewhere alone with your wife and conversing with her for half an hour? Which really builds the relationship with her?

I’m afraid most humans are too lazy for their own good. We’d rather have a list of rules to keep than try to walk in the Spirit. We want a doctrinal statement to assent to rather than trying to learn to hear His voice ourselves. The Hebrews started it at Mt. Sinai–they wanted Moses to hear God for them.

And for those who would say “It’s some of each, both (a) and (b)” my question is How can it be both, when (a) eliminates (b)? I think, and I suspect [frequent commenter] ded would agree (based on what he’s written here), that they are two different things, coming from two different sources. If God meant it to be a symbiosis, it would be a stable symbiosis, not constantly drifting in one direction.

To look at it another way: What has been the “fruit” of (a) in this country? Do we have a vibrant church that is transforming its culture? Are non-believers coming to Christ in droves? Are believers “turning the world upside down”?

Or is the picture more like this: “Our bookshelves are full of Christian books and videos. We have churches on every major street, more staff workers than ever before, large Sunday school departments, cell systems, mega- and meta-church seminars. We have Christian bumper stickers, political action groups, huge parachurch ministries–and in the midst of it all, we have lost every major city in North America.” Back in 1999, Wolfgang Simson included that quote from Ted Haggard in his book “Houses that Change the World”.

Maybe we do need to lay aside everything that’s been written since and go back to the New Testament for our original instructions.

Way to go, Phil! And a hearty “amen” to that.

Until next time,

steve

When the news about Ted Haggard’s resignation amidst confessions of “sexual immorality” broke last year, I opted not to blog about it in specifics. (I can’t even remember now if I wrote anything at all about it.) My choice to not use his name or specifics was for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was that I didn’t want a bunch of Google traffic based on his name.

I also wanted to be extremely reserved in passing judgment. Not that I didn’t think that what he admitted to was pretty serious. And not that I didn’t think that the way he handled it was extremely inappropriate for a man of his position.

In the midst of the fallout from that scandal (what a cliché that is, eh?), I had concerns about the way his former church handled it, as well. I thought about writing some posts about that and comparing it to some of my own personal experiences with how churches often deal (or don’t deal, as the case may be) with sin amongst its leaders.

Today, however, I find myself not feeling so reserved. And I find myself torn between feelings of tremendous sorrow and harsh anger. I’m trying to err on the side of sorrow here, but it’s difficult.

So, what was the news that came out today? Well, it appears from this news story on Yahoo (HT: Kansas Bob) that Mr. Haggard is asking for support for the next two years because he doesn’t think that he and his wife have “adequate earning power” and won’t for at least two years.

But here’s the rub: Mr. Haggard reportedly received a severance package which included $138,000 in salary, he made $110,000 + an $85,000 bonus (?!?!) last year prior to resigning, he continues to collect royalties on his books (although I imagine the market for them has declined a bit), and lives in a close-to-3/4 of a million dollar home, which is on the market.

So, Mr. Haggard apparently thinks that he needs people to support him, despite all of that. Why? I can’t think of any good reason, either logically or scripturally, why Mr. Haggard should be entitled to financial support from others.

I will still refrain from passing judgment in a strict sense, but I think that perhaps Mr. Haggard got a little too comfortable asking people for money, expecting financial support to an extreme level, and living off the generous gifts of others who quite likely have a much lower standard of living than he.

Lord have mercy.

I’ll just leave it at that.

Until next time,

steve

Another problem with history is that sometimes it gets recreated in a way that glamorizes things of the past. We’re all familiar with the concept of “the good ol’ days”, and that doesn’t always have to refer to just the time period of our childhood or our parents’ childhood.

Still yet another problem is that historical records necessarily can’t contain every ounce of information, and so sometimes we try to figure out what things were like in a particular time period, and we have to connect dots in a certain way. We have to fill in the gaps, so to speak.

It can be a problem with church history as well. Those of us who are pursuing simple church are sometimes viewed as having a glamorized view of what the first century church was like. Those who view the Reformation as an incredibly significant turning point are sometimes viewed as having a glamorized view of the Reformers.

If we realize this tendency, then we can avoid the pitfalls that could result from it. But if we are unaware of this, we run a danger of over-emphasizing certain elements of history and overlooking their downsides.

Such is the case with the events of about AD 300-500 and even later. During this time, there were several church councils held that dictated certain things. Those of us who are “Protestants” recognize that prior to the Reformation, our history coincides with that of the Roman Catholic church. And as such, the church councils that took place prior to the Reformation are part of our heritage, as well.

What ends up happening, however, is that we selectively highlight certain things that took place, and ignore (either through ignorance or willful choice) the other aspects that don’t coincide with our beliefs.

One of the most oft-referenced councils is the Council of Nicaea (or some spell it Nicea). Quite often, as I have pointed out on this blog on several occasions, the Nicean Creed (the formulaic statement that was determined by the Council) is used as a benchmark of “orthodoxy”. Do I want to know if someone is a true Christian? I ask them if they accept the Nicean Creed as correct. If they accept it, good. They’re “in”. If they don’t, they are “unorthodox” and a heretic.

I’m not going to bore you with a drawn-out history of what happened at Nicaea. But I was curious as to what really surrounded this council, and I did a little informal research. I decided that the Roman Catholic church would probably have the most positive view of the church councils, so I found one of their sources — The Catholic Encyclopedia.

The website I just referenced gives a lot of detailed information about each of the church councils throughout all of the history of the Roman Catholic church, not just prior to the Reformation. And there are other sources as well, both online and offline.

What I want to point out, however, is that I think there are some major misconceptions about the nature of these church councils. I have seen many comments and heard many statements to the effect that these were groups of holy men, deeply spiritual men, gathering under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to preserve true doctrine and combat heresy.

As such, the conclusions of these councils are viewed as guided by God Himself, and have been accepted wholesale for a long time as landmarks of accomplishment in church history. Or, at least the parts we are told about…

This council was called for, and presided over, by Constantine, an emperor. Emperors were treated as, and worshiped as, God. In fact, descriptions of how Constantine was dressed and the fact that all of the attendees at the council stood in his honor when he entered cause a problem in itself.

The Council was opened by Constantine with the greatest solemnity. The emperor waited until all the bishops had taken their seats before making his entry. He was clad in gold and covered with precious stones in the fashion of an Oriental sovereign. A chair of gold had been made ready for him, and when he had taken his place the bishops seated themselves.

As if the words of Jesus about authority were not enough to cause some concern as to the relationship between the church leaders and the emperor, what shall we make of this scene in light of James 2? In this passage, James cautions us against showing deference to one “dressed in fine clothes” and giving them a seat of honor. Yet Constantine was seated on a gold throne during the proceedings of this council.

So, apart from the issues surrounding the emperor himself, what were some of the decisions made at the Council of Nicaea? Here’s just a sampling (taken from a translation found at this site with my thoughts in italics):

• Since there prevails a custom and ancient tradition to the effect that the bishop of Aelia is to be honoured, let him be granted everything consequent upon this honour, saving the dignity proper to the metropolitan. (What did Jesus say about honor again?)
• It has come to the attention of this holy and great synod that in some places and cities deacons give communion to presbyters, although neither canon nor custom allows this, namely that those who have no authority to offer should give the body of Christ to those who do offer. Moreover it has become known that some of the deacons now receive the eucharist even before the bishops. All these practices must be suppressed. Deacons must remain within their own limits, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and subordinate to the presbyters. (So deacons were to be “put in their place” and reminded that they are not on the same level as bishops and presbyters. Already by this point in church history, rank and privilege were valued by those in church leadership in direct opposition to the teaching of Jesus. Additionally, note the fact that only certain people were permitted to administer communion.)
• Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of Pentecost, this holy synod decrees that, so that the same observances may be maintained in every diocese, one should offer one’s prayers to the Lord standing. (Forbidding kneeling during prayer on Sunday?? Elsewhere I read that this was related to a Sabbatarian view of Sunday, although I’m not sure I get the connection. But why did this council feel it necessary to impose requirements on standing during prayer vs. kneeling?)

Yet another issue that was discussed during this council was the date of Easter celebrations. Some areas chose to celebrate it in conjunction with the timing of the Jewish passover, since obviously the death and resurrection of Jesus was during that time of the Jewish calendar.

But what was the attitude of the men at the council? Here are the words of Constantine in a letter to the churches following this council:

At this meeting the question concerning the most holy day of Easter was discussed, and it was resolved by the united judgment of all present that this feast ought to be kept by all and in every place on one and the same day. . . And first of all it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin. . . for we have received from our Saviour a different way. . . And I myself have undertaken that this decision should meet with the approval of your Sagacities in the hope that your Wisdoms will gladly admit that practice which is observed at once in the city of Rome and in Africa, throughout Italy and in Egypt. . . with entire unity of judgment.

Notice part of the reason why Easter was set at a time independent of the Jewish calendar: “[I]t appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin….” This seems to me to be none other than blatant anti-Semitism.

But what should be even more disturbing to most of us is the claim of divine authority for this decision: “[W]e have received from our Saviour a different way….” And this coming from a man who couldn’t seem to make up his mind between Christianity and paganism throughout his life. Not to mention Paul’s words in Romans 14 about whether or not considering one day more special than any other is even necessary.

And I’ve only dealt with the First Council of Nicaea in this post. What of the Council of Constantinople in 381 which, when decreeing how to handle those returning to the church from heretical views, said, “On the first day we make Christians of them, on the second catechumens, on the third we exorcise them by breathing three times into their faces and their ears, and thus we catechise them and make them spend time in the church and listen to the scriptures; and then we baptise them”?

Or the Council of Ephesus in 431 declaring Mary to be “mother of God”?

Or Chalcedon in 451 which said, “We have decreed that, subject to examination, all paupers and needy persons are to travel with ecclesiastical letters or letters of peace only, and not of commendation, since it befits only reputable persons to be provided with letters of commendation”?

What do we make of all of this? Does all of this amount to some elaborate “guilt by association”? No, that’s not the point that I wish to make. If you come away thinking that I’ve been trying to build a case for rejecting the Nicene Creed, you’ve misread me.

What I am trying to get across is that we need to be aware of, and honest about, our heritage. We cannot afford to sugarcoat things in history and make them out to be better than they were.

From all accounts, I think we are naive to think that the Council of Nicaea was a gathering of Spirit-filled men seeking to glorify Christ by careful examination of the scriptures. I’m not saying that nothing good came out of it (I’ll leave that to the reader to determine for themselves), but I am saying that there is a lot that is not indicative of the Spirit of God.

So, let’s just call it what it is. Take the good and discard the bad. But don’t turn it into something that it’s not.

Until next time,

steve

This topic can be touchy for a lot of people. As David, a vocational minister, noted in his post, his very livelihood depends on people tithing. I know of very few people who are in that position who would question how tithing is taught in our churches today.

The common thinking says that tithing is still a requirement for believers, and that the “storehouse” mentioned in Malachi 3:10 equates to the local church. Therefore, Christians are required to give at least 10% of their income to the local church. But the passage David looked at raised some questions in a small group discussion in which he was participating.

The passage is Deuteronomy 14:22-27:

You shall surely tithe all the produce from what you sow, which comes out of the field every year. You shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God, at the place where He chooses to establish His name, the tithe of your grain, your new wine, your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and your flock, so that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always. If the distance is so great for you that you are not able to bring the tithe, since the place where the LORD your God chooses to set His name is too far away from you when the LORD your God blesses you, then you shall exchange it for money, and bind the money in your hand and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses. You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household. Also you shall not neglect the Levite who is in your town, for he has no portion or inheritance among you.

In his discussion of this passage, David came to the conclusion that in cases of hardship, tithing was not absolutely required. Specifically, in his own words:

I also think this is a good little point to make in our discussions on tithing and giving so that we don’t become more strict than the Bible. Ordinarily all of the tithe was to go to the Lord, but there were times when God allowed that giving of the tithe could create a hardship on the family and said it was ok to take care of the needs of the family.

I raised a question in the comments section regarding how David got this conclusion from the passage. This post here is the delayed response on my part to David’s request for more information from me regarding my difference of opinion.

First of all, the passage says nothing about concessions for hardship. What is conceded in the passage, however, is the practicality of traveling with large amounts of produce and animals.

In a nutshell, God instructed the tithe to be brought each year to “the place where He chooses to establish His name”. But for what purpose were the Israelites to bring the tithe? To put it in the storehouse? That’s not what this passage says.

The passage says that they were to eat the tithe. This is vastly different from how tithing is taught. The tithe was to be enjoyed in the presence of God by the one bringing the tithe.

Now, God does give a concession here if the distance to travel was too far to carry all of the tithe there. But the concession is not with regard to financial hardship, and the concession is not saying that those people did not have to tithe.

Rather, God says that if the distance is too far to carry all of it, the one tithing should sell their tithe for money, and then bring that money with them to the place designated.

Once they arrive, they should then purchase food with that money in order to eat in the presence of the Lord. And God even goes so far as to say, “Buy whatever you want to buy for this feast.” (my paraphrase)

In short, I do not understand the conclusion David got from this passage. This passage is not saying that in certain circumstances of difficult times, it is permissible to spend the tithe on your own food. Rather, this was the instruction for everyone tithing once a year.

Think about that. Once a year, the Israelites were to tithe by bringing their tithe to Jerusalem (eventually) and eating it in a celebratory feast in God’s presence!

Now, in the passage that I quoted above, I used the exact same group of verses that David did. However, I do want to point out that the passage mentions one other aspect of tithing that is made clear by the verses following what portion David quoted.

At the end of the passage above, the Israelites were instructed not to neglect the Levites that lived in their own town. What does this mean? Is this justification for tithing to our local church? Well, apart from the mistaken equation of church leaders to Levite priests who had no inheritance or land on which to raise his own food, it helps to look at the next statement in verses 28 and 29:

At the end of every third year you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in that year, and shall deposit it in your town. The Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance among you, and the alien, the orphan and the widow who are in your town, shall come and eat and be satisfied, in order that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do.

The provision for the Levite was that every third year, instead of eating the entire tithe in Jerusalem, the Israelites were to bring the produce tithe to a place in their own town. This contribution, then, would service the Levites and widows and orphans over the next three years.

Now, David is right in saying that we shouldn’t be more strict than the Bible. So, with that in mind, I’d like to open this up for discussion. Where did the concept of tithing to the local church come from? And why is it taught as a requirement for believers to support the local church in this way by equating it with the Old Testament tithe?

Until next time,

steve