How does your church do offerings?

[LAF]

Gossip is a whole different matter, it isn't relevant to the offering. Gossip is a different spiritual problem, that has nothing to do with how you or anyone else gives. What is relevant is that annonamous giving isn't in the NT. The offerinng was laid at the apostles feet, Paul knew exactly which churches were supporting him and which individuals helped him he speaks about them in the epistles. Christ knew exactly how much the widow put in... there are lots of examples of leadership knowing exactly who gave what. Even the Holy Spirit revealed it when it was lied about. If you want the actual verses I can post them but they are common references so I didn't. Can you show me were the annonamous giving is in the NT, cause I didn't see it?

C

<< Matthew 6 >>


1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen

[Pastor Matt]

Box full of money in the back?

Folks in my town will make withdraws instead of deposits. :duh hmmmm, no wonder why people sit in the back. :lol:

[Colin Stolzer]

<< Matthew 6 >>


1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen

[LAF]

Its just the way dh and I feel its the best way to give .

[Anon]

Box full of money in the back?

Folks in my town will make withdraws instead of deposits. :duh hmmmm, no wonder why people sit in the back.

:ha

[Madeline]

Make sure you don't make your personal preference law. I believe tithing with your name on the envelope teaches accountability to the Lord and to your pastor or the deacons of the church (whoever is involved in the finances). We don't have deacons or gossip mongerers making an issue out of how much people give or don't give. If I gave my tithes faithfully for ten years and then I suddenly stopped giving, or I cut way back (yet I am still working the same job, same hours), then I would actually be glad if my pastor - out of love or concern for my wellbeing - sought me out to see how I was doing. I am not saying he would or has done this as I really don't know what they would do in that situation - but it would certainly never happen if I kept my finances anonymous. In the book of Acts, the church knew who was involved in the giving - think of Barnabas, Ananias and Sapphira. This is my personal preference though.

I know enough about myself that I desire to be above reproach and declare my tithes and offerings, so I am never in a position of tempation to cut back or not give because no one else would know.

We (Christians) are free to give any way or any amount that is the most comfortable to us. We are not accountable to anyone but Christ. There is no tithe required under the New Covenant (which means we have a moral right to set our level of giving). The example acts of personal financial stewardship as read in 1 Cor.16 shows that Paul expected that Christians would meet the needs of other Christians and those who served the Christian community. Paul set-up their type of system of giving because it worked well during that period of history. His system of giving is not a commandment for every generation (an example way of doing something isn't a commandment for every generation). Meaning by that, we don't have to give only on the first day of the week. He set-up their giving that way because the money would be all in one place by the time he got there (see verse 1 Cor 16:1).

Today, we have banking systems, direct mailing abilities, etc. We can give through-out the world via many ways of sending support to Christians. I can see where you were going for in your response, but there really isn't anyone in the church that has any moral basis to question what we give or don't give...so, whilst your intentions were to provide a support for you to maintain your giving and in the way that you suggested, we answer to Christ and have no need of anyone in the local Christian community to "watch" over our giving (we aren't children).

Also, there was no such position of service as "pastor" in the early church, so why a local preacher would come to any member about giving hasn't any relevance in this subject (in fact, I question if anyone but an accountant of a local body should even know what anyone gives..but, of course, that is merely a personal preference within the liberty of Christ). I'm sure that you're attempting to be helpful. And, you seem to feel that giving within a system that allows others to know what you give or don't give could be helpful to us (and appears to think it would be helpful to you). It might. But, biblically, there isn't any command to allow this type of examination and watchfulness over what others give financially. Your reference to Ananias and Sapphira's punishment for keeping back money they had already promised, isn't relevant here because the structure of the Christian community was completely different under the first apostles than under Paul. That structure was a communial type of living. Everything was held in common. So, to keep back money was the same as stealing from the others. It was a communial community. And Paul didn't like that type of Christian community structure so he chose another type which gave more individual liberty. Hope this helps!

Love,
Madeline

[Guest Guest]

Also, there was no such position of service as "pastor" in the early church

"I Corinthians9:13-15 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. But I have used none of these things : neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void."

"Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."



In the bible the word "bishop" is used for what we call pastor. Same job though. Of course, I am never sure if you are serious or just being the devils advocate any more. :frog

[JerryNumbers]

I have no problem with the way Mitch's church does it. I don't feel we have any direct command of exactly how its suppose to be done.

But I think the local New Testament Church is suppose to support itself and not seek money for operating cost from outsides, that is what I seeing many churches do now days. Especially those with internet sites.

And I do know of people who try their best to make it known what they give the church, my ex son-in-law was one of those, of course we know what honking ones own horn is all about. And I feel assured that we know how many people who have business will use the church to their advantage.

I'm with Suzy's husband, I don't want to know who gives what, as pastor its none of my business nor anyone else's either. And I will add this, many money hungry preaches make it their business.

Oh, Madeline, seems when it comes to giving in the New Testament Church many forget about grace and go back to the law. But I don't quite go along with your reasoning.

There is a local church in our town, they mail out envelopes to the members, if 2 weeks or so goes by with out them giving they will receive a visit, sometimes its the pastor, some times its someone else, I fail to understand their system, for its not in the Bible.

When they have a project going, they will tell everyone what they expect them to give, according to what several members of that church has told me.

I believe they have changed up a bit on how you claim money given to your church, seems to me you now have to have more proof than a canceled check.

[Madeline]

"I Corinthians9:13-15 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. But I have used none of these things : neither have I written these things' date=' that [u']it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void."

I added the underlining and italics now in the passage above.

Notice that Paul was claiming that those who preach the gospel have a moral right to be supported financially (in others words, they wouldn't be immoral for asking for financial support). Paul said that he hadn't asked for any financial support, so what he was asking for at that time was support for others. I wasn't claiming we had no obligation to support Christians who make it their job to spread the gospel. My point was only that how much an individual Christian sets aside for Christian efforts and how often it is given or when it is given is entirely up to the individual Christian. And the passage above doesn't challenge that statement. So, I don't see the point of this passage in connection to my earlier response within this subject of financial giving to Christian work.

"Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you' date=' and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."[/quote']

The context of Hebrews 13 is how to live peacefully and work together in the Body of Christ.

We obey only in the Lord (on the basis it is right to do what is being asked). All Christians in the local Christian community are servants of Christ first, and then each other. It is Christ (His teachings) by which we measure every request given to us by anyone in the local church. All people who serve the local church, are servants. All servants who work within a special function within the Christian community, show by their example how all Christians should behave (that is why the moral descriptions of human behavior were given to Timothy on how to choose these people). No one serving within specific areas of service have a moral right to take away our personal freedom in the Lord. 1 Pet. 5:3 teaches that "oversight" in maintaining right doctrine (remember the duties of overseers?) is not establishing a right to control any other member of the same body. Elders were to oversee their duties of shepherding the flock by maintaining sound doctrine - bishop is the same word as elder - see Titus 1:9). But Peter made sure they understood they had no personal power over the members of the church - He did this by warning them that they were NOT "lords" over anyone - ...nor as being lords over those entrusted to them..." When Christians do what is requested within the local church (regardless who makes the request), they are to do it in an effort to help the church work more effectively (if it is a right thing that has been asked of them and they have the ability to do what is asked). There are no dictators in the church. We look at any request presented and if we feel it is the moral thing to do and if we have the ability to do it, we know by Peter and Paul that we should make the effort to cooperate with that request. But no servant of the church, regardless if it be an overseer or anyone else can require us to give an exact amount of money or teach a class or classes, or take care of someone, etc, etc, etc. If we decide not to do what is asked, that is our business and we know by the early examples of church history that no person in a local body had any right to exact a punishment or enact some penalty because of a refusal to do what had been asked. Christians are free. We do what is needed, not out of compulsion but because it is the right thing to do and because we love God.

[JerryNumbers]

1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
1 Tim 3:1-7 (KJV)

Your wrong, pastor would fit perfectly where the word bishop is used.

[Madeline]

Hi!

1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
1 Tim 3:1-7 (KJV)

Your wrong, pastor would fit perfectly where the word bishop is used.

The above description of moral characteristics is the description that every Christian should aspire to. You could probably look at many men and women in your congregation that could fit this description, but you wouldn't call them or title them pastors. The work of bishops/overseers in the first century is not comparable to the present-day preacher's (pastor's) position.

First, because there is little comparison with present-day church organization and the first century congregational structure. Anyone can claim that someone hired to preach on Sunday is equivalent to the first century bishop/overseer (or at any other time), today, is doing the work of the first-century bishops/overseers, but the statement alone doesn't prove it. Defining bishop: The word used in the passage is the Greek word, "episkope" meaning, "inspection (for relief) by implication superintendence - episcopate: the office of a bishop. In the first century there were bishops and deacons (plural - more than one person serving in that area of service) serving the Christian community (see Phil.1:1). The Christian services in the first century were open services. I've mentioned this recently in another post. They were not like the services today. Those who served as overseers were public debaters. They were able to take on anyone publicly who taught a false doctrine. That was their primary job.They didn't hide behind carefully controlled services, hidden behind a pulpit. They mingled among the other members in the meetings. All Christians spoke forth (this fact is clearly presented as the early letters show that this freedom got out of control and Paul had to tell them to do all things in decency and order, reminding them in this order, that in spite of practicing order in their meetings, no one had a right to forbid the others to speak forth). The word, "pastor" in the NT is "poimen" - meaning a shepherd. People who have the job of preaching (the most often definition of a local pastor today) are usually limited to preaching on Sunday/ Saturday or teaching (some do visitation work). They usually answer to a board. This present-day preaching position is usually singular. It can't be compared to the first century area of service as bishop/overseer. As I've said there were no such area of service as a singular preaching position in the first-century church. To attempt to claim that these areas of service are comparable is ignoring the biblical description of those areas of service that Paul had set-up to serve the local Christian community in those areas he had worked in. To attempt to claim that a first-century "pattern" or "example" structure is being followed, a group must follow that example. It is clear that most Christian groups today do not follow Paul's description of meetings for Christians. So, no, there is no biblical basis to claim or teach that a present-day position of preaching (pastor) is the same as the first-century service of bishop. Hope this helps! :smile

Love,
Madeline

[JerryNumbers]

7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.

9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.

10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.

11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.

12 And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.

Acts 20:7-12 (KJV)

Strange, Paul did not see it your way. Of course your way in not the Bible way. NO, it was not a debate, it was good solid preaching, Jesus' Church services is and has never been about debating, please go study out you Bible.

[Madeline]

Let's try this once more....

The first thing to remember about Bible study is to make the distinction between what is written in the New Covenant documents and what isn't written there (the early documents present both history - what was done at the time - and it also presents morality that we must act out daily because it is right to do so - which doesn't change because it is God's morality (and He is never wrong about anything). A Bible student must ask him/herself, is the context of the Christian writings a command for our lives (because it is moral to do for every generation) or is it a free choice for our lives within personal preferences. An "example" choice of the first century Christians is not a command for every later generation unless there is a command that every Christian from that time onward should do it. Because Paul made the choice to come together on the first day of the week to break bread and Paul preached that day, does not mean Christians can't come together to do the same thing on any other day or night (which often happens today, for instance and did then). We know this is true because Paul didn't follow the first "example" Christian community structure. This first way to work together (developed for Christians) was created by the first apostles. It was a communal structure, not like Paul's later choice where specific types of functions/services would be done by elders - overseers, deacons and Timothy was doing the work of an evangelist. Paul's choice didn't require Christians to lose control of their finances as the first community structure did require.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

If the first apostles made the choice of setting up a system of working together that was unchangable, (meant for every later Christian generation) on what moral basis did Paul choose a much different way to have Christians work together? There is only one answer to that question. The way (the structure of their community) Christians choose to work together to serve Christ and each other isn't set in concrete, it is flexible and a free choice for any Christian to make. An "example" choice is not a commandment for every generation of Christians. And, it is not an unchangable "pattern" (as some Christians teach wrongfully)....by the way, there isn't any Christian group that forms their community structure in the same way the first century Christians did their work (it is impossible, of course, because there are no longer apostles, no longer speaking in tongues and no longer an apostle to choose what person will select deacons and or elders as it took place under Paul's choice of community structure (so any claim that Christians are held to one way by which we form "community" simply isn't biblical). The examples given in the NT show that the meetings of Christians in the first century were varied re times and were open...most often taking place in the homes of Christians. Paul in that example meeting quoted above held the primary spot during that meeting because he had come to visit and stayed to instruct them. The Bible student can know this is true because this early choice of meeting was never commanded by any apostle for every generation. There is certainly nothing wrong with choosing the first day of the week to gather together to take the Lord's supper, but we know that it is not a command to do it only on the first day of the week (we can do this together anytime). See 1 Corinthians 11:26

Okay, now that the foundational history has been laid, let's look at the passages that were presented to you as proof that all Christians must form Christian community the way Paul formed his groups.

"8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.

9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.

10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him."

We can see that this is history, no commandment for every generation. There is no reference here that all later Christians must do things in the same way Paul did them. First, again, we can't. There are no apostles to do miracles. There isn?t any meetings (that I know of) that continue through the night unto the break of day and there are few Christians meet in homes anymore (verse 11).

1 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
12 And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.

Acts 20:7-12 (KJV)

So, what have we learned. We know that this meeting was not a command for every generation. It is history, not an example or pattern for every generation to act out (and it is impossible to act out in the way it was acted out here).

Strange' date=' Paul did not see it your way. Of course your way in not the Bible way. NO, it was not a debate, it was good solid preaching, Jesus' Church services is and has never been about debating, please go study out you Bible.[/quote']

There is nothing that supports your idea that Paul's choices for this particular meeting (because it met his needs at that time) were commandments for every later generation of Christians (in fact, it wasn't enacted by the first century Christians as the letters of Corinthians prove). And, of course, as we know by the other examples of their meetings that many of their meetings were completely open, uncontrolled by any such person as "preacher" or even a single teacher. Those who understood the history of the Old Covenant and what it met for Christ to have instituted the New Covenant were to be able to openly debate any false teaching. We can see then, that you have accepted a false idea (a non-biblical premise) about Christian community that is not supported by the history presented in the New Covenant documents. The moment Paul refused to establish a communal structure for the Christians that he had convertede (as the first apostles created/designed) that choice proves that the way Christians establish their community structure is open and as long as the formation respects the the morals of Christ, it is acceptable to God.

Love,
Madeline

[JerryNumbers]

That's alright, I don't need your help with my Bible study, your too far out in left field and way far from what God actually teaches us.

Thank you anyway.

[LindaR]

I voted "Other" because none of those options applied to how our church does offerings. We pass the offering plate only on Sunday mornings...not on Sunday evenings or Wednesday evenings.

When I attended a Messianic Congregation (they met on Saturday mornings), no offering plate was passed. They had an "offering" box in the back of the sanctuary. We called it a "pushka"---it was a small white wooden box with a Jewish Star (Mogen David) painted on it...it had a money slot and was always kept locked.