Show Me the Money

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

Second commentary suggests I struck a nerve...oops.

Your comparative analysis is flawed....had you made a comment about the pastor sitting on his "moola" or some other pre-conceived notion and had I remained silent on that, then you could make a comparison....feeble attempt....swing and miss, you're out.


On your other silly point, it doesn't matter how many visitors are brought in by Joe Preacher or the "rest of us", the facts of the scenario state that most visitors who come simply do not stick around (I'll let you decide whether the laity brought them in or Joe, it makes no difference in this scenario...it's extraneous info to the matter at hand)....game over.

J-roc. Can I ask you something? My first post made no disparaging comment towards you or about you. I simply noted it's not just the pastors job. You saw that as an oppurtunity to accuse me of something.

If it was a poor person wondering about tithing because his pastor was not charismatic enough to attract a following I would have answered the same. I am wondering why you feel the need to respond that way to my initial posts with an accusation to my motive when I didn't accuse you anything.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

J-roc. Can I ask you something? My first post made no disparaging comment towards you or about you. I simply noted it's not just the pastors job. You saw that as an oppurtunity to accuse me of something.

If it was a poor person wondering about tithing because his pastor was not charismatic enough to attract a following I would have answered the same. I am wondering why you feel the need to respond that way to my initial posts with an accusation to my motive when I didn't accuse you anything.

It is in them brother. Why do the heathen rage???????????????????????
It is natural just read 2Pet. 2 & Jude.........

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

MOW,

I respect your practice of accountability to the flock you oversee, but you have yet to prove what you do is Biblical. I commend Rick Warren also. You are doing what you believe is right, that's great.

If the people of God were blessed materially then the priests of God were blessed as well. There were some priests who abused their position (the sons of Eli). Despite their wicked ways, they still received the tithe, but God judged them for their sin.

But what does the Bible say to do? Who does the tithe belong to?

I don' think that the "tithes belonging to the pastor" the way most do it today is what the Lord desires for His servants. Once again, the pastors are the chief servants, not the "kings." The Kings were rich, the priests, it seems, were not to be. There was a dividing line between kings and priests and it was not to be crossed by the other.

It is very convenient for those who feel that they deserve the tithe to interpret the OT the way they want for their purposes and sometimes selfish desires.

In both churches I have pastored, I worked a full time job to be able to afford to preach until I could receive a sufficient salary. i.e, when the income of the church AFTER expenses could pay me. I have NEVER placed my lifestyle on the backs of the people who give faithfully. I have loaned the church money from my personal credit cards when the offerings were short of what we needed. I RARELY take up special offerings and when I share a need before the church, they know it is a need and it is always met.

I believe it is completely wrong and immoral for a pastor, say, of a 5000 member church to believe that he is entitled to ALL of the tithes. Biblically, the tithes would go to ALL those on staff to take care of the "Levites." It is NOT that the entire tithe belongs to the senior pastor and everyone else, including the church, must fend for themselves. This philosophy is so self serving, that to me, it is sickening.

Our church board has repeatedly come to me over the years and almost demanded that I take a pay raise. I have tried very hard to not drain our finances with my salary.

If more pastors would exercise self control and keep their personal debt under control, they wouldn't have to tap so heavily into the church's finances. My wife and I have 1 house payment and 1 car payment. We own three cars and have a very nice home. We are bargain shoppers and if something is not a "deal" we don't buy it.

If pastors take ALL the tithes in their churches, they should be the TOP givers of their entire congregations. I would not be ashamed to publish my personal giving since I have pastored this church and I wouldn't DARE publish anyone else's. The more people see a pastor's example of giving (not taking) the more they will follow that example and will also trust the man of God as well. This is not rocket science.

The lack of understanding of this simple "serve" principle is one of the things that is crippling the Apostolic movement. Far too many "lord" their leadership over the people.

[J-Roc]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Nice try, but you erroneously suggested it was the Pastors job to attract a following. No amount of posturing on your part is going to cover that up. It's NOT the pastors job. It's everyones job. Therefore your error is in suggesting Daddi Warbux is paying the Pastor to attract a following when it's just as much his job as anyone elses. The Pastors job is to train them, not be charismatic and tell jokes.

How long will you persist on this silly red herring...

...in this scenario it doesn't matter that 100 or 1000 were brought in, he was so dull, he didn't attract a following....is that so difficult to understand that you have to go twisting this into a meaningless issue about attraction....get with the program, Prax.

[J-Roc]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

J-roc. Can I ask you something? My first post made no disparaging comment towards you or about you. I simply noted it's not just the pastors job. You saw that as an oppurtunity to accuse me of something.

If it was a poor person wondering about tithing because his pastor was not charismatic enough to attract a following I would have answered the same. I am wondering why you feel the need to respond that way to my initial posts with an accusation to my motive when I didn't accuse you anything.

Prax, you stated this idea about the rich guy sitting on his "moola"....when this is a scenario about tithing, why insert this picture of someone that is seemingly unproductive by the picture you paint of him sitting on his "moola"....what was that about....why did you go there...why did you entertain that thought of Daddi...that lead me to ask you if there was an issue.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

How long will you persist on this silly red herring...

...in this scenario it doesn't matter that 100 or 1000 were brought in, he was so dull, he didn't attract a following....is that so difficult to understand that you have to go twisting this into a meaningless issue about attraction....get with the program, Prax.

Why do you have to be so abrasive J-Roc? My point wasn't meant to be a personal attack on you. The pastor is NOT responsible to attract a following. He is not supposed to be a main attraction.

As for a meaningless issue about attraction, it was your post to begin with that said he was unable to attract a following, not me. That doesn't make sense. On the one hand you made this an issue of his ability to attract a following and when I say that's not his job you tell me I am the one making it an issue of attraction?

It's NOT the pastors job to be entertaining or not boring. If he is not feeding the sheep, that is another issue, but his job is NOT to attract a following. Sheep aren't supposd to be followers of charismatic preachers anyways. We are to be followers of Jesus and it's just as much the laity's job to lead sinners to Christ as it is the Pastors. His role though, as a pastor, is to train the laity and watch over them, not be entertaining.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

Prax, you stated this idea about the rich guy sitting on his "moola"....when this is a scenario about tithing, why insert this picture of someone that is seemingly unproductive by the picture you paint of him sitting on his "moola"....what was that about....why did you go there...why did you entertain that thought of Daddi...that lead me to ask you if there was an issue.

My response to your initial post is that the Pastor does not receive tithes just because he is entertaining. I entertained the thought because Daddi was the ONLY character in your little drama. I commented on both the Pastor and Daddi. Your scenerio portrays him paying tithes to the Pastor based on the Pastors ability to attract a following as if that was the Pastors job and my point was that it's just as much Daddi's job and tithing was not about how boring or entertaining the pastor is. BTW you did more than just ask me if there was an issue. See, you made it personal.

[J-Roc]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I don' think that the "tithes belonging to the pastor" the way most do it today is what the Lord desires for His servants. Once again, the pastors are the chief servants, not the "kings." The Kings were rich, the priests, it seems, were not to be. There was a dividing line between kings and priests and it was not to be crossed by the other.

It is very convenient for those who feel that they deserve the tithe to interpret the OT the way they want for their purposes and sometimes selfish desires.

In both churches I have pastored, I worked a full time job to be able to afford to preach until I could receive a sufficient salary. i.e, when the income of the church AFTER expenses could pay me. I have NEVER placed my lifestyle on the backs of the people who give faithfully. I have loaned the church money from my personal credit cards when the offerings were short of what we needed. I RARELY take up special offerings and when I share a need before the church, they know it is a need and it is always met.

I believe it is completely wrong and immoral for a pastor, say, of a 5000 member church to believe that he is entitled to ALL of the tithes. Biblically, the tithes would go to ALL those on staff to take care of the "Levites." It is NOT that the entire tithe belongs to the senior pastor and everyone else, including the church, must fend for themselves. This philosophy is so self serving, that to me, it is sickening.

Our church board has repeatedly come to me over the years and almost demanded that I take a pay raise. I have tried very hard to not drain our finances with my salary.

If more pastors would exercise self control and keep their personal debt under control, they wouldn't have to tap so heavily into the church's finances. My wife and I have 1 house payment and 1 car payment. We own three cars and have a very nice home. We are bargain shoppers and if something is not a "deal" we don't buy it.

If pastors take ALL the tithes in their churches, they should be the TOP givers of their entire congregations. I would not be ashamed to publish my personal giving since I have pastored this church and I wouldn't DARE publish anyone else's. The more people see a pastor's example of giving (not taking) the more they will follow that example and will also trust the man of God as well. This is not rocket science.

The lack of understanding of this simple "serve" principle is one of the things that is crippling the Apostolic movement. Far too many "lord" their leadership over the people.

I don't expect to read a concurring comment from Elder Epley.... this is a "don't mess with the bread and butter" issue ...and they don't want the boat to rock.

I am glad that there are pastors who aren't afraid to speak truth in this matter...thanks MOW for stepping out and confronting this and I truly appreciate your passion here.... you're right, it aint rocket science.... but some have the audacity to bite the hand that feeds them....

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

I see you have a pre-conceived notion about wealthy people and picture them sitting on their "moola"? Is there any bitterness reserved toward the rich?

See, that was not simply a question. You made an assertion and an assumption about me personally.

[J-Roc]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Why do you have to be so abrasive J-Roc? My point wasn't meant to be a personal attack on you. The pastor is NOT responsible to attract a following. He is not supposed to be a main attraction.

As for a meaningless issue about attraction, it was your post to begin with that said he was unable to attract a following, not me. That doesn't make sense. On the one hand you made this an issue of his ability to attract a following and when I say that's not his job you tell me I am the one making it an issue of attraction?

It's NOT the pastors job to be entertaining or not boring. If he is not feeding the sheep, that is another issue, but his job is NOT to attract a following. Sheep aren't supposd to be followers of charismatic preachers anyways. We are to be followers of Jesus and it's just as much the laity's job to lead sinners to Christ as it is the Pastors. His role though, as a pastor, is to train the laity and watch over them, not be entertaining.

Prax, don't you realize the issues you raise have nothing to do with the issue that is being raised...I added a ficticious scenario to address the real matter at hand....so why are we going to make this a red herring debate...it's pointless.