The [Apostolic] Prosperity Gospel

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I remember when the church I attended tried a men's fellowship. It wasn't too shabby. We formed some good friendships... but we didn't get down into the nitty gritty like I've discovered in house churching. In our "check in" meetings the men gather in the basement and we go around the circle. Every man reports on his spiritual progress towards imaging Jesus. We talk about our lives, our marriages, our relationships, our children, our work, our struggles, and... our sins. It's not uncommon for there not to be a dry eye in that basement as we confess our weaknesses and sins to one another, expressing how badly we want to be like Jesus, and pray for one another. In the church I attended... the guys seemed too afraid to confess sin to one another. I don't know why. I suspect it was because the standard was so high, no one wanted to be looked down upon. But in the house church people lovingly ask the difficult questions you might be afraid or ashamed to answer. People confess the hidden sins they aren't comfortable talking about. It's very cleansing and life changing.

Considering some responses on the "sexting" thread, this should be no surprise.

[Titus2woman]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Considering some responses on the "sexting" thread, this should be no surprise.

People are always 'mouthier' in places where they are anonymous. Most folks know lots of people who have fallen off into sin and when they see them all they say is 'Been missing you'...

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

The reason conversations about tithing are rarely productive is because you're using the same words, but hearing different meanings. When you tell someone - 'I don't believe in tithing', what they HEAR is - 'I don't believe in giving to my local church, or at least not very much'. Might not have been what you meant, but that's what they HEAR. And so they think - 'You're a tightwad'. And close their ears to anything further you might say.

I certainly agree that often the term tithing is synonymous with giving, and that a knee-jerk reaction most usually follows such a declariation.

But, WHY IS THAT? Is it not because we are not teaching New Testament giving correctly and in context in the first place? For example if I am talking to someone who attends a Methodist church, a Church of Christ, a Bible Church, etc. They understand perfectly that tithing was something done under the Law and there is no such knee-jerk reaction.

Why is there no such knee-jerk reaction? Because when they have been taught giving in the past, they were taught giving in context. What has beeen done is the concept of tithing has been taken right out of the Law and applied to the church, plain and simple. Its a square peg in a round hole it will never work. If churches taught giving correctly in the first place the term tithes would no longer be synonymous . However even that argument is a bit weak because quite regularly when the offering is taken up (why can it not just be called an offering?) it is "time to give of our TITHES AND OFFERING." The obvious connontation is that there is a distinction between the two. And in the case of one of the preachers I have quoted in this thread, there seems to be a three fold giving expected namely 1)tithe 2)offering, also called "regular commitment" and 3)special offerings/needs.

If this debate were mearly a quibble over terms it would have been solved long ago. At its very core one theology is based on grace and one theology is based on Law.

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

If anyone wants to have a productive discussion on the subject, it might help if you change the terminology a little, or approach the subject from a different angle. If you start out with - 'I believe in supporting my local church and pastor, I believe it's good to give even MORE than 10% if you can.... but I don't believe that the exact number 10% is a LAW that is placed on the New Testament church......" - you might find ears a little more open to your discussion.

I don't think there's anyone on either side of the debate who disagrees with you there. Of course its going to help if your opening line is "I believe we should give MORE than 10% to the local church and pastor." There'd be no more kickback on that than if you started the conversation by saying (and this IS the position of some) the minimum level of giving should be 15% because Malachi said you've robbed me in thithes AND offerings. If a tithe is 10% an additional 5% offering isn't unreasonable."

It absolutely is NOT the way to have a conversation, for it is conceding a point before it starts. Its kind of like the president of a (hypothetically) Christian nation going to other nations of the world who hate us and disagree with us and giving a speech that says basically "America is terrible, we apologize for everything we ever did to slow you radical Islamic government from abusing its own people, we're no longer a Christian country, and in fact are the worlds biggest Muslim country, so now lets talk." That is simply not the way to get to the heart of the issue. The issue isn't the terminology it is the theology.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

I think the house church thing has become slightly romanticized. It sounds great in theory, but if you follow it out to its completion, you can see how churches ended up in church buildings.

Years ago, my parents started a prayer meeting in our house. Started small, and grew. We ended up with 60+ people in our house each week, about 20 of them children. It became problematic. My and my brother's rooms were getting destroyed each week from so many children playing in them, the house was cramped. My mom would clean all day before, and then have to clean all day afterwards. Logistically, it just wasn't working out. So, we moved the prayer meeting to the church, where it worked much better. (since the building was built for the purpose of accommodating a lot of people!)

That, right there, is how the modern church building came to be. It was just more practical.

Are there some problems with our modern ways of having church? Yes. But, as Aquila pointed out, the house church model isn't perfect either.

I've come to learn that there is no such thing as perfection. We should try to get things as close to right as possible, but sometimes as humans we just have to do the best we can with what we have.

Right, the logical conclusion of the house church is that it is so successful that a bigger meeting place is needed. But churches rarely decide to go the frugal route when going through the building process. Its normally spare no expense up to the mount of the loan. For example, look what we spend on pulpits alone (in most cases).

I think for the most part that ALL church denominations have basically copied the roman catholic model of building extravagant.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

Good point!

It is deeply ingrained! I had a late night conversation with a friend from church last night via telephone. She called to ask me to pray regarding her transportation situation. Her family is without a car that runs and they live out in the country. Her daughter is only 8 and it is a long walk to the bus stop and we've had a lot of heavy rain and she has missed school. I know her husband makes a good living so I asked if she would mind sharing what they are spending their money on as supernatural help is not always required for a natural problem and having gone through debt counseling many years ago I am now a stickler for budgets.

Now these folks do have a lot of bills above a mortgage and utilities... medical expenses and no insurance, a son with fines to probation, just to name a few. Really nothing they could just quit paying unless they let their furniture be repossessed. And they tithe and give offerings of $600 a month to the church. So I suggested that maybe they could cut that back enough to make a payment on an economy car. Maybe by half. She just can't she says because she believes that something terrible will happen. That her husband will loose his job or that her son will fall back into drugs.

So I asked if she had stopped paying tithe when her son fell into drugs the first time or when any of the calamities that befell their family and left them without transportation were happening... Well of course not she says... she has ALWAYS BEEN FAITHFUL.

So knowing that the pastor lives in an upscale suburb (not in the area where the church is), just got a new lake house and has two cars and a Harley Davidson motor cycle and the associate pastor takes some really nice vacations and is sporting a couple of nice new suits and the fellowship hall was just redone... I asked her about maybe going to the church for help... But of course she feels she can't do that because they do have a house (they live in an older model mobile home) and food... and well... you just don't ask your church for help unless you are without groceries...

Where did these ideas come from? Well from the ministry that lets their congregants go without while they have a huge surplus of course! Who would want to look like a tightwad in front of those people?

I HAVE SEEN THIS SCENARIO. THIS IS WHAT I HATE AND WHY I HATE IT SO BADLY. Because it destroys the needy. The needy are not just people who are sleeping in shelters or living in projects. The poor are not just beggars.

Tithing in events like this so badly distorts God's character that it is nigh unto blasphemy. It causes people to serve God because of fear. It causes them to believe that salvation can be attained/lost through money. It makes God a lien holder and a landlord. They must pay Him to keep him happy or risk his judgment. It puts the one true living God on the same level as the heathen gods, just some vidinctive deity who must appeased regularly or he is going to ruin your life and perhaps even burn you in hell forever and ever and ever and ever.

[Hoovie]

It sort of depends on what the level of expectation is for the building.

The meeting houses of my previous Mennonite denomination are very plain, could seat 600 people or more, and are built debt free. Most don't have electricity, have heat but not AC. The many double-hung windows provide reasonable circulation, and services are usually only held early Sun mornings. That helps keep things cool.

I don't recall hearing being an issue, even though there was no sound system and not much in the way of screaming preachers. .

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

Brother Jason, ....

Now, after reading the attempts of many here to discuss the tithing doctrine with their pastors and seeing that only one pastor who knew it was not scriptural, but would not do anything about it, what makes anybody think that the prosperity doctrine can be scripturally dismantled in a forum thread?

Great post, I'd like to reply to more of it later.

I would suggest not to get discouraged it is forums like this where conversation can go without being shouted down that the truth is able to come out. Both sides of the argument are rpesented, people are encouraged to study, and come to their own conclusion.

Pastors DON'T want to debate this topic. You can find all kind of religous debates all over the internet. Baptism, Godhead, Lord's Supper, Re-Marriage/Divorce, the Sabbath, and a hundred more. I've seached Google and Youtube and you cannot find a single legitimate tithing debate. I've challenged any pastor to debate the topic, and i would do so here on AFF or in person in a church, but of course there are no takers. If you've never checked out this thread, scan it, the first few pages are particularly entertaining.

An Open Challenge to Ministers: TITHING
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=25608

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

When I read comments such as this:
It makes me feel that no matter how one tries to discuss the tithing doctrine with preachers, you get the superior type of attitude by the pastor displayed above. Because the pastor went to seminary school and you did not, you could not possibly have enough of the Holy Ghost in you to correctly divide the scripture and keep it in context with what the writer is trying to convey?

I would say don't be discouraged. When I first started this journey in 2002 I thought I was the only one in the world who didn't understand tithing. I thought every church believed in it and every christian believed in it. But in reality relatively few Christians denominations actually teach it (especially as apostolics do, they are in the same class with Mormons, Church of God (the radical H.W. Armstrong wing) and charismatics. The Southern Baptist Convention believes in it, but many other baptists denominations do not. Methodists don't, Church of Christ don't, most Bible churches don't, etc.

Furthermore, most Bible commentators do not believe in tithing. People who really study the Bible don't normally ocme to that conclusions. For example, John MacArthur one of the most notable preachers of our time doesn't believe in tithing. John MacArthur, William Barclay, Warren Wiersbe all writers of extensive and extremely well known and reputable Bible Commentaries do not endorse tithing, but "grace giving." The list of famous Chrisitan leaders and Bible commentators who don't endorse tithing is rather long, but apostolics don't know it because they are a movement which minimizes Biblical learning as a whole, and because of the aversion to trinitarians many oneness people don't read commentaries and other such books. Amongst the oneness authorship there are few (if any) scholarly works and few Biblical commentaries. So because the laity is not well read, and when they read their Bible their hermenutic has been heavily influenced by the teaching they have received (they read the Bible with oneness-pentecostal glasses on), and the pastor twists scriptures so that he appears to be the God ordained authority in their lives, anointed and all but infallible and not to be questioned, they feel like everyone in the world beleives in tithing, when really it is just everyone in the little corner of Christianity occupied by oneness pentecostals.

The point I'm making in referencing these men (MacArthur, Barclay, Weirsbe) is not that they are the authority or infallible BUT my point is that it is not just a few radicals, or just some internet chatter, but is in fact the position held by the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of people who have wrote and studied extensivly on the Bible.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

It sort of depends on what the level of expectation is for the building.

The meeting houses of my previous Mennonite denomination are very plain, could seat 600 people or more, and are built debt free. Most don't have electricity, have heat but not AC. The many double-hung windows provide reasonable circulation, and services are usually only held early Sun mornings. That helps keep things cool.

I don't recall hearing being an issue, even though there was no sound system and not much in the way of screaming preachers. .

Exactly, there is no rule that says we have to build extemely nice, and in some cases over the top churches. We simply do it because we are materialistic.

I once attended a church with not even 20 people in a church that seated 100 easy. I attended there a few years, and we never grew over about 25 before falling back down around 15. And guess what, we were about to start a building program. Why? Becuase the pastor determined it was the building that was holding us back (a building we later sold, which is nothing special to look at, but its not a shack either. Had a foyer, sunday school rooms, nursey, plain but nice santuary, etc. Is a church to this day, and doing just fine). The comment was made several times as he and I looked at blueprints that we "had to make it nice-because people want to go to a nice church." Thankfully we never built, after we sold the church we moved to a storefront (while we still planned to build), but after a year a UPC across town (that had undergone an extensive renovation of an existing building and come into big debt problems) was in bad need of money and had a dwindling attendance of about 10. We took what we had from selling our building and were able to save that church, we merged to bring the congregation up to about 20 (we had about 10 by then, we weren't growing, we were dwindling, but still planning on building a grand ol church). Of course everything was talked about in the context of faith, basically "if you build it they will come." We had to just trust God that even though we never ran above 25 that it made sense to build a church that would seat a couple hundred(if that, it may have only been 150, not much bigger than where we already were).

More often than not this is the mindset of churches. I've never been a part of a church that wasn't looking to add on, except for the one I'm attending now, which is a Bible church, has a really nice and new paid off building and (guess what) doesn't believe in tithes, but has a box at the back of the sanctuary for any that would like to give. They don't beg for an offering, and money isn't a problem because people give anyway, you know, cheefrul free giving 9what a concept). We have gotten together to do things for Voice of the Martyrs to help speard the gospel in the judlges, did a thing with Samartians Purse to send Christmas gifts in shoe boxes to poor children in third world countries, tornado relief in Joplin, etc. The emphasis is on doing things that help others and using your resources to help others, and so far for the several months I've been attending giving money has been mentioned about 6 times it seems. Probably 4 of those were in reference to doing things that dierectly helped spread the gospel and provide peoples worldly needs and two of those were a reminder that there is a box at the back if you choose to give becuase they don't take up an offering and the church has been seeing several visitors and new people coming.

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

The reason conversations about tithing are rarely productive is because you're using the same words, but hearing different meanings. When you tell someone - 'I don't believe in tithing', what they HEAR is - 'I don't believe in giving to my local church, or at least not very much'. Might not have been what you meant, but that's what they HEAR. And so they think - 'You're a tightwad'. And close their ears to anything further you might say.

If anyone wants to have a productive discussion on the subject, it might help if you change the terminology a little, or approach the subject from a different angle. If you start out with - 'I believe in supporting my local church and pastor, I believe it's good to give even MORE than 10% if you can.... but I don't believe that the exact number 10% is a LAW that is placed on the New Testament church......" - you might find ears a little more open to your discussion.
In current Christian culture, the word tithing has become synonymous with 'giving to the church'. So when you say you don't believe in it, people are immediately turned off.

I think you're right in saying that the word tithing has become synonymous with "giving to the church". It's too bad we couldn't just stop using the word "tithe" completely because what it means to one person may not be what it means to another.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

The issue isn't the terminology it is the theology.

I never said there wasn't a difference in the theology. But if you want to be HEARD you may need to alter your terminology. It's basic communication.