Show Me the Money

[J-Roc]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Your scenerio portrays him paying tithes to the Pastor based on the Pastors ability to attract a following.

This is absolute conjecture, Bro...the only thing we know about Daddi is that he is member here and that he earns 80 million per annum. (We dont know his motives for being a member and it is irrelevant.) In fact, I didnt even portray him paying tithes to this church and simply asked the question as to whether he should pay 10% to the church Joe Preacher pastors.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

Hypothetical Scenario:


Joe Preacher is a pastor of a 20 person congregation...and the church size has been around this same relative number for the past 15 years. Joe Preacher just doesn't seem to attract a following, not because of anything morally wrong, but simply because he is a dull speaker, has a monotone voice and really does not go into much depth in his teachings. So, most who visit, simply do not stick around. However, there is one member, Daddi Warbux, of this small congregation that earns $80 million annually. Should Daddi be tithing $8 million a year (10%) to this church and should Joe Preacher live as a millionaire as a result of this one person's tithing?


What say ye?

Originally Posted by J-Roc

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.

That's not true at all. You DID raise the issue of the boring pastor and the guy tithing because the boring pastor could not attract a following, correct? Was that a different thread? Nope. How can that be a red herring when you raised the issue and asked the question of his tithing or not because the pastor was so boring he could not attract a following. Was that not what you asked?

Then I reply it's NOT the pastors job to attract a following. That is not a red herring. A red herring is an argument that points away from the original topic. Your topic is the pastor who was boring and the rich dude should pay tithes or not because the pastor was so boring he could not attract a following.

Tithing is not about how entertaining the pastor can be. Attracting sinners to the Lord is not HIS job as a paster. We have soul winning backwards. We think soul winning is bringing someone to church and then hoping the pastor is witty and entertaining enough to make them want to keep coming back.

Therefore the question of whether or not he should tithe has nothing to do with how boring the pastor is or church growth particularly if the saints wrongly think it's his job.

That's my opinion

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

This is absolute conjecture, Bro...the only thing we know about Daddi is that he is member here and that he earns 80 million per annum. (We dont know his motives for being a member and it is irrelevant.) In fact, I didnt even portray him paying tithes to this church and simply asked the question as to whether he should pay 10% to the church Joe Preacher pastors.

I did not speculate as to his motives for being a member. You asked if HE should tithe out of his rich income (like it should matter more if you are rich and not poor) based on the ability of the pastor to gain a following.

He should pay tithes in whereever church he attends. It should not be based on how well the performance of the Pastor goes. If he and other members don't like him, find another church or vote in a new pastor or pray more for the current one. However I reiterate it's NOT the pastors job to be entertaining enough to attract a following. Nor is that the basis on which we should decide to tithe or not

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

This is absolute conjecture, Bro...the only thing we know about Daddi is that he is member here and that he earns 80 million per annum. (We dont know his motives for being a member and it is irrelevant.) In fact, I didnt even portray him paying tithes to this church and simply asked the question as to whether he should pay 10% to the church Joe Preacher pastors.

BTW no it is NOT absolute conjecture. It's your own words. You pointed out joe preacher is boring and can't gain a following and that is the basis of the question of whether or not Warbux should tithe...right? if not then how are the two connected? Why did you bring up this pastor being boring and then ask about daddi tithing if you were not connecting the two? How can you say that is conjecture?

[J-Roc]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That's not true at all. You DID raise the issue of the boring pastor and the guy tithing because the boring pastor could not attract a following, correct? Was that a different thread? Nope. How can that be a red herring when you raised the issue and asked the question of his tithing or not because the pastor was so boring he could not attract a following. Was that not what you asked?

Then I reply it's NOT the pastors job to attract a following. That is not a red herring. A red herring is an argument that points away from the original topic. Your topic is the pastor who was boring and the rich dude should pay tithes or not because the pastor was so boring he could not attract a following.

Tithing is not about how entertaining the pastor can be. Attracting sinners to the Lord is not HIS job as a paster. We have soul winning backwards. We think soul winning is bringing someone to church and then hoping the pastor is witty and entertaining enough to make them want to keep coming back.

Therefore the question of whether or not he should tithe has nothing to do with how boring the pastor is or church growth particularly if the saints wrongly think it's his job.

That's my opinion

Wow...you are truly amazing the way you read into things....you make things that aren't appear as if they were....you are dead wrong about the idea behind this scenario...it has nothing to do with whether the rich guy should pay tithes because the pastor is boring as you assert....this is truly warped comprehension. You missed the mark and are out in left field on this one. Everything I highlighted in red is way off and is completely false. Nothing was "because" what you thought it was.

[J-Roc]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I did not speculate as to his motives for being a member. You asked if HE should tithe out of his rich income (like it should matter more if you are rich and not poor) based on the ability of the pastor to gain a following.

He should pay tithes in whereever church he attends. It should not be based on how well the performance of the Pastor goes. If he and other members don't like him, find another church or vote in a new pastor or pray more for the current one. However I reiterate it's NOT the pastors job to be entertaining enough to attract a following. Nor is that the basis on which we should decide to tithe or not

Prax, all I can say is that you have misunderstood this all and it is too burdensome to rescue you and bring you back on point....you're on your own, Friend...I can't carry you on my back on this one.

[J-Roc]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

BTW no it is NOT absolute conjecture. It's your own words. You pointed out joe preacher is boring and can't gain a following and that is the basis of the question of whether or not Warbux should tithe...right?

WRONG....very very WRONG

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

Hypothetical Scenario:


Joe Preacher is a pastor of a 20 person congregation...and the church size has been around this same relative number for the past 15 years. Joe Preacher just doesn't seem to attract a following, not because of anything morally wrong, but simply because he is a dull speaker, has a monotone voice and really does not go into much depth in his teachings. So, most who visit, simply do not stick around. However, there is one member, Daddi Warbux, of this small congregation that earns $80 million annually. Should Daddi be tithing $8 million a year (10%) to this church and should Joe Preacher live as a millionaire as a result of this one person's tithing?

My Comment...note the blue and the red. It sure LOOKS as if you are connecting the two...the "however" suggests so if the two being in the same post does not.




What say ye?

Originally Posted by J-Roc

Wow...you are truly amazing the way you read into things....you make things that aren't appear as if they were....you are dead wrong about the idea behind this scenario...it has nothing to do with whether the rich guy should pay tithes because the pastor is boring as you assert....this is truly warped comprehension. You missed the mark and are out in left field on this one. Everything I highlighted in red is way off and is completely false. Nothing was "because" what you thought it was.

Then I have to ask again, why even mention the Pastor is boring and can't attract a following if Warbux paying tithes has NOTHING at all to do with the pastors ability to attract a following? Im not reading that into what you said, you did say he was boring and unable to attract a following THEN you asked if Warbux should pay tithes and that pastor should be rich because of it...again if the two are not in anyway connected then WHY even raise the issue yourself of the pastor being boring and not able to attract a following if it has NOTHING to do with the question of Warbux tithing?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

WRONG....very very WRONG

I've quoted you twice so far. What was the point in YOU mentioning the pastor is boring and unable to attract a following if it was not related to the question you asked?

[crakjak]

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.

Again, well said MOW!!