John_C said:
Pilgrim said:
So, let's take a hypothetical example, although it is probably all too real for some. You are working two jobs and bring home $250/week. Your monthly obligations, which include no "luxuries", total $999. So, if you distribute your alleged obligation of a 10% tithe, i.e. $100, to your local church and other agencies, who would you suggest you do not pay what is owed? Do you slight your rent/mortgage payment? eat less? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> Would you suggest that a family of 5 live in a 2-room apartment which is less costly so that this 10% tithe can be met?

Inquiring minds wanna know. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Although I side with the tithing side, the question you raised points out that the obligation is a two-way street. Meaning, that if the church expects members to tithe; those members who cannot provide for their needs should receive help from the church in meeting the need.

Churches often bemoan the fact that people are not tithing. However, churches remain silent when it comes to fulfilling its obligations to tending to the needs of its people.

The church should expect its members to tithe, but it should be eager to jump in to help out those members who are in economic straights. In the case you cite, the person should pay his $100 monthly tithe, but the church should meet the $999 obligation, or at least a substantial part of it. Then both sides are meeting their obligations.

That makes a lot of sense, John. In a church with Biblical leadership, the Deacons would most likely have a fund to provide assistance to a family in those circumstances.