By Reese Currie, Compass Distributors

In the wake of pope John Paul II’s death, I read a story in the Canadian Globe and Mail newspaper about the Roman Catholic Church’s battle with evangelical denominations for the people of Africa.

It would seem that Islam, Catholicism and evangelicalism (mostly in the form of Pentecostal churches) are the three fastest growing religions on that continent. It would seem that the "mainline" Protestant churches, which do a considerable amount of humanitarian work in Africa, don’t even rate a mention.

One thing that concerns observers is the evangelical emphasis on tithing. To quote the article, "The evangelical religions heavily emphasize tithing, a practice that some commentators believe resembles the sacrifices of food or livestock that are a key feature of many indigenous African animist religions. Tithing is also controversial because often it is the very poor who give their desperately needed income to unaudited, privately run churches." ("Catholics Fight For Heart of Africa," Stephanie Nolan, Globe and Mail, April 14, 2005.)

Are the commentators right to be concerned? Should tithing have the emphasis it has in evangelical churches?

In the Bible, mandated tithing is found only under the Law. It is not found as a requirement of the New Testament church, nor was it a requirement of the Hebrew people prior to the Mosaic Law.

Under the Mosaic Law, one of the twelve tribes of Israel, the Levites, was set apart to be a tribe of priests. The Levites’ inheritance was to be the offerings given to the Lord; unlike the other tribes of Israel, they had inherited no land.

Numbers 18:24 says, "For the tithe of the sons of Israel, which they offer as an offering to the LORD, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance; therefore I have said concerning them, 'They shall have no inheritance among the sons of Israel’" (NASB).

The purpose of the tithe was to compensate the Levites for receiving no land as an inheritance. In a sense, the tithe provided the Levites with "income parity" with the other eleven tribes. Assuming that the number of Levites was roughly the same number of people as in each of the other tribes in Israel, this works out.

The 11 other tribes all contributed 10% to the Levites, which would give them 110% of the wealth of all the other tribes. The Levites then contributed their own 10% of the 110% to the Lord, bringing them back down to 99%. Numbers 18:26 documents the requirement of the Levites to offer a tithe of the tithe they had received from the sons of Israel. "Moreover, you shall speak to the Levites and say to them, 'When you take from the sons of Israel the tithe which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then you shall present an offering from it to the LORD, a tithe of the tithe" (Numbers 18:26, NASB).

Assuming that some tribes were not as rich as others, this 99% would roughly work out to make the Levites about as well-off as the average tribe of Israel, even though they had no land of their own.

For "tithing" to make sense in the church age, we would have to see a similar ratio of Christian clergy to laity as the ratio of Levites to other Israelites. We have just estimated a ratio of perhaps 1 Levite to 11 non-Levites. Does this kind of ratio hold true in the church?

The below table offers clergy-to-laity ratios for the vast majority of American Protestant churches:

So the average number of lay people for one clergyman, in American Protestantism, is 347 to 1. But even taking the lowest ratio above (the Nazarenes, at one clergyman per 130 members), we see that tithing does not give the preacher "income parity." It would give the minister 1300% of the income of the average individual parishioner. The average across all of these denominations, were tithing enforced, would be 3470%.

Evangelical tithing enthusiasts point to an incident involving Abraham and a priest named Melchizedek as evidence that Christians must tithe.

Jesus is identified in Hebrews 6:20 this way, "Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" (NASB).

In Hebrews 7:1-2, we read, "For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all {the spoils,} was first of all, by the translation {of his name,} king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace" (NASB). This refers to an incident related in Genesis 14.

This text from Hebrews is considered by many evangelicals to be definitive proof that Christians must tithe. However, there are a great many disparities between modern evangelical tithing and the tithe that Abraham gave Melchizedek.

1. Melchizedek did not ask Abraham for any money, and certainly didn’t try to shame Abraham into paying him 10% of his spoils.
2. Abraham did not require others to give a tenth of their own wealth. In fact, he protected the shares of the men who went with him (Aner, Eshcol and Mamre) in Genesis 14:24. In that verse, Abraham says, "I will take nothing except what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their share" (NASB).
3. As Hebrews 7:2 says, Abraham gave Melchizedek a one-time offering of 10%, and only of the spoils of the battle (which were being split up at the time by all of the kings that had participated). Abraham did not make a life-long commitment to give 10% of all of his income to Melchizedek.

A tithing proponent may argue that the amount given goes to pay expenses beyond just the minister’s salary. For instance, many churches employ a secretary, and some perhaps a janitor.

However, to justify a tithe on that basis, a church would have to employ a number of employees amounting to 1/12^th of the church population (giving it a relatively equal proportion of Levites to other Israelites). So, for instance, a church of 347 people would have to have a staff of 35, or a church of 100 people, a staff of 8. The only churches with just one pastor in their employ would be churches of less than 24 people.

Also, to justify the tithe, all of those staffers would have to receive the same salary. I would be rather surprised if the Reverend Doctor Such-and-such would be willing to pay a secretary or janitor the same money he was making.

Christians tend to be somewhat "building obsessed," I suppose because the word "church" not only represents their fellowship but also the "church building." (This concept is from Christendom, not the New Testament; the first-century Christians did not have "church buildings" but met in homes and in some public places they didn’t own, like Solomon’s Portico.) In any case, in my experience it has frequently been stressed that the tithe is necessary for building expenses.

In fact, in the article that brought this topic to my attention, a poor African church member justifies paying the tithe on the basis that the money is going toward the building. "…Ms. Leroba, who pays her tithe gladly although she earns just $60 a week, said she is confident the money is used well. ‘My contribution is going for our new cathedral. They don’t keep it for themselves,’ she said, pointing out that the building will hold 8,000 worshippers." ("Catholics Fight For Heart of Africa," Stephanie Nolan, Globe and Mail, April 14, 2005.)

It’s interesting just how amazingly unscriptural this position is. Tithes in Scripture never paid for the Temple. Taxes paid for the temple and its upkeep. This is not comfortable ground for the Baptist believer who stresses the "separation of church and state", but the fact remains that no religious edifice in Scripture was paid for with tithes. They were always built with state money, either from the treasury, or taxes.

Solomon paid for the first temple in Jerusalem from his wealth as Israel’s king. He received tribute from many nations (see 1 Kings 4:21-24) and he spent some of this tribute on the Temple. For instance, his payments to Hiram king of Tyre for his role in providing lumber for the Temple are described in 1 Kings 5:10.

When the temple was rebuilt, King Darius of Babylon wrote a decree emphasizing that tax money would be used for the full cost of the endeavor. "Moreover, I issue a decree concerning what you are to do for these elders of Judah in the rebuilding of this house of God: the full cost is to be paid to these people from the royal treasury out of the taxes of {the provinces} beyond the River, and that without delay" (Ezra 6:8, NASB).

In Matthew 17:24, it is clear that the upkeep of the temple is paid from taxes. The "two drachma" tax discussed there was a temple tax.

I certainly don’t advocate taking the state’s money to build churches, but the point is, biblically, the state did indeed pay for this, and tithes were simply never used for this purpose. As mentioned earlier, the early church did not have buildings. When the Catholic church was formed under Roman Emperor Constantine, he greatly financed their building efforts. In the Middle Ages, city guilds raised money to build the huge Gothic churches of their period. The Church of England, when it was formed, received churches taken back by the king from the Roman Catholic Church. Luther’s churches were taken back from the Catholics by the German princes. In Calvin’s Geneva the church and state were extremely intertwined. The point is, having no state involvement in the financial end of construction and maintenance of church buildings is a relatively new phenomenon.

Going back to Ms. Leroba’s story: she makes $60 per week, which means she gives $6 a week in her tithe. This money is going to build a church to house 8,000 people. Assuming the church is full, and they all make the same $60 per week Ms. Leroba makes, and all tithe the same $6, that church would be taking in $48,000 per week, or $2,496,000 per year. I suspect that would build quite a cathedral at African prices. With all due respect for Ms. Leroba’s math skills, I suspect there’s lots of tithe money left over after the building is paid for, but the tithing will still continue.

We do not dispute that, if you wish to be a part of a local church, you should contribute financially to pay for its expenses as you are able and as you deem reasonable. However, tithing is certainly not a requirement of the Christian age.

Our stance on tithing at Compass Distributors has never changed. Here I would like to reiterate the section on tithing found in the first writing we put on the web site, John Paulson’s book, "What Does the Bible Say About Salvation, Faith, Repentance." Tithing is one of the subjects referred to in the subtitle, "and eight other topics that are presented incorrectly by many of those who preach or teach or write about the Bible."

The Truth About Tithing is Copyright © 2005 by Compass Distributors.

Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

Scripture in the excerpt from John Paulson’s book, "What Does the Bible Say About Salvation, Faith, Repentance" taken from The Holy Bible, New King James Version, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.) 1982.