Orthodox view on tithing

[Chuck S.]

Greetings in the name of the Lord!

I'm wondering what the Orthodox Church's stance is on tithing?

As a former protestant, I can say protestantism's view of tithing is really bizarre. Some protestants even go so far as to turn every parable of the Lord Jesus into something about money and tithing. (talk about making money one's god)

I know the tithing law was from the Old Testament...but obviously we're to give to God and the Church. (so I'm not trying to figure out how little we can give to God or anything like that)

But since I have protestant misunderstandings of this, what does Orthodoxy teach about this?


Orthodoxy doesn't seem to talk about this subject alot, does Orthodoxy say we should give 10%, or should we just try to give what we can and do so faithfully?

Like I said i'm not trying to find out how little I need to give...I want to give as much as I can...I'm just trying to figure out what the Church teaches on this issue.

Thanks....

In Christ, Thomas

[Fr Averky]

Dear in Christ Thomas,

The Christian ideal is to indeed tithe -10% of wages before taxes. Sad to say, this has been lost to many parishes over the years. I have found that when a new parish is being founded, and the priest makes this clear, then it usually can be done.

Most parishes find themselves relying on the generosity of a few, while the rest pay their minimal dues. If you personally can afford to tithe, please do so; if not, be just as generous as you can. When we are generous to the Church, we receive many blessings. If you ask your priest to serve a special service for you, be sure to give him a sum of money in gratitude. It is not "payment," but in a sense, giving of alms, and the giving of alms covers many sins.

I hope you will find this helpful.

Father A.

[Chuck S.]

Thank you very Father,

Yes, this is indeed extremely helpful.

I do have one follow up question...you mentioned the tithe is before taxes...I would have assumed it would be after taxes basing this on Jesus' words of rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God's the things that are God's....

Of course I'm not trying to challenge the Church or anything, I'm just wondering how this fits in, or how I'm misunderstanding what Jesus meant when He said this.

Other than that I completely understood everything else and will take your advice and try and use it.

Thanks again...

Thomas

[Owen Jones]

We have a very complicated tax system in which there are various ways to compute income. Someone can make a lot of money but have no "taxable" income. We get deductions for all sorts of things, including charitable contributions. So the point is that to make an "honest" tithe, it should be on our gross income, not on our net income after taxes and other expenses and deductions.

I think the command to render unto Caesar is not really about tithing, but about our obligations in general to those who are in authority over us.

I thought it was interesting that in the President's public tax returns, he tithes. It's 10% of his total gross income.

[Justin]

I tried to make a post earlier, but it doesn't seem to have appeared (I don't know if it got "eatin," or if I just exited the window without posting it (I was in a rush and perhaps forgot to hit submit after I hit the preview button). Anyway, here's essentially what I said (with one extra note now)

- Light-n-Life publishing has a small pamplet on the subject (search for "tithing" at their website).

- I think there is more at play here than simple financial stewardship--especially in America where we can afford to pay our priests and let him focus on healing (himself and others), but often we don't provide enough money and Priests (and/or Matushkas) have to worry about secular employment.

- When Israel tithed, they gave a portion of their first-fruits, which is why, I believe, we are suppose to give based on how much we made before taxes and other such things are taken out of our pay.

- Regarding rendering to Caesar, Tertullian had an interesting thought: "'The things which are Caesar's are to be rendered to Caesar.' It is enough that He set in opposition thereto, 'and to God the things which are God's.' What things, then, are Caesar's? Those, to wit, about which the consultation was then held, whether the poll-tax should be furnished to Caesar or no. Therefore, too, the Lord demanded that the money should be shown Him, and inquired about the image, whose it was; and when He had heard it was Caesar's, said, 'Render to Caesar what are Caesar's, and what are God's to God; that is, the image of Caesar, which is on the coin, to Caesar, and the image of God, which is on man, to God; so as to render to Caesar indeed money, to God yourself." (Tertullian, On Idolatry, 15 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-07.htm#P765_315024)).

So, if we are to give even an earthly government what it demands regarding money, and we are to give all of ourselves to God, how can we complain that a small percentage of our money is too much to give to God? If we are obligated to give what is due to the governing authorities, how can we refuse to give back to the One Who gave us our money to begin with, the One Who we claim to have given our entire lives, hearts, souls, and wills to in love?

[Fr Averky]

Dear Thomas and All,

I certainly agree with Owen in regards to "Render unto Ceasar..." not having anything to do with tithing, but with taxation itself. Christ's enemies, trying yet again to trip Him up, ask Him if it is rightful to pay taxes to Ceasar, for the Romans were seen tro be oppresors and idolaters. Christ wisely answered them saying "Render unto Ceasar that which Ceasar's, and unto God that which is God's."

In the Book of Leviticus it says:

"A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil, or fruit from the trees, belongs to the Lord.; it is Holy to the Lord."
Lev.27:30

In the Book of Malachi, the Lord says:

"Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the Lord Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have enough room for it." Mal. 3: 10

As I mentioned in my first post, Thomas, when we lovingly give as much as we possibly can to God, He richly blesses us in return. Of course, besides money, we should give our time and efforts for the benefit the Church and your own parish. When we do give, let it be quietly and thankfully - some people pay entirely for a new hall or a new gymnasium for their parish, with just one little proviso; that the building be named in their honor, not to the Glory of God or one of His saints. Give your money with no fanfare, like the Widow gave her mite, and for this you will receive blessings; those who "blow their own horns" have already received their reward, and it is in this world, not in the next.

In the Book of Deuteronomy, after also speaking about tithing, the Lord says:

"Be careful not to neglect the Levites as long as you live in your land."

As you know, the Levites where the Priestly Tribe, and it was from that tribe alone the priests were chosen to offer sacrifices in the Temple in Jerusalem. Last week I was talking to a fellow priest in another church, who was telling me that he had just baptized a young American man, and after that, performed the crowning service for him and a girl in his parish. He said that the girl's dress was very elaborate and expensive, and that everyone present was dressed in very expensive clothing. After the wedding, he and the Psaltis were "invited" to the banquet, and after he blessed the food, he and the Psaltis were basically forgotten and ignored. The wedding cost tens of thousands of dollars, but the "grateful" parents did not give one penny to the priest or the Psaltis! How often it is that people forget to show their appreciation to their priests, who work tirelessly on their behalf, giving up for the most part, their own personal lives. Of course the priests in some cases are paid well, but many are not, and even if they are, still, a token of thanks is not only proper, but should be thought of as very important. One time a parishioner said to me, "Father, the priest needs to be poor and humble in order to serve God; God keeps the priests humble, and we keep them poor!" I will not repeat my response to him.

Fr. A.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Fr. A.,

I hope you gave him an appropriately Biblical piece of your mind.

[Moses Anthony]

Hello All,

I believe that Justin is correct in saying that "there's more at play here than simple financial stewardship." Indeed if God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, and is in truth God Almighty, there's nothing we can give which would enhance His being.

If there's a question about the amount which we're to give as tithe, consider: from the inception of tithing the people of God tithed from what was harvested as income. It was after tithing that they took out what was needed for sowing and subsistance. Consider also that in addition to the tihte, there was also the offerings given into the storehouse.
At the time of the institution of the tithe there was only the Temple, and no central government to receive the tithe. The tithe is a gift, taxes are an obligation from which the sons are exempt, but they pay in order so as not to give an offense.

The widow's mite lets us know that what we give as tithe is a matter of how much we love the one to whom it is given. This is reiterated in Paul's story of taking up an offering for the Jerusalem Church: The churches were instructed to "set aside as they were able", which they did to such an overwhelming extent that the Apostle says "first they gave themselves to the Lord and then to us."

As Justin has correctly pointed out there's more at stake here than financial stewardship! The 10% is just a starting point, given in "...proportion as they could bear it!"

an unworthy servant

p.s. Consider also that we're to tithe of all which we have, time, talents, finances, and so on.

[Fr Averky]

Dear Justin,

The idea of the priest focusing on "healing himself and others" strikes me as a little "off" somehow, and as a priest, I am not comfortable with it. Such words as "healing," "nurturing," "guidance," and such are not really part of Orthodox pastoral nomenclature; it is interesting to see how Protestant terms have found their way into non-Protestant vocabularies; "Mission, " Mission Statement,: "Ministry," "Social Justice;" these words heretofore were very foreign to Orthodox Christians.

Recently, a new convert was talking to me about going to one of our monasteries, and he said to me, "I am very attracted to that monastery; they have a very good ministry, and I want to contribute to it." When I repeated his "thought" to some of the other senior Fathers, they actually found it to be a bit disturbing. From every aspect, the man's thoughts as he expressed them, had little or no Orthodox substance to it, displaying a basic lack of underestanding as to what Orthodox monasticism is.

Converts need to spend several years living humbly in a parish and learning about the life of a Christian. Unfortunately, after less than a year, there are men who want to be ordained, teach, preach, read the highest theological and spiritual material with no knowledge of what they are getting into, want to say the Jesus Prayer unaided, and with no guidance, but on the other hand, find it "too hard" to fast, rush through their prayers, miss church or are often late and have no idea what it is to confess one's sins.

Monasteries do not have "ministries," and when we enter a monastery, it is to flee from the world, weep for our sins, and struggle for salvation; we have nothing to "contribute." We converts always seem to approach things in the same self-assured manner; we need to be humble and thankful that we have found the True Faith, and start from there.

Dear Justin, it is Christ our Saviour who heals us; we poor priests can only do our best in our feeble way to direct others to Christ, for He, and He alone, is the Physician of Souls and Bodies.

All the best.

Father A.

[Fr Averky]

Owen,

Believe me, what I had to say had nothing to do with the Bible!

Fr. A.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Father A.,

Ah, yes, but there are some excellent insults in the OT, toned down in the English!

[Justin]

Father Bless,

Father A,

The terminology was in my mind since I'm currently reading through the book Orthodox Psychotherapy by Met. Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, in which he (it seems to me) uses such language and talks of such things. Have I misunderstood him?

[Justin]

PS. Thinking back, I think Met. Hierotheos mostly used the term "purify," though I'm pretty sure he also used words like "healing"... where have I misunderstood?

[Fr Averky]

Dear in Christ Justin,

Forgive me, but to be honest, not having read Met. Hierotheos' book as of yet, I do no know the exact context, and therefore the meaning of his words. I am not side -stepping here, for I will openly admit that I am personally not aware of such usage, at least, not by anyone that I know. Perhaps in the context of psychotherapy, and I am only guessing here, the word "healing" would be attributable to problems of the mind.

Years ago, when I was secretary to the Russian Bishop of Cleveland, a gentleman with severe mental problems would call the bishop very often for "advice," but then would either ramble on, or get upset or very angry. At first, the bishop was most patient and kind, but after several weeks of this, he asked me to talk to him and to relayt o him the message that the Church could not help him spiritually until he received treatment for his mental problems. Amazingly, the man agreed, sought out and received medical and pyschiatric treatment, and then was able to come to church, give a sincere and repentant confession, and joyfully received the Mysteries. In his simple but firm answer, the bishop had gtreatly contributed to the man's "healing," so I would be able to accept the word in that context. Of course, in the history of the Church, there have been those rare priests. like St. John of Kronstadt, by whose prayers, people were healed from their infirmities, but still, the "healing" there is a matter of God's love and mercy.

The bishop said to me after I had spoken to the long-suffering man, that up until recently, when people showed bizarre behaviour, or were in deep deep depression, it was all too often thought that they were "possessed," and those poor souls were often subject to the most brutal "treatments" to free them from the demons which tormented in them. In Russia, there were God's "Holy Fools", whose behaviour was many times completely outrageous, yet the pious merely accepted them as being "Blazhenii," and left it at that. But then, on the other hand, one of our older priests asked his grandfather, who had been born in St. Petersburg in the 1880's, if there was much madness in Russia at the time, to which his grandfather replied, "Given the society of the time, it would have been rather difficult to tell."

I understood your use of the word "healing" in a different context. When there has been a major tragedy, in a large city, or a region, or even in a family, it has become popular to say , "Let us move on with our lives, and "let the healing begin." Protestants, and now Roman Catholics, regularly schedule "Healing Services," and sometime nuns conduct them. Again, while there is the Mystery of Unction, it is still not understood in a context similar to those "healing services" devised by those outside of the Church. In regards to the Orthodox priesthood, as I said to you in my first response, we priests do no regard ourselves as "healers;" spiritual healing is acomplished by the individual's personal desire to restore his soul to good health, and by his humbly crying out to God, our Lord can and will send him the Grace needed to heal his soul. The priest's place is to accomodate and facilitate that specific relationship between the individual Christian and his God.

Again, forgive me if my answer is not what you are looking for, but I humbly submit it for your consideration - I am not challenging you, I just said that I personally never use such terms, nor do any of the priests I know. In these last days, we need to rely upon the Wisdom of the Fathers, and need to be very attentive to the usage of words, for when the Orthodox begin to use the nomenclature of non-Orthodox, it serves no purpose but to bring confusion to the faithful, and makes "fuzzy" the lines of demarkation. We must always be careful not to take a word out of one context, and apply it to another. Your context for "healing" came out of a book concerning pyschotherapy, but it was applied to the general activities of priests, and the duties of priests to their parishioners, with which I do not concur, and that is why it caught my attention.

Father A.

[Chuck S.]

Thank you everyone once again for helping me understand this issue.

It wasn't that I was trying to challenge it, I simply did not know the Orthodox view of it. (though I had an idea I wanted to be sure)


Thanks again everyone, I appreciate the insight.

Thomas

[Justin]

Father Bless,

Father A,

I'm hesitant to say more, but since the tithing issue seems to have finished up, let me ask you something. From what I understand, Met. Hierotheos is basically taking the patristic notion that one must be purified/taught before they can guide/lead others to purification, and explaining it with terminology of healing and therapy (since some of the Fathers sometimes contrast how much harder it is for priests to do their duties than medical doctors). The whole book is about the purification of the nous and salvation, but right now (as far as I've read) Met. Hierotheos has focused somewhat on how the clergy play into this. He does place God at the center of the healing, of course, but seems to place the priests as the instruments of God for this healing/purifying/etc. Given all this, do you think it is possible that he is speaking in a wholly Orthodox way? Have I perhaps misunderstood him (I realise you haven't read him so it's hard to say, but is what I am saying still sound strange)? I would be glad to provide some quotes if you'd like (of if you would like, you can read major portions of the text here (http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b02.en.orthodox_psychotherapy.00.htm)). Or if you'd rather just not discuss it further, I would totally understand. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Fr Averky]

Dear in Christ Justin,

I thank you very much for giving me the possibility to view part of the book of which you have spoken. I try not to discuss things out of my depth or things about which I know little or nothing.(And that entails quite a lot, in fact).With Summer being here, I spend a great deal of time working in my flower garden, which grows bigger every year. Give me a few days to read the excepts, and I will contact you. I would have to say that Met. Hierotheos is a wonderful Orthodox author, and I would not question his Orthodoxy. As I said in my second post to you, not having read the book to which you were referring, I initially understood "healing" in a completely different context.

The only general remark that I am prepared to make is that from my own limited experience, that gift of "healing" of which Met. Hierotheos speaks, is not given to every priest, for it, like all virtues, is a gift from God.

Sadly to the contrary, I know of many people who were damaged for a time by spiritual "physicians" who themselves were too sick to help anyone, and that is why in another thread I spoke about a few deluded monks calling themselves "elders." Some parish priests have fallen ito the temptation of seeing their priesthood as that which gives them "power" over the souls and lives of others; this too can be very damaging.

Your question might make an interesting new thread, since we are no longer discussing tithing.

Love in Christ,

Father A.

[Justin]

Father, Bless

Father A.,


The only general remark that I am prepared to make is that from my own limited experience, that gift of "healing" of which Met. Hierotheos speaks, is not given to every priest, for it, like all virtues, is a gift from God.

Well thank you for that, that alone is very helpful to keep in mind. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Fr Averky]

Dear in Christ Justin,

I am very busy at this time of year, so I still have not read the excerpt you so kindly supplied: However, during the last few days after my prayers, I sat quietly and thought about the priest as "Healer," and I arrrived at the following thought.

When the priest, humbly ackowledging his own weakness and sinfulness before the Lord, and further recognizes that his authority is spiritual, not judicial, hears the confession of one of the faithful, and by the Grace given to him in his unworthiness by God, gently leads the person confessing to see his errors, and kindly points out how sinfulness alienates all of us from the love of God, and furthermore, gives him good and solid advice as how he can begin to change his life and be saved, then he is indeed a "physician." However, all of this can be accomplished only by the humility and cooperation of the penitent, who seeing the love and concern from the priest, is moved to tears and to the conviction that he has sinned, but he not only has the possibility, but the the right, to throw himself at the feet of our Saviour, crying out for forgiveness, and has the comfort of knowing that with great love and tender mercy, the Son of God will reach out His Divine hand and say, "I forgive you, My child."

It is not easy or simple for such a relationship to grow between the confessor and his spiritual child, but when it does take place, both are given an abundance of Grace: the priest, to see how he should deal with the sins of the penitent, and the pentent, the Grace to ask God to reveal to him the depth of his sinfulness, to be able to confess openly, honestly and with no fear, and to put his trust in the priest before whom he has opened his heart and soul to God, and to accept his priest's good counsel. Thus, together, the priest and penitent are healing and being healed, for God's abundant Grace cleanses them both, and they in the end help each other towards salvation.

Dear Justin, forgive, me, for these are my poor weak and foolish thoughts, but I pray that they will help a little. Please pray for my sinfulness and lack of knowledge, and presuming to answer.

With much love in Christ,

Father. A.

[John Curtis Dunn]

I am going to resurrect this thread after a year of its inactivity. In doing so, I hope to return it to its original topic, i.e., "Should Orthodox Christians tithe." To refresh the reader's memory, Fr. Averky [of blessed and eternal memory] answered the question by saying: "The Christian ideal is to indeed tithe -10% of wages before taxes. His answer was subsequently side tracked onto a couple of secondary rails and became stalled there on. I hope to back the train up and see if I can move this discussion further down towards its original destination; which Thomas succinctly identified and worded saying: I'm just trying to figure out what the Church teaches on this issue.

One of the side tracks which stalled our discussion was chosen because of Fr. Averky wrote: " The Christian ideal is to indeed tithe -10% of wages before taxes. and this ideal was opem unto all US citizens until Pres. Roosevelt's adopted a policy to force the collection of taxes prior to wages being payed. Since that time, this option has become closed to all but a few. This being said; I doubt Fr. Averky was actually intending to write an opinion on or about public policy, so to follow that track would probably stall our discussion again.

Owen correctly noted that a few people have found creative ways to increase their incomes without actually earning wages. Some of these are "legal" others are no doubt "illegal." These terms are not to be confused with "moral" and "immoral;" though certainly there is a measure of similiarity. By legal, I simply mean that there are certain means of increasing wealth which governments sometimes recognize and categorize into that of tax exemptions. There are other means [which may not be immoral; i.e., such as barter] which tax laws do not categorize under exemption, and thus to not pay taxes on those is to act illegally. This also could stall our discussion, so moving on...

I take as the gist of Owen's comments, that the real measure to which the tithe must be calculated is more than wages, but rather should be according to all manner of personal "increase(s), i.e., all manner(s) of profit. If this was his meaning, I agree. However, I disagree with his opinion that rendering "unto Caesar is not really about tithing." For while it is not true in the USA [though there have always been some kinds of exceptions], it has been at other times in other places that the King has acted on behalf of the Church through taxes to ensure the Church received her portion of the common-wealth. But that track can also stall our discussion.

Both tithing and taxation share a common law or principle which the Apostle Paul identifies in Hebrews 7:7 "And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the greater." St. Paul is in the context discussing the tithe paid by Levi through Abraham to Melchisedec and there by proving that the Priesthood which is according to Melchisedec is greater than that of Levi. This latter point is also the foundation upon which we as Orthodox Christians are obligated to pay tithes, but as a general principle it also applies to the relationship between a citizen and his King [or govermental systems].

It is because of this principle that I cannot wholly assent to Owen's thought that our Lord's words about rendering "unto Caesar is not really about tithing." Both rendering to Caesar and rendering unto God are founded upon the law or principle of life that the lessor is blessed by the Greater. And in the relationship between governments and their citizens, the King [or govermental system] holds the common-good of its citizens and not only its citizens, but the aliens who reside within its borders. St. Moses wrote into the Mosaic Law this principle and when the Israelites were taken into captivity, this principle was reinforced by the Prophets and the greatest of examples, i.e., Daniel and the Three Hebrew Children. This also would be a side track which could stall our discussion, but it runs much more closely and further down the route which I am attempting to move our discussion.

Returning the reader to Hebrews 7:7, St. John Chrysostom notes that this law [priniciple] was the foundation not only for the Jews, but also for the Church. He only makes this observatin in passing, but it is forcefully stated: "For there indeed he declares Abraham to be the forefather both of our polity and also of the Jewish. St. John includes the Churches collection of tithes as having its foundation in Abraham's payment of a tithe to Melchisedec with his words, both of our polity....

We must take note of this argument, because there are some voices which attempt to define the payment of tithes as some kind of Mosaic Legalism [though there is no such thing] being enforced upon the Church. By using this argument some directly attack the Orthodox Church charging that its collection of tithes is evidence of it not being the true Church and that payment of tithes is an attempt to be found righteous through works. I hope no one among this community has been taken in by their logic [which as St. John's comments show is founded upon nefarious reasoning, albeit some hold to it in sincere ignorance not having ever been taught the truth].

Elsewhere, St. John clarifies that the Churches payment of tithes is not a re-establishment or a placing upon the Church any Mosaic constraints [in his homilies on Matthew]. Since I have already exceeded the limits which charity extends towards writing in these forums, I shall not quote that passage or offer any further comment thereon.

Hopefully I have succeeded at my intent to return this thread to its original course and again opened the discussion so we might together understand the Orthodox blessing of paying [or if you prefer: giving] tithes.

john dunn

[John Curtis Dunn]

Since I have already exceeded the limits which charity extends towards writing in these forums, I shall not quote that passage or offer any further comment thereon.
---

A note of clarification: I meant in that particuliar post, I reserve the right [sic] to do so in other postings.

john dunn

[Father Anthony]

Just a quick note regarding John Dunn's comments regarding tithing and Fr. Averky's comments...

When Fr. Averky was my assistant pastor here we went to great effort to teach and explain tithing as the Scriptural standard for Christian stewardship. His comments about "...10% of wages before taxes..." quoted by John referred to the simple reality that we pay our tithes on our *before tax income* - not the "net" or "take-home pay." So it actually had nothing to do with a reording of social policy.

Unfortunately, far too many wage-earners look only at the amount of their pay-check rather than the total earnings. If it were the other way around, we might actually see some social - or at least taxation - change!

Fr. Anthony

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I wanted to ask as a genuine and not challenging question: why is tithing to come from one's pay before rather than after tax? After all one's net income is what one really brings home and is one's actual available income. Why would one compute the 10% from an amount that seems theoretical and not real?
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father Anthony]

Fr. Raphael askes the excellent (and oft-asked question, btw) why tithing is to come from one's pay before rather than after tax, since one's net income is what one really brings home and is one's actual available income, etc...

Because the tithe is in reality a tax paid to God...it is not a donation. One could perhaps ask the civil authorities why we pay tax on income before the tithe, since the tithe is paid to God. But we all know what the answer would be.

Anyway, our tax is not determined until the end of the tax year, when even our tithes are deducted as provided by law, and any other deductible amounts are also deducted. So the amount on a pay-check is not necessarily even the actual "net" pay at all.

In addition, I think it is poor semantics (and logic) to say that our net pay is our increase. Even civil taxes at least theoretically are used to benefit us. Also, if we are going to deduct the amount of withheld taxes from the amount on which we pay our heavenly tax, what other deductions will we then also take: groceries, medicines, gasoline, alimony? It would be a slippery slope.

God blesses us when we obey Him. I do not know *anyone* who tithes who has not told me that God has inevitably paid the tithe back and more in His blessings.

Fr. Anthony

[Owen Jones]

Because one can have a large income on a net cash-flow basis and still have a very small taxable income, because of various investment tax credits, accounting losses, etc. Mrs. Teresa John Kerry Heinz is only in the 15% tax bracket!!!!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thank you for the answers. Yes I think I understand now.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Curtis Dunn]

"... why is tithing to come from one's pay before rather than after tax?"

This ia an excellent question and one which arises whenever the subject of tithing is discussed. Since I re-opened the discussion, I will quickly offer a lttle more than my .02 cents [that is about .161147 EUR]worth. I believe to correctly understand our obligation and blessing to tithe, we must also have an Orthodox understanding of prosperity.

To introduce my thoughts I want to offer a brief comment about Fr. Averky's comment: "The Christian ideal is to indeed tithe -10% of wages before taxes." In calling it an ideal, I suspect that he did not mean to excuse anything less than or prevent anything more than 10%. Rather he simply was acknowling the human condition in which many of us now presently struggling to become and live Orthodox-ically, find ourselves. However, I defer to Fr. Anthony to give or clarify further, since he knew Fr. Averky and his instruction on the matter.

I also recognize that many of us live in a society wherein being consumer oriented is the primary means of providing for our own welfare and that of our Parish. I personally believe this has many benifits economically, but I also recognize there are some detriments which have direct bearing upon our ability to realize the ideal. To realize the ideal may require much effort and assistance in ways of encouragement and even some actual hands on support. I believe without concerted effort or encouragement from our parish community, many can become discouraged and that would be worse than to not have achieved the ideal. Tithing is a communal behavior and not just an individual behavior, I believe this must be stressed, not just in words, but even more importantly in deeds; for these latter go further to re-enforce Christian growth and maturity than mere words. Our Parish must re-enforce the ideal that as Orthodox Christians our talents, gifts, skills and organizational capabilities belong to the whole Parish for the welfare and prosperty of all; and that all that we have should be at the disposal of our Bishops.

Furthermore, I believe until this becomes realized, it cannot be said that Orthodoxy has truly established itself in the hearts of a people of any parish, town, city, state, or nation. Of course, this is my personal opinon and I am open to correction if a more Orthodox perspective and understanding is put forward.

In my previous post I used a synonym for prosperity, i.e., "increase," but another synonym [albeit one which in my opinion is weaker] often used is :[success. This latter IMO seems to express personal achievement rather than the fuller meaning which prosperity conveys.

Perhaps my preference is due to my reading of the KJV where in we find Abraham blessing his servant saying: "The Lord, before whom I walk, will send His Angel with thee, and prosper thy way..." [Gen. 24:40] Meanwhile the word success is only found once KJV where it follows after becoming prosperous. "The book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth...that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success." [Joshua 1:8]

In their usage, success was used to convey becoming wise in contrast to prosperity which comes from God alone. Success depends upon discernment and opportunity; Prosperity however is a gift from God. This latter is exampled for us in the story of Melchisedec's blessing of Abraham where Melchisedec said: "Blessed be the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the Most High God who hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand." [Gen 14:19, 20]

Melchisedec comes to test Abram to learn whether Abram thought he was successful by his own might or whether he understood that it was the Most High God who had delivered Abram's enemies into his hand. It was then that Abram showed his faith by works, in that he responded to Melchisedec's blessing by giving tithes of all. [ibid.,]

Subsequently, Abraham by his tithe acknowledged that he and his servants were subject to the Most High God. Abraham rendered unto God that which was God's. before he gave the King of Sodom his claim.

Now then, when we tithe on our gross income, we are taking back a claim made upon us by our governments, many which now exact the tax before it is due in order to assure that it gets its share. Or another way to express this is to say; "the first-fruits belong to God."

When we tithe our gross we are choosing to identify ourselves as citizens of the Kingdom of Christ first and foremost; and we acknowledge that it is He who has prospered us. When we do this we make the Church our true homeland.

More could be added, but I probably have already written to much.

john dunn

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Fr. Raphael:

Bless!

In the Old Testament, we read that we are to bring our tithes from the "firstfruits." Consequently, the tithe comes from our "gross" pay rather than from the "net."

I am interested to know if Orthodox priests are required to tithe. I know that the Levitical priests were not required to tithe because their offering was the priesthood. But what about Orthodox priests?

Aaron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I am interested in this subject of tithes. I notice that many of you are using references from the Old Testament. Is tithing in North America a recovery of a tradition (ie- a recovery of an actual practice in Orthodoxy) or a renewal of Tradition? I ask in this way because in my reading of Russian history I do not find a tithe for the Church. Rather (especially from Emperor Peter & Empress Catherine) the overall needs of the Church were assessed. Part of this came from the poll tax of Church serfs; then there was the revenue from Church owned lands; there were legislated trebi (fees for church services); and also the village commune had to supply land and a house to the village priest. In a sense then 'rational budgeting' was how the Church in Russia was supported not a fixed unchangeable percent of one's assets.

Of course in the west the state (except in some European countries) ceased financial support of the Church. So we have the familiar story of dues, offerings, dinners, etc, etc. This latter is the situation that I came to in Orthodoxy and is what I am familiar with although I have heard of tithing.

Any insights on this topic specifically of how it is a renewal or otherwise of Orthodox Tradition would be greatly appreciated. Connected to this: if tithing IS truly a recovery of Tradition is the other conventional way necessarily wrong?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father Anthony]

Fr. Raphael asked if tithing is a western reaction/resurrection resulting from the government not being involved in supporting the Church, and if the "other conventional way" - dues, offerings, dinners - is necessarily wrong.

The rediscovery of tithing is, I believe, a result of the realities of church support today, and not only in the west. The government support of the church both made it financially unnecessary for the people to tithe (their taxes already went to pay for the Church), but made it possible for the clergy to forget their duty to teach in this area.

No, it's not wrong to use those other means for support. But they cannot morally displace the tithe. Alms of all kinds are required of us - *after* the payment of the tithe.

St. John Chrysostom had this to say about tithing (or the disregard thereof in his own day):

"For what did not they of old do? They gave tithes, and tithes again upon tithes for orphans, widows, and strangers; whereas someone was saying to me in astonishment at another, 'Why such an one gives tithes.' What a load of disgrace does this expression imply, since what was not a matter of wonder with the Jews has come to be so in the case of Christians? If there was danger then in omitting tithes, think how great it must be now."

The very mention of tithes brings out the screeching stinginess in many people, and it's sad that such is the case. Every clergyman who preaches on the subject knows that he can expect grief - and usually from whom in the parish.

This subject was recently discussed a bit on one of the Orthodox mailing lists, with much the same comments and results.

Fr. Anthony

[Lillian Grunzweig]

Should the tithe be before or after taxes?

This is an interesting question and one that I struggle with since I’m not an employee. I own my own business and therefore think about taxes, and the federal government differently than those who are employee/income minded. I know that I am not alone in this. The mindset of businesses owners is significantly different than employees and makes this argument completely irrelevant for business owners. The reason for this is because business owners and investors tend to separate an increase in assets from and increase in income. Income earners for the most part only ever deal with income.

Here’s where the problem comes in. It is possible to increase your assets to the degree that your income would not cover the tithe on those assets. If you truly tithe your increase you might have to sell some assets to make the tithe. Of course if you do that it will start a cycle of selling because you will be paying more taxes.

People need to understand that taxation drives people into poverty. That is why the government has intentionally left certain legal loopholes for people to get out of certain taxes. Most of those loop holes are geared towards the preservation of assets that generate income. Unfortunately most employees don’t have any assets. (The definition of asset that I’m using is anything that generates income with 0 time from the owner.)

All of this complication makes tithing a very individual thing. On what should the tithe be based? If it’s your increase than you need to count the equity in your home that appreciates every year as well as your before tax income. In fact if you are a stay at home mom then you might even consider that labor an increase and figure out a tithe on that as well since you don’t have to pay anyone for day care. I could go on and on with reasons why thinking about tithing in terms of a legalistic requirement is impossible to do. It’s also impossible to apply a strict standard to every single person.

If one family is over burdened by a 10% tithe and it means they need to get food from the food pantry to supplement shouldn’t some easement be given them? If they get food from the food pantry do they have to tithe on the value of it?

I think it’s fine to say generally people should give 10% and make that the goal, but it’s still a pastoral issue.

To even have a debate about whether tithe is before or after taxes already defeats the purpose of a tithe. I was taught in my Catechesis that the tithe, like prayer and fasting, is a spiritual discipline. It helps us to become aware of the fact that everything we have belongs to God and that the needs of the whole community should be our foremost concern. It also helps us to become less materialistic and less self-centered. If I sit and try to figure out what my minimal obligation to tithe is then I’m missing the spirit of tithing. Tithing produces something in the heart about brotherhood, self-denial, and my commitment to God…. And a great many mystical spiritual things in the same way fasting and prayer do. It can’t really be totally explained or defined. It’s not like tax or anything else we are accustomed to. It’s a familial, loving, obligation that we take responsibility for voluntarily.

Personally I don’t care if a person gives 2% of their income. It’s not about what other people are doing. It’s about what am I doing. The whole spirit of Orthodoxy is not to judge others. People have pretty heavy financial burdens and only they know the truth of their financial situation. I suspect there are some who are capable of giving a great deal more than 10% and would still be well off. If that is the case shouldn’t they give more?

Who’s to say? Not me. Probably only their spiritual Father could make that judgment. If I were in a position of wealth I would think that with greater blessing comes greater responsibility, but I can’t put a number on where my responsibility ends. If I see my brother’s child without food what would I not do to put food in his mouth and help my brother? When are we not our brother’s keeper? When is it acceptable to turn our backs when we are able to do something?

There is also the issue of trust in God. Many fear to tithe because they fear they will not have enough to meet their needs. That is a very real possibility. By facing this fear doesn’t tithing force us to be more responsible to God for our stewardship?

Isn’t all of life in Christ about stewardship anyway? Stewardship of relationships and stewardship of things? This issue of before or after taxes is only an issue if you think tithing has a limit. The 10% is symbolic of the entirety belonging to God and if everything I am and have belongs to God don’t I have to account before God for ever penny I don’t put toward the work of Christ to see if it was justified or not? We are not put on this earth to amass wealth for ourselves but to meet the needs of others. I grew up with the poorest people in this country. I have seen more generosity among those with nothing than among those with much in many cases. At the same time it was those with a surplus that helped me out of the pit of poverty to become who I am today. I still don’t make a lot of money but my attitude about it is different. Tithing is an attitude and if you have to ask before or after taxes you might be missing the point entirely.

But that brings up the issue of what if nobody tithed? Where would the Church be with no money? How will the parish pay for expenses? That’s a really good question. I don’t know the answer to it. Even prior to becoming Orthodox the attitude of tithing and not the legalistic requirement was the principal stressed. I’ve never been part of a parish in my 30 years on this earth including the Orthodox one I belong to now that ever closed their doors due to lack of money. But they never really got into the issue of whether or not a tithe should be before or after taxes either. I believe if the attitude of tithing is instilled in a person’s heart they will learn to be true servants and to a true servant what is 10% of their earnings? It’s hardly enough to give only that if there is still a legitimate need in the community.

[Anastasia Theodoridis]

> I believe the Orthodox are not subject to the Mosaic Law, even the law of tithing. It's a good discipline, something to shoot for, but not, strictly speaking, an obligation. Orthodox Christians should give from the heart, according to the leading of the Holy Spirit. The should give more than the tithe if they can. Some should give a lot more that 10%. They should not feel bad, however, if they can only give less, whether that inability is from true financial hardship or lack of faith or some combination -- so long as they are being strictly honest about it before God, Who can't be fooled.

Anastasia

>

[John Curtis Dunn]

I am not meaning to single out Anastasia, but her comment needs a rebuttle, because I see and hear it stated by a number of people. It creates a false dichotomy between the Old and New Testament or the nation of Israel and the Church.

She wrote: "Orthodox Christians should give from the heart." and who would disagree with that? This however is not any kind of sound argument against tithing [though there is no real argument, since it is a matter of record that tithing was practiced from the Church from the beginning. [more can be expounded on this latter]. Fr. Anthony has correctly noted The government support of the church both made it financially unnecessary for the people to tithe (their taxes already went to pay for the Church)."

An Orthodox Christian should have his or her heart in every aspect of their worship of God. To suggest in any way that tithing is not an obligation on all Orthodox Christians, simply because their individual hearts are not in it, can also become the reason for not attending the services, for not ordering our routines and even our work schedules to enable us to attend as many and much of the Churches services as possible. Indeed, often hear people who attend Church infrequently expressing that their heart was not in it; as if that excuses them from their obigation.

Church attendence and keeping the commandments, the statutes, and the ordinances which the Church has given to us is how we escape being "conformed to this world," and how where we struggle together towards "the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable, and perfect will of God." [Rom. 12:2] If our hearts are not into keeping the commandments of Christ [who never abrogated tithes, but instead stated "these [tithing] ye ought to have done, without neglecting the weighter matters of the law [i.e., righteousness, justice and mercy.] [Matt. 23:23]

Do we only offer evening and morning prayers when we "feel' our heart is in it, or do we follow a rule to train and discipline our hearts so that our conscience is pricked when we deviate from the Church and faith?"

Orthodox Tithing does not place the Church or the individual under the Mosaic Covenant. The Church is the embodiment of the Covenant of the New Testament. If she mandates tithing, it is based upon her own authority as the Church of Christ, not upon Moses. Likewise, when she makes use of the Old Testament, she does so on her own authority, not under Moses but under Christ; who is the head of the Church.

St. John Chrysostom explains that the rule of tithing taught by Christ in Matt. 23:23 does not place the Church under the Mosaic Law, nevertheless, but he also stesses that the law of tithing remains. Where then does the law of Tithing originate? I have expounded that it originates in Christ, who is the High Priest of the New Covenant-Church. Please see earlier posts for an introduction.

Also, there is no dichotomy between the Old and New Testaments, between Israel and the Church. The Church is the True Israel of God; which St. Paul clearly states in Galations 6:16.

john dunn

[John Curtis Dunn]

It has been stated: "People need to understand that taxation drives people into poverty."

There is in the above a misnomer and I am tempted to address it; but to do so would veer from our course, which is to answer the original question put forward by Thomas: "...what the Church teaches on this issue?"

Some have herein suggested that the whole of the Church teaching on tithing is summed up in: "the attitude of tithing and not the legalistic requirement." This idea is often presented, though worded in various ways. The gist of the idea is that tithing is a form of "Legalism."

Certainly the attitude is the heart of the matter, but it is not the whole of the matter; for faith without works is dead. The requirement to tithe are included and described in the earlier Church writings as "oblations." These oblations are an extention of our worship and should not be seen as some addition to our faith.

I am willing to concede that having a correct attitude about tithing is the heart of tithing, but what is the correct attitude? It is simply to tithe.

For the record, our Lord often spoke about money and its relationship to His kingdom. So if attitude is the whole of the matter, let us commend ourselves to the practice of the widow who gave ALL she possessed, until we have done that we ought not to praise those who say they can only give 2% because of their other obligations. The widow in giving all that she possessed, also fulfilled another teaching of Christ which addresses our attitude: "Seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubful mind. For all these things the nations of the world seek after; and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things. But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you." [Luke 12:30, 31]

Of course, I am not advocating robbing others to impress God, for if we have obligations with oaths we must fulfill them. But I personally am often suspicious of such reasoning.

john dunn

[Arsenios]

John Dunn writes:

"The Church is the embodiment of the Covenant of the New Testament. *If* she mandates tithing, it is based upon her own authority as the Church of Christ..."

If...

Does the Chruch actually [eg by canon law] mandate tithing? My parish sure does not, but encourages it, as a standard measure, to be added to as the occassions arise to do so... Yet ekonomia if you cannot tithe is the rule... We sure do not have anything like a "law" of tithing with the "ekklesiastical tithe police" rooting out the slaggard miscreants to bring them under Church discipline... At least not that I am aware of...

Giving is good...

Demanding others to give seems somehow misguided...

Encouraging giving is wonderful...

Just a few miscreant thoughts...

Arsenios

[Anastasia Theodoridis]

Yes, tithing is indeed an Orthodox attitude. Demanding or requiring it is not.

Anastasia

[Lillian Grunzweig]

On the contrary the heart of every matter is the whole of every matter. It is out of our hearts that all actions come. Even obedience is a result of the heart since a rebellious heart can not be obedient at all, even when performing actions perfectly. If one tithes it is out of love and a desire to be obedient. If one tithes simply to check off a check list the spiritual things they have done, yet retains a rebellious heart then what good has their spirituality produced?

A person who does not tithe may have some spiritual issue (as we all have a great many) to dicuss with thier priest, but what of the person who judges his brothers and sisters in Christ without knowing anything of them for tithing differently?

Tithing like any spiritual discapline can be performed properly or legalistically. Legalism is to the detrament of the soul because it produces pride when fulfilled and despair when unfulfilled (often in the persons own estimation). A person should not undertake to decide entirely by himself how he should tithe, but rather lean on the special guidence of his spiritual father in all things. Hence tithing is pastoral when attempting to figure out the before/after tax question and other questions like it.

That being said I believe that tithing is a gift from God given to use to aid us in theosis. It is a blessing to able to tithe and give offerings at any percentage. We should not look for the minimum requirement. That's like saying what is the minimum requirement to love my spouse or children. The minimum requirement is 100% all the time.

[John Curtis Dunn]

Please consider: to make a demand is not an act of coercion. The Gospel of Christ begins with a demand; P"Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." [Matt. 3:17]

St. Peter announces the Gospel with the same demand: "Repent, and be baptized every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..."

A demand originates from a bond of authority, an act of coercion has no legitimate claim. To say that a demand for tithes is not within the sphere of Orthodox Christianity is to make a claim that Orthodox Church has no authority over an Orthodox Christian's life.

Certainly the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece would disagree; since it uses the State to collect and distribute it financial support. The Greek church in Greece depends on the state for financial and legal support: the state pays the clergy, subsidizes the church budget, and administers church property. For the record, in the 1980s, the church turned down an opportunity to gain greater economic independence by reorganizing its finances to pay the clergy directly. So, it seems the Orthodox Church in Greece does demand its support.

Christ our Lord gave some basic principles concerning the Church and its financial support; for example: "Provide yourselves with neither gold nor silver nor copper in your belts; no traveling bag, no change of shirt, no sandals, no walking staff. The workman after all, is worth his keep" (Mt 10:10).

St. john Chrysostom commenting on what it means to be a workmen in the Kingdom of God taught: "After this, that they may not say, "Dost thou then command us to live by begging?" and be ashamed of this, He signifies the thing to be a debt, both by calling them "workmen," and by terming what was given, "hire."For "think not," saith He, "because the labor is in words, that the benefit conferred by you is small; nay, for the thing hath much toil; and whatsoever they that are taught may give, it is not a free gift which they bestow, but a recompence which they render: "for the workman is worthy of his meat." But this He said, not as declaring so much to be the worth of the apostles' labors, far from it; God forbid: but as both making it a law {them to seek nothing more, as convincing the givers, that what they do is not an act of liberality, but a debt.

So, who belives they are able to survive on 2% of their present net income? Very few, I suspect. But more importantly is that St. John explains in no uncertain terms that the support owed to the Clergy [workman] is not any kind of act of liberality, but rather it is a debt. How many Orthodox Christians believe that?

How many believe they owe a debt to provide for the welfare of their Clergy: from their Bishop down to the lowly reader? Does the Church Warden deserve any welfare for his labor? Does the Choir director or directoress deserve compensation for his or her labors? Does anyone really belive that 2% of their net income satisfactorily provides for those who serve on their behalf around the alter and in the Church?

In Matt. 10: 8 our Lord taught the Apostles: " "And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy: and there abide till ye go thence."

What did our Lord mean by worthy? St. John explains thusly: "... follows not," saith He, "from my saying,'The workman is worthy of his meat,' that I have opened to you all men's doors: herein also do I require you to use much circumspection. For this will profit you both in respect of your credit, and for your very maintenance. For if he is worthy, he will surely give you food; more especially when ye ask nothing beyond mere necessaries."

A debt is owed to those who labor around the Alter {beginning with the Bishop, but including all who serve in the Church.] for they labor in your stead. The authority to make a demand originates within the authority given by Christ to His Apostles and by succession to His Bishops.

The necessity to demand arises because there are those who believe their freedom in Christ means they are free from paying their Christian debts; but our Lord taught that the laboror is worthy of his hire."

So, how much do you make for an hour of work, a week, month or year? Let us suppose you work 40 hours and earn $300.00 gross each week. If you give 2% of your income to the Church, that is 6$ dollars based upon the gross, but if you subtract taxes; let us say 12% and then you give 2% of your net that means you give $5.28 cents a week to the Church. You earn $7.50 an hour, but your Priest, Deacon, Reader, Choir Director and the use of the Church Facilities for 3 hours of your time is worth to you only $5.28; that works out to $1.76 an hour.

For the Priest to serve, you must have a facility and that will take a goodly portion of your $1.76 an hour. By giving your 2% based upon your net, you have saved yourself 72 cents, divided by 3 hours equals .24 cents an hour saved. So by basing your giving on the net you have saved yourself about 7.3 percent. Your precentage of savings is higher than your giving.

While I agree with our obligation to love our spouse or children %100 of the time, I have to ask, do you give them 24/7 of your time? Do you sleep? Do you bathe? Do you pray in your closet? Do you work or go to school? Do you shop without them?

St. Paul offers an answer to the 100% requirement in 1 Cor. 7. "But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife." [vs. 32, 33]

Also, "The husbandman that laboureth must be first partakers of the fruits: Consider what I say, and the Lord give thee understanding in all things." [2 Tim. 2:6, 7]

john dunn

[Melissa]

Glory to God for His many blessings --

I'm still moving in the direction of tithing (meaning 10% gross from all sources) and won't stop there. For me it's a necessary and very good part of Orthodox Psychotherapy, so the 10% is a guide; a suggestion; but not a goal. How could I say to God, "I'm sorry, I already gave my 10%." He never said that to me. And if in my heart the truth was I could only give 1%, I would hope to give it gladly -- and take it as a message about getting my life in balance.

I believe in placing my spiritual heart before legality (church or state), when striving to live an Orthodox mindset, however imperfectly. In obedience to the 'legalities' we can discover deeper faith, by going beyond them -- literally when we can, in the spirit of our giving when we can't.

Please pray for me.
In Christ,
Melissa

[John Curtis Dunn]

Please forgive me for what I am about to write: for in writing it, I am not meaning to be anyones spiritual guide or instructor.

To open the topic of tithing for discussion often results in two negative responses, both are defensive. This discussion is not in any way aimed to elicit from anyone a confession or an accounting of their finances. I have no desire to learn anyones elses checks and balances in relationship to their Bishop [and our tithing is made primarily to him, even when he does not personally receive the funds].

I will attempt to examine both of these reactions below, but first I want to reference my fellow members to the following web-page {http://www.orthodox.net/confess/confession-20-torments.html} The latter is a twenty step preperation aid for making our Confession of sins, from the vision by Blessed Theodora.

I ask that those interested read especially the seventh torment called: Avarice and love of money. The seventh way in which this sin manifests itself is described thus: " Have you bought things in exchange for proper tithing? Notice how this examaniation of the conscience words itself. It could have simply asked, "have you paid tithes?" But instead it asks us to examine ourselves and learn if we have substituted something else in exchange for proper tithing."

See how we can decieve ourselves even in the matter of something so simple as tithing? And what is it that deceives us? It is the presence and nurturing of avarice and love of money in our hearts. In one response to my words, someone replied that the whole of the matter lies in the heart; and indeed there is much truth in that reply. Our Lord Himself made this abundantly clear when He said, For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, muders, adulteries, fornications, THEFTS, false witness, blasphemies; These are the things which defile a man..."

So, as we can see the heart is the matter, but not precisely in the way it was being argued. For as Orthodox Christians our purpose in tithing is to cleanse our heart of theft. And what kind of theft is it that we must clean our hearts from? The Holy Prophet Malachi speaking with by the Spirit of Christ said: "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed ME. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings." [3:8] And what do we find listed under sins of Avarice and love of money? It is precisely that which Christ spoke through His prophet: the failure to bring our tithes into Christ's Church. And even worse than that, the examaniation words itself so as to assist us to uncover the deeper root which lies buried beneath the soil of our heart, i.e., the making of exchanges by which we excuse our failure to tithe.

Please, I am pointing at NO ONE; first because I know no one's habit, but more importantly because I always aim to instruct myself and thereby always be removing the tares from my own heart. I mention this last only because there is sometimes a tendency to "attack the messenger." However, I am accusing NO ONE of having done that herein, I only hope to convey that I also am a pilgrim on the Kings Highway and I am only sharing what I have learned. If anyone knows a more Orthodox path, I am willing to be instructed.

Above, I described tithing as a simple thing, and that it is; if we simply choose to follow it in simple obedience. If however we imagine to ourselves some future liberality where we will excel the simplest command, I fear we will fall into a spiritual delusion. For most of us, to simply keep the simplest commandments is all we ought to follow; to do more can tempt us into spiritual pride.

I have had two confessors since I became Orthodox, and both who are of different temperment and personality conveyed the same thing, "seek to keep the simple commandments." If God desires you to give more, it will be made abundantly clear, until then simply obey, for to obey is better than sacrifice. This rule applies to every area of our Orthodox Christian living, but it is especially appicable when we discuss tithing, offerings and alms. For if we are not faithful with little, how can we become faithful with much?

At the beginning of this post I said the subject of tithing often results in two kings of responses. One is to fault tithing as some form of legalism, and that is so far from the truth. Legalism resides in the heart, not in the Law. Legalism is illegal, that is to say it contrary to the Law. For the Law is good and perfect and just and as the Psalmist confesses: it converts the soul, it makes wise the simple, it purifies our way, it keeps us from walking in the council of the ungodly, standing in the way of sinners and sitting in the seat of scoffers.

The command to tithe, is a demand, but not a demand for something which is unlawful, unjust, unrighteous or impure; rather it is a simple means by which we can struggle to erradicate the sin of avarice and love of money from our heart. It is the simple means by which we can plant in our hearts the practice of honoring Christ in all that we possess and in all that we are prospered.

If anyone has failed or is failing to tithe; they need to confess that and seek the grace of Christ which is given to each of us through confession. They do not need to announce it within this thread, for quite frankly, it is none of my business. What is my business is to exhort and encourage and edify and when I am able to make up for what is lacking without needing to know why.

Tithing is a comminity responsibility, not just an individual responsibllity. In the Kingdom of Christ there are some who are rich and others who are poor in the possessions of this world. If each of us gives according to our ability and with a heart of thank-fulness, God will certainly prosper the Parish in all things for our edification and salvation.

Forgive me,

john dunn

[Irene]

Very Interesting Message John Dunn. I have not read anything on this thread before, lack of time. You have given me food for thought.

I suggest, because of my own weakness and slow journey through Orthodoxy, that Tithing is something that more experienced people in the faith could look towards. If I'd been hit with everything that an Orthodox person is supposed to do and not supposed to do at the very beginning of my life in Orthodoxy, well, I may have run in terror back to the world.

We have tried, one of my most quoted bible passages to my children has been about the woman who gave ALL she had to the Church, although hardly any money at all. However I do see that my children and I really don't need the sweets and treats so much and maybe I could rethink my budget.

Glory to God for all things.

In Christ
irene

[Owen Jones]

I think that if we do not tithe we are play acting as Christians.

[Owen Jones]

But another technical question. When we say tithe, are we referring to the total of all of our contributions to the parish Church AND all Church-owned or Church related activities, e.g. perhaps we give direct to a Church charity, seminary or school or monastery, or charity organization or to some special Bishop's fund for something or other, in addition to our regular pledge to the parish.

[Lillian Grunzweig]

It's amazing to me how circular this discussion is. It seems that all think tithing to be Orthodox but we keep coming back to Owen's question. How does it play out? Tithe on what exactly?

I still subscribe that this particular question is a pastoral issue better suited to a meeting with ones spiritual Father than a discussion forum on the Internet. Irene's point is exactly an illistration why. Only one's spiritual Father can see what it is that is best for a particular person and so no one perscription is best for all. Given this any perscription we try to come up with here may well do spiritual damage to a reader who is not ready, or give a legalistic ideal to one caught in legalism, or a great many other spiritual hazards that can arise when people try to substitute for having a spiritual Father.

On that count I'm leaving this thread because I truely believe it to have played out it's usefulness and answered all questions that this medium (the internet) is capable of supporting.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

"The finances of the Church were complicated and the subject of conciliar and imperial legislation, and the guide-lines had been laid down before the seventh century. The responsibility for private churches and chapels rested with the founder as was made clear in ecclesiastical legislation (for example Nicea II, canon 17). The vast complex of the Great Palace had its own churches and chapels which were served by the imperial clergy, a much sought-after office carrying it with it a sum on appointment and a regular salary. Less exalted private foundations also made their own arrangements. The main body of the Church, the Patriarch, and the bishops and the clergy under them, derived their income from donations given by the faithful. These might include modest offerings in kind, but the vast bulk of ecclesiastical revenue came from property which steadily accumulated over the centuries. This was inalienable, though the Church sometimes had to struggle to preserve its rights over property which had been leased out, or, more rarely, directed to imperial need in times of crisis." (The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire- J.M. Hussey, p. 332).

The above shows that in Orthodox Byzantium the Church was supported in a way remarkably similiar to that found later on in Tsarist Russia. The list of how the Church was supported was extensive- from donations of the faithful to revenues from property. There was also a canonicon tax- an assesment on villages computed by what they theoretically could pay, not an absolute percent (this is very similiar to pre-modern tax practices in Russia). But there is no mention of tithes. Interestingly enough in the same book quoted above the four references to 'tithe' come from the Latin period in the East when the Crusader Kingdom was briefly set up after the 4th Crusade (1204) and Latin methods for supporting the Church were imposed. It could very well be that in pre-modern times where theoretically almost the whole Empire would be Orthodox, budgeting, etc would have been well-nigh impossible using tithing as a principle. Thus apart from willing donations & endowments which were strongly encouraged, the other method of Church finance was a tax set according to ability to pay.

Of course this does not mean tithing is not a good ideal for our present situation. But I think it does show that tithing is not the only proper way to support the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Arsenios]

Owen Jones: "I think that if we do not tithe
we are play acting as Christians"
But adds: "When we say tithe, [what]
are we referring to?"

If you don't know to what the tithe refers, and cannot produce the Church Kanon requiring it, why accuse those who do not tithe of being play-actors as Christians?

Why judge your brothers and sisters?

Arsenios - [Who can never give enough... And is not worthy to be called Christian... And is most assuredly a pretender unto Christianity...]

[Matthew Panchisin]

Some of this post might also be applicable to the God-Logic and Ecumenism threads and several other threads somewhat, nevertheless I’ll try to post it here.

In the writings of St. Justin Martyr, St. Tertullian & St. Irenaeus that tithing is mentioned. Having said that it does not appear that any system was in place in the first and second centuries of the Church. Later St. Cyprian speaks of tithing as well in the Levitical sense, however no set system seemed to be in place. As Christianity expanded and larger Churches had been built a more structured concept of tithing took form, particularly when emperors became involved as Orthodox Christians.

There have been many anti-tithing systems in place in the past and remain nowadays as well. Obviously these anti-tithing facilitators are the other things that we contribute to that we could easily do without, and would serve us better if we did without.

The enemy through the concoction of communism sought to destroy the Orthodox Church. This assault was really the implementation of anti-Christ and another anti-tithing system that appealed to the notions evidenced in the spirit of science as well as the lower logic of the mind only. This was actually a reaction to the original instigation from Sophists that conveyed rhetoric to servants seeking public offices or “careers”. For the Sophist there was no objective right or wrong. Hence perhaps Plato responds with his republic that is an early version of communism. In the Republic a right way of living could be understood as morality or righteousness is being presented for consideration.

The enemy can appeal to the mind and the heart. If a person’s heart is disposed to hatred of other human beings anything can happen and the enemy can appeal to the feelings of the heart and the mind or the logic of the mind that is distorted by the heart. Surely the Church Fathers mention hating our evil thoughts and the notions of Nazi Germany or communism convey the acceptance evil thoughts from the multiple sources of the liar. Suffice it to say the heart can be distorted by the mind whether logic is applied or not. Surely mathematics can distort real logic, because if a soul is in Hades logic is rendered irrelevant by justice or mercy. From Saint Siloun we hear “keep thy mind in Hell and despair not” We can learn much from his life and he was know to weep much, but he was not “depressed”. His mind was in Hell. Since Hell is a place of torment, these torments are realized as ones sinfulness is realized. If sin is not recognized then there can be no struggle. The more that sin is recognized the greater the struggle. Hence within the Orthodox Church we taught to examine our conscious so that we confess our sins and can also try to understand and work on the disposition of our soul. If my memory serves me correctly, in the Latter of Divine Ascent we hear of souls crying and pleading for mercy and torments during this earthy life so that they are not suffering eternally. Is it not from the evil one that we hear things like don’t worry about it is a normal human experience or condition or that’s ok? If the world tells us not to worry about it or address it, then we should worry about it.

The misapplication of reasoning with the heart and mind can effectuate inaccurate conclusions that remain inaccurate until the appropriate relationship is sought and accepted and this can be seen in many human activities.

As Orthodox Christians we have received the true faith and an abundance of Grace that we bear witness to and participate in liturgical worship and is also given in every word of the Orthodox Church Fathers. It is freely given.

I have spent some time speaking with those in communion with Rome and have learned much I will rewrite a bit here because of its relevance to the subject matter. I have come to the conclusion that

the Roman Catholic Church has a developing mindset. This has lead to a departure from the Orthodox faith and the Orthodox Church has remained true to the teachings of Christ and the Fathers. When the Father’s are truthfully referred to in the context of the Orthodox faith from which their understanding and writings are born by the Grace of God many of the positions articulated by those in communion with the Bishop of Rome are revealed as simply wrong or distorted.

In Orthodox theology the mind is considered lower and the heart is expressed by the Orthodox Church Fathers as the seat of the soul and divine knowledge it has always been that way. From the Latin’s we can see the results of the reliance of the mind for theological development. It is known that there is a direct correlation between liturgical consistent practices and theological consistency expressed in the fullness of the truth and established in the Orthodox Church, which the Lord God Almighty’s right hand has planted. In the correct teachings of the Orthodox Church children are not denied the precious body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

In the developed Latin rite of today as a result of the adjusting of the original order of the sacraments by the minds of men in error, sadly children are denied the Eucharist until they have reached the age of reason of seven years old or so when they are more intelligent. However they are taught obedience to their bishop. This denial of the Body and blood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is an established practice within the Latin rite of today. Children used to not be denied the Eucharist but the minds of men went to work and have subjected the sincere faithful to their distortions for past 900 years or so. Has Christ not been crucified for children even if they have not reached the age of reason?

Matthew 19
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

Matthew 26

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27: Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.

As Saint Clement of Alexandria has written "We learn from the Scriptures demonstrably that the heresies have gone astray, and that only in the true Church is the most accurate knowledge."

Facilitated by the presence of children surely most men or woman can move into their hearts for a moment and see that it is wrong to deny a child the body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ irrespective of what the minds of men in the Latin rite now subject the faithful to as well as their loved ones to. How can this practice be rationalized within the heart? It is violation of the hearts and minds suffered by many Latin rite parents who love their children in accordance with the commandment of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

It is obvious and true that the Latin’s of today have separated themselves from Orthodoxy by means of unorthodoxy which is being experienced today by many sincere and faithful members who have seen some more of the dismantling of the ancient and venerable Latin rite with acceleration before their very eyes. These faithful people have subjected themselves and their children to the understandings of those in error who when made aware of a heresy disregard or adjust that heresy for justification purposes. The idea that the theology of east and west are compatible in many ways is simply not so relative to critical understandings because these dispositions affect the former.
As far as Ecumenism is concerned many issues have been discussed and have remained divisive for centuries, even when there is support to return to the Orthodox practices and understanding by the faithful who correctly disagree with important matters relative to faith. It is more than just a mindset difference. I recall that in 1997 at Georgetown University, His All Holiness the beloved Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew directly spoke of Orthodoxy as being “ontologically different” from other churches. I’m not too sure how well that statement was received. A doctrine that is strange is strange when it is not Orthodox from an Orthodox perspective I think. However in such matters we are to remain obedient to the understandings of our Hierarchs.

I think the statement referenced below from the Inter-Orthodox meeting on the” Evaluation of New Facts in the Relations of Orthodoxy and the ecumenical movement" Thessaloniki Greece 1998 addresses Oliver’s questions regarding the Orthodox involvement in ecumenical discussions.

7. We have no right to withdraw from the mission laid upon us by our Lord Jesus Christ, the mission of witnessing the Truth before the non-Orthodox world. We must not interrupt relations with Christians of other confessions who are prepared to work together with us.

I think it is accurate for me to say that many the Orthodox are very comfortable explaining what they believe and why they believe it. The Orthodox representatives are simply saying here is what we believe; here is our Orthodox faith as it always has been and always will be. It can be talked about and it is available to all, but it cannot be compromised. That is because within Holy Orthodoxy truth will always remain. It can be accepted or rejected.

Matthew 28:20
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

There are many very serious matters that are being discussed and should be discussed and it is within the Orthodox tradition to discuss matters of faith. As a simple but nonetheless profound and hopefully understandable aforementioned point of reference in the Orthodox Church children receive the Eucharist. For a child not to be allowed to receive it would be not in accordance with the fullness of entire substance of correct Orthodox thought and it is good that the Orthodox position is explained.

I recall that Father Averky often wrote of the importance of the heart in Orthodox theology.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Owen Jones]

Dear Matthew,

What you say is all fine and good, but I doubt you will move many a Catholic with that line of argument. Also, the Republic of Plato is not a proto-communist system but an extended allegory pointing to higher realities regarding the true order of the soul. Communism is not an allegory of higher realities. it is an immanentized system of salvation based on terrorism.

I'm not sure I would dogmatically cling to the notion that, in Orthodoxy, the mind is lower than the heart. The heart, after all, is designed as the seat of the intellect. By heart today we generally mean emotion and passion, just the opposite of what the Fathers taught. By saying that the Fathers placed the mind below the heart, one must understand the modern audience, and consider that this statement could be very misleading, since most people do not know the classical vocabulary. Even people who claim they do often don't. The mind, in the classical sense of noetic participation in the Divine NOesis, is surely the highest order of knowledge attainable, which, in my reading, is generally regarded by the Fathers as constituting the prophetic type of person. The person who can see reality as it truly is through the properly deified mind. Also, in patristic thought, we do not descreetly define any of the organs. Rather, a properly ordered soul has all of the parts working in harmony, with God's Intellect, through the action of the Holy Spirit, governing.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Owen,

In reality, most of the Catholics that participated in the aforementioned discussion had been very supportive of returning to the Orthodox practice. In fact, I don't recall any that opposed it.
I assumed that it was obvious that I didn't mean to convey the elements of the heart to be emotionalism or an organ.

As a matter of simple and accurate reference, if I may be so bold, I submit for your consideration that Saint Jerome in his letter to the monk Heliodorus writes the following. "Then the world shall howl at the Lord who comes to judge it, and the tribes of the earth shall smite the breast. Once mighty kings shall tremble in their nakedness. Venus shall be exposed, and her son too. Jupiter with his fiery bolts will be brought to trail; and Plato, with his disciples, will be but a fool. Aristotle's arguments shall be shall be of no avail.

These thoughts are the reality of the reflections of a Saint to whom I must yield to over your understandings which obviously differ. For clearly if someone's arguments are said to be of no avail why listen to them or place some much emphasis on them? And yes, one must understand the modern audience with particular attention to those who claim to understand the philosophers in relationship to the Orthodox faith.

Obviously, Saint Jerome is pointing to higher realities regarding the true order of the soul while firmly at the least dismissing as foolish the writings of Plato along with his disciples.

Nevertheless you remain consistent and we understand these things differently.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Owen Jones]

Dear Matthew,

I'm almost dumbstruck. Almost. Matthew, I simply pointed out that your characterization of Plato's Republic as proto-communism was flawed. I was not trying to get into an argument regarding Plato and Christian theology. The Republic is an extended allegory pointing to higher realities. That statement stands on its own as descriptive.

As for Orthodox practice within the Roman Church, one can be a Byzantine Catholic very easily already. But from yor earlier post, it struck me that your position went far deeper than that, that the Catholic Church was fundamentally flawed. I'm not commenting whether that was true or not, but simply that dogmatically condemning Rome as apostate and Orthodoxy as the one true faith is probably not, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, going to convert too many Roman Catholics. It kind of gets their hackles up.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Owen,

In the past you have articulated many positions that concentrate on the importance of philosophy that some of us have disagreed with, hence my commentary.

As for your additional comments, I have read them and am thinking about them, I'll let you know.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

Let us keep this thread on the subject of tithing, which is thought-provoking in its own right. Plato and various associated matters can be put elsewhere (and should be: they are also interesting).

And, dear Ms Grunzweig, do not grow too tire too quickly with these discussions! There is often far more to ponder than one thinks. Your advice is sound, in reference to the need to discuss such things with one's spiritual father; but here we rarely converse over such specifics as would be taken up in susch discussions. The ideas and concepts are broad enough for us.

INXC, Matthew

[John Curtis Dunn]

Fr. Raphael has written: "It could very well be that in pre-modern times where theoretically almost the whole Empire would be Orthodox, budgeting, etc would have been well-nigh impossible using tithing as a principle."
---------------

"There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord."

I introduce the above quote from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book III. Chapter 39. I make its relevancy to our topic only to show that everything that was written down by the early Church is not extant for our edification. I am not suggesting that the above contained any relevant passages which pertain to our topic, but we do not know.

Eusebius also wrote the following in Book IV chapter 27

A number of works of Apolinarius have been preserved by many, and the following have reached us: the Discourse addressed to the above-mentioned emperor, five books Against the Greeks, On Truth, a first and second book, and those which he subsequently wrote against the heresy of the Phrygians, which not long afterwards came out with its innovations, but at that time was, as it were, in its incipiency, since Montanus, with his false prophetesses, was then laying the foundations of his error."

The above is much closer to having relevancy to our topic of tithing. Apolinarius was Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia beginning in 171, and who was quite renown among Christians, especially for his writings. One of his special interest was defending the Church from heresies and St. Jerome mentiones his extinsive knowledge of them. Jerome used him as a reference source for his own writings against heretics. Another Bishop by the name of Serapion of Antioch also appealed to the writings of Apolinarius against the heretics.

As can be read in the quote from Eusebius, St. Apolinarius was familiar with the heresy being propounded by Montanus and seems to have written against it as early as 172. In Chapter Book V. Chapter 16, Eusebius further describes Apolinarius saying: "the power which always contends for the truth raised up a strong and invincible weapon, Apolinarius of Hierapolis, whom we have mentioned before, and with him many other men of ability, by whom abundant material for our history has been left. A certain one of these, in the beginning of his work against them, first intimates that he had contended with them in oral controversies."

From the above quoute we learn that the Holy Bishop's contention with their heresies was not simply hearsay, but that he was engaged in defending and I suspect attempting to win back any who had become ensnared in that heresy. According to a later source, Apolinarisu assembled twenty-six other Bishops where they examined and excomunicated Montanus, Maximilla and Theodotus (the shoemaker). Among other who claimed to have read the works of Apolinarius is included St. Photius.

Why is Apolinarius relevant to our topic? Because one of the practices which he mentioned about the teaching of Montanus was that he and his followers taught against tithing {I think the reference for this is Bruce Shelly's History of the Montanist]. Besides this charge against tithing, Apolinarius is also supposed to have accused them of being possessed with a love for money.

I have not read the passages from the few fragments of Apolinarius which survive, so I cannot reference them any further for our discussion. However, if the above is accurate, it raises and interesting quesion; Why did Apolinarius believe it was relevant to mention that Montanus taught against tithing? Of course I cannot answer my own question with any absolute certainty, but I think it is relevant that the Diadche includes the following:

"A genuine prophet, however, who wishes to make his home with you has a right to a livelihood. (Similarly, a genuine teacher is as much entitled to his keep as a manual labourer.) You are therefore to take the first products of your winepress, your threshing-floor, your oxen and your sheep, and give them as first- fruits to the prophets, for nowadays it is they who are your "High Priests". If there is no prophet among you, give them to the poor. And when you bake a batch of loaves, take the first of them and give it away, as the commandment directs. Similarly when you broach a jar of wine or oil, take the first portion to give to the prophets. So, too, with your money, and your clothing, and all your possessions; take a tithe of them in whatever way you think best, and make a gift of it, as the commandment bids you." (chapter 13)

While the precise dating of the Didache is uncertain, it is often dated around 70 A.D.. but some date it as late as 150. A.D.; either way it would place itself before Apolinarius. Eusebius among other writers also meantion it as the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.----

OK, so what does this mean for us? IMO, it means we cannot simply follow the arguments postulated around by authors who say: "To the New Testament alone; if it is not explicitly spelled out therein, then it is legalism. I believe their is a Canon about against rejecting any tradition just because it is not explicitly written down.

One further thought; while the method by which tithing was calculated and the manner in which it was paid may have changed it is the principle which applies. We read in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles that even a tithe of our clothes was to be offered, but how do we apply that today? Certainly our Lord said if they ask you for your cloak to give it; so shall we all wear extra shirts to Church on Sunday and take it off to place in the collection basket-box?

While I will not address that issue now, I would mention that there is a principle of substitution, which is also mentioned in the OT laws concerning tithing. Perhaps this principle is even being refered to in the Didache; for we also read: [i]"take a tithe of them in whatever way you think best, and make a gift of it, as the commandment bids you."

Perhaps Lillian's exhortation also finds its foundation therein, but even if that were the case, it seems the principle of tithing remains in effect. I suppose there are numerous ways that the Church could be benifited besides simply money.

john dunn

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Owen,

I disagree with your quote; "As for Orthodox practice within the Roman Church, one can be a Byzantine Catholic very easily already."

One can't be a Byzantine Catholic very easily already, nowadays how can there be an authentic Orthodox practice within the Roman Catholic Church? Can Orthodox practice be found while in union with Rome. How can that happen when the theology is not the same?

For example, Orthodox Churches certainly don’t adjust the creed and sometimes use the filioque and sometimes not for whatever reason, nor are they given the opportunity to choose whichever version they like, which is often the practice by Byzantine Catholics.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Owen Jones]

You added the qualifier, "authentic," which changes everything. My point was that you can have all of the bells and whistles of Orthodox practice in the Roman Church today, but is it Orthodox? FAct is, American bishops could all fall in love with Orthodox liturgy, but 75% of them are still heretics, not just by Orthodox standards, but by any standard of "mere Christianity."

There is some X factor present in Orthodoxy that cannot be defined.

[George Hawkins]

One way that people might like to consider for tithing is putting 10% of your groceries into a donation box. I don't know about other countries, but in New Zealand at the supermarket after the checkouts are some boxes for this purpose and it seems to me that this is a way we can be of help to others.

[Nina]

Even if you have someone steal it from you and give to charity works! Imagine how great the mercy of our God is!!!

From my email:


One day, the all-wise (John the Almsgiver, patriarch of Alexandria, 610-619) heard of a generous giver and so he sent for him privately and said jokingly, "How is it that you became so generous? Was it natural to you, or did you put constraint upon yourself?" Some to whom he put this same question stood shamefacedly before him and would not answer, whilst
others would tell him their story.

One man whom the Saint questioned answered as follows: "As a fact, master, I neither give anything nor do any good; but the little I do give and do from that which comes to me through Christ and your prayers I came to do in this way. Formerly I was very hardhearted and unsympathetic and one day I lost money and was
reduced to poverty. Then my reason began to say to me: "Truly, if you had been charitable, God would not have forsaken you." And thereupon I decided to give five coppers [pholleis] a day to the poor. But when I started giving them Satan immediately checked me by saying : "Those coppers would really have been enough to buy a bath-ticket or vegetables for your family." Then I felt at once as if I were taking the money out of my children's mouth and so I gave nothing."

"But I noticed I was being mastered by this vice, so said to my
slave: "I want you to steal five coppers daily without my noticing it, and give them in charity." For I am a moneychanger, master."

"My slave, worthy fellow, began by stealing ten coppers, and
occasionally even a shilling [keratin]. As he noticed that we were
being blessed, he began to steal gold crowns, [trimisia] too, and give them away. One day I was expressing my astonishment at God's blessings to us, I said to him: "Those five coppers, boy, have greatly benefited us. So now I want you to give ten." At that the slave said to me with a smile: "Yes, be thankful for my thefts, since but for them we should not even have bread to eat today. However if there can be a just thief, I am he!" And then he told me that he had given shillings and even crowns. So it was through his faith, master, that I grew accustomed to giving with all my heart."

The holy Patriarch was much edified by this story and said: "Truly
I have read many stories in the lives of the fathers, but I have never heard anything like this!"


Leontius, Life of John the Almsgiver, 38

[Ryan Close]

As I mentioned in my first post, Thomas, when we lovingly give as much as we possibly can to God, He richly blesses us in return. Of course, besides money, we should give our time and efforts for the benefit the Church and your own parish.

No one ever addresses the question about people who receive the charity of the Church. Should people poor enough to receive alms from the Church also pay a tithe? What if the tithe is exactly the same amount that the Church can afford to give them? What if they need more money then the Church can afford to give them just to feed their children. I have heard protestants who said they would rather eat dog food than miss a tithe.

I agree that people that have financial prosperity should tithe. Poor people usualy tithe more than rich people, but rich people can be very very generous. It is their gift from God that they are given the privildge to be founders of monasteries.

But I have always disagreed with people who inist that the tithe should be from your income before taxes. I do not agree with taxes. I consider them the cost of doing buisiness, like additional overhead. So tithing from your income before taxes is like tithing on the cost of utilities, like tithing $12 because you paid the utility company $120. I don't agree with paying taxes, I never see the money that is taken from me as if it was never mine. It isn't profit in any sense. What you take home is what you reap, it is your profits. Of course people who have no taxible income at all because of a loop hole should pay a tithe. I am only talking about when the government dihonestly steals money away from you before you ever see it. I don't even know what I make before taxes because why should I even care about some theoretical number that means nothing to me. The amount of money I take home and give to my wife to feed our baby, that is my income.

Nonetheless, when I had a good job my tithe was always greater than 10% of my takes home pay so much so that it was greater than or, more often, greater than my gross income. In addition to the tithe to the parish I also gave to charitiable work and gave money directly to families in need, mostly anonymously. I say this to emphasize that I am not trying to find a way out of paying a tithe from the gross, just that I am against taxes so that I tithed a greater percent from my take home.

I agree that having so many student loans that our payments are 26% of our (take home) income is foolish. But that is the situation I find myself in, unable to have a second chance, now an indentured wage servent. We live simply and frugally. The only thing we spend money on is bills and what little food we can afford after that. Considering that our student loan payments together with all our other fixed finaicial responsibilities we must go to food pantries for grocieries, what should our tithe be? When I had a good job I tithed faithfully. I still volunteer at our parish all the time. But should I let my new baby go hungry or keep it so cold in the winter that my wife get's pnemonia?

And could we just tithe the vegitables we grow in the back yard or the clothes we make?

Please help?

[Jason H.]

I'm not really a role model for tithing. I make $19,000 a year. And I need every penny of it. I told my Priest that I just can't afford to give to the Church and when I do it's hardly 10%. I give what I can when I can. I try to make up for it by being more active within the Church and providing any supplies they might need that I can provide for them.

I should also say that I do support giving money to the Church for all the ministries that She does, but sometimes people just can't afford it. I also think that people should support a "local" monastery as they are far and few in this country and monasticism in the West hasn't really taken hold yet on the mindset of converts (i'm speaking as a convert).

[Father David Moser]

Originally Posted by Fr Averky...
No one ever addresses the question about people who receive the charity of the Church. Should people poor enough to receive alms from the Church also pay a tithe? ...
And could we just tithe the vegitables we grow in the back yard or the clothes we make?

I went back and read over Fr Averky's comments. Since he can no longer post on the internet (though I don't doubt that we are in his prayers) let me attempt to speak for him. He was quite clear, I think, that if we can tithe, we should use that as a standard for our own minimal support of the Church and if we cannot we simply give of what we have (whether that is vegetables, clothes, time, skill, or our prayers).

For myself, let me say that God does not demand of us 10% (whether before or after taxes) but rather that we give to God all that we have and depend upon Him for what we need. Thus, you receive whatever God has given you, fulfill your obligations and needs and everything else is dedicated to the glory of God (whether it is in money, time, skill or resources). There is no "duty" to give a tithe - there is simply the realization that all that we have and all that we are comes from God and belongs to God. God wants from us no less than 100% of our lives, who we are, what we do, what we have.

Fr David Moser

[Jason H.]

I"ve heard of certain parishes, mine included, where you have to pay a certain amount of money to be considered a "member" of the Church, that is member of being able to vote on parish issues. Which I greatly disagree with. But that is just me.

-Jason, a sinner

[Father David Moser]

I"ve heard of certain parishes, mine included, where you have to pay a certain amount of money to be considered a "member" of the Church, that is member of being able to vote on parish issues.

That has nothing at all to do with the spiritual life of the person. Most parish corporations (that is, the legal entity that holds the property and manages the daily business of the parish) have certain requirements to determine who is a "member in good standing" Those requirements usually include such things as having made confession and communion within the past year and being a contributing member of the parish. Contributing is defined in various ways but usually in terms of parish "dues" or some minimum standard of regular giving to the parish (which is sometimes linked to the idea of a tithe or perhaps a pledge). But this really has nothing to do with the spiritual life, it is only the management of the day to day business of the parish corporation. You do not need to be a "member in good standing" to participate in the spiritual life of the parish, for that there is never any charge.

By the scriptural teaching we are all responsible for the upkeep of the local parish and clergy and by extension the bishop and diocese. That is simply our Christian duty. But whether that is a tithe or pledge or dues or freewill offering is neither here nor there - it simply is. Also that duty to support the Church is different entirely from almsgiving which is over and above any duty to support the local Church and clergy.

Fr David Moser

[Theodora E.]

Some talk about "proportional giving" rather than tithing - you give a regular set percentage. The ideal is 10%. From what I've seen, the problem isn't so much with people who have very little, but the folks who have major excess and give very little and act like it's a lot.

I often run into those (not in my my parish) who think they can solely give time instead of cash (and these are people who report they have cash to give), but there gets to be a certain point where there is no more time to be given. For example, in a small parish that would otherwise have to pay for a cleaner (not for sanctuary/altar area, but the hall, bathrooms, kitchen, narthex, Sunday school area) and yard work (cutting the grass, clearing snow), someone might do janitorial and/or yard work in lieu of a cash donation to the church. In that case, someone donating their services to do this can save a parish a great deal.

But aside from this, there is only so much that can be done in a small parish. People can donate paper goods (toilet paper, paper goods for the kitchen/coffee hours), bake prosphora, donate olive oil for the vigil lamps in the church or other needed items (light bulbs and that sort of thing), donate time and materials for any needed repairs or improvements, but if you have one priest, who does his own secretarial work, eventually you'll get to a point where people have to donate cash. Churches can't run on volunteer time only. You have to pay the priest, the utility bills, often rent or mortgage.

[Mark Harris]

Tithes have the smell of medieaval malpractices of old England and to me giving should be completely anonymous and personal, I think it is sad that there exist Churches as mentioned by Jason, and to me is surely contra to everything that we are taught. In my last parish in the UK the priest did not know the amounts that people pledged by Direct Debit as it was handled separately. In a fund raiser to restore a cracked 17th century bell one America donated anonymously GBP 30,000. The remaining 20,000 was raised over a period of a few years by donations and fund raising events, but each gave according to his own and some anonymous some overt . Interestingly in Romania where I have lived for the last 18 months even some of the poorest parishes have raised money to build new beautiful Churches ( but built over many years) and much ongoing support is in the way Theodora mentions. This is from people whose monthly income is as little as USD 150.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I"ve heard of certain parishes, mine included, where you have to pay a certain amount of money to be considered a "member" of the Church, that is member of being able to vote on parish issues. Which I greatly disagree with. But that is just me.

-Jason, a sinner

And this is a problem, um, why exactly? We have a responsibility to support each other and the "parish" is each other. Clergy have to eat too, as the Apostle Paul says, the worker is worthy of his wages and we must not muzzle the ox that treads the grain. There are obligations that must be met, bills have to be paid; mortgages, repairs, utilities, insurance... If someone does not support the parish, why should they get a say in how the parish is run? Each parish decides how it will support itself, through contributions, "pledges", "tithes" or bake sales. Only allowing those who have made an agreed upon commitment to the parish to vote on things that affect the obligations of the parish seems only fair to this bear of little brain.

That does not mean they should be denied the sacraments or not be allowed to attend services, but I don't think that is being mentioned here.

Herman the Pooh

[Jason H.]

And this is a problem, um, why exactly? We have a responsibility to support each other and the "parish" is each other. Clergy have to eat too, as the Apostle Paul says, the worker is worthy of his wages and we must not muzzle the ox that treads the grain. There are obligations that must be met, bills have to be paid; mortgages, repairs, utilities, insurance... If someone does not support the parish, why should they get a say in how the parish is run? Each parish decides how it will support itself, through contributions, "pledges", "tithes" or bake sales. Only allowing those who have made an agreed upon commitment to the parish to vote on things that affect the obligations of the parish seems only fair to this bear of little brain.

That does not mean they should be denied the sacraments or not be allowed to attend services, but I don't think that is being mentioned here.

Herman the Pooh

I just find it a problem when a Church says who is a "member" and who is not based on how much they can give money wise. I know a few of the people who are in the "members" category but who are ever hardly at Church except for some of the major Feasts. Yet, I know people who are at Church for Wednesday Vespers, Great Vespers, and Divine Liturgy who can't afford to be in the member status b/c they have limited financial income and a family of 6 to feed and clothe.

I understand the importance of giving to the Church in order to support it and make sure that it is kept up with and to support the Priest but to divide the congregation based on money seems...the word has slipped my mind....but it just doesn't seem fair.

But that is just me, and all I am is a mere sinner seeking the Mercy of the Lord. i don't mean or want this to turn into an argument I just am expressing my opinion and hope that no one takes offense of what I have said. If so, I humbly beg for your forgiveness.

In Christ,

-Jason, a sinner

[Father David Moser]

Tithes have the smell of medieaval malpractices of old England and to me giving should be completely anonymous and personal

Your are confusing two separate things here. Almsgiving should indeed be as quiet and anonymous as possible - as our Lord said, that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. OTOH, the support of the Church is not almsigiving, it is our duty and responsibility as a member of the parish. Almsgiving is over and above our support of the Church (and thus if you are working on a "tithe" system - the tithe is what you owe to God for the support of the Church and your charitable giving (alms giving) is in addition to that). In the book of Acts, the Christians in Jerusalem were not anonymous about their support of the Church but brought (not just a tithe, but) all that they had and laid it publicly at the feet of the Apostles. We know that this was the practice because of the account of the sin of Ananias and Saphira (which was not giving in public, but rather lying to God and to the Church about what they had given).

Fr David Moser