The Fallacy of the Guilt Trip
The fourth fallacy we need to address that influences adherence to the required at least 10% tithe is the guilt trip. The proverbial guilt trip is a manipulation tactic used to get someone to do or think what they normally would not do or think. This guilt trip often creates a victim and a perpetrator. In this case, Floyd incorrectly portrays God as the victim and His people as the perpetrators. We don’t pay tithes. God is the victim. Floyd attempts to guilt us into paying out tithes. While continuing to make descriptions into prescriptions, proof-texting and piecemealing, Floyd now lays on a heavy dose of guilt as well.
Although presented in the context of a required 10% tithe, Floyd presents statistics showing how Americans spend their available finances and even borrow money for such non-essential things as entertainment and restaurants as well as the amounts of crippling debt. Then he wisely states, “We give time to what we deem as important, and we spend money on what we truly value.” (Floyd, 56) Then, after showing historical trends how disposable income has increased and giving has decreased, Floyd correctly asserts the reason for this observable decrease in giving:
Facts like these reveal we do not have a lack of income as much as we have a lack of discernment in spending. This is happening is because we have ignored God’s counsel on the stewardship of our lives. We have listened to the counterfeit lies of the world that tells us happiness comes because of money. The more money we have, the more happiness we have.
Ronnie Floyd. TEN PERCENT: A Call to Biblical Stewardship (Nashville: Convention Press and Ronnie W. Floyd, 2020), 57-58.
Yes! Reflecting on Malachi 3:7-12, he continues on to clearly summarize that God wants us to love Him with a pure heart, offer Him our best and to honor Him and His house and suggests the hearer reflect on their own adherence. (Floyd, 59-60)
This concept is where the biblical analysis and self-reflection steers hard into manipulation through taking us on a guilt trip to force compliance with a 10% tithe:
Listen, God does not want half-hearted obedience from you and me any more than we want our children to do something that is not honorable and their best. What an older or influential person in our life questions, we will most often eventually deny. Similarly, if you live your life questioning God, His Word, and His principles, including financial principles, your children and grandchildren will one day deny God’s principles. Watering down God’s Word will never profit you, your family, the business you work with, or the friends you love.
Ronnie Floyd. TEN PERCENT: A Call to Biblical Stewardship (Nashville: Convention Press and Ronnie W. Floyd, 2020), 7.
Floyd has already incorrectly insisted that his presentation of a work(tithing)/reward based 10% required tithe is Biblical. Floyd has correctly asserted that our lack of honoring and obeying the Word of God stems from an unwillingness to obey rather than an ability to do so. Floyd erroneously correlates obedience with 10% tithing. So, because 10% tithing is “biblical” and we are not to question God or His Word, we cannot question 10% tithing. Right?- Wrong! This document has presented clear evidence why and how to challenge the 10% tithing assertion.
Floyd puts “peddle to the metal” and accelerates this guilt trip by insisting he knows the solution to this unwillingness to tithe 10% and it is found in Malachi 3:7-12: 1) Return, 2) Bring, 3) Test and 4) See. First, he correctly relates that we must return to God by drawing near to God (James 4:8): “There is not one promise in God’s Word He will not fulfill. Return and He will draw near to you. When you return to God, He gets all of you. One hundred percent of you, excluding nothing and including everything.” This is the real solution to our human predicament impeding our willingness to give of our finances, but Floyd found a way to proof- text his way through this passage to ultimately guilt trip us into 10% tithing.
Secondly, Floyd insists that this passage requires that we bring the “whole tithe into the storehouse” – “This is not negotiable.” He reiterates how tithe means “ten” and then proof-texts “storehouse.” Putting aside the earlier discussed evidence that this passage reflects Old Covenant Law, by which we are no longer bound, there is ample evidence within Floyd’s commentary on this passage that clearly detail his attempt at manipulation here.
After claiming that our not paying 10% is robbing God just as much as the Israelites were robbing God as stated in v. 8, he correctly (perhaps accidentally) points out that “God tells them they are under the judgment of God personally and as the entire nation.” While correctly stating “them” and “they” and referring to the Israelites as the direct and only audience to this passage, he then immediately relates their situation to ours. He then continues to claim that we have to not only bring at least 10% but we also have to bring it to a specific place and in a specific manner.
Floyd insists that the “storehouse” of v. 10 literally refers to the local church. In Hebrew here, “storehouse” (“otsar”) literally means “store, treasury or storehouse.” The entirety of the referenced phrase is, “Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house.” Remember our examination of Deuteronomy 14:22-27 and the admonishment to “eat the tithe”? Was Malachi establishing a bank to store money from all those 10% tithes? No! Was Malachi referring to a storehouse where God’s people could store their tithes of their crops so there would be food to sustain His people? Yes! Again, the insistence on a 10% required tithe on income falls flat.
Actually, the entire size of the temple proper as in 1 Kings 6:2-6 was only 90 feet long, 30 feet wide and 45 feet high (v 2). It had three smaller side rooms or storerooms where the first floor was 7 1/2 feet wide, the second floor was 9 feet wide and the third floor was 10 1/2 feet wide and all rooms were 7 1/2 feet high (vv. 5-6). Only two of these storerooms were used for storing tithes (Nehemiah 13:5-9). Other than ground meal, grain, fruit, wine and olive oil, the tithes of the people were actually brought to the cities for distribution and only the priests were instructed to bring all their tithes to the storehouse:
Moreover, we will bring to the storerooms of the house of our God, to the priests, the first of our ground meal, of our grain offerings, of the fruit of all our trees and of our new wine and olive oil. And we will bring a tithe of our crops to the Levites, for it is the Levites who collect the tithes in all the towns where we work. A priest descended from Aaron is to accompany the Levites when they receive the tithes, and the Levites are to bring a tenth of the tithes up to the house of our God, to the storerooms of the treasury. The people of Israel, including the Levites, are to bring their contributions of grain, new wine and olive oil to the storerooms, where the articles for the sanctuary and for the ministering priests, the gatekeepers and the musicians are also kept.
Nehemiah 10-:37-39
The temple and its storerooms were not large enough to hold it all. So, we see that the people gave their 10% and it was kept in their towns, then the Levites would collect them, then the Levites would give 10% of this 10% (or actually only 1% of the overall tithe total) to the priests. It was the priests, not the people, who took only 1% of the total tithe to the storehouse.
As earlier identified, the audience of this passage is the people of Israel. The temple and it’s storerooms weren’t nearly large enough to hold all of the tithes of the entire nation of Israel. The people were not required to bring all of their tithes to the storehouse anyway. So, how do we explain the context of “robbing God” and “bring your whole tithe” in Malachi 3:8-12? Clearly, Malachi is actually addressed to the priests as in 1:6 and 2:1. God would not hold the people liable for bringing the “whole tithe” when they were not told to do so. The specific context here relates to the theft of tithes by the priest Eliashib for his kinsman, Tobiah, the Ammonite (Nehemiah 13:4-14). The broader context here relates to the overall pattern of behavior of the priests as they sneer at God’s commands (1:13), bring contemptible gifts to God (1:13) and exploit widows and orphans (3:5). A deeper look here reveals the specific focus of Malachi’s warnings from God here are actually directed at the priests, the leaders of the people, and their actions. So, the priests- not the entire nation of Israel and certainly NOT US- were the ones actually accused of robbing God by not bringing their whole tithes, as commanded, to the storehouse.
After claiming that bringing the whole tithe is “not negotiable” (Floyd, 63) Floyd claims, “The storehouse was attached to the Temple, the place where the glory of God dwelt. When the gifts were brought to God, it was to the place where His glory was lifted up regularly by those selected to lead the congregation.” (Floyd, 63) To relate this to the New Testament church, Floyd then alleges the early church did the same:
The church sold their possessions and property, brought it to the Apostles (the leaders of this newly birthed Church), where they distributed to others who had need. Following, the first ten percent and contributions above this amount were brought to the church so gospel ministry would occur and gospel advance would occur to the nations.
Ronnie Floyd. TEN PERCENT: A Call to Biblical Stewardship (Nashville: Convention Press and Ronnie W. Floyd, 2020), 64.
The allegation that the early church exemplified Old Covenant tithing ignores the fact that it defies basic logic to maintain both equivalences between an actual “storehouse” and an actual “Temple” and insistence that our tithes must be brought to the local church. Simply because the early church provided a system of distribution to get help to those in need does not equate to their adherence to a system of tithing. Suppose we are to follow the example of the early church strictly. Why does Floyd not insist that the modern church follow the early church and meet in homes as they did until around the third century (Priscilla and Aquilla’s home in Romans 16:5a, Philemon’s home in Philemon v. 3, etc)? Additionally, if there is NOT ONE reference that the early church continued a tithe-based giving system, why should we continue to tithe? We should not!
After asserting his invalid claim that the whole 10% tithe MUST be brought to the local church as did the early church, Floyd further insists that, “It is not up to you where to give the first ten percent of your entire income. It is to be given to your local church, where you worship with God’s people. It is not your place to determine where you give it, nor is it your place to deem it worthy of the gift.” (Floyd, 64) Although not explicitly stated, this definitely implies Floyd believes that 10% tithing is “not negotiable” and that attending and supporting a local church does not require making sure they are theologically sound prior to our financial support. What happened to John’s admonition to “do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1) and the example of the Bereans who compared Paul taught with what was in Scripture (Acts 17:11)? It appears Floyd is suggesting blind presentation of funds to the local church regardless of the presence or lack of sound doctrine by asserting, “nor is it your place to deem it worthy of the gift.”
Thirdly, reflecting on the solution to not tithing Floyd refers to Malachi 3:10 where God tells the Israelites to “’Test me in this.’” He adds, “Test Him by bringing the first ten percent of all He has given to you, plus contributions.” (Floyd, 64) You heard that right- “plus contributions”! It will be addressed in more detail in sermon 5, but Floyd introduces his concept of required giving above the required 10% tithing.
Fourthly, Floyd continues his proof-texting of Malachi 3:10 by seeming to mishandle the word “floodgates” (“arubbah”) where God tells the Israelites that if they test Him and bring the whole tithe of their crops to the storehouse they will “see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it. [emphasis added]” As Floyd correctly relates, the phrase, “floodgates of heaven” is used elsewhere to show an opening of the floodgates to release the rain in Genesis 7 then a closing of the floodgates in Genesis 8. (Floyd, 66, 72) It becomes increasingly evident that the tithing referred to here is agricultural rather than financial and that God is telling the Israelites if they trust Him by bringing the whole tithe of their crops to the storehouse they will see the blessing of God overturning drought and providing ample rain to gain a surplus above what they tithed.
Malachi records God’s promise that they will not have “room enough to store it.” Store “it”? Store what? Remember, Malachi is not trying to set up a bank here to store the mounds of cash God will provide as a reward for tithing. So, does Floyd interpret “floodgates of heaven” as referring to this promise from God to provide much-needed rain to increase their crops in response to the Israelites bringing the whole tithe to the storehouse, as required by law? No! Floyd incorrectly states:
God promises to open the windows, the floodgates of Heaven, and pour out upon you the blessings of God until there is no need. It is like God opens His heavenly ocean upon our lives… blessings and blessings! This is undeniable! It is what God’s Word says!
Ronnie Floyd. TEN PERCENT: A Call to Biblical Stewardship (Nashville: Convention Press and Ronnie W. Floyd, 2020), 66.
This IS deniable and IS NOT what the Word says! What “heavenly ocean”? God opens this on “our lives”? Since when is it acceptable to take a clear passage about “crops” and “storehouses” and “floodgates” and and MAKE IT SAY “finances” and “local church” and “heavenly oceans” opening “upon our lives”?! Since when is it acceptable to claim that tithing was established PRIOR to the law AND ALSO claim that we are no longer bound by it BUT EQUALLY claim we ARE BOUND by specific elements of that law through a direct and manipulative GUILT TRIP?!
Floyd continues his mishandling of Malachi 3:11 where part of God’s promise to the Israelites if they bring the whole tithe to the storehouse is to “’prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not drop their fruit before it is ripe.’” Here, “pests” (“akal”) means just that. God is promises that he will not only make it rain, but He will stop the pests (ie. locusts, worms, caterpillars, vermin) from damaging their crops and allow them to fully mature. Again, in an ongoing attempt to “prove” a continued required 10% tithing, Floyd removed this part of the promise from its obvious agricultural context and insisted, “ Verse 11 also says that God will “rebuke the Devourer” on this earth.” (Floyd, 66)
Careful attention to this particular assertion reveals two distinct and potentially dangerous claims with an overemphasis on “rebuke” and a personification of “pest” in v. 11. First, notice his focus on “rebuke” or “prevent/stop” (“gaar”): “Since the fall of man in Genesis 3, humans have sinned and struggled. As Christians, we know we have an enemy that is continually after us. Yet God’s promise is that he will rebuke this enemy, this devourer who tries to ruin our lives, families, and future.” (Floyd, 66) Second, in his rush to declare war on the Devil he quickly references the Devil as a “devourer” as in 1 Peter 5:8, Floyd capitalizes devourer or pests here and proclaims, “When you are faithful to fulfill God’s Word in Malachi 3:10, your faithfulness is blessed and the enemy of your life is rebuked by God Himself.” If Floyd is implying that the word “rebuke” (“gaar”) cannot be used with nature and must, by default, refer to the Devil who is a devourer, then he clearly fails to reference this same word being used in Psalms 106:9 to refer to how God “rebuked” the Red Sea and it dried up. So, does v. 11 refer to rebuking the Devil through obedience to 10% tithing? No! Does v. 11 clearly state God’s promise to prevent pests and immature growths from damaging the crops of those Israelites who bring their whole tithe to the storehouse? Yes!
As Floyd enters into the small group session of sermon 4, he correctly reminds that the promises and curses in the Malachi passage are part of the Mosaic Law and the purpose of tithing was to honor God, support the ministry of the priests and provide for the needs of others. Then, he quickly returns to proof-texting to maintain the assertion of a current required at least 10% tithe by referencing “at the feet of the Apostles” as in Acts 4:35, 37 and 5:2. So, if we look at the context of this phrase in these verses, will we find support for this continued assertion? No!
Now the entire group of those who believed were of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but instead they held everything in common. With great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was on all of them. For there was not a needy person among them because all those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the proceeds of what was sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet. This was then distributed to each person as any had need. Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus by birth, the one the apostles called Barnabas (which is translated Son of Encouragement), sold a field he owned, brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. However, he kept back part of the proceeds with his wife’s knowledge, and brought a portion of it and laid it at the apostles’ feet. (Acts 4:32-5:2)
Acts 4:32-5:2
The overwhelming narrative here supports the concept of generosity NOT the fallacy of 10% tithing. Did the “entire group” here do all they did for one another through a system of tithing? No! Did they do all this through abundant generosity? Yes! But, Floyd cannot focus on the fact that this “entire group” was under the new covenant and was NOT subject to required tithing but WERE required to demonstrate generosity. So, Floyd turns his focus to the phrase “at the feet of the Apostles.”
For further context, eastern cultures typically place gifted items literally at the feet of those in authority as a sign of respect. These disciples, who are under the authority of the apostles and were from that culture, would have done the same- as a basic sign of respect. But, Floyd somehow finds the ability to erroneously claim that this phrase, “feet of the Apostles,” refers to bringing our tithes to the local church:
“The feet of the Apostles” was the place where the congregation gathered for worship, service, ministry, to be mobilized for evangelism, church planting, and missionary service. Thus, the gifts were brought to the place where the congregation gathered, the Lord and His name is worshiped—the church!
Ronnie Floyd. TEN PERCENT: A Call to Biblical Stewardship (Nashville: Convention Press and Ronnie W. Floyd, 2020), 70.
Rather than recognize that this passage narrates a basic cultural observance of these particular disciples, Floyd insists that “feet” really refers to the local church. No! Actually, “feet” here (πούς) means- you guessed it- FEET! Additionally, the disciples were not even called Christians until later in Antioch (Acts 11:26) and Paul’s missionary journeys that planted and established local churches was not until around AD 46-48. So, it is not even chronologically logical to insist that this cultural act of respect is even remotely connected to local churches that had yet to be created. Context, again, fails to support this assertion on a current required 10% tithe.
After leading the following small group through a rehash of his wrong assertions and applications of “storehouse tithing” from Malachi 3:8-12, Floyd makes a quite startling statement: “’Storehouse tithing flips the mental switch from “blessed to be a blessing” to “being a blessing is the path to blessing.’” (Floyd, 73) While he provides no further commentary here, what is being implied here? As we already stated, what we sow we also reap and God loves a cheerful giver and He therefore blesses us “so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work” as in 2 Corinthians 9:6-8. Doesn’t this support a “both and” approach where God blesses us both AS we give as well as SO we CAN give? YES! Floyd, here, seems to suggest a “switch” from focusing on God as the source of both our willingness and ability to be generous to focusing on our act of giving. Why does there have to be a “switch” from reliance on God as our source? Why does Floyd suggest our act of “being a blessing” should prevail over our reliance on being “blessed to be a blessing” by God?
We may find our answers in Floyd’s concluding statement of this small group session: “Have you found it to be true that “Whatever I shovel out to God, He gives back to me, and His shovel is always bigger than my shovel”? Share examples.” (Floyd, 74) This “shovel” concept is repeated from the associated sermon:
Listen carefully: You cannot out give God! Whatever I shovel out to God, He gives back to me, and His shovel is always bigger than mine! Every time you give God the first ten percent of all He gives to you, God sanctifies, sets apart, and blesses the ninety percent.
Ronnie Floyd. TEN PERCENT: A Call to Biblical Stewardship (Nashville: Convention Press and Ronnie W. Floyd, 2020), 66.
Remember Floyd earlier stated that he was not claiming a “health and wealth philosophy” or a “prosperity gospel”? (Floyd, 14) Remember how we also identified that he seemingly contradicted this claim through insistence on a work(tithing)/reward dynamic? If God is truly our source and His shovel is “bigger,” then why does Floyd suggest we abandon our source and focus on our act of giving? It appears the answers here are that Floyd truly provides a focus on a required 10% tithe so God will respond and bless “the ninety percent” rather than a focus on God’s provision both FOR our ability to give and AS we generously give.