To understand the direction of the SBC and it’s dealing with the symptoms of decline, it is important to reflect on the history of tithing with the broader Church. Certainly, tithing was commonly practiced throughout the history of the Church and we will find a correlation between tithing and decline. Right? WRONG! There is no correlation because there was no tithing.
While this is not an exhaustive treatment on this subject, certain key historical points need to be highlighted. In the early church, the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve from around 150-200 A.D. says:
Now, as concerning the apostles and prophets according to the teaching of the gospel, so do; and let every apostle that comes to you be received as the Lord; and he shall stay but one day, and, if need be, the next day also; but if he stays three days he is a false prophet. When the apostle goes forth, let him take nothing but bread, until he reaches his lodging: if he asks for money, he is a false prophet…. But whosoever shall say in spirit, ‘Give me money, or other things,’ you shall not listen to him; but it he bids you to give for others that are in need, let no man judge him.
Thedidache.Com,. Accessed March 20, 2020. http://www.thedidache.com, Paragraph XI.
Clement of Rome (c95), Justin Martyr (c150), Irenaeus (c150-200) and Tertullian (c150-220) all opposed tithing as a strictly Jewish tradition. (Russell Earl Kelly. Should the Church Teach Tithing?: A Theologian’s Conclusions about a Taboo Doctrine. Writers Club Press, 2007, 252-254.) Turtullian was a second century apologist and clearly explained about voluntary giving in Apology 39:
Though we have our treasure-chest, it is not made up of purchase-money, as of a religion that has its price. On the monthly day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if it be his pleasure, and only if he be able: for there is no compulsion; all is voluntary.
Translated by S Thelwall, Logos Virtual Library: Tertullian: Apology, 39, www.logoslibrary.org/tertullian/apology/39.html.
There is no historical evidence of any teaching regarding required tithing until the sixth century. The Roman Catholic Council of Tours in 567 and the Council of Macon in France in 567 enacted regional church decrees for tithing and permanent removal of non-tithers. They did not receive authority from the king to enforce collection through civil decrees.
Significantly, tithing did not emerge historically until the church became powerful in the secular realm after Constantine made Christianity the official church in Rome in 311. It was not until 777 that Charlemagne, or “Charles the Great,” allowed churches to legally collect tithes. (Russell Earl Kelly. Should the Church Teach Tithing?: A Theologian’s Conclusions about a Taboo Doctrine, 259-260.) Even at this late date tithes were still only food. Eventually, the Roman Church even refused to administer last rites if it was not given wealth or land in wills. The governmental system of tithing was used to calculate land rent payments beginning in the seventh and eighth centuries and the emergence of church leaders as landowners that shifted the use of a system of tithing from the secular realm to the ecclesiastical system. To support this ever-growing need for land development, giving became compulsory by the church and was reinforced by the secular government. (Frank Viola, and George Barna. Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices. Barna, 2012, 177.)
In the modern church era, except for state-run churches such as the Anglican Church of England, the Lutheran Church of Germany and the Catholic Church of Spain and Germany, tithing did not appear in other churches in America until the late 1890s. Tithing was not even introduced until baptists in Rhode Island in 1873 (1873: TITHING FIRST SUGGESTED IN USA.” n.d. Tithing-Russkelly.Com.http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id135.html?vm=r.) and it was rejected at that time. (“RHODE ISLAND BAPTISTS: 1638-1770S.” n.d. Tithing-Russkelly.Com. http://tithing-russkelly.com/id134.html.) There was no correlation between tithing and decline, because there wasn’t tithing.
This broad historical view brings us to also take a look at where the SBC fits in here. Since there is no clearly identifiable correlation between tithing and general decline in the broader history of the Church, there must be such correlation within the Southern Baptist Convention. Right? WRONG! Founded in 1845, the SBC voted on and rejected tithing in 1895. The first “Baptist Faith and Message” (BFM) of 1925 did not mention tithing. Article XXIV on Stewardship states:
God is the source of all blessings, temporal and spiritual; all that we have and are we owe to him. We have a spiritual debtorship to the whole world, a holy trusteeship in the gospel, and a binding stewardship in our possessions. We are therefore under obligation to serve him with our time, talents and material possessions; and should recognize all these as entrusted to us to use for the glory of God and helping others. Christians should cheerfully, regularly, systematically, proportionately, and liberally, contribute of their means to advancing the Redeemer’s cause on earth. Luke 12:42; 16:1-8; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 4:10; 2 Cor. 8:1-7; 2 Cor. 8:11-19; 2 Cor. 12:1-15; Matt. 25:14-30; Rom. 1:8-15; 1 Cor. 6:20; Acts 2:44-47.
“Comparison Chart.” The Baptist Faith and Message, bfm.sbc.net/comparison-chart.
Notice, there is no mention no tithing. The 1963 BFM article XIII on Stewardship basically repeats 1925 but includes the following references:
Gen. 14:20; Lev. 27:30-32; Deut. 8:18; Mal. 3:8-12; Matt. 6:1-4,19-21; 19:21; 23:23; 25:14-29; Luke 12:16-21,42; 16:1-13; Acts 2:44-47; 5:1-11; 17:24-25; 20:35; Rom. 6:6-22; 12:1-2; 1 Cor. 4:1-2; 6:19-20; 12; 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8-9; 12:15; Phil. 4:10-19; 1 Peter 1:18-19.
“Comparison Chart.” The Baptist Faith and Message, bfm.sbc.net/comparison-chart.
Again, no mention of tithing. The most updated 2000 BFM repeats all of 1963 Article XIII on Stewardship with the same references. Again, with no mention of tithing.
It wasn’t until the 2013 convention that tithing was specified in the Resolution on Tithing, Stewardship and the Cooperative Program:
WHEREAS, Biblical stewardship is a generous response of loving obedience that constitutes an essential part of our worship of God (2 Corinthians 9:6–7); and
WHEREAS, Tithing predates the Law of Moses (Genesis 14:20; 28:22; Hebrews 7:2) and is affirmed in the Old Testament (Numbers 18: 21–24) as well as in the New Testament (Luke 11:42); and
WHEREAS, The Scripture equates failure to tithe with robbing God (Malachi 3:8); and
WHEREAS, Christ affirmed the tithe (Matthew 23:23); and
WHEREAS, Proportional giving of at least a tithe is expected by God throughout Scripture (Numbers 18:21–24; 1 Corinthians 16:1–2; Hebrews 7:2); and
WHEREAS, Tithing is essential for Kingdom work through the local church and ministries around the world (1 Corinthians 9:13–14); and
WHEREAS, According to the Great Commission Task Force Report, Southern Baptists give just 2.5 percent of their annual income to the local church, demonstrating the need for Southern Baptists to teach and faithfully obey the biblical command to tithe; and
WHEREAS, The current economic climate and other factors have resulted in financial challenges for many of our churches and mission entities; and
WHEREAS, Faithful stewardship is a privilege and an honor for all Christians; and
WHEREAS, The Cooperative Program is funded solely by tithes, offerings, and gifts through the churches; and
WHEREAS, Cooperative Program giving from the churches has declined significantly from $548 million in 2007–2008 to $488 million in 2010–2011, reducing our support of missions and ministries by $60 million; and
WHEREAS, Frank S. Page, president of the SBC Executive Committee, has challenged Southern Baptist churches to increase their Cooperative Program giving by at least 1 percent; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Houston, Texas, June 11–12, 2013, exhort all Southern Baptists to tithe cheerfully and give sacrificially as good stewards of God’s blessings to their local churches; and be it further
RESOLVED, That Southern Baptists and Southern Baptist churches evaluate the faithfulness of their stewardship to financially support missionaries and ministries at home and abroad through the Cooperative Program and Great Commission Giving; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we commend those who tithe faithfully in loving obedience to God.
“Comparison Chart.” The Baptist Faith and Message, bfm.sbc.net/comparison-chart.
We have already well established here that Jesus did not affirm tithing in Luke 11:42 or Matthew 23:23, Abraham’s choice to tithe as in Hebrew 7:2 is non-binding today, tithing is not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 9:13–14 because it did not apply rather than it was not worth mentioning again and that bringing all SBC to full compliance with tithing IS NOT the primary reason for the overall numerical decline in either the SBC or the broader Church.
In taking a deeper look into this current stance on tithing in the SBC, it is helpful to identify the differences between the Baptist Faith and Message and Resolutions. First, The Preamble to the 2000 BF&M makes two important statements, 1):
Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice.
“Comparison Chart.” The Baptist Faith and Message, bfm.sbc.net/comparison-chart.
and 2) “It is the purpose of this statement of faith and message to set forth certain teachings which we believe.” It also insists that, “Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.” Additionally, these statements are “drawn from the Scriptures, and are not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life.” Local church autonomy remains a hallmark of the SBC: “That any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so.” Therefore, these confessions of faith are secondary to the Scriptures but unite those within the SBC in a common set of beliefs. These beliefs are not authoritative or unalterable and are commended to local churches for their approval and adoption.
Secondly, the sbc.net website defines resolutions this way:
A resolution has traditionally been defined as an expression of opinion or concern, as compared to a motion, which calls for action. A resolution is not used to direct an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention to specific action other than to communicate the opinion or concern expressed. Resolutions are passed during the annual Convention meeting.
Basically, resolutions are the non-binding thoughts regarding a contemporary issue currently being dealt with by the denomination at the time of its writing and adoption by the Convention. They are not intended to be binding. The SBC Constitution Article III Section 1 says that a local church can have “friendly cooperation with the Convention” if it “Has a faith and practice which closely identifies with the Convention’s adopted statement of faith.” (“Constitution – SBC.Net.” n.d. Accessed March 27, 2022. https://www.sbc.net/ about/what-we-do/legal-documentation/constitution/.) There is no such adherence to any of the resolutions. So, to remain in “friendly cooperation” a local church must not contradict the confessions found within the current BF&M but is under no obligation to agree with the resolutions.
So, all of this history of both the broader church and specifically the SBC begs the question, Is it a sin not to tithe? Well, we can see that the Apostles struggled with how to best assimilate new Gentile converts into the faith as in. They decided on four behavioral requirements: abstaining from foods polluted by idols, sexual immorality, eating strangled animals and blood- but not a requirement to tithe! It is hard to believe that we could use Floyd’s earlier stated rationale that Paul did not mention tithes in 2 Corinthians 9:6-10 because Paul did not need to repeat something that was already established. Could we say that the Apostles did not decide to mention tithing to the Gentile converts because they already knew how important it was and would, naturally comply with an at least 10% tithe? NO! They did not mention tithing to the Gentile converts because it did not apply to those under the New Covenant. Also, reflecting on the context of Acts 5:3-11, where resources were held back and not given, the corporal punishment of Ananias and Sapphira was NOT for failing to tithe, failing to bring the whole tithe or failing to be as generous as the other disciples but for lying about what they did. If not tithing is a sin, the new Gentile converts would have been instructed to do so and the record of Ananias and Sapphira’s punishment of death would be related to their failure to tithe rather than their sin of lying. Not tithing is NOT A SIN!
Looking at the history of tithing begs another equally important question. If tithing is so crucial, why has it not made it into the Baptist Faith and Message and is merely only in a recent Resolution? Remember that the BF&M primarily provides unity and guidance and that resolutions provide a non-binding snapshot into contemporary thoughts on issues. So, is it possible to suggest that the 2013 resolution on tithing is merely a reflection on the thoughts of the convention at that time and does not reflect an actual doctrinal statement of faith? Yes! Does the fact that a required at least 10% tithing has not been incorporated into the BF&M suggest that the overall consensus within the SBC is actually against tithing?
Further analysis of this history leads to a practical question. How can the local church afford to do all they do without the funds from tithing? Well, to answer this we must also answer an equally important question. How did the local churches “survive” before the fairly recent insistence on tithing? If we look back into such passages as Numbers 18:20-29 and Deuteronomy 14:27-29 we see that those who received the tithe, the Levites, were not allowed to receive an inheritance of land or property. If we compare the modern-day concept of an at least 10% required tithe in the local church to this law see that the leadership wants the full 10% brought by the people to the Levites, wants the full 1% of the whole given from the Levites to the priests and also wants to keep an inheritance by amassing land and property. The modern local church spends more funds on “having” things such as salaries, land, buildings, etc., than on “doing” anything. So, how did local churches “survive”?- without all the material trappings of “being” a church.
A standard answer among tithing advocates here would be that full-time pastoral staff follows the model of tithing to the priests for their financial stability. So, there must be ample evidence in Scripture to support similar pastoral supports, right? Wrong! First, there were age limits on priests. Numbers 1:1-2 states priests had to be at least 20 years old and Numbers 8:24-26 says they had to retire to an advisory role at 50 years old. Second, 1 Chronicles 23-24 describes that the Levites were divided into 24 divisions and each division served one week at a time twice a year. Them and their families lived in levitical cities the rest of the year and worked and provided for their families’ financial stability. Third, Numbers 18:20-29 insists that priest could not receive an inheritance or own land. Fourth, the temple was replaced. Jesus refers to His body as the temple in John 2:19-21. Jesus tells the woman at the well that He is the center of worship in John 4:21-24. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:16 that believers are now the temple and His Spirit dwells in us. Would the modern-day pastor be restricted to 20-50 years old, serving their congregations only two weeks a year, being primarily bi-vocational AND not owning land or receiving any inheritance? Of course not, and there probably should not be these restrictions. So, where is the comparison between the part-time, temporary, largely self-sustaining temple priest to the model of the largely full-time, permanent, church-reliant pastoral staff and where is the insistence on local churches purchasing and maintaining massive facilities? There is no comparison!
So, there are far more differences than similarities between full-time pastoral staff salaries and tithing to support priests and care for the poor, modern-day Jews do not tithe and modern-day Rabbis do not collect tithes. For the Jew, tithing ended when the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. when the Temple was destroyed and Levitical genealogies were irrevocably lost. No more Temple, no more place to bring the tithes. No more Levites, no more people acceptable to God to receive the tithes and no more reason to collect them in the first place. Modern-day Jews pay a predetermined membership fee to participate in a local synagogue and Rabbinical salaries are based on the size of their local membership. Not even modern Jews observe the Old Covenant tithe!
In providing an answer to this question of requiring pastoral salaries, the example of the apostle Paul is frequently ignored. Paul served as an apostle, evangelist, missionary and pastor and never received what would be considered a salary. He never condemned the reception of a salary and never insisted that God’s people must provide for such. Who was Paul? Paul was a Pharisee (Acts 22:3, Philippians 3:5). Paul was an itinerant tentmaker (Acts 18:1-3) and worked hard to not be a burden to those to whom he ministered (1 Thessalonians 2:9, 2 Thessalonians 3:7-10). Paul occasionally stopped working and preached full-time (Acts 18:5). He thanked those individuals (Phoebe in Romans 16:2 and Gaius v. 23) and churches (Macedonians in 2 Corinthians 11:8 and Philippians in his letter to them 4:15-16) that gave to him to support his ministry. Paul, also made some statements that directly fly in the face of the modern insistance on pastoral salaries support through a system of a required at least 10% tithe:
1 Thessalonians 2:9- “Surely you remember, brothers and sisters, our toil and hardship; we worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you.”
Acts 20:34-35- “You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
1 Corinthians 9:3-18- “This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don’t we have the right to food and drink? Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast. For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel.”
Paul declared, “I have not used any of these rights” (v. 15a). What rights? To be financially supported by those he served similar to a soldier or farmer who collects a salary. But notice the references to “food” (vv. 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13) and their correlation to “support” (vv. 4, 12, 13) and “living” (v. 14) in this exchange here. It is clear that Paul is connecting the provision of basic sustenance and the right to receive this from those to whom Paul preached. But he did not use this right and was very clear that he was not trying to convince or guilt his hearers into financially supporting him as he freely preached to them. Paul provided for his own financial needs as to not place this burden on the people. Paul boldly stated in vv. 17-18, “What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel.” As Chase aptly concludes, “If the Corinthian believers were required to tithe to Paul based on God’s command, Paul would have no scriptural grounds to tell them he could refuse his right of support if that support was a required tithe payment mandated by God.” (Frank Chase, Kleptomaniac Who’s Really Robbing God Anyway? Fc Pub Llc, 2016. Chap 15, Kindle.) Thus, more foundation to surmise that Paul was not advocating a required at least 10% tithe.
Some suggest that Paul instituted the practice of a “weekly” tithe in 1 Corinthians 16:2a, ”On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income.” This, certainly, is proof that Paul taught a required at least 10% tithe, right? WRONG! Look at the context, context, context here. First, look at v. 1: “Now about the collection for the Lord’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do.” This “collection” here refers to taking an offering for helping the believers in Jerusalem. Paul mentions giving to them in Acts 11:27-30, 24:17, Romans 15:26, 2 Corinthians 8:13, 9:9-12 and, he specifically mentions what he told the Galations to do in his letter to them in 2:9-10- to reach out and help the poor in Jerusalem. Second, look at the rest of v. 2 in context: “On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.” According to each one’s means, Paul was asking for donations for the poor in Jerusalem and wanted it to be collected and ready for him when he arrived there so it did not have to be collected at his arrival. No mention of tithing. No mention of doing this every week either. None.
No required tithing. No required salaries. No guilt. No shame. No requirements. Just hard work and preaching on Paul’s part and generous giving as needed from the people. Why is this example never used as a prescriptive text to support tithing? Why is this example never used as a proof-text for tithing? Why is this example never used to guilt-trip Christians into tithing? Why is this example never used to support compulsive giving through a required at least 10% tithe. Why is this example never used to equate the Great Commission with tithing? The answer appears clear- Paul’s example of serving does not fit the narrative that claims the only way to combat church decline is through ever-increasing local church budgets.
Out of all the proof-texts provided as evidence for a required at least 10% tithe and out of all the “gospel issue” correlations, why can’t anyone seem to find (or manipulate) any Scripture passages to support the modern-day often bloated local church budgets? Why doesn’t anyone
seem to want to address the issue that the actual “need” for an ever-increasing level of funds to pour into the local church has more to do with maintaining these budgets than providing for the minimal basic sustenance of our leaders and those among us with little or no resources? How did providing for these basic needs turn into a requirement to finance an ever-increasing budget focused on administration and material possession? Is the real motivation behind insisting on a required at least 10% tithe to create a local church membership base to finance all of this? Did God not provide the funds needed by the local church for nearly 2,000 years because of their lack of continued tithing? NO! Did God reward His church with growth and expansion as a result of the restoration of tithing in the local church or did the financial needs of the local church increase as a result of their desire to find funds for these over-burdened budgets?
The answer to the heart of these questions is possibly found not just in what Floyd does say, but rather in what he does not say. This last section of this study includes two revealing concluding remarks regarding equating tithing with evangelism:
The end result is the gospel is advanced, churches are planted, people are saved, missionaries are sent, pastors and God-called leaders are equipped, and compassion is experienced in times of need.The mission prospers! (p 95) We have learned that we can do more together than our one church alone. We believe in partnering with other churches who believe as we do and taking the gospel to the world.
Ronnie Floyd. TEN PERCENT: A Call to Biblical Stewardship (Nashville: Convention Press and Ronnie W. Floyd, 2020), 96.
If we say, this result is caused by uncompelled generosity rather than tithing- YES! Again, YES! But, what is missing from these statements and the entire six-week study is any mention of unnecessarily bloated local church budgets.
There is nothing inherently wrong with using generously given local church funds for salaries, audio-visual tools, building programs, etc. According to Tithe.ly, a widely used digital church giving company, the average spent on local church staff compensation is around 47% and around 23% for facility maintenance. (“How Churches Really Spend Their Money: 20 Fascinating Data Points [A New Study].” RSS,get.tithe.ly/blog/how-churches-really-spend-their-money-20-fascinating-data-points-a-new-study.) In a 2016 study from GuideStone Financial Resources and LifeWay Christian Resources found that staff compensation exceeded the cost of living increases for the previous two years. (“2018 Southern Baptist Convention Compensation Study.” LifeWay Compensation Study,<compstudy.lifeway.com/homepage.do.>) Again, there is nothing explicitly taught for or against these types of budgetary items. But, where is the transparency on this issue? Where is the publicly available lists of these types of items from most local churches? Yet, Floyd is suggesting that local church pastors spend six weeks attempting to manipulate their members to engage in a required at least 10% tithe WITHOUT even mentioning that the majority of received funds will likely go towards the salary of the leadership and the maintenance of their building(s) and that it is estimated that all churches collectively raise $82.82 to $86.28 billion. (M.S. Brown, et al. Reconciling Estimates of Religious Giving. Indianapolis: Center for Philanthropy at Indiana University, 2004, 8.)
Worse yet, some churches ignore the overwhelming majority of their budgets are going towards salaries and building maintenance ultimately. While most churches publicly provide salary information for their pastors and staff at least to their members, quite a few churches, even within the SBC, refuse to release such information and even intentionally hide it from both their memers and the public. One such incident involves SBC pastor Steven Furtick of Elevation Church in Charlotte, NC. His salary is determined by a non-member board of directors and is not released even to members. (Nicola Menzie. “Who Are the Megachurch Leaders Who Decide Elevation Church Pastor Steven Furtick’s ‘Secret’ Salary and Influence His Ministry?” The Christian Post, 30 Oct. 2013, www.christianpost.com/news/who-are-the-megachurch-leaders-who-decide-elevation-church-pastor-steven-furticks-secret-salary-and-influence-his-ministry.html.) While this seems relatively harmless to the average person, it only fuels conspiracy theories, such as when this same pastor, Furtick, purchased a $1.7 million, 16,000 sq foot home and claims it was purchased from book sales. (Gina Meeks, “Megachurch Pastor Steven Furtick Draws Criticism for $1.7 Million Home, Secret Salary.” Charisma News, 25 Oct. 2013, www.charismanews.com/us/41523-megachurch-pastor-steven-furtick-draws-criticism-for-1-7-million-home-secret-salary.) Why the secrecy? Why ignore the issue of salary? Why allow room for potentially false allegations? What could be the motives other than to completely ignore bloated local church budgets?
In 2019, Ben Kirby noticed that a worship leader at Furtick’s church wore Yeezy sneakers worth $800. He started an Instagram account to document other such extravagant church staff attire. This account sparked interest and grew to more than 100,000 followers in nearly four weeks. It showcased pictures of ministers and staff wearing costly clothing juxtaposed to pictures of online prices of these items. Kirby detailed examples such as Your Destiny Church pastor Steven Chandler’s $8,100 sneakers, Relentless Church pastor John Gray’s $9,625 parka, New Life Covenant pastor John Hannah’s $2,580 jacket, as well as various items worn by other well-known ministers such as Carl Lentz of Hillsong, Paula White of Destiny Christian Center and TD Jakes of the Potter’s House as well as various others (instagram.com/preachersnsneakers/). Julie Roys interviewed Ben Kirby on her podcast in May 2021. Roys asks Kirby, “You know, at what point does it go from being about a slick production and just go over into vanity, and appealing to our vanity?” Kirby replies with the following:
It’s hard to say specifically when it does. But if you look at modern churches at a macro level, it does seem like we spend a whole lot of time and money on making a two hour service on Sunday, that reaches a few thousand people when we have the resources to affect so much more. Just if you drill down the dollar signs that go into most mega churches, the guitars, the sound system, the air conditioning, the building the coffee shop all that every single week. That’s really expensive. And my question is like, Hey, is there a way to do it better or can we realign our priorities where it’s saying, hey, what if we funneled 90% of all this operating budget into missions, community outreach and evangelism instead of the majority of it going to Sunday service? Like I’ve never run a church, I know there’s probably plenty of nuance into running a church that makes it to where maybe some of these things make more sense, but I love comfort, I love air conditioning, I would I love you know, there’s some element of you want to be able to perform, so it’s not distracting. And so it leads people in a way that isn’t awkward or hokey. But there’s an element of living in your gifts and doing things excellent. As a collective, it seems like we care a whole lot about putting on a really slick, entertaining church service versus effecting change in the actual world.
The Roys Report Podcast. “PreachersNSneakers.” The Roys Report, Episode 069, 4 May 2021, julieroys.com/podcast/preachersnsneakers/.
Another example is the Relentless Church pastor Gray gifting a Lamborghini to his wife for their eighth anniversary in 2018, then openly claiming none of the money used to purchase it came from his full-time church salary but provided no evidence for how he could afford such a gift. (Carol Kuruvilla, “Megachurch Pastor Passionately Defends Giving Wife A $200K Lamborghini Urus.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 17 Dec. 2018, www.huffpost.com/entry/pastor-john-gray-lamborghini-gift_n_5c17bf16e4b049efa754cc90.) Why are the congregants of these churches concerned about these expenditures and their leaders veiled excuses ? How do all of these examples demonstrate a humble pursuit of spreading the Gospel?
Kirby also wrote a book regarding his findings where he suggests a possible reason why Christians fail to address these types of flagrant displays of wealth in the ministry context:
I wonder if the discomfort of this whole conversation stems from years and years of Christians being hush-hush about money. For some reason, most of us grew up treating money as a private issue. I felt the same. Who are you to say what I can and can’t do with my money? Who are you to judge me for what I do when you have a bunch of jacked-up stuff in your own life? Surely this has something to do with why we have been averse to pointing out this stuff in the past. If we call out others about their use of money, it pretty much instantly makes us feel like hypocrites.
Ben Kirby, and Joel McHale. PreachersNSneakers: Authenticity in an Age of for-Profit Faith and (Wannabe) Celebrities. W Publishing Group, an Imprint of Thomas Nelson, 2021, 193-194.
Regardless of where or how these church leaders received or paid for these items. It seems to be in direct opposition to Paul’s example of humble financial means and pursuit of preaching the Gospel for free while working a “day job” to provide for basic sustenance. Although there is no direct prohibition in Scripture against church leaders owning or publicly wearing such extravagant clothing, living in elaborate homes or owning expensive vehicles, it begs the question, “Where do we draw the line between greed and ministry?” According to Turtullian, there was a clear purpose for the use of money in the church and it stands in stark contrast to much current use of collected funds by the modern church:
These gifts are, as it were, piety’s deposit fund. For they are not taken thence and spent on feasts, and drinking-bouts, and eating-houses, but to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined now to the house; such, too, as have suffered shipwreck; and if there happen to be any in the mines, or banished to the islands, or shut up in the prisons, for nothing but their fidelity to the cause of God’s Church, they become the nurslings of their confession.
Translated by S Thelwall, Logos Virtual Library: Tertullian: Apology, 39
There it is- we ARE to support the poor, orphans, elderly, prisoners and ARE NOT to spend it on frivolous endeavors. This concept correlates with numerous passages in Scripture. Where does this modern frivolity, especially among church leaders, find a correlation in Scripture? It doesn’t! Sharp reflects on these type of ministry lifestyles and correctly compares them to the humility of Jesus:
I am not against leaders living luxurious lifestyles, however I am saying that if something we’re doing is causing a massive amount of people to stumble and be offended with God that becomes an act of selfishness. I’m sure you’ve witnessed some preachers drive a hundred thousand dollar vehicle through the church parking lot where their average member can barely afford a vehicle. That’s not the example Jesus displayed during his earthly ministry. Jesus made himself of no reputation! Philippians 2:7 says, “But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.
Johnny Sharp. The Naked Truth about Tithing and Giving to the Church, The Naked Truth Series, Book 1, Chap 5, Part 3, Kindle.
At the conclusion of his proposed six-week study, Floyd provides “Additional Stewardship Resources” where he makes a few points of interest in regards to this suggested attempt at manipulation to finance these seemingly unmentionable budgetary items. Within the “Making the Case for Ten Percent” section, he asserts, “The bottom line is that the more you preach on giving, the more people will respond to God’s Word in obedience, resulting in giving dollars to honor the Lord.” (Ronnie Floyd. TEN PERCENT: A Call to Biblical Stewardship (Nashville: Convention Press and Ronnie W. Floyd, 2020), 113.) Then, within the section “Ten Steps to a Better Offering” he suggests, “Most offering times in churches are one of the most boring moments of the service. The typical church offering has become a routine that we rarely, if ever, put any thought or action into. Is it any wonder giving is declining?” (Floyd, 115) Then he proceeds to give ideas to liven things up during the time of giving in a service. He suggests changing the format to avoid routines, using giving testimonies from others (since people “listen” to their “peers”), use creative “videos and skits” to make it “fun”, and give “reasons” as well as what past gifts have “accomplished” because, “People give to success!” (Floyd, 116)
What in the world is Floyd suggesting now? If we read these statements, we can only conclude that the best way to bring more funds into the local church is to constantly browbeat attendees about giving more while dazzling them with a song-and-dance laser light show and pyrotechnics. What? NO! Remember, if God is our source of giving, then all attempts at compelling marketing gimmicks are pointless. But, as we have already identified, Floyd seems to want to “switch” from focusing on a reliance on God as our source to focusing on us “being a blessing.” (Floyd, 117) Whatever happened to teaching Scripture and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide His people “into all the truth” (John 16:13)?
Hebrews 4:1-13- For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
2 Timothy 3:16-17- All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
It is not the responsibility of the local church to manipulate people into forking up more funds to support the local church. God is our source for all giving and God will provide for the needs of both the giver and the local church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Word of God.
No reliance on descriptive texts as prescriptions. No proof-texting. No piecemealing of Old Testament Laws. No guilt trips. No compulsive giving. No equating with the Great Commission. Generosity, with no compulsion.
So, what did we observe through looking at this study on tithing. We have observed that the required at least 10% tithe is based on a work(tithing)/reward dynamic and is not grounded in Scripture. We have observed that a careful comparison of what Scripture says with what Floyd asserts seems to be a misinterpretation at least and a direct manipulation at worst. We have observed no amount of guilt-tripping or compulsion can replace generosity in the heart of a believer who relies on God as their source for their ability and willingness to give.
We have observed that the local church survived and the gospel was spread worldwide throughout the entirety of the history of the Church without tithing. We have observed that tithing is a relatively new concept historically. It appears to be the undisclosed yet preferred method to sustain local church staffing and facility budgetary needs.
We have also observed that tithing was not officially mentioned within the SBC until a resolution in 2013 and has still not been included in the official statement of faith, the Baptist Faith and Message. Yet, in spite of all of these observances which have been borne through analysis of Scripture and the history and practice of the Church in general and the SBC in particular, Floyd still makes the following seemingly self-congratulatory misleading statement near the conclusion of the final small group section:
For more than one hundred and seventy-five years, Southern Baptist leaders and laity alike preached, practiced, and believed that tithing, the giving of the first ten percent of all God has given to you, was the biblical means of underwriting the missional vision of reaching the nation and the nations with the Gospel.
Ronnie Floyd. TEN PERCENT: A Call to Biblical Stewardship (Nashville: Convention Press and Ronnie W. Floyd, 2020), 104.
So, which is it? Either the SBC has been preaching, practicing and believing a demonstrably unbiblical required at least 10% tithe OR the SBC has been relying on tithing as a crucial and undeniable part of their faith WITHOUT including it in the BF&M or requiring local church affiliated to agree to uphold it. This cannot continue in its current state. Either way, the SBC leadership finds itself in the middle of a serious dilemma. On the one hand, they would have to ignore all of these observations and evidences against tithing and carry on with an insistence on tithing and officially include it in the BF&M. On the other hand, there would have to be an admission that tithing is, indeed, not supported in Scripture, and
therefore they must repent and no longer teach it. But, they cannot do nothing and claim what they are currently doing is acceptable, sustainable or even minimally logical. They must return to the truth of God’s Word and stop relying on their tone.
There does, however, appear to be a growing divide between the local church membership and executive leadership within the SBC regarding how to handle this moral decline reflected in lowering financial giving. While not included within the scope of this examination here, this divide can be clearly observed through looking at the unresolved 2019 controversy regarding SBC Resolution 9, “On Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality” (“On Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality – SBC.Net.” n.d. Accessed March 21, 2020. http://www.sbc.net/resource-library/resolutions/on-critical-race-theory-and-intersectionality/.) and the resulting launch of the Conservative Baptist Network. (www.conservativebaptistnetwork.com/) Of particular interest here is a developing focus on uncovering specific possible causes for lowering financing giving within the SBC reflected in a recent SBC internal review of a possible correlation between growing mistrust of the SBC’s ERLC and lowering financial giving.
The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) describes themselves on their website, www.erlc.com, as ”the moral and public policy entity of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination.” On February 18, 2020, the Executive Committee of the SBC authorized an analysis into the ERLC and its fulfillment of its task as a convention entity. This study resulted in the “Report to the SBC Executive Committee by the ERLC Study Task Force” submitted January 16, 2021. (Netdna-Ssl.Com. Accessed March 20, 2021, https://3c9inr29cnbxopwsm4bdy491-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Final-Report-of-the-ERLC-Study-Task-Force.pdf.)
The report notes that questionnaires were gathered from all but 15 state conventions and revealed “sharp differences of sentiment that exist across the SBC regarding the work of the ERLC” (Netdna-Ssl.Com. Accessed March 20, 2022b. https://3c9inr29cnbxopwsm4bdy491-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Final-Report-of-the-ERLC-Study-Task-Force.pdf, 8.) where there are evidences for both support for and opposition to the work of the ERLC. The report details that near the finalization of the report in January some of the largest conventions “initiated contact” and there were a “high volume of recent calls and emails received by the Executive Committee office” regarding the decision of the ERLC to openly condemn the January 6, 2021 incident at the U.S. Capital “in light of the silence” of the ERLC during the sweeping riots during the summer of 2020. The report states, “These communications expressed frustration with the ERLC and indicated possible changes in Cooperative Program support. (”Netdna-Ssl.Com., 8) Among the findings, the report states the ERLC is a “source of significant distraction” (Netdna-Ssl.Com, 10) and makes the following conclusion:
That the current perception of the leadership and direction of the ERLC by many Southern Baptist is a substantial impediment to the growth of the Cooperative Program. Without quick and significant changes in that perception, the findings suggest the potential for a measurable decline in the near future and beyond.
Netdna-Ssl.Com, 10.
The Cooperative Program is the SBC plan whereby each local church gives a percentage of their receipts to their respective state conventions and to the SBC missions and ministries. (“The Cooperative Program – SBC.Net.” n.d. Accessed Feb 20, 2020. http://www.sbc.net/missions/the-cooperative-program/) The report reveals that giving by state conventions to the national convention increased from 37% to 42% from 2009 to 2019 and that giving by local congregations have fallen “more than half over the last three decades” despite the total giving into these local churches has grown from around $4 billion to around $12 billion in this same time frame.” (Netdna-Ssl.Com, 4) Clearly, we observe that actual giving by individuals into local churches has grown, but local church leadership actually giving from these funds to the Cooperative Program has declined.
So, it appears the executive SBC leadership is ignoring the fact that there is a growing dissatisfaction regarding specific developing trends within their associated local churches. This disconnect appears to be resulting in an increasing number of local churches deciding to not just limit their giving to national SBC programs but to leave their affiliation with the SBC. There is a myriad of concerns related to the decisions of local churches to leave the SBC, but according to the responses of those many churches who have already left or are considering leaving the SBC (readily found online) some of the main issues stem from concerns over indirect or direct acceptance of false teachers and charismaticism through Lifeway affiliations, seeming growing acceptance of liberal stances on social justice issues, the willingness to partner in the advancement of critical race theory and intersectionality as well as an ever increasing decision to distance the SBC from conservatism overall. The findings and recommendations of the task force study on the ERLC seems to validate some of these stated concerns. Rather than address these concerns and seemingly overall liberal drift of the convention and resulting lowering of financial giving, the SBC has chosen to address the symptom of decline rather than the cure.
What has received focused attention from national SBC leadership is an increasing number of local churches and prominent individuals deciding to leave the SBC. This is due to a perception that the SBC remains too politically conservative, is not concerned enough with social justice issues and a grassroots movement to regain a reliance on the sufficiency of Scripture while addressing false teachings. This liberal drift and the resulting decisions to either lower giving to national programs or to leave the SBC do not seem to be a concern to national SBC leadership. They seem to perceive the cause of this entire dilemma is the failure of the local church member to adhere to a required at least 10% tithe. Thus the relative silence on these churches. This is exemplified when there appears to be complete silence when Pastor Jeff Noblit and his large and growing Grace Life Church of the Shoals in Alabama decides to leave the SBC due to perceptions of liberal drift but there is much public lament when Dr. Charlie Dates and Beth Moore decide to leave due to perceptions of too slow of a liberal drift.
Floyd makes this revealing statement in his introduction to this six-week tithing study that sheds light on this disparity in responses:
Prioritizing, elevating, and accelerating generosity in your church is imperative to your entire ministry in your region and in your influence statewide, nationally, and globally. Pastor and church leader, now is the time to return to the biblical principles of stewardship, standing upon the Bible’s authority in the name of Jesus, teaching them to your church in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Ronnie Floyd. TEN PERCENT: A Call to Biblical Stewardship (Nashville: Convention Press and Ronnie W. Floyd, 2020), 10.
This clarifies this divide and the decision of the national leadership of the SBC on how to blame local church members. Rather than focus on “making disciples” and returning to an emphasis on the sufficiency of Scripture in addressing the concerns of moral decline and resulting lowering of financial giving, the SBC is openly deciding that it is “imperative” to “return to the biblical principles of stewardship.” In other words, their solution to this noticeable decline in generosity from local churches directly to the national programs is to blame local church members and guilt them into adhering to a required at least 10% tithe and convince local church leaders to give more the national programs.