Brother, one thing about common sense is that it ain't too dang common.
See my sig.
We've got numerous couples in our church, that are in the medical field, both spouses make butt loads of money and do not tithe/give/contribute, whatever you want to call it. BECAUSE they say it is not scriptural. So they say according to the scripture they are not doing anything wrong.
Even if they are "members" of our church and partake of all the church offers they say they are not scripturally obligated to tithe/give so they don't and shouldn't be "looked down upon" because they don't. Now the only reason anyone knows they don't tithe is because this topic came up in a bible study and their were a number of couples that willingly disclosed they do not tithe/give.
For some reason I have a problem with this and maybe I shouldn't. :redface:
I would have a problem with it as well. While they are absolutely correct in saying that being required to tithe is unscriptural, they are committing the oft committed sin of a knee-jerk reaction. I use the word sin there figuratively, but you could make an argument that they are, in fact, sinning. "To him who knows the right thing to do, and does not do it, to him that is sin." There is a scriptural precedent to give money to the church. And if the leaders of the congregation, with the consent of its members, choose to require some sort of contribution then choosing to not contribute based upon a mis-applied principle could easily be considered a sin.
Now, how you view depends greatly upon the organization and practice of your congregation. Most people have little understanding of how the church should be organized.
When a member chooses a congregation, it is like a sheep picking with which flock it wants to roam the countryside. The reason a sheep joins a flock is not about the comfort and convenience of the flock; it's about the protection of the shepherd. It's not about which "church" has more to offer you, which "church" has a better reputation or social standing, which "church" will accept your application, or even which "church" is more scripturally accurate than another. What being a "member" of a congregation is about is submitting yourself to the care of the shepherds of that congregation. By becoming a member, you are submitting yourself to their authority, and are agreeing to abide under their guidance.
This agreement is not between you and them or between you and the congregation as a whole; this agreement is between you and God. If you choose to purposefully not abide under their authority or their direction, then you are violating that agreement with God, not with them.
If you don't like a particular congregation, or the shepherds of that congregation, and their direction then you have three options. First, you can submit to their authority and follow their direction without complaining or causing division. Two, you can continue to submit to their authority and follow their direction while trying to get that direction changed in some way, following the commandments and examples for such change in scripture. Three, you can choose to become a member of another congregation.
As a small aside, there were only four "positions" in the early church. I put positions in quotes because they weren't positions in the sense that it is a position that you are elected to, like a Senator or Representative. It was a title that was either earned by your actions and/or assignment(s) that were given to you.
These positions, as I refer to them, are:
Shepherds,
Ministers,
Deacons, and
Missionaries.
You'll notice that I left out preachers, and I did so on purpose. What we call preachers (and what some call pastors) was a position that did not exist in the early church. In fact, there was no "sermon" during that formal worship service. What the New Testament writings call a preacher we would call a missionary.
There are 5 terms in the New Testament used for shepherds:
Shepherd, Elder, Pastor, Overseer, and Bishop.
They all refer to one and the same function or office, if you will. Their job was to protect and guide the flock. I would use the term "lead", but people often misunderstand it. The way an Elder, Bishop, Overseer, or Pastor should lead is not like that of a General, who commands troops to advance while sitting safely in the rear, but like a jungle guide, who says "follow me and step where I step."
Ministers were those who saw to the needs of the flock, whether physical or mental. Ministers were often members who would have been shepherds but were either too young or otherwise ineligible for being assigned the task of a shepherd or, perhaps, did not desire the responsibility of the task.
Deacons were those who saw to the ancillary functions of the congregation such as distributing food and clothing, collecting and distributing funds, and other day to day necessities of the congregation and/or its members.
Missionaries were those who left their homes, and their congregations, to go out and spread the Gospel to another part of the world.
It should be noted that many people may have held multiple "titles". A very common combination was someone who was both a deacon and a minister. Shepherds were often considered ministers. A shepherd would not have often been a deacon or a missionary, as both of those tasks would take away from their shepherding responsibilities.
The reason I mention this is because it is, in many ways, at the heart of why people misunderstand their responsibilities as a member of a congregation.
