"Shake Down" or "Shake Up"?

Pastor Ron Jones at the Immanuel Bible Church in Springfield, VA tried something very unusual this past Sunday.

After preaching his sermon "WEALTH" from Mat 6:19-24, he called on his congregation to put what they heard into immediate action.

Pastor Jones called for everyone present to empty their pockets of all "cash and coin" and give it away before they left the building. Apparently the church collected the money from the people as they left the worship center.

According to Pastor Jones, over $33,000 in cold hard cash was collected. The funds were used to stroke three checks in excess of $11,000 to three worthy ministires outside of their church.

At his blog, Jones said that he was very pleased at the amount raised, but not surprised at the people's generosity. He said that the reaction was mixed...one member called it a "Sunday Morning Shakedown", but Jones preferred to call it a "Sunday Morning Shakeup". Jones said he went to lunch with one member this week who said he would have paid for the pastor's lunch, but he had no money in his pocket! Funny!

A couple of comments:

- one commenter on Jones' blog said it was a good lesson for his son to see his dad open his wallet and empty it at the request of the pastor. Are we sure that is a GOOD thing? [Update: after watching the sermon and how Jones explained why he was doing this, and what the money was going toward, I'm sure it was a good thing].

- here's a thought: I wonder what a mega church would do if their congregation one Sunday decided NOT to give their "tithes and offerings" to the church, but decided to give it DIRECTLY to a needy ministry in their home town that is caring for people's physical needs? Would the pastor like that? Or would he call out his church for their disobedience in not bringing the money to the "storehouse"?

What do you think of Pastor Jones' tactic? Would you have emptied your pockets? Was this a "shakedown" or a "shakeup"?

Here is Pastor Jones' sermon if interested:

WEALTH from IBC on Vimeo.

A 2008 Message from Paige Patterson on Handling Attacks

In an interview with SBC Today in February 2008, just prior to the FBC Jax Pastor's Conference, Paige Patterson was asked by Tim Rogers of SBC Today the following question:

"How do we control ourselves when we as pastors come under attack, and we take attacks alot like you have, not on the level that you have, but how do we control ourselves when we're under attack like that, what suggestions do you have for us?"

I think Patterson's response is worth considering by all Christians who claim to be attacked and might seek justice, and might have particular relevance to Jerry Sutton's recent lawsuit against his critic. I don't know if Patterson has lived up to his own statements below or not, but his advice is worth considering.

I'm putting it here after nearly 2 years since the interview, as it was provided in audio-only format at SBC Today, and probably not many people have heard it. The context of the interview was at the time the Sheri Klouda lawsuit was before the court but not yet decided on summary judgment. He also was receiving heat at the time because Darrell Gilyard has just gotten busted a few months earlier, so Patterson was being roundly criticized for not doing more to keep Gilyard out of the pulpit after complaints about Gilyard's sexual appetite were brought to Patterson as president of Criswell College.

So here is Patterson's response to Rogers' question (emphases are obviously mine):

"Well, that's an excellent question. I'm not certain that I'm much of a paradigm to look at on it, because, I do have some difficulty with it. As I often say I'm half Irish and half Texan - its a bad genetic combination. What is easy for you to handle is with regard to what comes toward you personally; when your family is hurt and so forth, it becomes very difficult.

I would say that one of the most important things that a person has to do is to keep in mind the bigger picture, and the bigger picture goes something like this: first and foremost do you believe that God is really just? Do you believe that He is really merciful? Do you really believe he is omnipotent, that he can really handle the situation? Is he really omniscient, does he know what is going on? If you really believe that, then you really only have one big challenge, and that is to be sure you please God. What else happens to you, God can stop it anytime he wants to.

If its unjust, then at some point God rights every wrong. You HAVE to believe that, if you don't believe that, then you go mad, you get angry and you get bitter, and when a root of bitterness is found in your heart its not long before it contaminates you and everybody around you, as the Bible warns.

As a second feature, that helps me in it, that is that I'm an old man now and I have to face the fact that what happens to me from now on is relatively unimportant. Its the next generation and the next and the next that are coming along behind. And so with no attempt to be particularly noble about it at all, its much more important for me to take whatever folks want to dish out to me than it is for a younger man, and anybody else that has to take it. I have to learn to thank God because if those energies are expended on me somebody else is being spared and I'm thankful for that.

And there's a third thing too, and that is I believe that God uses all such attacks that come to take off rough edges on us. There's some very clear mandates from scripture about loving your enemy, returning good for evil, praying for those that spitefully use you; not a one of those are you able to do under sunny-side-up conditions. Not one of those commands of Christ can be done unless you have an enemy, unless he is misrepresenting you, unless he is attacking you in some way.

And so I have to reach the point where I say 'OK Lord, you're Lord, you can do whatever you want to about this.' My responsibility is to be sure that I respond to you properly in this situation. But if I can keep my mind and thought on that rather than on whether I like or dislike the people that are making the attack it helps me a great deal.

But in the end, I come back to say, it's your doctrine of the providence of God, whether or not that's a theory, or whether or not its a fact in your life, that is determinitive."

Great advice for the most part. Whether he and his "sons in the ministry" (as he calls them) follow this advice is something else. His comment on taking what people dish out so that younger pastors don't have to makes no sense. Seems like a clever attempt to dismiss Christians like Klouda, Burleson, Cole, Brown, and Croft and others who have raised legitimate issues in the public arena concerning Patterson. Patterson wasn't taking someone's else's arrows when he was the subject of the Klouda lawsuit - HE was the seminary president that had fired Sheri Klouda for being a woman teaching men. HE was the mentor of Darrell Gilyard and the president of Criswell College when Darrell was accused of being a sexual predator and worse...so the criticism came and rightly so. He wasn't taking someone else's arrows, he spared no one else attacks by enduring his.

But his other comments are valid and worth considering. Patterson asks if the doctrine of the providence of God just a theory to these pastors who have studied it and preached it to their congregations, or is it an actual fact and verifiable truth lived out in their lives? In other words, perhaps a critic is placed in someone's life by God to help them see something that needs correcting and to give them an opportunity to show the world how to love someone even when they despise you.

Or does the providence of God sometimes include lawsuits, threats of lawsuits, and other legal maneuvers against critics?

"10%....Undesignated...No Exceptions"

"10 percent to the budget of your church in an undesignated fashion, no exceptions."

That is Steve Gaines' definition of what it means to storehouse tithe. He speaks with authority, as one who knows the scripture, and is telling his people exactly what God expects. He clearly explains that all of your 10% must come to the church, not to any other Christian organizations or charities. ALL TO YOUR CHURCH. And you can't give to any other causes until you have first met the 10% tithe to the church.

God wants 10%. And God wants it now. And he wants it undesignated. And God allows no exceptions. None. So says Steve Gaines.

He doesn't have time to explain where in scripture, OT or NT this clear command comes from.

And wants us all to know: there are no exceptions. Period.

Strange, even the IRS who demands 20% or more from us gives us some leeway. If our income is low, or we had excessive medical expenses, or we gave some of our money to worthwhile charities, the IRS does give us some exceptions.

But not the mega church preachers. They want 10 percent. Not to any charity. They want it ALL to their church. No exceptions.

I would love for Bill O'Reilly's body language expert, Tanya Reiman, to analyze Gaines' body language as he says this to his congregation. Notice his slow eye close as he declares "..in an un-designated fashion...", with a slight emphasis on "un" and then the slight pause for effect. Its as though he is saying he will say it ONE MORE time for those of you who don't get it, and he's tired of having to say it. There seems to be a bit of contempt as he says it. Almost a threat.

I almost expected Rodney Dangerfield to come out and declare "Moose, Rocco, help the judge find his checkbook, will ya?" Or I thought Gaines was going to explain the tithe was to be given in unmarked bills, all 10's and 20's, left in a black brief case behind the Waffle House Saturday night.

But you have to hand it to this guy. He believes in the storehouse tithe, and is not afraid to ratchet up the requirements and speak them as gospel. Wow.

Steve says finances are what can define a man or woman as being "right". Says Gaines: "If a man or woman is not right in his finances, he's not right." OK, so I lose my job, debt up to my eyeballs, and my home is being foreclosed, my creditors are beating my door down, and my finances are a wreck. I guess I'm not right. I need to repent. Thanks, pastor.

He declares if you're not at 10%, you're not even close to what God wants. I think, Pastor Gaines, that YOU might not be even close to what God wants in a preacher....perhaps God wants the full 23 1/3%. Or perhaps he wants you to stop throwing percentages around and let the Holy Spirit work on Christians. Maybe he wants 50% of your mammoth salary in order for you to be a generous, sacrificial giver as the New Testament says.

"Moose, Rocco, help Mrs. Jones find her pocketbook." And maybe Mrs. Jones says "Steve, you'll get nothing, and like it!"

Circumcision Doesn't Raise Revenue

As we continue our look at tithing, and specifically what the very respected biblical scholar John MacArthur teaches on the subject, we see that there was no 10% tithe in the Old Testament. There was a 23% tithe that included multiple tithes. But some preachers like to hang the 10% around the necks of Christians today as some sort of holy commandment from God that determines one's obedience in giving.

Why do they do this? Some may be sincere in their beliefs, but I believe it is still taught because these pastors know that while it is not completely defensible from scripture, they believe teaching it is necessary to raise required revenue. One could make just as strong an argument for the OT circumcision command to be in effect today, or the Sabbath, than to say 10% is the borderline between obedience and disobedience.

But circumcision and the Sabbath don't raise revenue in the modern day mega church, so mega church pastors leave those OT pre-Mosaic laws alone - although one might be able to think of some creative ways the church could take a cut on revenue from a circumcision ministry (no pun intended). If cutting genitalia would increase revenue at the modern mega church, I truly believe some preachers WOULD teach it from the Old Testament. As Gaines said recently, Jesus came not to do away with the law, but to increase the law (my Bible says Jesus came to fulfill the law)...so let's circumcise, and let's do it all the way.

But the hard-core storehouse tithing preachers don't preach circumcision. Circumcision won't raise any church revenue or build any mega church empires.

To understand MacArthur's view on tithing, you have to understand this: MacArthur does not say that the Old Testament law on tithing doesn't apply to us as Christians under the New Covenant. Rather, he shows from scritpure that there WAS NO 10% tithing requirement on the Jews. In fact, the REQUIRED giving (which was much more than 10%) was a TAXATION to run a theocratic form of government, and thus has no application whatsoever to Christians giving finances to church. Read MacArthur's words:

"Now let me say at this point just by way of a footnote. I know that this is new to some of you who perhaps were raised in a church or been in a church where they hammered on tithing and they said that the way Christians are to give is to give ten percent because that's the way the Jews give. I know that that is something that is taught commonly. That is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible does not teach the Jews gave ten percent. As I pointed out it teaches that they gave about 25 percent. It was not their giving to God, it was their payment to the theocracy, to the government. It had to be brought into the temple treasury and not to bring it was to rob God, according to Malachi 3:8, of His due tithes and offerings. That was taxation. I know that that is perhaps new to some of you but that is clearly what the Scripture teaches. It's what I've taught for many, many, many years, we just haven't been able to cover it recently."

MacArthur points out that the "tithe" was not 10%, but was about 23.3%...the Jews were required to give 10% to the Levitical priests (Lev 27), to support them as they had no way to provide for themselves. They were the leaders of the nation, "God's vice presidents" in the theocracy, as MacArthur says. There was a second tithe, for festivals, found in Deuteronomy. There was also a welfare tithe, which was 10% every three years.

So you, Christian church member attending a church where your preacher is a hard-core storehouse tither sheep beater - you have to deal with this. Why does your preacher beat up the sheep and threaten them with God's judgment and "messed up" finances, accusing the sheep of robbing God if they don't meet the 10% threshold? Why does your pastor continue to paint all those that DO give 10% as "baby" or "ABC" Christians as Steve Gaines did recently? At best a preacher can use the Old Testament to teach a principle that a Christian might want to consider 10% as a starting point of giving...but to actually teach 10% is the rock-solid biblical borderline between obedience and disobedience for followers of Jesus is a false doctrine. Am I being too strong in saying that? I don't think so. But if you think that too harsh, consider that Mac Brunson goes so far as to accuse those who disagree with HIM on the view of storehouse tithing of "doing the work of Satan". Listen to Mac Brunson here.

MacArthur summarizes his views on tithing and the Old Testament like this (taken from sermons hyperlinked at end of this post):

"The required taxation for the theocracy was twenty-three percent, not very far different from the required taxation in Egypt when they were required to give twenty percent. So those who say the Jews gave ten percent are wrong. They did not give ten percent. They gave ten percent, ten percent, and another three and a third percent every year in order to fund the national government. That was required giving. In another words, that was taxation to fund the government. The government was there to lead them to God, to protect them, to provide an army to secure them, to provide resources for them, to create the social character of the nation and keep them as one great people involved in religious ceremonies and to meet the needs of those among them who were destitute."

In the next post, we'll continue to look at what MacArthur says about freewill offerings in the Old Testament, and what Jesus said about giving to the government and generous giving under the New Covenant.

Finally, no doubt storehouse tithers have their rebuttals against what MacArthur teaches on tithing. But here's my point: the hardcore storehouse tithers - I'll use Brunson and Gaines as examples - they will not exegete their views on tithing like MacArthur has. Instead, they stand in their pulpits and refer to previous pastors - they'll put video and audio clips of past pastors who told their people to tithe. They'll say "its what the Bible teaches", and they will push it on their people arrogantly and unlovingly, sometimes even mockingly. They expect their sheep to just believe it because THEY say it is in the Bible. They'll say not to argue with the preacher over tithing, but to "take it up with the book". They'll even make wild claims that God is punishing America with high gas prices and a terrible economy because of Christian disobedience in the matter of "tithing". They'll tell people their finances are a wreck precisely because they do not tithe. They will even say the tithe must be "undesignated" giving to the church.

But they won't exegete it out of scripture.

Perhaps it is because they can't do it.

So I challenge them to do it. Teach storehouse tithing clearly from the book, brother pastors; exegete it out of scripture like you do most other doctrines. We'll give you 10 bonus points if you attempt to address the "incorrect" teaching of MacArthur on tithing in your sermon.

Readers, if they do, we'll give them equal time and put their arguments here for all to see.

To read MacArthur's views on tithing for yourself, here are the links:

A Biblical Model For Giving - Part 1

A Biblical Model For Giving - Part 2

A Biblical Model For Giving - Part 3

A Biblical Model For Giving - Part 4

"The Miracle" of Saddleback

You may have read the reports how Rick Warren's Saddleback Church was $900,000 behind in their 2009 receipts heading into the New Year. Rick Warren sent out a letter communicating this shortfall to the congregation, and they responded by giving $2.4 million in just a few days.

This is very interesting. A few comments I have, which are mixed, but I would love to hear views of others regarding this "miracle".

My thoughts:

- Warren was quite successful, no doubt. But was this God demonstrating his mighty power, as Warren says, or was this a demonstration of the power of his cult personality - that he can get people to fork over $2 million plus with a letter? Warren himself said: "This is pretty amazing. That’s a record. I don’t think any church has gotten a cash offering like that off a letter.” Maybe he should run for president, and send a letter out to ask for donations to fix our deficit.

- Notice that Warren didn't try to guilt or threaten his people to get them to fork over the money. He didn't tell them to give it else they would go into debt. He didn't say our economy is a wreck because of their poor giving habits...and by golly he didn't even tell them to give it "undesignated". He just communicated the shortfall, and people responded. I do admire that. Didn't tell them they were robbing God if they didn't give.

- Said Warren in a Tweet Sunday morning: "Radically changed lives at Saddleback 'vote with their wallet' to show their love for Jesus. $2,400,000 CASH given midweek." There is something there that bothers me...that Christians, by writing a check to a mega church at the request of a mega church pastor who says the church needs a million dollars in two days....ARE SHOWING THEIR "LOVE FOR JESUS". Were these people really showing their love for Jesus in their gifts?

- Warren says there were no big contributors, but that every gift was less than $100. I have a hard time believing that. If the average gift was say $75, that means there had to be 32,000 gifts of $75 to reach $2.4 million. I find that VERY hard to believe, that there were no large gifts that contributed to the $2.4 million. Pardon my skepticism on this point.

What are your thoughts? Most churches in the SBC and others were behind double digit percentages in 2009, but Saddleback made their shortfall up quite easily - what is there to be learned in this?