I have heard many churches say that our tithe should be to the church we go to. Where our the biblical verses for that and can we just give our tithe to poor or the needy or to help the cause of the gospel somewhere else that just the church we attend? Does anyone know what we our suppose to do?

The Scriptures that come to mind are Acts 2 regarding the members of the church sharing with others members.

The only "collection" that I can recall from Scripture is the collection that was taken for the poor saints in Jerusalem, which was a specific need and situation.

It does not appear that there was a weekly "offering" in the early churches for some general purposes ultimately unknown to the members.

Probably one of the main reasons churches today have resorted to a weekly "offering" is because they have placed unneeded monetary overhead on themselves in constructing large buildings, which cost quite a bit of money to maintain. Therefore, they are forced to ask for money from the members on a weekly basis to even stay afloat.

I submit this is unwise, and could have been avoided by "splitting" the church into geographical house churches led by small groups of sound men in the church. Then, perhaps the large group could rent a location once a month (or two) and come together for fellowship, etc.

If we consider that the early church met in homes, and that elders who labored in teaching the Scriptures could have been provided for by food, shelter, etc. rather than cash, it really seems there would have been no need for a weekly "offering".

Regarding your original question, I think we should support the church we attend. However, perhaps it would be wise to respectfully ask the elders if maintaining a building is the wisest use of our money and perhaps suggest other more Biblical models.

Grace to you,
Taylor

_________________
Taylor Otwell

When revival broke out at times square church the collection buckets were jam packed to overflowing with one dollar bills.

Dave told me personally he paid for the theater (church) in a matter of months.

I believe it was 6 mil.

Churches that break out in revival dont have offering issues.The new dillema comes as where to distribute all the money.

Wigglesworth said "any church not spending more than 50 % on missions is very suspicious"

People should give just for the church utilities,bills,and salaries.

I like the wigglesworth philosophy

TaylorOtwell wrote:

_________________
Christiaan

In 1 Corinthians 16, Paul told the church at Corinth, as well as Galatia, to set something aside the first day of the week as each man could, so that there would be no need to collect when he came.

In Acts 6, 7 were chosen among the many to serve the widows in their needs, since they had been neglected. This is where the concept of a deacon comes from (for most churches). There were men appointed to take care of the physical needs of the church/community.

2 Corinthians 8:1-9:15 is a large section of scripture that talks about giving. Paul instructs the church to do a variety of things in this passage. They are to: Give cheerfully, give according to their means, give out of poverty, give first to God then the saints, and give what we have committed to doing. If you have committed to giving to your church, you should finish that commitment.

Galatians 6:6 says, "One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches." If your church has, what Paul West called, a one-pastor-monarchy, then he has committed to spending his time on studying the Word of God and teaching it to you (and the rest of the community). Since he is not able to work a trade and provide for himself and/or family, it is the churches responsibilty to help him (even though I would argue against a one-pastor-monarchy).

I would question the traditional view of missions, thus bringing into question of giving 50% of what we have to missions. I would say we are called as Christians to give all we have for the purposes of the church.

just my 2 cents.

_________________
Ben Fuehrer

_________________
Lisa