Or, more accurately, Anglicans pester the government to address poverty, because that’s what the Bible says you are supposed to do. For example, in 2 Thessalonians 3:10-13; oops, well in Matthew 26:11; OK, let’s try Matthew 25:40; how about Luke 6:38, Proverbs 14:21, Luke 3:10-11 or Proverbs 28:27 . I know it’s there somewhere.
From here:
As part of a diocesan wide program to encourage the government to take measures to reduce poverty, several MPPs were visited by concerned Christians. Bishop Philip Poole wrote the following: “We are fully cognizant of the fact that these are difficult times for our government. It is even more difficult for poor people.”
As part of a diocesan wide program to encourage the government to take measures to reduce poverty, Laurel Broten MPP was recently visited by Ruth Schembri of this parish and Gordon Glandfield of Christ Church St. James along with parishioners from Kingsway Lambton United Church and Our Lady of Sorrows Roman Catholic Church. A similar visit was made to MPP Donna Cansfield with Bishop Philip Poole in attendance who wrote the following in his follow-up letter: “We are fully cognizant of the fact that these are difficult times for our government. It is even more difficult for poor people.”
Without knowing what those people and parishes actually do themselves to help the poor, it’s hard to know if you have a point or not. If the answer is nothing, then you are quite correct to point out that they aren’t really living out their faith and values. If, on the other hand, the political lobbying is being done in addition to what their parishes are doing directly, I don’t see anything wrong with it.
There’s a truism in American politics: Democrats are generous with other people’s money; Rebublicans are generous with their own money.
Tithers in the ACoC are few are far between.
Jim,
How would you know?
With respect, I think it a bit presumptuous of you to suggest Anglicans do not have the capacity to be generous.
3.
I am often presumptuous.I’m sure the capacity is there, but is it realized?
Pop quiz. How many identified givers in your parish and what’s the total givings. You can do a ball park from that. Stats Can calculates average income by postal code if you want to get more serious.
David’s former ACoC parish was a noted tithing parish.
We have had the pie-chart reports at our parish about which percentage gives what, and I have to say that with the stats I saw there could be very few parishioners tithing. My family did come very close to the tithe, actually, but we have since re-directed much of this to other registered charities that reflect our values.
Why do you trust a chuch with the care of your souls that you don’t trust with the care of your money?
Hello Kate,
Interesting point. Perhaps I approach this kind of thing a bit simplistacly but…
I like the money I give to the Church to be used for spreading God’s message and Church expenses (i.e. building maintanance, purchase of sheet music, salaries of Parish staff).
Any other charities, such as a local food bank, I would donate to directly.
Thus I would not want my Church to use the money I give it for the “other charities”. This has the effect of my keeping some control over the money, as I would than ensure that the Church does not send any of the money I give it to “charities” (i.e. a so called “pregnancy crisis center that promotes abortions) that I do not support.
You didn’t answer my question, though.
Being mindful of the many warnings that God has given us about false prophets, I do not blindly trust any Church nor any Priest. I am on guard to protect my own soul as well as the souls of my family. We should keep in mind the following (too bad the last part was not followed as well as it should have been though):
XXVI. OF THE UNWORTHINESS OF THE MINISTERS, WHICH HINDERS NOT THE EFFECT OF THE SACRAMENT.
ALTHOUGH in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed.
That’s only talking about Holy Communion. Besides, how many ‘evil ministers’ – appostates, as you have said yourself many times – are tolerated in the ACoC? I would not attend a church I couldn’t give money to in good conscience – and by that, I mean put it into general offerings and forget about it.
While this is an interesting post it misses one key point, tithing is not a standard of giving in the Christian church. Now I know this is bound to send shock waves here, but the injunction to give 10% – or your first fruits – was directed to Jews subject to Mosaic Law. Jesus never advocated the tithe. Actually Jesus – using the example of the Widow’s Mite – suggests that we should be prepared to give it all away.
The NT instructs us to give:
– proportionately (1 Cor 16:2)
– consistently (1 Cor 16:2)
– sacrificially (Mark 12:43-44)
– joyfully (2 Cor 9:7) and (Acts 20:35)
Tithing might be a good objective for some – though if you make $500,000 a tithe could hardly be considered sacrificial.
And in relation to Jim’s posting above, I’d like to know the ACoC that tithes. It is an impressive accomplishment in it’s own right.
Not so. Jesus affirms the tithe when he rebukes the Pharisees for tithing on their dill and cumin without helping the poor (I forget the reference atm). He says they should ‘do the former without neglecting the latter’.
7.
Do you actually read the words in the posts?
I said “tithe”. You translated that to “generous”
I identified David’s parish as tithing. Six posts later you ask for an example of a tithing parish.
Until God gives us a different standard, the tithe is it. Period.
I’m sorry Jim, but the tithe was for Jews. Jesus rebuked jewish leaders.
The tithe is for Christians, too.
“Matthew 23:23
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.”
We can argue all day about tithing or giving sacrificially. Fact is, few Christians do either. My wife and I are working to give more generously. This year we will give 7%. Can we do more? Sure we could. But to do so, would mean denying our three kids of activities that we think important for their development. I think 7% is a sacrifice. I give it joyfully, consistently and from my first fruits.
Jim, Kate, AMP, et al., I admire your commitment to giving generously. You are all passionate about your faith, church and love of Christ. I think we are all trying to do the same thing. Bottom line, Anglicans can do a lot better.
I’ll stand by my earlier comment as the tithe is of no hardship to one on the highest marginal tax rate. 10 percent mat be a burden to someone making 30k but not to one making 300k.
10.
I suppose you ignore the Old Testament too because it was “for the Jews”.
If there is a consistency of message then I don’t ignore it. But ask yourself Jim, use logic if you like, does 10% make a whole lot of sense to a millionaire? Of course not. There is no sacrifice in giving away $100K. Is Joe millionaire having to give up buying his BMW to give back to God what is God’s in the first place? I doubt it. To the wealthy – you know those who will find it hard to inherit the Kingdom of heaven – real giving has to incline you to change your behaviour, otherwise it is meaningless.
The tithe is a minimum, a start, not a maximum.
13
Why are you espousing a class warfare position? Whether one is rich or poor, the tithe applies. You are taking a position that judges God. Careful!
Answer my question about the Old Testament. If we are to have any reasonable discourse, I need to know whether you actually believe what you said.
Jim,
I’m not espousing class warfare. And I would never judge God. But Mosaic Law is Mosaic Law. The 524 laws outlined in the Talmud are directed to Jews not Christians. We do not persecute Christians for wearing multi-fibered clothing, eating shrimp, etc. The tithe was an injunction outlined specifically in Deuteronomy for the Jewish people.
Jesus chastized the Pharisees for their pride. He pointed to the widow, who, in her poverty gave away everything she had. She had so much faith in God that she was prepared to give it all away.
I think this is what God expects from us. Yes we need to be very generous with out gifts of treasure, but we must surrender our lives and live unattached to material possessions. Jesus says to the rich man who wants to gain eternal life to sell all he has and follow him. the rich man finds this difficult, if not impossible. So too in our wealth we must live as if we might loose it all tomorrow.
We are from the stump of Jessee. Christ was a Jew. My coming did not change the Laws and the Covenants by one jot or tittle. We are People of the Book -all of it: OT and NT
So what do you toss out -the Ten Commandments? You are strolling through the OT picking and choosing to your taste.
What don’t you like in the NT? Surely you give yourself permission to edit that?
Jim,
Do you like shrimp, pork? Do you wear cotton fiber mixed with polyester? If you are married, do you wait ten days after your wife is done her courses to engage in intercourse? Do you keep the Sabbath as Saturday or Sunday? All valid questions. These is much about Judaism that Christians do not practice don’t you think? Or are all Christians just Jews?
Come off it, you know better than that.
“VII. Of the Old Testament.
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.”
Anyway, as I said, the tithe *is* affirmed in the NT.
The tithe is acknowledged in the NT. It is not prescribed in the NT. Let’s be clear.
Jesus told the pharisees that they should continue to tithe without neglecting the weightier aspects of the law. I think that is pretty clear. We also have very clear instructions via the 39 Articles as to which aspects of the OT are still binding on Christians. Thus your question to Jim is really a red herring, don’t you think?
To be clear…
Did Jesus really say that faithful tithing wasn’t good enough?
Yes. Jesus criticized the Pharisees (Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42) not because they tithed but because they paid close attention to the details of God’s law (e.g., tithing) while avoiding its deeper requirements (e.g., pursuing mercy, justice and the love of God). The important thing to remember is that Jesus commands his followers to be more biblical than the Pharisees’ 10 or 23 percent tithing on agricultural products (down to herbs). Jesus calls us to pursue justice and mercy, following this standard: loving God with all we are and all we possess, and loving others as we love ourselves. The real question, then, is that if the tables were turned, how would I want to be loved? We see this ruthless logic applied in Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), in the apostle Paul’s attempts to raise funds for the poor (2 Corinthians 8:13-15), and in the early church’s refusal to cling to possessions when faced with the needs of others (Acts 2:42-45; 4:32-37). Moreover, Jesus’ own sacrifice—with apologies to Bill and Melinda Gates, the largest and least deserved gift in history—serves as our standard (2 Corinthians 8:9; 1 John 3:16-18). After all, even in the Old Testament the tithe was only part of the generosity of God’s people expressed in offerings, sacrifices and gifts and acts of mercy (Isaiah 58:6-7, 10; Micah 6:6-8).
And…
Didn’t Jesus affirm that Christians should tithe?
No; in fact, Jesus expected much more from his followers. His command to love others as we love ourselves and as he loved us (John 13:44) is a far higher standard than the tithe. It is interesting to note that none of the four passages in the New Testament where the tithe is mentioned requires Christians to tithe. Hebrews 7:4-10 does not advocate that Christians should tithe but specifically says it was something done by Jewish people for Levitical priests on the basis of law; the writer then uses Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek as allegorical proof of Melchizedek’s superiority to Levitical priests. Instead of settling for 10 percent, we should note the command to give generously and radically, just as Jesus gave to us: loving God with all he had and loving his neighbor—even his enemies—as himself, just as Jesus did (Matthew 22:37-40; 2 Corinthians 8:9; 1 John 3:16-19). John the Baptist raises the standard of giving to 50 percent (Luke 3:11), and Jesus exhorts us to give 100 percent (Luke 21:1-4). So the scarce mention of the tithe in the New Testament is evidence not that God expects less of us today, but that far more is possible. The tithe is still a helpful guideline insofar as it reminds us to give proportionally to the Lord as he blesses us, since he owns it all anyway. But by New Testament standards, settling for 10 percent can be a recipe for condemnation from Jesus if we are neglecting true generosity, just as it was for the tithing Pharisees (Matthew 23:23).
Ok – but I think I did say that the tithe was a minimum, not a maximum.
23
Kate
Maybe if you type in bold your words might get through.
But the tithe is NOT a required standard of giving.
I disagree. Jesus affirmed it. He did set higher standards, but he also said to continue to tithe.
Whatever Kate. Your hermeneutics baffles me.
Kate’s Hermeneutics? I have to laugh at that coming from you.
Kate comes from a solid conservative traditional vein in Christianity. You are all over the map.
To dismiss the entire Old Testament because it was “for the Jews” is breathtaking in its arrogance and/or willful blindness.
Writer after writer on this Blog have pointed you to pertinent scripture, which you blithely ignore as you charge off on another tangent.
Hermeneutics indeed.
Jim,
I’m not all over the map. I’ve been consistent in stating that the tithe is not a Christian standard of generosity.
I said it’s a minimum – you said we are called to go beyond it. That’s a disagreement how, exactly?
You know – in that large comment – you are doing with the tithe exactly what many on your side of the fence accuse conservatives of doing about homosexualality – taking verses out of context and making them absolutes. The widow’s mite, for example. Jesus was commending her generosity and condemning the pharisees hypocracy, not telling everyone in all circumstances to give all they had to live on.
And I do believe Jim was refering to your general patterns in commenting, not just on this thread.
Who are the “many on your side of the fence?” What does that mean? So as I understand it, you are suggesting that every ideology – Conservative, Liberal, Whack-job, etc. – is a seamless veil. Is that correct? All Evanglicals believe this… All Anglo-Catholics believe that… All low-church Protestants believe this… All middle-of-the-roaders believe that… Geez, if life were so simple!
Now I don’t go around characterizing all Evangelicals as nut bars – please, have the courtesy of not pigeon-holing what I believe based on my resolve regarding homosexuality.
Eph
You’ve missed your calling. You should have been a Sophist
Once again you mischaracterize an argument: substitute “all” for Kate’s “many”.
Having shaped the argument to your liking, you launch into a classic reductio ad absurdum argument.
Does anyone in your life take you seriously?
Many on your side of the fence =many of the people who have stayed in the Anglican Church of Canada. I really don’t believe you didn’t realize that.