View Single Post
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 03-06-2008, 11:49 AM
Timothy William Timothy William is offline.
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 540
Thanks: 34
Thanked 58 Times in 40 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianTrader View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorbravo View Post
Deuteronomy 14: 28-29:

"At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates:
And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest."

Note that this is a moral obligation, grounded in covenant, to put aside 10% of your income for welfare. It looks more like a civil function than a religious one.

Contrary to my free-market libertarian leanings, it looks pretty much like an income tax for the poor and the landless.
Well depends on how many tithes you think that there were in the OT. It there is just one, then I am not sure I would qualify it as an income tax. It would just be money out of regular required giving. Also if you want to call it a tax, then you would need to show where the magistrate is given power to "enforce" this tax.

CT
It looks like this is part of the 10% tithe paid to the Levites. As they made up 1/12 of the people, there would be a small amount left over, if 10% were paid and it was distributed equally, though the amount would be less than 2%. More likely things were not calculated so finely, and whatever was tithed was distributed to those who were in need, Levites and others.

As far as today goes:
we are not in a bronze age agricultural society which has little technological change for a millennium. Nor do we have a priestly tribe which necessarily makes up one in twelve of the population. I can't see a figure of 10% of income exactly being the required contribution. But the principle, that we should give generously from what we have been blessed with, remains.

If I can be blunt, and make a judgement call with which you are all free to disagree, most churches are appalling at giving or lending money or other aid to those in financial distress in our covenant communities. There are exceptions, and some care must be taken to ensure we are not duped by the lazy or dishonest, but too often we are unwilling to give any but token help to those in need, and even then it is done grudgingly. I have seen people pray greatly that a family will have improvement in its finances, but be unwilling to do anything to assist. How is this different to saying "go, be warm and well fed" but doing nothing? Why should God listen to our prayers in such circumstances? Especially those of us who are opposed to government welfare should be gladly generous and looking to be able to make a real difference to the poor and oppressed.

That the church is incapable of looking after all the poor is no reason for the church to support government welfare. Churches are capable of supporting all of the church community, and could probably do a great deal more. It is not our role to try to force unbelievers to be generous to each other, via the civil magistrate instituting taxation and welfare payments. Historically the main result of this has been everyone, Christians included, being vastly less generous to the poor in their voluntary giving.
__________________
T W Hopper
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church
Currently between churches since PRC closed here - attending Crossroads Christian Church.
Canberra, Australia.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Timothy William For This Useful Post:
christianyouth (03-07-2008), Daniel Ritchie (03-06-2008)