Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web of Corrupt Leaders

Tuesday, June 17, 2025

Should you divest yourself of all financial assets and give everything to the Church?



All Things in Common?


If you are a true Christian, should you divest yourself of all financial assets and give everything to the Church? When you die, should you leave all (or the majority) of your estate to the Church? Does God need your financial resources to do His work? More importantly, does God expect you to give your money to the Church, some individual, or a particular organization? Were early Christians practical communists? What does Scripture reveal about the financial practices of the early Church - First Century Christianity?

Unfortunately, too many folks in leadership positions within the Christian Community have staked claim to a substantial part of their followers' income. It is, of course, obviously in their self-interest to make sure that their ministry has a reliable and substantial income available to finance their ministries. In this way, many of these ministries have accumulated great wealth and have used those resources for whatever they deem as appropriate/needful.

Even more alarming, many of the groups which are supported by small flocks of people have resorted to some of the most draconian requirements for their membership to remain in good standing with leadership (smaller groups need a bigger chunk of each individual member's pie). Moreover, all fundraising and donations are usually portrayed as obligatory and/or being devoted to God (the human leader or group is rarely even mentioned (If he/she is mentioned, it's usually in their role as "God's servant" or "God's representative" on earth)!

In this connection, it is essential that we understand the tithing system which was used by the ancient Israelite as outlined in Torah, and that we examine the New Testament Scriptures which relate to the finances of the ekklesia of the First Century. Indeed, without this foundation, it would be impossible to formulate any kind of financial system and legitimately attribute it to Almighty God! Remember too, that ANY interpretations of the passages of Scripture offered by many of these ministries we've been discussing were/are motivated by a desire to maximize their income!

First, in terms of God's covenant with the Israelites, we must remember that this particular iteration of God's Law (Torah) was designed for a primitive, agrarian culture surrounded by a bunch of decentralized, polytheistic, and pagan societies. As part of the religious system, which was formulated for them, a tithe or "tenth" of their crops and livestock were to be devoted to sustaining the priestly class and the central sanctuary (Tabernacle at first and Temple at Jerusalem later) outlined in Torah. We should also note that this system was premised on the pre-existing ownership of land, livestock, and seed. Moreover, it was based on whatever INCREASE the farmer experienced over the course of a year. In other words, a large portion of their wealth was excluded from the formula.

Even so, we must also remember that Gentiles had no such tradition to draw upon and were never required to tithe on their income and send the proceeds to the central sanctuary in Jerusalem. Moreover, under the terms of the New Covenant, both Jewish and Gentile Christians were NEVER made subject to the Levitical Priesthood of the Old Covenant. Hence, the notion that the tithing system designed for that priesthood and Temple's support was ever transferred to ANY Christian ministry is purely speculative and NOT supported by Scripture.

Now, we come at last to the Church described in the New Testament. In the book of Acts, after Peter's Pentecost Sermon and the large influx of Jewish converts into the Church, we read: And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.(Acts 2:42-47, ESV) Notice, that the decision to have all things in common and sell possessions was a collective one. It wasn't imposed on the membership by the Apostles, and it was distributed according to need within the membership of the Church. In other words, this practice was a spontaneous reaction of the people to the needs of some of the less fortunate among them.

Indeed, the impression that this feeling was general and spontaneous among the earliest Christians is reinforced by what we find in the fourth chapter of the same book. We read there: Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet. (Acts 4:32-37, ESV) Once again, we see that this was a collective decision of the extant membership, and that the proceeds went to address the needs of the less fortunate among them. Moreover, we are told that a disciple named Barnabas sold some land and brought the entire proceeds of that sale "and laid it at the apostles' feet."

Then, in the very next chapter, we read the story of another transaction by a married couple named Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). As we read over this story, it is implied that the couple colluded to withhold part of the proceeds of their sale of land for themselves and make it appear that they had made the same kind of offering that Barnabas had made. Nevertheless, according to the account, Peter confronted them about their deception and told them that they hadn't lied to him - that they had lied to the Holy Spirit! In the account, husband and wife both drop dead on the spot as an example of Divine punishment for their prevarication! Even so, notice that it is NOT suggested anywhere in this account that such offerings were a requirement imposed upon the membership by Peter or the other apostles. And, finally, we should note that there was a widespread (and mistaken) impression among the apostles and early disciples that Christ would return in their lifetime. Hence, their willingness to part with worldly wealth was understandable.

Did Jesus Christ have anything to say on the question of Christian giving? He certainly did. He said that Christian giving should be motivated by a desire to please God and help others, and NOT to receive notoriety, gratitude, or accolades from others (Matthew 6:1-4). Christ also taught his disciples that a small amount from someone with limited resources was worth more in God's eyes than a large contribution from someone who was wealthy (Luke 21:1-4).

"Wait, didn't Jesus endorse tithing for New Covenant Christians in the Gospel of Matthew?" our legalistic friends will demand. The answer is an emphatic "NO!" The passage to which they are referring is found in the twenty-third chapter of that book. We read there: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! (Matthew 23:23-24, ESV) First point, who is Christ addressing here? Jewish scribes and Pharisees - folks who are supposed to be operating under the terms of the Old Covenant (Torah)!!! Christ is clearly portrayed here as criticizing the behavior and hypocrisy of Jewish religious leaders. In fact, his remarks were intended to be illustrative of behaviors and attitudes which his disciples should NOT imitate! In other words, the scribes and Pharisees should have been doing those things (including tithing).

Likewise, Christ's apostles taught that Christian giving should be focused on helping others in need and should be done willingly and with joy - NOT out of a sense of obligation, or to fulfill the requirements of some commandment, or in anticipation of some future reward for doing so (II Corinthians 9:7, James 1:27, I John 3:17). Paul's letters to the Christians of Corinth demonstrate that he regularly took up offerings to help Christians in need (I Corinthians 16:1-2, II Corinthians 8:1-14, 9:1-14). Now, Paul was certainly entitled to personal support for his ministry as an apostle of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, we find him on a number of occasions working to support himself - so that he wouldn't be a financial burden to the brethren of the Church (Acts 18:1-4, I Thessalonians 2:9, I Timothy 5:17-18). And, like Christ, Paul also felt that giving to the Church should NOT infringe on a person's ability to take care of his/her own family (Mark 7:9-13, I Timothy 5:8)!

Thus, we have seen that Christian giving was intended by Christ and his apostles to be a voluntary contribution to help others in need, and to supply the physical needs of the ministry (food, clothing, shelter). Christ and his apostles NEVER commanded their followers to tithe and/or send their money to headquarters. We've also seen that the Scriptural principles behind these freewill offerings precludes using them to support an opulent lifestyle for ministers (like mansions, crystal chandeliers, designer clothing, expensive cars, air-conditioned dog houses), support an organizational bureaucracy, pay for a leader's pet projects, a fancy television studio, a private jet, etc., etc. We have seen that neither Christ nor his apostles endorsed a kind of communist program for the ekklesia or required that believers contribute a certain percentage of their income to support the Church. What should we all have in common? Love for each other and compassion for those in need!

by Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix 

9 comments:

  1. There is also one of life's practical axioms. We are able to help others from our own abundance. If you divest yourself of your strength, you are no longer of any value to others, or for that matter, yourself.

    The Armstrong cults do not reciprocate. It is all one way. Once they have taken your financial strength, if you fall ill, or have an accident, you receive a nasty surprise. They do not feel any moral or ethical obligation to reward your generosity by having your back, and taking care of you.

    BB

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Common" ended when 1. Jesus failed to return soon, quickly or shortly. And 2. More wealthy and educated Gentiles showed up and said "Oh hell no!"



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, the apostle Paul came on the scene with his Pharisee background. Reading his epistles, you can see him slipping away from the Essene teachings of that Jesus dude back to the much more realistic OT lifestyle. 1 Timothy brought that to a head.

      Delete
  3. The article misses the big point: The OT Law is actually a defense against “Commons.” Without it, and without the prohibitions on adding to or taking away from it, there is nothing to prevent Jesus or his successors from imposing his ESSENE practice as mandatory. It was the apostle Paul The Pharisee who ideologically turned the Christian movement away from it. See 1 Timothy. Then see 2 Timothy to find out the initial reaction. However, he was obviously successful in the end. Christianity would not of lasted through the second century, but for Paul.

    Also, Acts 5 reads much more like Peter off’ed the two, and his homies got rid of the bodies.

    ReplyDelete
  4. PS "Give as you are able" not told, also comes to mind

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, Dennis! Also, free will giving from the bottom of your heart, without duress, is the only way there is any purity to the process, the only way it counts!

    The reason they stress mandatory giving, under penalty of eternal death or diminished reward is that they lay so much other harsh authoritarian crap on members that people would retaliate and withdraw their support in cases of abusive, overreaching clergy. So, they have to make it appear that if you don't give your all, you are toast for all eternity. Phucque them for that!

    BB

    ReplyDelete
  6. The law - tithing included....... but not the TEN given before the LP - was given on the basis of and when the Levitical Priesthood (LP) was set up - Heb 7:11 - and REMOVED (Strong's 3331, a word only in Heb 7:12b, 11:5, 12:27), not reverted, not changed, not rewritten, when the LP ceased to exist and replaced by the Melchizedek Priesthood. But, but, but......didn't Jacob and Abraham tithe before the LP? Of course but by what Law?? None I can read. Where's the law to tithe on spoils?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Don't get zo starry eyed about Paul "working with his own hands. The phrase "If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?" is from 1 Corinthians 9:11.

    In this verse, the Apostle Paul is arguing that if he has provided spiritual benefits to the Corinthians, it is not unreasonable for him to expect some material support in return. He is essentially saying that those who minister spiritually to others have a right to be supported by those they serve.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And to keep traveling "prophets" honest the Didache, an early Second Century church manual, outlines such a refusal to pay apostles and even a slight discomfort with supporting them with necessities (Easton 1934, 9). When speaking of the rules for a traveling apostle, it asserts that “if he asks for money, he is a false prophet” (Didache 11:6).

    Even short of asking for money, the text appears skeptical of any support, limiting shelter provisions to “one day” or two in cases of “necessity” (Didache 11:5).

    More radically, they are to accept nothing but “sufficient food” to get to the next location (Didache 11:6). Supporting Clarke’s argument that the early Church viewed support for traveling apostles differently from support for local religious workers, the Didache also orders that if these travelers do decide to settle down, they must “work for [their] living” (Didache 12:3). The Didache also condemns “trading on Christ” advancing Lupieri’s claim that the early Church took its most significant issue with the mixture of commerce with religion.

    Next, Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition, a church manual from around 217 CE which aims to reassert the alleged doctrine of the Apostles, agrees with the Biblical case for alimentary remuneration with no extra compensation mentioned (Easton 1934, 25). Both the broader comparisons to the “high priests” of the Old Testament who were supported by Israel’s offerings and the more specific comment that bishops must “eat [offerings] with the other believers” make it clear that the bishop was to eat from their congregation’s offerings (Apostolic Tradition 3.26.1). The Didascalia (before 250 CE) and later the Apostolic Constitutions (around 390 CE) also say that those in ministry are to “be nourished” either “in the function of episcopacy” as the Didascalia puts it or “from the Church” as the Apostolic Constitutions expresses it (Apostolic Constitutions 2.25.14; Didascalia 2.25.14). These documents seem to draw from the New Testament sources above to reach a similar conclusion and even further clarify the early Church’s understanding of 1 Corinthians 9:14’s “living” to be limited to nourishment.

    Early authorities also confirm that the remuneration due to clergy is, as St. Jerome puts it, “not for the gratification of covetousness” but instead for “mere necessities,” as John Chysostom would characterize it (Commentary on Matthew 10.9-10; Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew 32.8.2).

    ReplyDelete