Storehouse Tithing
by CHARLES L. FEINBERG
I n recent years we have been hearing much of what is called “ storehouse tith ing.” Is it scriptural and applicable to be lievers today? In the first place, the phrase “ storehouse tithing” is of recent origin. The theory holds that the child of God owes a tithe of his income to the Lord, but this tithe must be paid to the local church where he belongs. The local church, according to this view, is to be the sole distributor of all the funds of its members. What is wrong with this view? First of all, to acquiesce in this practice is for the believer to surrender his right and duty to determine under God for himself where . his stewardship of money is to be used in the Lord’s work. Secondly, if the Scripture is searched, it will be found that the entire theory is built on Mai. 3:10: “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the win dows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” The storehouse of the Old Testament was certainly not the Church of Christ, for the Church was not yet in existence. The Church was bom at Pentecost. The Church is never : designated a storehouse of any kind. In Israel thèse storehouses were the repositories for the tithes which went to the support of the Levites and priests. They had no land of their own; they lived off the tithes of the rest of the na tion. There had to be distributing points throughout the land for this process. Now, the New Testament principle is found in 1 Cor. 16:2: “Upon the first day of the week [which had no special significance for the Old Testament saint, but is full of meaning for the
believer now] let every one of you lay. by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.” Note the word ing is “ lay by him [not in a storehouse] in store.” Each is responsible for his own money. Thirdly, if the Old Testament practice is in sisted on, then, are the advocates of this erron eous theory prepared to go all the way with Deut. 14:22-26 which indicates that the tithe could be used for wine, strong drink or what ever the offerer wished? Or is this too much to swallow? Fourthly, let us speak plainly and truthfully. Actually this theory proposes what is a form of totalitarianism in the Church. Men and women are being asked to give up their liberty and right to give as the Lord leads them. No one can hand over this right, delegating it lock, stock and barrel to others. Fifthly, the very reason for the proposal of this practice — the building up of individual institutions — is not scriptural in basis nor in ultimate intent. Finally, if the storehouse tithers had their way, there would be no independent testimo nies, no Salvation Army, no Gideons, no Chris tian Business Men’s Committee, no American Council of Christian Churches, no National Association of Evangelicals, no interdenomina tional Bible institutes, colleges, or seminaries, no faith missionary societies, no Pacific Garden Mission in Chicago, no Union Rescue Mission in Los Angeles, no Water Street Mission in New York, no International Child Evangelism, no Youth for Christ, no Billy Graham cam paigns, nor many other worthy works and causes for Christ. Some advocates of this new theory were themselves trained originally in institutions supported by the freewill offerings of God’s people from all branches of the Church. “ Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” END.
14
THE KING'S BUSINESS
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs