'And God said to the People of Israel, "Go forth and cut me a check, because I need a new bumper pool table."

~Zoo 3:48

True, God doesn't need money, but then again, God didn't need Moses to free the Israelites.  God didn't need David to kill Goliath.  God didn't need Jonah to go to Ninevah, and even when he did, he didn't do much for God anyway.   Jesus didn't even need Judas to betray Him or the cross to give up His life for the Atonement.   For that matter, niether God nor Jesus needed the atonement.

God doesn't need money, but as you point out, organizations do.  But then again, if God wanted to, he could ensure churches have all the electricity and supplies they need to do his work.

What is needed though are things we as mere mortals can do to bolster our own faith in God.  We donate money to our churches so that, through our faith, electricity and supplies can be paid for.  We donate money so that, through our faith, the needy can be provided for. 

We don't give money because we think we need to trade it for salvation, money donated sends the same message as money spent... it is a show of support.   When I buy something, I'm supporting whatever product I choose to spend my money on.  When I donate to a political campaign, I'm showing my support for that candidate or cause.  When I pay tithing, I am showing my support for my church and since I believe God expects me to pay tithing, I am also showing faith in God.

You bring up a really important point here... and that is that time and talents are also used to show faith.  Money is needed, but aren't we commanded (at least if we believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) that we "love the Lord, God with all our hearts, might, mind and strength"?  If all we are giving is money, we're probably not living up to that commandment. 

 

If you take the point one step further (which probably no one will do except a Bright), consider:

 

If you didn't have a church, you could still worship  There wouldn't be any electric bills, building maintenance fees, pastor salaries, etc.  All the money used to do good works could still be sent to do good works plus some.  It isn't like churches have a monopoly on charity.

 

So what purpose does a church serve?  What does it add that you can't get anywhere else?  Don't say "fellowship" you can have that without church, too.  If the answer is "some modium of organization that wouldn't exist without it" I would say that the question "WHY doesn't it exist without it?" is worth a look.

  So now you're a philosophizer.    The fact is that it does exist and I participate and I DO want to support it, monetarily.  My point is that I believe the Lord helps those who helps themselves.  I don't think I'm supposed to fill the churches needs above my own families needs. 

  That is true. 

lol

  This is something that I have a hard time with especially since I'm not officially a member of the church.  I actually have been a "visitor" for a long time but I am going to take the next membership class and actually join.  I feel bad asking for help from anyone.  I feel like it's no one's responsibility but my own and I will just do the best I can.  I am making it one day at a time.   

I agree with your comments, I too believe God understands when I am unable to give money to the church but I try to give some of my time and help out as I did this Sunday. I, however, always find it very disturbing how some people can be so ignorant at the concept of not going to church due to not being able to give money to it. To me that is more of an excuse to justify not going to church. But that's just my opinion.

Oh how true this is. Here I am, currently owning furniture given to me by a fellow church goer and for 3 weeks have been unable to get that furniture to my house because the person I depended on to help me failed me and it took me a while to ask anyone at my own church for help and once we did, someone volunteered to help.

Reverend Deceiver, 
Need my money to live 
In your tower above 
Your bronze praying hands
Should've been bigger, should've been bigger
Maybe then he could hear you clearly
Softly and tenderly, somebody speaking
somebody crying, somebody bleeding
Get off my T.V.
For I do not believe that he needs my silver

(Nixons, Fellowship)

I think a lot, maybe most, churches are corrupt.  I would be more inclined to support the "give all you have and God will provide"
thing if there wasn't so much misuse, abuse, and waste in church funds.  

Well sure, people can worship on their own and the money they would provide t a church in part for bills and in part to help others in need  could go to help others almost completely. So yea, one could say a church may not be necessary. But worshiping alone is not always something most people wanna do. Some people feel more comfortable sharing their beliefs with others, especially since God wants them to share their belief with others. Eventually these poeple would have to gather somewhere and whether it's a church, a house, a rented hall or even in the middle of the woods; there are some things that would still need monetary expense such as a place to sit, candles or lamps to light the place, electricity for lights and other devices that may be used and maybe even some drinks and snacks if some wish to have them while worshipping. Not to mention the possible rental and maintenance of the location being used.

So, what purpose does a church serve? It allows people to unite under a common faith to share in their benefits and sarrows of life and their faith in God under a single, neutral, (technically) uninterrupted, house of worship with decorations that provide more feelings of being closer to God.

I couldn't agree more!!

It comes down to a very simple question for the believer, as a lot of faith questions do.

"Do I believe that what I believe is really real?"  If you really believe God is real, there's no longer a question of 'how am I going to pay for this?' because the answer is, as it always is anyway, 'God will provide.'

So, when a family believes that and gives beyond their means, and suffer ill consequences because of it, or have to accept government assistance to survive, is it because they didn't *really* believe?  It's THEIR fault, right?

1. Their unbelief is not an excuse for God.  He asked them to test Him.

2. 10% is by definition not beyond their means.

3. It is my experience that government assistance is based on income, not expenses, and so they should have had it anyway.

4. The church should be helping this person so that they don't suffer ill consequences, or need government assistance.

5. If it's not a 'just this month' or 'getting back on my feet after a setback' problem, they are already living above their means, which is a problem completely apart from tithing.  God will still provide though.

who is saying to anybody to give "beyond their means?" 

To give to God doesn't necessarily mean you are giving beyond your means.  We talked about tithing on the other thread...giving 10 cents on a dollar and you keep 90 cents is should NOT break anyone's bank. 

To accept the government's help (as in free school lunches in my case) is just another way of God looking out for us.  He uses whatever means there is to take care of his own.  I remember hearing James Dobson tell some stories about how poor his family was...dirt poor.

Quite often his dad (a preacher) gave away his own salary that day because he saw a family who were so desperate he couldn't help but give.  His wife would meet him at the door and look at his face and say "you gave it away again didn't you?"  He would nod.  They would go to the back room and pray.  And every darn time, they would get an answer.  One time they had nothing in the house for groceries and there was a knock at the door with a neighbor stopping by delivering groceries just when they were in the back room praying for dinner. 

This has happened to us time and time again.  God is faithful and will provide for our needs.  He looks down and moves in people's hearts to give to another in their need of desparation.  God does hear our cries. 

 

My issue with all this is the general sentiment that everyone can, and SHOULD, give a minimum of 10% of their income to the church.

I don't understand how anyone can't see that there are literally families out there for whom 10% is the difference between food and rent money and eviction and hunger.  Some people really do just barely get by. 

I'm not against giving.  I don't know anyone who doesn't think it's important.  I just don't agree that a)  everyone can afford a set amount and b )  the church is always the most beneficial place to donate.

Everyone CAN'T afford a set amount.  That's why it's a percentage.  If they said, hey, pony up $10 everybody, then that would be different.

Seriously, you don't understand that some people actually NEED 100% of their income? 

10% of 60k still leaves 54k.

10% of 14k only leaves $12,600. 

Can YOU feed, clothe, house, and otherwise provide for your family on $12,600?  You don't agree that $1400 makes a difference?  You don't think a family living on barely over 1k a month couldn't put to GOOD use an extra $100 a month?!?!

That could mean the difference between self-sufficency and welfare or between peanut butter and popcorn (sorry Ted) and nutritious food.  But then, I guess the government is doing God's will by making up the difference for families who give 10% they can't afford to give.