Comment on Jan Paulsen: 2004 vs 2009 by Victor Marshall.
@BobRyan:
Bob,
I knew that you would respond with a more thorough and articulate research analysis of the tithe issues. I have to confess that applying the term ‘independent ministry’ to pastors wives strikes me as pushing it a bit. My own wife is my co-laborer in every aspect of pastoral/evangelistic ministry, and she would never use that term to describe what she does. I do think that many pastors wives should be paid from the tithe resources for what they do(of course Ellen White taught that). That would not make them an ‘independent ministry.’
In today’s context, when we think of an ‘independent ministry’ receiving tithe, we think of organizations who have adopted an independent spirit, theology, and policy from that which is approved by the church at large. We think of organizations who are at odds with the church.
The term that is often preferred for para-church organizations who conduct themselves in harmony with the main church’s policies is ’supporting ministry.’ Many of these organizations belong to umbrella groups such as ASI and OCI. The reception of tithe is not acceptable for membership in either of these organizations. Ex.
“OCI members refuse to solicit or to accept tithe from Seventh-day Adventist church members.â€
Neither of these two major Adventist organizations, or their individual member groups, believe that Ellen White’s statements quoted above justify their receiving tithe money at all – even though they are ’supporting ministries’ of the church. One cardinal principle that makes them ’supporting’ is their refusal to receive tithe.
If we accept these definitions, then Ellen White did not receive and direct tithe toward ‘independent ministries’.
The fact that she did not want this practice made known is extremely telling. By widely commenting on the practice on the worldwide web (even implying that others might be justified in following her example) – we are going contrary to her wishes.
Finally, you quote Ellen White saying the following:
“I have myself appropriated my tithe to the most needy cases brought to my notice. I have been instructed to do this; and as the money is not withheld from the Lord’s treasury, it is not a matter that should be commented upon…â€
You comment by saying that this quote is an example of Ellen White explicitly stating that the ‘Lord’s Storehouse’ could be something other than the conference treasury. This seems to be pushing it a bit too. This quote only supports the conclusion that the prophet herself could be considered a part of the Lord’s treasury as she personally received and directed tithe toward bonafide ministries in financial crisis.
Perhaps now you can understand why your previous statements could be easily misunderstood and misapplied:
“Ellen White gave a portion of her own tithes to independant ministries and also defended the right of other contemporary Adventists who did the same thingâ€
In other words Ellen White gave tithes to organizations who were at odds with the main denomination. She also defended the right of Adventists to apply their tithes to the ministry of their choice – even ‘independent’ ones.
“Ellen White was clear on one thing “the storehouse of the Lord†was not limited to the conference treasuryâ€
In other words, since the the storehouse analogy was not limited – it could be applied to ‘independent’ ministries!
Victor Marshall Also Commented
Jan Paulsen: 2004 vs 2009
@Geanna Dane:
Most of my experience is in state prison chaplaincy – though I am also a church pastor as well. This is how I understand the church’s position from my relatively limited experience. I’m sure the other pastors who post here could correct me if I say something incorrect.
The returning of tithe is not a ‘test of fellowship’. This means that for an individual to be a member in good standing they do not have to pay tithe. On the other hand, baptismal vow number 9 asks the question, ‘Is it your purpose to support the church by your tithes and offerings?’ Tithing is strongly encouraged for those who join the church but it is not mandatory.
Though it is not a test of fellowship, it is a test of leadership. To be ordained or elected to an office, one should be a tithe payer. The church manual says this regarding church officers:
‘Anyone who fails to set an example in this important matter should not be elected to the position of elder or to any other church office.’
Knowledge of individual members stewardship habits should be kept confidential with the church pastor and treasurer unless some issue mandates others should know – for example with a church nominating committee that needs to know whether a person is eligible for election.
I’m guessing at least in theory, conferences or union leadership etc. could terminate those who are receiving tithe as salary, yet who are not also returning tithe themselves.
When it comes to larger organizations and ministries that are not authorized to receive tithe; it is very difficult for any authoritative wing of the church to monitor whether these organizations are receiving tithe – or to discipline them for doing so. If an organization is openly doing so – this usually indicates that this group is ‘independent’ and ‘under the frown of the church.’
From a spiritual perspective, the Bible, and especially the Spirit of Prophecy, indicate that it is a serious transgression to retain, misuse, or otherwise divert God’s money for personal use or toward a personally preferred purpose. One of the primary purposes of the exercise is to have us surrender complete control over one tenth of our means so that it is no longer considered ours at all. To use it ourselves (for whatever purpose) is a form of robbery. A similar principle is at work with the Sabbath. One seventh of our time is completely surrendered to God. It is no longer our time to do with as we wish – it is now the Lord’s. To use it for purposes other than which God has designated it may also be viewed as a form of robbery.
BobRyan:
From the Spalding and Megan collection we learned that Ellen White gave a portion of her own tithes to independant ministries and also defended the right of other contemporary Adventists who did the same thing.Some have argued that these were special cases – but Ellen White was clear on one thing “the storehouse of the Lord†was not limited to the conference treasury.I don’t say this to discourage anyone from giving to their conference or Union as the Lord leads them. I am just stating a fact of history.in Christ,Bob
Bob,
You need to stop listening to independent ministry propaganda. Ellen White did not give tithe to ‘independent ministries.’ Her special use of tithe was applied to denominationally recognized ministers who were poverty stricken and destitute because conference administrators(who had been notified by her)were not responding to their needs. She did not encourage anyone else to follow her example On the contrary she discouraged others from following her special emergency example(‘I would not advise that anyone should make a practice of gathering up tithe money… I write to you so that you shall keep cool and not become stirred up and give publicity to this matter, lest any more follow their example.’Watson Letter). This was ‘Her special work.’ Not the special work of others. She made no clear statements that the storehouse also represented independent ministries. She does equate the ‘storehouse’ with the conference treasury and refers to it as ‘God’s treasury.’
“The portion that God has reserved for Himself is not to be diverted to any other purpose than that which He has specified. Let none feel at liberty to retain their tithe, to use according to their own judgment… nor apply it as they see fit, even in what they may regard as the Lord’s work… But a great mistake is made when the tithe is drawn from the object for which it is to be used – the support of the ministers… The tithe is sacred, reserved by God for Himself. It is to be brought into the treasury to be used to sustain the gospel laborers in their work. For a long time the Lord has been robbed because there are those who do not realize that the tithe is God’s reserved portion. Some have been dissatisfied and have said: ‘I will not longer pay my tithe, for I have no confidence in the way things are managed at the heart of the work.’ But will you rob God because you think the management of the work is not right? Make your complaint, plainly and openly, in the right spirit, to the proper ones. Send you petitions for things to be adjusted and set in order; but do not withdraw from the work of God, and prove unfaithful, because others are not doing right… If our churches will take their stand upon the Lord’s Word and be faithful in paying their tithe into His treasury, more laborers will be encouraged to take up ministerial work…” – 9T 247-250
“If the Conference business is not managed according to the order of the Lord, that is the sin of the erring ones. The Lord will not hold you responsible for it, if you do not correct the evil. but do not commit sin yourselves by withholding from God His own property.” – Special Testimonies Series A, no.1 p.27
Apparently God’s property is meant to be managed by the Conference. The work of the conference presidents and treasurers is to see ‘that a faithful tithe is brought into the treasury.’ TM p.305
“The tithes and offerings are not the property of man,… unworthy ministers may receive some of the means thus raised; but dare anyone, because of this, withhold from the treasury and brave the curse of God?”
– Special Testimonies Series A no.1 p.27
Recent Comments by Victor Marshall
Last Thursdayism
“The deepest students of science are constrained to recognize in nature the working of infinite power. But to man’s unaided reason, nature’s teaching cannot but be contradictory and disappointing. Only in the light of revelation can it be read aright, ‘Through faith we understand.’Heb.11:3” – Ed.134
Last Thursdayism
Farewell
As if all of your previous statements were not enough – here you come with this outrageous statement:
But I do deny that the Bible is the final authority. I don’t think that it is the final authority.
I think it is plain enough now for all to see that the founding scientist of EducateTruth, who has vigorously been seeking to have LSU tow the orthodox Adventist line – is himself heterodox when it comes to the most foundational of Adventist beliefs!
Not only have you equated science with faith, you have supplanted Biblical authority with scientific authority. Isn’t this exactly in essence what theistic evolutionists do?! Is it possible that one who incessantly declares others to be ‘blind’ would himself be blind to his own hypocritical presuppositions?
Seventh-day Adventists are ‘people of the book.’ They claim the Protestant principle of ‘Sola Scriptura’ as the very foundation of their faith. You are not a Sola Scripturist. By your own standard, if you were employed by the Adventist church, you yourself should consider employment elsewhere.
This is indeed a most grave and serious ironic twist.
If the issues are not yet clear enough I will here quote one of the denominations most preeminently orthodox theologians. You will find that his clear and definitive statements are diametrically opposed to your own:
“A fundamental principle set forth by Scripture concerning itself is that the Bible alone is the final norm of truth, the primary and absolute source of authority, the ultimate court of appeal, in all areas of doctrine and practice… The principle of sola Scriptura implies two corollaries: the primacy and the sufficiency of Scripture….”
“Paul likewise rejects human “knowledge†(KJV “scienceâ€; Greek gnÅsis) as the final authority (1 Tim 6:20). Both OT and NT writers point out that since the Fall in Eden, nature has become depraved (Gen 3:17-18; Rom 8:20-21) and no longer perfectly reflects truth. Nature, rightly understood, is in harmony with God’s written revelation in Scripture (see Ps 19:1-6 [revelation of God in nature] and vv. 7-11 [revelation of the Lord in Scripture]); but as a limited and broken source of knowledge about God and reality, it must be held subservient to, and interpreted by, the final authority of Scripture (Rom 1:20-23; 2:14-16; 3:1-2).”
“2. The Sufficiency of Scripture. The principle of sola Scriptura implies the further corollary of the sufficiency of Scripture. The Bible stands alone as the unerring guide to truth; it is sufficient to make one wise unto salvation (2 Tim 3:15). It is the standard by which all doctrine and experience must be tested (2 Tim 3:16-17; Ps 119:105; Prov 30:5, 6; Isa 8:20; John 17:17; Acts 17:11; 2 Thess 3:14; Heb 4:12). Scripture thus provides the framework, the divine perspective, the foundational principles, for every branch of knowledge and experience. All additional knowledge and experience, or revelation, must build upon and remain faithful to, the all-sufficient foundation of Scripture. The sufficiency of Scripture is not just in the sense of material sufficiency, i.e., that Scripture contains all the truths necessary for salvation. Adventists also believe in the formal sufficiency of Scripture, i.e., that the Bible alone is sufficient in clarity so that no external source is required to rightly interpret it.”
“Adventists maintain the rallying cry of the Reformation–sola Scriptura, the Bible and the Bible only as the final norm for truth. All other sources of knowledge and experience must be tested by this unerring standard. The appropriate human response must be one of total surrender to the ultimate authority of the word of God (Isa 66:2).” – Richard M. Davidson, ‘Interpreting Scripture According to the Scriptures:Toward an understanding of Seventh-day Adventist Hermeneutics.’ BRI
Not only do you seem diametrically opposed to foundational Adventist theology. You also appear (for all intents and purposes) to be fundamentally opposed to the purposes and goals of EducateTruth itself.
“4. More important than all of these is that the Bible find its place as the ultimate authority on all it touches upon within the classroom…… The bottom line of this controversy is not about creation vs. evolution, but authority. Does the Bible inform our science or does science inform the Bible? This question lies at the heart of this controversy.†– Shane Hilde
In light of this further unfortunate irony – perhaps you should seek employment on another web site.
I encourage you to reexamine the basis for you faith and prayerfully surrender it to the Word of God – not scientific reason.
“When we come to the Bible, reason must acknowledge an authority superior to itself, and heart and intellect must bow before the great I AM.” (SC 110).
Last Thursdayism
@Bill Sorensen:
More “sure†than what? More sure than Peter’s testimony. Peter’s testimony is helpful and helps us believe that Jesus is the Messiah. But even Peter’s testimony is not adequate to affirm Jesus and who He is. We must necessarily turn to “Moses and the prophets†and validate Jesus as the Messiah based on their testimony.
Simply put, Moses is the final authority in all matters of doctrine and faith. If it is not in harmony with Moses, it is false. And this includes Jesus and His ministry.
Very good Bill.
I like to look at it this way as well. Moses said that, “at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” We have the two witnesses of the Old and New Testaments – each one establishes the testimony of the other – both are further established by a third witness – the Holy Spirit. These three witnesses are sufficient to establish truth.
The bible affirming itself as the final authority is the same as God affirming His own authority.
Another interesting parallel passage in the Bible is, “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself.” In this passage we have the concept that God is a sufficient witness for Himself. Of course, in a sense, He is also actually three witnesses isn’t He!
Last Thursdayism
@Bill Sorensen:
The bible presents its own evidence. It is self affirming.
If you deny the bible is the final authority on its on self affirmations, then you are simply not a bible Christian.
The bible does not try to “prove†everything. Something are simply stated as a fact. Especially things that are not “proveable†by science and/or human experience.
Science and human experience may be helpful, but they are not the final word and it is a mistake to try to affirm every jot and tittle of scriptual teaching by such “proofâ€.
Well stated Bro. Sorenson.
