Tithing is unscriptural in NT but Giving is ?

I read a few well-written articles about tithing in the internet recently. These hit me like a brick wall. Tithing is not what we all thought it was. Here are some facts i discovered :

1. Tithing is a requirement of the OT law for the Jews but not for the Gentiles.
2. Tithing is of farm produce and food only not silver or gold a.k.a money
3. The reason why tithes are given in OT is to provide food for the Levites , strangers and widows.
4. Tithes can be sold and converted into money if it is impractical to bring them to the Temple, but it has to be reconverted into whatever food or farm produce the tither desires  in his heart at the Temple.
5. Tithing is not 10% but the tenth cattle or farm produce belongs to God.
6. Tithing is on the increase , not on the capital.
7. Tithes are not paid weekly or monthly.
8. Tithing is based on what one receives from God , not on what one yet to get from God.
9. Only the Levites  are permitted to collect tithes.
10. The Levite priests shall get 10% of the what the Levites collected.
11. There are three recipients of tithes - the Levites & Priests , the downtrodden e,g, widows , orphans , strangers, travellers etc. and own household to be eaten with joy in the presence of the Lord
12. The NT churches did not tithe.
13.  Anyone who tries to observe OT laws is under a curse.
14. There is no mention of tithes in NT but there is mention of Giving
15. Christians are asked to set aside a sum of money on the first day of the week for church workers.
16. The amount or percentage of giving is not specified but it is what is purposed in the heart of the giver.
17. The amount given must be in accordance with income.
18. The amount should be given joyfully and not under compulsion.
19. Tithing of money was started in the 8 or 9 century in France, Europe and institutionalized by the Roman Catholic Church.

I will provide scriptural references for these later as this is just the initial draft.

It's how you say it ..

How a person says things can either get things done or get the blown up in his/her face.

Confrontational and scolding others would only put people on the defensive and get nothing done in the end. Instead it would only generate bad vibes.

There are more productive ways of saying things i.e.

"Why do you call me in the middle of the damn night?"

 A better way of telling someone not to call late at night is:

"Hey, you always call me when i want to go to bed. Could u call me earlier next time so that i won't be too sleepy to talk to you?"

Likewise,

"Who gave you permission to do this?"
"i'm sorry but you must get ask me if you want to do this next time, OK?"

"You are a bloody dumb person. How can you make such a mistake?"
"OK. we have a problem here. Do you have suggestions on how to rectify it?"

Politically-incorrect but Statistically-correct !

Every race , nation, religious or community groups has its own strength and weaknesses and inclinations.

None is absolutely perfect.

Some , comparatively ,have more strengths than others. Likewise some have more weaknesses than others.

For example, we find lots of successful Jews in the world of finance, while the Chinese are excel in education. The blacks are the pioneers of new musical trends in the entertainment industry.

Yet, everyone in a particular community/race/religion excels in whatever that community/race/religion is famed for. 

But the average achievement for that group is definitely higher compared to other groups. It is the mean that shows the success in any field.


These groups of people are good in whatever they are famed for because they have inclinations for it for centuries.

Black Americans are good in singing and dancing because singing and dancing have been part of their African-originated cultures for centuries. They sing and dance when a baby is born, when a boy reaches puberty, when someone gets married, after a successful hunt etc.

The Chinese were scholars for many centuries as they were the first to invent the printing press, ink brushes, public examinations etc.

Of course when we compare the Blacks and the Chinese in the field of education, the Blacks seem lagging seriously behind. And it is not politically-correct to say the Blacks are weak in studying. But statistically, it is true.

Most importantly is deny a community's weaknesses due to pride. We must learn to continously evaluate ourselves and take steps for improvements instead of living in denial and never improves.

Church memberships dropped , becoming victims of church politics

I am totally aghast that some churches have acted like Malaysian political parties, eliminating dissenting opinions using dictatorial means :

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/3/21/nation/5906253&sec=nation

Guess it will end up in court.

Being sorry only after you get caught ??

A famous married American golfer was reputed to be 'sorry' after articles of his sexual-adventures with numerous women was exposed by the press. He expressed 'sorry' over them.

A famous Singaporean married movie producer was exposed by his lover, who is half-his age, 22 concerning all the sexual activities they had in his custom-furnished car. Soon, various women stepped forward to reveal that this producer used his position to try to get aspiring models and actresses to sleep with him. After his immoral antics were blown, he and his wife held a teary-jerky press conference to express "sorry" for his action. The latest news now is that he plans to make a movie out of what happened to him. Talk about making money out of being sorry.

My former married Petaling Jaya pastor was seen holding hands and vacationing with his young worship leader in the island of Penang by some church members. The church got a wind of it and finally he was forced to resign. He went to the pulpit and said that he had wronged against God and the church and asked for forgiveness. That's it. He did not even confess about the whole affair.

My point is .. do we need to be caught red-handed first before we start expressing regrets over our actions? Are our 'regrets' and 'sorry' because of the personal damage our actions have caused us OR Are they because we truly realized we have sinned against God?

Are you sorry because you got exposed ? Or are you really sorry because you have sinned against God?

There are definitely people with lots of hidden skeletons in their closet who are currently not sorry at all until they are publicly-exposed ! Shall we call them hypocrites and fakers?

Sometimes the 'holy' have to learn much from the 'not-so-holy'

Sometimes people from religious organisations need to learn from the world.

We always hear about charity, respect , love , fairness and others from the preaching of clergies and people. But sometimes, we find that the world is much fairer than the religious organisations.

A pastor-intern receives less wage than a construction labourer while a mega church senior pastor receives much more than a multinational CEO. You may call this 'trials and testings' (former) and 'blessings for the man of God' but i call this a violation of human decency !

How can we give a pastor a such meagre salary that he has to do part-time sales to compliment it? Or how can we give a senior pastor a five-figure salary plus free housing , transportation and scholarships for his children and preach that love of money is the root of all evil. At least the world gives employees a decent salary.


We see monks driven by chauffeurs in Mercedes or BMW in the city. Aren't they suppose to live a life forsaking worldly things? Or that is only for his followers?

Some religious organisations expect free things from its members. It is good for members to volunteeringly give but to coerce them is not morally-right.

They talk much about doing the right thing in religion but when a religious figure does the wrong thing, it's so hard for him to adhere to his own preaching.
The greater a person, the hard for him to correct himself.

Do differences of opinion means disunity?

Many people in big organisations e.g. corporations, companies, churches , comunities etc. view differences of opinions as a sign of disunity. Does unity only means everyone must adhere to only one opinion which is usually the official one sanctioned by the leader(s)?

I don't think so. In any organisation, there are sure to be differences of opinions and views. Even in authoritarian organisations, opininal differences are there though they are not openly expressed due to the fear of reprisals.

There can still be unity in the body despite differences of opinions. Unity , in my opinion , is an attitude. It is not a public display in show of force or in public adherence of an 'official' opinion. Even if people are afraid to openly express their personal views, public displays of supporting an 'official' view are  merely a public show and not genuine in the hearts.

Unity means that even though we may have different opinions, we can still come together to discuss the differences and respect each other and not be bitter with one another.

However, it is so sad to see some leaders view differences of opinion as a threat to them and label these people who do not toe the official line as "rebels" and "traitors" and call their ideas "rebellious".

Yesterday night, my church cell group discussed 1 Cotinthians 1:1-14. St. Paul wrote that there were many following different leaders like Paul himself, Apollos and Cephas ( Peter ) in the Church of Corinth.

Why do people follow certain leaders? The possible reasons I thought of are :

• People tend to identify more with leaders of the same wavelengths and views.
• People hope to benefit by aligning themselves with 'influential' leaders.
• People who are timid and less expressive hope that these leaders would be able to publicly express their grievance on their behalf.

The author of the cell group material we were using last night seems to imply that having cliques in churches is totally a bad thing and would definitely lead to personality cults. It is not. Negatively, we call it 'cliques' but positively we can also call it 'networking' or 'encouragement groups'.

Cliques becomes bad only when members forget the purpose of the whole organisation but start fighting for cliques' agendas.




Likewise, when people start to lose focus on Jesus Christ and start to focus much on the leaders, this is when cliques becomes personality cults. And this is when rivalry starts.

We can even have pastor personality cults. I remember when i was a youth, a sister kept using this phrase "Pastor said this .. " and "Pastor said that .. ". She should have said "God said this .. " or " The bible said this .. ".

A pastor wields a great deal of influence on his/her sheep. But a pastor is human too and is not perfect. The bible says if anyone claims to be perfect, he is a liar and the truth of God is not in him. For our rightousness is like a dirty rag to God.

The Corinth Church had lost focus on Jesus and its members are now focusing on church leaders. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians to bring them back to the source of their faith , salvation and wisdom - God.

He did it gently in love by asking thoughtful questions i.e. "Were you baptised in Paul, Apollos or Cephas's name? Who gave you wisdom ? Who made the foolish to shame to wise?"

Thus, Paul redirected their focus back to God in love.

Why do people gossip ?

People gossip because they are afraid to speak their minds in open.

Why? The reasons are :

• There would be repercussions if the matter is spoken in front of the subject.
• There are no avenue to voice a person's opinion.

In open society e.g. Western countries, people tend to be straightforward about things. They speak directly in front of the subject because they know the western culture values truthfulness and freedom of expression.

However, things are not the same in Eastern countries or even in religious-environment. Talking truthfully would invite repercussion and retaliation. That is why ancient Eastern scribes and poets masked their criticism in satirical works or ridiculous stories.

In some religious organisation, speaking truthfully but with an opposing view would invite trouble for the speaker. He may be viewed as being rebellious for having a different opinion. These organisations do not value much differed opinions as all they want their members to do is not to question but toe the line. Thus he has to say things in privately.

Yes, we all hate gossips especially if someone are talking about us behind our back. But do we give him a chance to say things in the open or are we going to label him as being rebellious and retaliate if he does?

When someone gossips about us, there maybe something wrong with us.