“The Catholic Bishops in the United States teach that Stewardship is a call to discipleship. Tithing makes little sense unless one first understands one is a steward.”

Yes, stewardship is part and parcel of the call to discipleship. Tithing is an objective mark. Christ calls us entirely, without qualification, or better with one great qualification or condition, that we believe in Him, and then with no relaxed standards from perfect submission unto God’s Will, as He has shown us.

I used to coach high school cross-country, in summers off from college. Objective marks, goals, are somewhat useful in the short run, but can cause clear problems when devoid of a necessary subjective presence. I was able to coach successfully when I was with the high school athletes in the summer of 1980. However, when I tried coaching by mail, monitoring their training, it didn’t work.

They needed my subjective presence, to avoid sundry pitfalls. Without me to run with them, stretch with them, sup together, discuss training and share life in general, they lost confidence and overtrained, focusing solely on objective goals, with little sense of grace, and the glory that can be found in the sheer joy of running, as God had enabled them to do.

The problem with objective marks is that they can easily obscure the subjective presence of Christ, and become but one more facet of idolatry.

I teach English now in South Korea, and the churches here recommend that members give 30 percent of the tithing mark. They state it as 30 percent of one’s income, but serious inquiry yields a fuller revelation of the truth, which is in fact, three percent. Inasmuch as they give freely, regularly, systematically, proportionately, and joyously, as you say above, then I see no damning or substantative difference.

However, I do see problems with a focus on any objective mark, as it would be ultimately most difficult to not allow the achievement of that mark to bestow some sense of satisfaction and moralistic justification. But we are taught that no objective human standard can ever serve as a source of satisfaction unto us. This again borders upon idolatry, if not being outright the substance thereof.

We must be wholly open to the numinous and living presence of God, ever unfolding in our quotidian lives. Objective marks serve me well from time to time. I am the type to set New Year’s Resolutions. I even looked at my list from last year, and realized that I had achieved some of them, though without knowing it. “Don’t let your right hand know what your left is doing when you give alms.” Is that quoted correctly? For me this means that we must be focused so exclusively on Christ in our lives that we do not realize the objective markers we fly by.

Yes, I struggle from time to time, with various problems. It is then that I call upon God to help me be sensitive to His presence ever more, and then steel myself with some objective measures to get myself out of the funk of ordinary life and back into the realm of living a life in Christ immediately qualified by God.
So yes, I use objective measures, but they do not stick in my memory. I write them on a large 52-page calendar with beautiful pictures of South Korea, where I live. Then, I sort of forget about them. But the mere process of writing them helps to get me going, if only because those marks serve as a minimal acceptable level of conduct. It is as though I must consciously put myself under a law, for I have broken the spirit of it. But all along, I know that my calling is to be way above any law, if law is understood to be a minimum level of acceptable conduct. The Lord has an infinity ahead of me. I must rise to the occasion and be not content with any lesser manifestation.

Herein, then, lies the danger, that we may be influenced by objective markers to reach some form of contentment.

I teach my charges, students here in South Korea, to set their own objective standards, goals for summer vacation or winter vacation. I believe Sunday schools should teach this, but not the church officially. We Christians merely use objective tools, but do not officially endorse them as if they are some extra aspect of the necessary means to salvation.

We are free in that we may use what we find here on earth, to the betterment of those under our charge, and to the spread of the Gospel. However, we err when we suppose that we might take some objective measure and transplant it in the stead of the living presence of Christ.

Ultimately Christ did not die for ten percent of our productive capacity. He died for all we have, and all we can be. He wants all. Let’s not kid ourselves.

Yes, let’s set our own personal goals from time to time, in a Kierkegaardian spirit of ethical determination, even confide one to a friend, and check up on each other if we feel we must. I don’t, confide to friends. But I freely admit that I do write down objective goals. And I reread them occasionally. It has pure positive value for me. I have never questioned the value of this activity. And I believe I have not distorted my perception of God’s Will for me in the doing.

John: Thank you for your comments. Upon rereading my statement on the Roman Catholic Church, I realize that the wording was potentially misleading. My apologies; I did not mean to imply anything regarding Roman Catholic current practice in the United States, but only to refer to my experience of growing up Roman Catholic in Austria. I have adjusted the wording in the original post to make sure this is clearer now. I am also glad to know that the Roman Catholic Church in the United States today teaches giving as part of Christian stewardship and discipleship. Again, thank you very much for your helpful remarks.

I was a bit surprised, however, by Dr. Köstenberger’s reference to the Catholic Church taking a church tax off of income. That is certainly not the practice in the United States, and his comment seems an unwarranted attack. For someone who was misquoted in the Wall Street Journal, he should want to give an accurate picture of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Bishops in the United States teach that Stewardship is a call to discipleship. Tithing makes little sense unless one first understands one is a steward.

Perhaps in light of the above comments it may be helpful for many if you present a treatment of the subject of tithing and giving on your blog.

Many years ago our church corrected our presentation of the concept of giving and removed any reference to “tithing”. Our emphasis on sacrificial giving without requiring a “tithe” as some carry-over of the Mosaic Law has helped our saints enormously.

It is the little known Position Paper of the SBC which requies everybody who draws a paycheck from the SBC to teach and endcorse tithing in official publications and Sunday School books. That is manipulation and coercion.

I call on SBC leaders to be bold like Dr. Kostenberger and openly discuss this subject. The Baptist Press does not even allow comments to their many tithing articles and they have not replied to any of my requests for a hearing during the past six years. Instead I have been treated like a black sheep and treated as if I did not exist. If the SBC can discuss Calvinism which is very divisive then it should also be able to discuss tithing.

For once I would like to see a discussion of freewill grace giving in a a major Christian publication. This has not happened and I praise the Wall Street Journal for at least attempting to present the opposite viewpoint. Surely the Berean Concept still exists somewhere in the Southern Baptist community.