Tithing: much more than you wanted to know

By Vesa Hautala, EA for Christians @ 2024-09-16T07:48 (+37)

This is a linkpost to https://christandcounterfactuals.substack.com/p/tithing-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know

Summary

This post explores the practice of tithing (religiously mandated giving of 10% of income to the church or other recipients) among Christians, including:

  1. contemporary beliefs and practices (especially in the US)
  2. questions about Biblical interpretation
  3. wider theological themes related to Christian giving

This piece is mainly written for a Christian audience but should be useful to anyone interested in the topic.

Some key points

Introduction

This [Susbstack] post is an abridged version of the article An In-Depth Look at Tithing published on the EA for Christians website. [Note, I've also included some additional content from the full version and some other small changes to this forum post.]

Tithing is a contentious subject. Some Christians preach blessings on tithers and curses for non-tithers. Others used to believe tithing is a binding obligation but now vigorously advocate against it. If there is an obligation to give 10% to the church, this greatly affects the giving options of Christians. 

This post first discusses contemporary views and practices and then the main Bible passages used in relation to tithing. Finally, I will present some wider theological reflections on tithing and giving.

A note on definitions: By “tithing” I mean mandatory giving of 10% of income to the church (or possibly other Christian ministries or other types of charity, there are different views about this). 

Also, for the sake of transparency, I want to state right in the beginning that I don’t personally believe in a binding obligation to donate 10% to one’s local church. However, even if you disagree, I believe you will find a lot of this post interesting and helpful for deepening your understanding of the arguments for and against tithing.

Contemporary views and practices

This section is going to be rather US-centric for a few reasons. The US very likely has the largest religious economy in the world and tithing is a part of the US religious landscape. There is more data available about tithing in the US than for example the UK. US Christians also seem to be generally more interested in the tithing question.

US Protestants

According to a survey by Lifeway Research, 72% of US protestant pastors believe tithing is a biblical commandment that applies today. In a similar survey, 77% of churchgoers said the same. People have different ideas about what “tithe” means, but in the survey of pastors, 73% said it’s 10% of a person’s income (gross or net). The number of people who actually donate 10% or more is much lower, though. The average giving among US adults who attend worship at least once a month was 4.2% of household income.[2]  A report on evangelical giving by Grey Matter Research gives even more accurate information and puts the number of tithers among evangelicals at 13%.[3]

Researching these numbers led me to an interesting discovery: people think they give much more than they do. According to another report by Grey Matter Research, “34% of donors overestimate the proportion they give to charity by 50% to 89%, while another 35% overestimate it by 90% or more. While just 4% give at least one-tenth of household income to charity, 38% believe they give one-tenth or more.” (emphasis mine) Tellingly, in the Lifeway Research survey of churchgoers mentioned above, 31% said they tithed 10%, and 19% said they go “above and beyond” the tithe. 

Denominationally, beliefs about tithing look like what might be expected: in the same survey of churchgoers, evangelical beliefs correlated with belief in tithing as a commandment still in force. In the survey of pastors, Baptist, Pentecostal, and Holiness pastors seem more likely to believe in an obligation to tithe, teach about tithing, and define tithing as giving 10% than Lutherans, Episcopalians and Presbyterian/Reformed. Very broadly, in this and other questions in the pastors and churchgoers surveys, there seemed to be something of an evangelical-mainline split, but not a very clear one. 

Some main differences between various protestant views include:

The Church of England

The Church of England encourages its members to give 5% of their after-tax income to and through the church, and a similar amount to other work that "helps to build God’s kingdom"[5]

Catholic and Orthodox views

I could not find good data on the beliefs and behaviour of Catholics. The official teaching of the Catholic Church does not posit an obligation to tithe. According to the Code of Canon Law (can. 222 §1-2) the faithful are obliged to assist with the needs of the church and to promote social justice and assist the poor. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says “the faithful are obliged to assist with the material needs of the Church, each according to his own ability.” (CCC 2043) Neither source specifies a particular amount but presents a general obligation to give. 

In his Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas argues that the tithing commandments in the OT belong to the judicial/ceremonial part of the Law that is no longer in force, “because natural reason does not dictate that one ought to give a tenth part, rather than a ninth or eleventh”.

There is even less information available on the Orthodox who are not a large group in the US. As far as I’m aware, there is no one commonly accepted Orthodox view. I have seen multiple American Orthodox sources that urge tithing, but I have never heard of it in the Finnish Orthodox Church where I’m a member. Differences in context very likely play a role: in some European countries, the Orthodox Church gets state funding, which means tithing is not necessary to keep the church running. Tithing in the US Orthodox churches is likely a protestant influence, though, as I’m not aware of influential church fathers in the Orthodox tradition teaching tithing, and to my knowledge, there are no canons about it (though there are rulings on tithing by local synods in the West already in the first millennium).

The Rabbinical view

The Rabbinical Jewish view considers there to be three separate 10% tithes. Two of these are paid yearly and the third one every three years. In this view, agricultural products and cattle within the boundaries of ancient Israel must be tithed, but nothing else. The discussion of the Torah passages below will elucidate the Biblical basis of this view and some of its details.

The main Bible passages

The Patriarchs

In Genesis 14, Abram pays tithes of the spoils of war to  Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of God Most High, after having successfully defeated enemies who had taken captive his nephew Lot. When Jacob is running from Esau to Paddan-Aram and has his dream in Bethel, he makes a vow to God (Genesis 28:20–22) that if the Lord will keep him in his way, give him food and clothing, and let him return safely to his father’s house, he will be Jacob’s God and Jacob will give God a tenth of everything he will give him.

Because these passages take place before the giving of the Law on Sinai, some argue that tithing is independent of the Law of Moses and therefore still in force.

Both Abram and Jacob pay or promise to pay tithes in a special situation, though. Abram gives a tenth of the spoils of war to Melchizedek, a figure who otherwise does not appear in Genesis. There is no mention of Abram paying tithes on any other occasion. 

Jacob’s tithe is connected to his vow. The interpretation of this vow seems to depend on how the character and spiritual state of Jacob is analysed. Is he bargaining with God or responding in reference and gratitude? Whatever the case, if Jacobs’s promise is read as only being fulfilled after all the conditions listed in verses 20–21, he would only tithe after getting back safely to his father’s house but not before. The text also seems to imply that Jacob will give 10% of what he has accumulated so far, but this leaves it open whether he will keep tithing after it. Neither of these passages establishes continuously giving 10% of all income as a standard pattern.

The Torah

Assuming no contradiction between the different passages, the Torah seems to have three separate tithes that together add up to over 20%: 

  1. one given to the Levites every year
  2. one that is used for festival meals at the temple with one’s household and the Levites
  3. one that is given every third year to the Levites, strangers, orphans, and widows to be eaten in the towns of the Israelites

Practically no Christians are arguing for following the Torah legislation on tithing as it stands. There are several tithes and only agricultural products are tithed; money or other items are not mentioned. This leads to the question of why the NT tithe would be only 10% since there were several 10% tithes in the OT. The challenge is to explain what parts of the Torah would nevertheless reflect obligations that remain binding for the NT believers.

The tithes are to be paid to the Levites, who in turn pay a tithe from the tithe to the priests. This, along with Malachi 3 and a reference in 1 Corinthians 9, is used to argue that the tithe is to be paid to the (or a) local church for paying the salaries of their ministers etc. Tithes provided a living for the OT ministers, so they should likewise provide a living for those who work in the NT ministry.

Some early sources (St. Cyprian from the mid-third century and Didascalia Apostolorum, a church order from the fourth century) also make a comparison between Christian clergy and the Levites and priests and make references to the tithing laws in support of Christians financially supporting the clergy. However, they speak in ways that do not establish the giving of a fixed 10%. Didascalia Apostolorum also includes the poor as the recipients of the giving it describes, but the money or goods are to be distributed by the clergy.

Only the first tithe is paid solely to the Levites. The second tithe was used to pay for feasts “before the Lord” for the tither’s household and the Levites, and the strangers, orphans and widows received the third tithe along with the Levites. The Law doesn’t speak of the priests or Levites collecting or distributing the second and third tithes.

In summary, differences between the tithing laws in the Torah and contemporary views on tithing include:

Malachi 3:6–12

In Malachi 3:6–12 God accuses the Israelites of robbing him by not bringing him the tithe. He urges them to “bring the full tithe into the storehouse” and thereby put him to the test, to see if he will not “open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need.” God will rebuke the devourer so it will not destroy crops and fruit and the Israelites’ vines will not fail to bear fruit. Opening the windows of heaven likely refers to rain and the devourer to some kind of pest like locusts.

Another important aspect of the text is the exhortation to bring the tithe into the storehouse: many argue that based on this, tithes are to be given to the local congregation since that is the equivalent of the OT temple storehouse. Based on references in 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah, the tithe for the Levites was indeed gathered in a storehouse in the temple. However, the relevance of Malachi to NT Christians depends on whether tithing is still an obligation. Numerous passages in the prophets rebuke the Israelites for failing to keep parts of the Law that are no longer in force.

Deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha)

The book of Tobit is set in the 8th century B.C. but is usually considered to be written in the early second century B.C. In the first chapter of the book, the pious Israelite Tobit writes about his life before being taken captive and brought to Nineveh in the fall of the Northern Kingdom. He describes paying the various tithes mentioned in the Law. Tobit’s narrative shows how the tithing system of the Torah was interpreted in the second century B.C. (or, if one believes Tobit was written in the 8th century B.C., how the system functioned during that time). It affirms the classic Jewish three-tithe interpretation of the Law.

Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42

The main passage about tithing in the Gospels is found in Matthew 23:23 and its parallel in Luke 11:42 as a part of Jesus’ speech known as Woes of the Pharisees where he rebukes their hypocrisy.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. (Matthew 23:23)

Many argue that Jesus is requiring NT believers to tithe because he says to the Pharisees that they should have observed both tithing and the “weightier matters” of the Law. Others interpret them as meaning that the Pharisees who lived under the Law were obligated to tithe and therefore ought to have done it but this does not establish an obligation for Christians to do likewise because they are no longer under the Law of Moses. Others say that the followers of Jesus are the intended audience since the Pharisees were hard-hearted and would not have listened to him anyway.

At the beginning of his speech against the Pharisees in Matthew 23, Jesus says (verses 2–3): “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do.” There are two interpretative possibilities here. Either one should take the words of Jesus literally and observe everything the Pharisees thought based on the Law, including things like circumcision, feasts, and sacrifices. This would place the following discourse in a context where the Law of Moses is still applicable, and it would then have no relevance in deciding whether tithing continues after the Law.

Another strategy of interpretation, used by at least St. John Chrysostom (Homily LXXII on Matthew), is to consider “all” as limited to the moral precepts of the Law. By itself, this leaves open whether tithing is one of these or not.

The verb “ought to have” (ἔδει) is in the imperfect tense, which in Biblical Greek denotes an ongoing action in the past. Grammatically, this leaves open the possibility that currently or in the future, the Pharisees would no longer be under the obligation.

Church Fathers commenting on this passage do not use it to assert tithing as an ongoing obligation for Christians. (See St. John Chrysostom’s homily and St. Jerome’s commentary on Matthew 23:23) St. Hilary of Poitiers comments that tithing  “was useful for prefiguring the future” and that “[i]t was appropriate for it to be practised, in order to perform deeds of faithfulness, justice, and mercy”, but does not speak of tithing as an ongoing obligation.

1 Corinthians 9

In 1 Corinthians 9, St. Paul talks about the ministers’ right to a living, which he himself surrendered. He writes (verses 13–14): 

13Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

NT ministers should be supported by tithes, the argument goes, because Paul draws an analogy between them and the OT Levites and priests who were supported by tithes and offerings.

It is worth noting Paul also compares proclaimers of the Gospel to soldiers, vineyard planters, shepherds, oxen, and ploughmen (verses 7–10). Those working in the temple service get food from the temple and the altar servers from the altar: they should receive food from the thing they work with, similar to vineyard planters, shepherds, threading oxen, and ploughmen. In addition to the tithes, Paul also refers to the fact that priests were entitled to certain parts of the sacrifices. The point of comparison appears to be receiving food from the thing they work with. The way the church should arrange this for its clergy is not the focus of the passage.

Hebrews 7:4–10

Hebrews 7:4–10 is part of a wider argument for the superiority of the new covenant over the old. The author says Jesus is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. He then uses the story of Abram paying tithes to Melchizedek and Melchizedek blessing Abram to establish the greatness of Melchizedek, who is a type of Christ. In Abram, “so to speak”, Levi who receives tithes under the Law has paid tithes, “for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him”.

By analogy, the argument goes, Christians should be paying tithes to their high priest, Jesus. However, the focus is not on tithing but on the superiority of Jesus as the high priest of the New Covenant. Since tithing is not the subject matter of the passage, it seems somewhat suspect to draw firm conclusions from this passage. Note that this conclusion again depends on assuming continuously giving 10% of all income as the default mode of tithing, which Abram was not doing in this passage.

The Church Fathers and other early authors do not use this passage to argue for an obligation to tithe. St. John Chrysostom is known for vigorously exhorting his upper-class hearers in Constantinople to give alms, yet in his sermon on Hebrews 7, he does not use this passage to argue for an obligation to give 10%. St. Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho and Tertullian refer to Hebrews 7, but neither one shows particular interest in the references to tithing.

Brief notes on the history of tithing

The earliest post-NT sources don't contain unambiguous references to tithing. 

There is a fourth-century source that speaks of a duty to give a 10% tithe. The Apostolic Constitutions, a church order dated to around 380 A.D., describes duty to give firstfruits of agricultural products to the priests and a tenth of all increase to the orphans, widows, the poor, and the strangers, as well as the firstfruits of silver, garments and all sorts of possessions to the widow and the orphan. (ANF 7:471) Interestingly, the needy are the primary recipients of agricultural tithes and also the “firstfruits” of various possessions.

Another early source, Didascalia Apostolorum (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), a church order usually dated to the third century, promotes something close to tithing. It compares the clergy to the Levites and priests of the OT and urges the readers to give to the bishop for the support of the clergy and distribution to the poor. However, it explicitly states that the OT laws including among others sacrifices, purifications, showbread, tithes, and heave offerings no longer bind the Christians, but that their righteousness should exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees. The text then points to the words of Jesus to “sell all you have and give to the poor” and tells the hearers to give to the poor “by means of the Bishop and the priest”, meaning they will take care of the distribution. As there is no fixed percentage, this does not count as advocating tithing under the definition I’m using.

According to an article by Eric Schuler, it was only in the time period of St. Caesarius of Arles (ca. 469–542) when tithing “was first defined as a mandatory payment of a fixed percentage of income to the church incumbent on all Christians and distinct from other forms of offerings. Before Caesarius, churchmen used the language of tithing only to discuss almsgiving, which by its nature resisted being made a fixed due.” 

In the Western church, tithing was established as a tax during the Middle Ages. One tenth was to be paid to the church. The Reformation changed this. Martin Luther believed tithes were no longer binding on Christians, though he nevertheless thought giving tenths was a good system. The Anabaptists opposed tithing. John Calvin’s stance appears ambiguous (see here and here for references to Calvin’s writings). 

There were different opinions among post-Reformation Protestant leaders. Some were for tithing and others against it. Nevertheless, “tithing had been virtually nonexistent in American churches until 1873” according to David A Croteau’s brief history of tithing in the book Perspectives on Tithing: 4 Views. (p. 183) Two very influential books on tithing were published in that year and began a tithing renewal among US Protestants. Some prominent thought leaders were opposed to tithing, but according to Croteau, “[m]any pastors and scholars (probably the majority) have come to the support of the Tithing Renewal (p. 184).

Further discussion

A question of covenants

Ultimately, whether Christians are obligated to tithe appears to be a theological question that depends on how the relationship between the OT and the NT is interpreted and how exactly tithing fits into this picture.

It is common in Christina theology to distinguish between the ethical laws in the Torah on the one hand and ceremonial and judicial laws on the other hand. The ethical commands are universal, such as “do not steal”, while the ceremonial and judicial laws applied under the covenant God made with Israel on Sinai but are no longer in force. These include commands like making tassels on the corners of garments (Deuteronomy 22:12) or executing Sabbath breakers by stoning. Some laws are easy to identify as ceremonial/judicial, such as circumcision, which is explicitly and forcefully rejected in the NT as a requirement for Christians. Sometimes there are disputes between Christians about whether some law is ethical or ceremonial/judicial because most individual OT laws are not addressed in the NT. Tithing appears to be exactly such a case.

In some sense, all Christians agree that OT tithing is transformed in the NT, since nobody is arguing for keeping the exact tithing system of the Torah. Just the principle stands, not the details of the Law. The question then becomes, to quote David Croteau, “does that principle carry a numerical value?”[6] Some think giving one tenth is part of the unchanging principle, whereas others think it is part of the details that are no longer binding and what remains is the more general principle of giving.

Giving a tenth certainly features in the OT, but how many tenths are given, how often, and what is tithed vary between Abram, Jacob, and the Torah. None of these accounts unambiguously feature continuous giving of one tenth of all types of income. It does therefore feel strained to claim that continuously giving one tenth of all types of income is the obvious Biblical pattern to be followed. 

There are also patterns in the OT that are in place from before the Law to Malachi, but that are no longer in force in the NT. Animal sacrifices are a universal feature of the life of the people of God from Abel to Noah, the Patriarchs and then the Torah period. But it is amply documented in the NT that Christians should not be making animal sacrifices. They are given a typological interpretation that points to the sacrifice of Christ that abolished animal sacrifices. 

This is a general pattern: the Law had a “shadow of the things to come”, and Christians are no longer bound by observances related to this shadow now that Christ, the fulfilment, has come. St. Paul mentions “questions of food and drink, or … a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath” as belonging to this “shadow” (Colossians 2:16–17). The Epistle to Hebrews gives a similar interpretation of sacrifices and the OT sanctuary.

Christians now offer sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving (Hebrews 13:15) and are called to give themselves as living sacrifices (Romans 12:1). Doing good and sharing what Christians have is also a sacrifice that pleases God. (Hebrews 13:16) This means sacrifices continue in principle but in a greatly transformed form.

A difference is that tithing is not given a similar clear typological interpretation in the NT and no passage explicitly mentions it being abolished. However, tithing appears connected to ceremonial and judicial aspects of the Law. Some features seem to fit the pattern of ceremonial laws: 

Questions that rely heavily on typology and patterns in Scripture instead of explicit instruction are often hard to decide based on the Bible alone. Yet this mode of interpretation can not be discarded since the NT makes abundant use of types and patterns in exegeting the OT. My Eastern Orthodox perspective is likely showing here, but I believe this point can be appreciated by Protestants as well. 

Where to give

Another important aspect of the discussion is where Christians should be giving. Among US Protestants, the local church is usually considered the recipient of the tithes, but many also think it is possible to give to other churches or Christian ministries. A minority include those in need as possible recipients. Usually, though, giving to charity appears to be considered voluntary giving beyond the tithe, albeit something Christians are encouraged or even required to do.

There is no question whether Christians should be helping those in need. This is abundantly clear from Scripture. Jesus even presents giving food to the hungry, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and other forms of service to “the least of these” as the criterion by which one is judged at his return in Matthew 25:31–46. 

It is also clear that a church community should be looking after those within it who are in need because of brotherly Christian love. We have indications of organised charity already in the NT (1 Timothy 5:3–16). On the other hand, there is no indication that all of the mutual help of the church members should be centrally run.

The obligation to support the ministers of the Gospel also has a clear scriptural basis. Whatever St. Paul is saying about tithes in 1 Corinthians 9, he is clearly making the point that they have a right to a living from their work. Providing it is naturally the responsibility of Christians. Yet as Paul himself demonstrated, ministers can in some circumstances do other work for their living.

However, these obligations don’t have fixed details. If giving 10% to the church is not considered binding, there isn’t a defined percentage of giving in the NT nor a ratio for giving to the church vs other targets. I suspect there are no easy answers here, except maybe “aim to give more” (for those who are globally or locally rich).

In addition, there are thorny questions about helping locally vs globally. The NT has an example of international charity in the form of St. Paul’s collection for the poor in Jerusalem. Yet most mutual help between Christians must have been local out of necessity for most of the history of Christianity.  But today there are opportunities to help overseas and the direst need also exists outside the rich countries. It also appears that the most impactful charities on a lives-saved-per-dollar basis are not explicitly Christian ones. Christians should consider these facts when they make their decisions about giving.

Some other miscellaneous considerations: 

Not tithing and radical generosity

It is certainly possible to take not tithing as an excuse to be lax with giving. However, “if I’m not under an obligation to do exactly this, I’m not going to do anything” is a very unchristian attitude. Not having to tithe seems to rather imply that Christians should aim to give more if they have the means.

The New Testament has striking verses about giving. 

If anything, the NT teaching on generosity and giving is more overflowing than that of the OT, even if the OT also has passages extolling generosity towards the needy.

One concern “post-tithers”[7] sometimes raise is that tithing may lead to a mindset where people redeem the remaining 90% for themselves by paying the tithe and feel free to spend it however they want. As opposed to this, the “post-tithers” emphasise that everything belongs to the Lord.

There is nothing wrong with giving 10% if that is the right amount for someone. Given some of the statistics explored in the Contemporary Views and Practices section, more people could and very likely should be giving 10% or more. 

Even if 10% is not a binding commandment, I recognise that setting a percentage can be helpful. When doing financial planning and household budget estimates, it is necessary to give some numerical value to giving. However, I believe the level of giving should be periodically re-examined and adjusted as necessary. One system is Ron Sider’s “graduate tithing” where the percentage of giving goes up as income increases.

When we look at the interpretation of the NT tithing passages in the early centuries, a rhetorical move found in at least St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom is to contrast the stinginess of (wealthy) Christians with the tithing Pharisees. If the hypocritical Pharisees were tithing, should Christians not be giving even more? At the same time, St. Augustine makes a distinction between rich and poor hearers. To the poor, he does not talk about tithing but the dangers of wanting to become rich. St. Irenaeus writes: “instead of the law enjoining the giving of tithes, [He told us] to share all our possessions with the poor” (Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:477, brackets in the original). This last quote seems to sum up the spirit of the Church Fathers on this issue. 

Early accounts of giving in the context of the local church by St. Justin the Philosopher and Tertullian stress the freewill aspect of giving. (The First Apology LXVII, ANF 1:186 and Tertullians’ Apology chapter XXXIX, ANF 3:46) In these accounts and the sermons of St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine on passages relevant to tithing, it is the well-off who are urged to give, either explicitly or implicitly by having the poor or those in disadvantaged positions as the recipients.

Tithing as a “flat tax” of 10% falls most heavily on the poorest. Giving according to one’s means, on the other hand, targets the well-off more, at least in terms of absolute numbers—in terms of faith and sacrifice, the numerically smaller donations of poorer Christians may be more heroic, like the widow’s mite.

Finally, the tithing passages in the OT are not rendered meaningless even if Christians are not under the obligation to tithe. They still point to principles that can be helpful for Christian giving. This is all the more relevant if there is no fixed amount: Christians should examine themselves and their situations and see that they are giving generously according to their own means.

 

  1. ^

    Radical as in "if you have two shirts, give one to your neighbour who has none" (Cf. Luke 3:11)

  2. ^

    https://www.christianpost.com/news/only-13-of-evangelicals-tithe-study.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAmong%20American%20adults%20who%20attend,going%20to%20church%20or%20charity.

  3. ^

    Tithers were defined as people who report giving 8% or more in this survey because the numbers were estimates. Apparently, people were asked about the absolute amount they give and tended to give rounded estimates in their responses. This means the real percentage could be lower.

  4. ^

    This makes me curious about the 10% who don't think you can give your tithes to the local church. This could be explained by Lizardman’s constant at least in part. There might also be a some small minority of US Protestants who think tithes must be given to individuals in need or para-church organisations. Or perhaps there are some who for whatever reason think tithes shouldn't be paid to their particular church (the option in the survey was "my church").

  5. ^

    https://parishresources.org.uk/givingforlife/general-synods-resolution/

  6. ^

    David A. Croteau (Ed.): Persepctives on Tithing: 4 Views, p. 135.

  7. ^

    I borrowed this term from David A. Croteau to describe people who come from a background that emphasised the importance of tithing but have since changed their views and are now promoting the view that tithing is not binding for Christians.