Tithes & Offerings

Reformed Books Online

Travis Fentiman, MDiv.

1Mózes 14.

Tithes & Offerings

“And Melchizedek king of Salem… was the priest of the most high God… And he [Abraham] gave him tithes of all.”

Gen. 14:18,20

“…you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.”

Matt 23:23

“Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.”

Gal. 6:6

Should We Tithe?

Travis Fentiman, MDiv.

Having been bought by the blood of God (Acts 20:28) and being wholly owned by Him, it ought to be a small thing and one of joy for the Christian to give a regular portion of his or her income to the service of the One who has created us and redeemed us.

The poor widow, with nothing more, could have only thrown into the Temple’s treasury one mite, keeping the last one for herself, but instead she threw in all that she had (Mk. 12:41-44; Lk. 21:1-4). It is better to give than to receive, Jesus said (Acts 20:35), for God loves a cheerful giver (2 Cor. 9:7).

In light of this, the question naturally arises whether it is morally obligatory that persons, and Christians especially, systematically give a certain amount of their earned money to the service of God? And if so, should this be ten percent, or a ‘tithe’?

The answers to these questions in contemporary Christianity have often been influenced by:

(1) Anti-nomianism (against-the-Law-ism), believing that Christians are not obliged to obey the moral laws of God, especially if that means ‘tithing’ (which costs a person something), in which understanding seeking to obey God’s commandments is held to be legalism (contra what Jesus says, Jn. 14:15); and

(2) Fundamentalism on the other hand, which characteristically uses a simplistic and ‘literal’ interpretation of Scripture, often arguing that the Levitical statute for giving 10% of one’s income to the Lord continues to directly bind Christians in the New Testament era. This paradigm became popular on the American scene beginning with the Tithing Renewal Movement in the late-1800’s (see pp. 24-68 of Croteau, A Biblical & Theological Analysis of Tithing).

The dominant answer of reformed theology’s classical era during the 1500’s and 1600’s, according to the Word of God, was neither of these.

Systematic Giving is Morally Obligatory & Natural

At the Reformation Anabaptists, and later Quakers and many Independants, argued that, as the Levitical statutes are done away with, so no law remains to bind persons to systematic giving to the Christian ministry, and that ministers need not, and should not be paid. However, even before the Law with Moses, being yet a gentile, Abraham paid a tithe to the priest Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18-20; Heb. 7:4-9) and Jacob vowed to give a tenth unto God with all that He prospered him with (Gen. 28:20-22). If there were any question about the moral right of ministers to be paid (and the obligation for Christians to pay them), Paul argues this point from the general equity of Old Testament examples (1 Cor. 9:9:13-14):

“For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.’ Doth God take care for oxen?… Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.”

The obligation for giving a portion of our income to the Lord is not simply due to this passage and the examples of Melchizedek and Jacob happening to have been recorded in Scripture, but rather, the foundation is deeper, even in the natural law of how God created the world (which Scripture recognizes, reiterates and enforces). The instances of Abraham and Jacob giving tithes were not arbitrary and without a rational foundation. The natural desire of Jacob and Abraham to give a portion of their income to the Lord sprung from their conscience operating in their circumstances, with a due consideration of their natural relations to God. Abraham and Jacob probably settled on the ratio of ten percent as these men likely had been accustomed to this ratio from the practice of larger societies around them using this number for tribute to kings and religious orders.

Giving a portion of income for such purposes has been part of ‘the law of nations,’ its universal occurrence in widely varying circumstances stemming from our inherent nature. Paul himself argues that a minister’s right to be paid fundamentally derives from the natural principles he enumerates in 1 Cor. 9:7,10,11.

A creature’s obligation to give to the Lord is specifically due to the natural principles that we were created by, and are owned by God, are his servants, owe Him a return for that which He has given to us (Mt. 25:24-30), that all things are his, that He has given us the power to get wealth, that He is the highest Good existent, that all things are to be done to his glory, that we have an obligation by the moral, 2nd Commandment to keep up and support the public worship of the True God, and that giving of our substance is an act of allegiance and devotion unto God. This being the case, the moral obligation of systematic giving to the Lord’s special ministry is not limited to one time, place or people, but is universal in extent to all creatures in all time.

It is because systematic giving to the Lord arises from our natural relations to Him that it appears to us to be natural, right and good, whereas not doing this is unnatural and against nature, or sinful.

The Levitical Tithe of 10% Does Not Bind Today

It may be surprising to learn that the reformers and puritans largely did not hold that the Levitical tithe of ten percent was binding upon Christians. Those arguing that the Levitical tithe directly bound persons today, and that the revenues thereof were to be given directly to the ministry as a divine right (New Testament ministers being claimed, simplistically, to be the continuation of the Old Testament priests), were, rather, largely the entitled bishops of prelacy, especially in the Anglican Church. Increase Mather wrote (Discourse Concerning the Maintenance due to those that Preach, pp. 49-50; 1706):

“Among Protestant writers, prelates, and prelatical men plead hard for the divine right of tithes as the ministers’ due. Bishop [Lancelot] Andrews and Bishop [George] Carleton [whose works are below] have said as much for it as any that I have seen.

But most of our reformed divines maintain the negative. So Peter Martyr (Common Places, pt. 4, ch. 13), Zanchy (Of Redemption, book 1, ch. 16), Daneus (Ethics, book 2, ch. 10), Rivet (in Genesis, Exercitation 80), Voetius (Eccle. pt. 1, book 4, p. 824), and to this we adhere.”

David Croteau, who wrote a modern dissertation on the topic of tithing, said that “…the Reformation period closed with no (major) Reformer explicitly advocating tithing.” (A Biblical & Theological Analysis of Tithing, p. 17)

A number of considerations factor into the dominant viewpoint of the reformers and puritans. The Levitical law did not simply have one tithe of ten percent, but, it had, in its detailed complex of statute laws, numerous tithes which added up to significantly more than ten percent (see the dictionary articles below). These multiple tithes on specific products of the land, be it noted, were only obliging upon Israelites, not on gentiles (living in the land or otherwise). If one will follow these Levitical laws at all, one must follow them in the exact details which they prescribe. This is hard to do without Levitical priests around today.

Further, before the Law, while Abraham gave a tenth of his war-spoils to Melchizedek (Gen. 14:15-16,20), this was a one time, rather extraordinary event in his life (not involving what was originally his own property); there is no evidence that he did this yearly with his regular income. Jacob’s voluntary, non-obligatory vow, while involving more regularity of earned income, yet was conditioned to the future upon the providential actions of God fulfilling it (Gen. 28:20-22), which is not typically what is meant by ‘tithing’ today.

(For numerous more reasons why Abraham and Jacob’s examples are not sufficient grounds for a universal obligation to tithe, including from the mention of Abraham paying tithes in Hebrews, ch. 7, see the southern presbyterian, Thomas Peck’s article, Moral Obligation of the Tithe, 1890.)

The New Testament gives us reason to believe that the moral obligation of regularly giving to the Lord from our increase continues in its pages, per Jesus’ directive to the Pharisees to not leave off tithing their garden herbs (Mt. 23:23).  Yet, insofar as ten percent may be implied in the etymology of the word ‘tithe’ used in this text, the Pharisees were then yet under the Levitical statutes (before the Temple veil rent in twain at Jesus’ death).  When Paul directed the Corinthian and Galatian believers to lay up an offering on the First Day of the Week (1 Cor. 16:1-4), this was particularly for relieving the acute distress of the saints in Jerusalem that had come up; it was not necessarily mandating dropping ten percent of one’s weekly paycheck into the offering box, in all circumstances, every Lord’s Day.

It is difficult to see how nature teaches that ten percent, as opposed to a different number, ought to be given to the Lord.

(Just as nothing in nature itself teaches that 1/7 of our time ought to be devoted directly to the Lord, and that as one rotating day in seven..  Rather, Westminster Confession, Ch. 21.7 teaches only that “it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God.”  The obligation of every seventh day being set apart for God does not come from nature, but from God’s positive, sovereign action, example and prescription recorded through special revelation: “so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him.”  This is what is implicit in Gen. 2:1-4.)

Abraham and Jacob gave ten percent probably as that was a convenient division of currency which was customary in their society, which society apparently used a base-10 number system.  Other societies, also under ‘the law of nations’, have used other number-based systems with other percentages, though ten percent has been common in history.

Fundamental moral principles arising from natural relations must be distinguished from the specific details and ways in which those principles are manifested in, applied to and encoded in human situations with complex societal circumstances.  This was a fundamental, ethical distinction made by the reformers and puritans; see Paul Barth’s very helpful article expounding this: ‘Natural Law and Divine Positive Law’.

Thus, as Abraham was guided by natural conscience to honor the Lord with a due portion of his spoils, that manifested itself positively in him giving the specific amount held to be customary and appropriate to the purpose as learned from the society around him (which was rightly based on a fitting, natural, proportion): ten percent.

As Abraham and Jacob’s examples are not actually of perpetually giving 10% of their regular income to the Lord by a natural, moral obligation (which is the modern paradigm that is claimed to be universally binding), the only other place in the Bible that could oblige such a practice would be the Levitical law.  The ten-percent requirement from Moses, though, was not flexible for the Israelites: it was to be exact, and the Levites could not willingly forego it.  The tithe was not the Levites’ per se, but rather it was the Lord’s (Lev. 27:30,32; Mal. 3:8-9), who then gave it to the Levites (Num. 18:24,26).

The divinely stated reason for the Levites receiving the ten percent tithe was that they had no inheritance in the land of Israel as the other tribes had (Num. 18:21,23-24):

“And, behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation…  it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations, that among the children of Israel they have no inheritance…  therefore I have said unto them, ‘Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance.’”

Needless to say, if the Levites had a land-inheritance in Israel, or if the circumstance of the specially promised land of Israel was not in the picture, the Levites would not have received the specially set, mandatory, ten-percent tithe.  Not only have the land-laws of Israel been done abrogated with the Mosaic economy passing away, but prelates had a land-inheritance in England (and that more than most).

Note also that ten-percent of Israel’s gross national product went directly to the Levites for their own personal uses, by divine right, and was not to be used for other purposes, such as giving to the poor, which there was another tithe (and other provisions) for (Dt. 14:28-29; 15:7-8; Lev. 23:22, etc.).  The Anglican prelates often argued in their own day that 10% of the gross national product was for their own personal use, by divine right, though they made up only a sliver of ten percent of England’s population.  The Old Testament tithe, though, did not only go to the priests of the Old Testament (the prelates arguing that they were the equivalent thereof), but to all the Levites (there is a difference, as not all of them were priests).  The non-priest, Levites of the Old Testament, being keepers in the Temple, were a proto-type of the deaconal ministry of the New Testament, something Anglicanism does not admit of.

The reformers and puritans, on the other hand, largely argued that the percentage to be given and the income derived from it was flexible, that the form of collection and distribution of it was indifferent, that the monies should be appropriate to the need, should not be excessive, could be voluntarily foregone by ministers (1 Cor. 9:6,12,14-15; 1 Thess. 2:10, etc.) and could (and should) go to other causes in the Lord’s work, such as giving to the poor, maintaining buildings, etc.

The Teaching of the New Testament

Col. 2:14 teaches that the positive, Mosaic statutes, especially those distinguishing Jews from gentiles, those involving the land-inheritance of Israel and the priesthood dependent upon the Temple administration, have been abrogated (WCF 19.3-4) by Jesus at the cross:

“Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;”

Witsius and Vanderkemp (below, in the quotes section) explicitly place the Mosaic tithing laws under this ‘handwriting of ordinances’, which was a ‘yoke of bondage’ (Gal. 5:1) hard to bear (Acts 15:10).  The detailed, statute, tithe-laws, which prescribed multiple, straight, somewhat simplistic, exact and unforgiving percentages (irregardless of difficult or extenuating circumstances) were intended to teach the people of God the Lord’s house-rules while they were still in their under-age years first learning the Faith (read Gal. 3-23-4:5 & 4:21-31).  This is just as we implement rudimentary, specific house-rules, not necessarily universal in their moral obligation, with our children for the development of their maturity; such rules often being a yoke to children’s behavior while they are young and also as they begin to mature out of them ready for their independence.  This was the standard understanding of reformers and puritans.

The English puritan Matthew Poole (1624–1679) explains how God’s good and just, statute laws were designed for the good of Israel and yet were ‘contrary to us’ (Annotations, on Col. 2:14):

“…the law, which was in itself holy, just, and good, through sin became in some sort contrary, or subcontrary, to us, in that it did serve to convict, and terrify with the curse for our default, Rom. 7:5,9, aggravating all by its ceremonies, and shutting the gate of God’s house against the Gentiles, of whose number the Colossians were, strangers from the covenants of promise, Eph. 2:12; yet this obligation was abrogated and annulled by the death of Christ…”

Being set at liberty by Christ and having come to maturity with more revelation and a fuller, promised, out-pouring of the Spirit, the people of God are able to use their sense and wisdom (WCF 1.6) in discerning, following and doing the will of God in their widely various circumstances across the nations, being in different developmental stages of the Church in their lands, per the natural and moral laws of God (which underlaid the statutes of Moses).

What does carry over into the New Testament from the specific tithe-laws of the Old Testament?  To summarize Francis Turretin (1623-87), a leading voice of high, reformed orthodoxy: it is their general equity (see WCF 19.4).  Turretin, in seeking to prove that ministers of the New Testament should be paid, argued (Institutes, 3.270):

“From the salaries of the sacred ministers under the Old Testament (Num. 18:8-12), to whom were given ordinarily sacrifices, tithes, firstfruits, and other similar things, besides certain cities and suburban fields (Num. 35:1-8).  Now although in the New Testament, we are not bound by those laws as to the special material from which and the manner in which the pay was given, still they remain as to kind and analogy, as is evident from the passage already quoted (1 Cor. 9:13).”

This is a balanced perspective on the multi-faceted issue of the binding nature of the Old Testament tithes, a perspective that not only the majority of the reformers and puritans advocated, but which was also essentially argued by some of the better prelates who saw some obligation in the Old Testament tithes which should be defended for the New Testament Church ministry.

Outside of Mt. 23:23 and the incidental mentioning of tithes to prove a different point in Hebrews ch. 7, the New Testament never speaks of ‘tithing’ (the word in Hebrew and Greek probably implying ten percent), but rather the New Testament has many exhortations for giving liberally based on need and what is fitting.  The following is a sampling:

Acts 2:44-45  “And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.”

Acts 4:34-35  “And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.”

Rom. 12:13  “Distributing to the necessity of saints…”

2 Cor. 9:6-7  “He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.  Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.”

Gal. 6:6  “Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.”

Gal. 6:10  “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.”

Phil. 4:16  “For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity.”

1 Tim. 6:18  “that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;”

As it is right, good and naturally obligatory for persons to generously and joyfully give to the Lord’s ministry systematically, especially as the ministry has continual needs, opportunities and prospects, and ought to expand into all the reaches of the earth, so it seems, especially from the general equity of the Old Testament, that a regular expression of such giving would be to give at least ten percent of one’s income, in addition to other voluntary offerings.

For more practical wisdom on how much to give, see Richard Baxter, ‘Cases & Directions about Works of Charity,’ point 14, pp. 493-6  in Christian Directory, Part IV, Christian Politics (1673).  May we have a heart to enrich God’s house before our own (Hag. 1:4-5).

The Role of the Civil Magistrate

All people, being creatures of God, by the light of nature have a duty to honor God with their resources and to support his cause in the earth, especially with regard to his immediate and public worship (the 2nd Commandment).  As the civil magistrate is the representative of the people and is the (fallible) vice-regent of God, acting under and by God’s authority, being obliged to rule according to God’s natural and moral laws for God’s ends (Rom. 13:1-5; Ps. 2:10-12; Ps. 82), so the magistrate has the responsibility, right and duty to publicly uphold the 2nd Commandment and to materially support and protect the public worship of God in his domains (Isa. 49:23; Ps. 72:10,11).  As all people have the moral obligations to honor God with their substance and to countenance his worship written upon their hearts (Rom. 2:14-15), there can be no objection to the magistrate enforcing persons to do this, their public and civil duty, by civil authority (2 Chron. 31:2,4-5; Neh. 10:32; 13:10-14).

This, the Establishment Principle, was the universally held view of the Protestant Reformation, especially as delineated in her historic creeds through the 1500’s and 1600’s.  The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation states (vol. 1, pp. 329-331):

“…the Protestant Reformation marked a sharp break in the pattern of ecclesiastical finance wherever it took root…  Huldrych Zwingli and Martin Bucer…  held that church property belonged to the religious community and that the secular ruler merely administered it.
…

Geneva itself followed the model of other Reformed cities in expelling all the regular [papist] clergy and divorcing itself from episcopal jurisdictions in 1536.  The profits of dissolution were appropriated by the [civil] municipality, which henceforth paid the pastors of the new church…  The Dutch Reformed Church was funded by the magistracy…”

The reformers and puritans firmly held to an important distinction: that the civil government, being the civil enforcer of God’s Law and public morals, had power with regard to religion (the First Table of the Law) circa sacra (around the sacred), but not in sacra (in sacred things).  What is usually emphasized by Christian teachers today is that the magistrate does not have power in sacra, or with respect to the things of faith, doctrine, Church discipline, etc., while ignoring what the reformers and puritans were so staunch to uphold on the other side of the coin from natural law and Scripture, that the magistrate does have authority and the obligation to materially support, protect and provide for the maintenance of the True Religion in their land in temporal and physical things.

The Reformation’s teaching is demonstrated to be true by the natural equity of approved examples in Scripture.  It was David and Solomon, civil kings, that designed and built the Temple, the outward house of God.  The civil queen of Sheba and the pagan king of Tyre, Hiram, gave great gifts which were bestowed upon the Temple services (1 Kings 10:10-12).  It was Cyrus, a pagan king, who, by the direct prescription and approval of God, ordained for the Temple to be rebuilt with his kingdom’s money after the Temple had lain waste (2 Chron. 36:22-23).  When this effort fell into abeyance, King Darius renewed the mission and supplied the lavish provision for it (Ezra 6:1-15).

Did the Jews turn away this material provision for the divine and spiritual service of God, or rejoice in it?  The following verse in the account says, “and the children of Israel, the priests and the Levites and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication of this house of God with joy.” (Ezra 6:16)  Shortly thereafter Artaxerxes sent Ezra to the land of Israel with ample provision from Babylonian tax-payers for the Lord’s ministry: “whatsoever more shall be needful for the house of thy God, which thou shalt have occasion to bestow, bestow it out of the king’s treasure house.” (7:11,15-23)  This was to be done “for the house of the God of heaven: for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons?” (as there is in so many lands today where this is not done).

It is of New Testament times that the prophecy speaks (Isa. 60:3,6,9,10,16):

“And the Gentiles shall come to thy light…  all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold…  Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the Lord thy God…

And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee…  Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the Lord am thy Saviour…”

The magi giving their gifts to the Lord Christ in the New Testament was a foreshadowing of what Scripture says will come..  If kings will bring their ‘glory and honor’ into heaven (Rev. 21:24), how much more approved is their using their material glory and honor for the extension and health of Christ’s Church in this age?  It would be a sin if they did not, as they too must seek first the spiritual Kingdom of God with their lot, authority and resources in this life, before anything else (Mt. 6:33)..  The First Commandment, which the civil magistrate is to fulfill and civilly enforce, comes before any commandment in the 2nd Table of the Law.

The Reformation’s viewpoint is compatible with the Church receiving the voluntary offerings of its own members (Mk. 12:42), keeping its own stores of funds (just as the Temple had its own stores in the Old Testament), and the deaconal ministry looking to the needs of the household of faith (Acts 6:2-3) as well as doing good unto all (Gal. 6:10)..  As the Church may often not have the countenance and support of the civil magistrate in the land that it is in, so such civil support is not essential to the Church’s existence or ministry (as is clear from the history of Acts), but such temporal support from the magistrate (as is clear from the verses quoted above) is for the Church’s well being..  Needless to say, it is in the State’s best interest to fulfill its obligation, both respecting the favor of God and in the fruits that redound from the Church’s flourishing back onto the commonwealth.

The Changing of the Tide in History

In the mid-to-late 1600’s, rising sects, such as the Independents and Congregationalists, often called for the abolition of the civil government being involved with the collecting and distributing of tithe money to the Church.  John Owen and much of New England puritanism, though, were more moderate, still believing in and practicing the Establishment Principle.  Being oriented to the New Testament alone for Church practice, they argued that the voluntary contributions of church members was the Lord’s ordained way for the primary support of the Church, though civil support was tolerated as a beneficent, indifferent means useful to the Church.

The Scottish presbyterians on the other hand, noted that the spiritual obligations of church members in the New Testament are not at variance with the moral obligations of the civil magistrate more largely expounded in the Old Testament when a godly civil government coexisted with, and benefited God’s Church.  Further, the Old Testament not infrequently prophesies that kings would be a support to the Church in the New Testament era.

The founding of America saw a further regress from the political theology of the Reformation.  Yet still, even during the 1700’s and early 1800’s, many of the colonies and states established and retained in their constitutions provisions for the churches in their localities to be supported by civilly-collected tax-money (see this documented on the webpage: The Establishment Principle in the American Westminster Standards and Early American States).  John Witherspoon argued the point in some detail.

The historical tide came to a full turn in the mid-1800’s when the popular call and change towards disestablishment and Voluntaryism (that churches should only be supported by voluntary contributions) came to be effected, especially as the controversy waged in Scotland.  The brink of this momentous change has handed down to us the fullest literature defending from Scripture the State endowment of the Church since the 1600’s, preeminently by writers in the Church of Scotland during the 1830’s and writers of the Free Church of Scotland during the 1840’s and after (many of which writings you will find below).

Though the popularity of Voluntaryism has only become more entrenched into modern societies and the Church in the last few hundred years, yet the Word of God has not changed.  Insofar as people read the Bible and God pours out his Spirit in the earth, so persons will be drawn to the truth and will become doers of it.  Despite the hard times that the political teaching of the Word of God has fallen into, the day remains, Scripture says, when God will rise up and convert the nations to the Messiah (Rom. 11:12,15; Ps. 72:17; Isa. 2:1-5; 60:12; Zech. 14:16-21; etc.) and the Church will “eat the riches of the gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.” (Isa. 61:6)

Conclusion

The godly woman of Prov. 31:10-31 diligently lends her daily work to wisely building up her husband’s house, affairs and interests.  O’ Bride of Christ, will you not do the same with a portion of the fruit of your daily work, your money?  Of what use are the pennies in our hands when our Husband may put them to a much greater use and profit than we are able to find in them?  Scripture says “there is [one] that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty” and “there is [one] that scattereth, and yet increaseth.” (Prov. 11:24)  Why will you seek to hang on to that which you cannot keep, when, in giving it away, you may gain that which you cannot lose?

Consider the words of the American, southern presbyterian, Robert Dabney (“Principles of Christian Economy,” in Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, 1.10):

“We profess a difference between ourselves and the unrenewed, as radical as that between light and darkness, almost as wide as that between heaven and hell.  But in all the visible and practical concerns which interest the unrenewed heart, we nearly resemble them.

Our words say that we believe riches to be vanity and emptiness.  Our acts seem to say that we love and seek them as intensely as those do who make them their all and their god. We say in words that ‘we have here no continuing city,’ but in act are as eager to adorn our dwellings here as though they were our only home…”

There are higher rewards in the promises of God for sacrificing the things of this life than we can conceive of (Mk. 10:29-30).  Lord increase our faith! and may we be like the Christians of the Early Church whom Irenaeus spoke of (Her., iv.2):

“While they [the Jews] had the tenth of their goods consecrated, these [Christians] on the other hand who have received freedom [from the Mosaic Law] assign all that they have to the uses of the Lord, cheerfully and freely giving them, and not in lesser portions only, as becomes men professing the hope of greater things.’

Resource

Tithes & Offerings – Reformed Books Online