The Collection as an act of "worship"?

[Spiritus Naturae]

There are a great many congregations that see the collection as somehow a form of worship and even cite NT passages as "prooftext" for this practice. Problem is, as far as a I can see, those "prooftexts" are taken out of "context".

Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

If one goes on, however, to read this verse in the context of the preceding and following verses, it becomes clear that Paul is talking about sending relief to fellow Christians (Saints) in Jerusalem who are under heavy persecution as a result of Roman rule (Acts 12:28-30).

The "prooftext" in "context" is as follows:

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.

Clearly, from the context this was a special situation and the money was not delegated for some building fund but rather for fellow Christians in need. If I am off the mark someone reign me in, please.

Jonathan :innocent:

[Spiritus Naturae]

:hrm:

So, what I am trying to discuss here is when exactly did it become an act of worship to "pass the plate" around, giving of our means? And who decided this? And in all honesty, how many congregations spend that money on what is truly neccesary, rather than to finance a multi-million dollar structure or promotional expenses, etc.? Wasn't what was described in 1 Corinthians a special circumstance?

And do I lack some sort of Tweb "mojo" as my posts and threads are seemingly becoming increasingly unpopular. :sad:

Jonathan :innocent:

[Spiritus Naturae]

:hrm:

C'mon, Twebbers! I am starting to look like a real tool replying to my own threads here... :sad:

I am doing some further research as to when in the Western Church passing the plate became 'worship'. Anyone feel free to offer info or opinion.

:thumb:

[themuzicman]

:hrm:

C'mon, Twebbers! I am starting to look like a real tool replying to my own threads here... :sad:

I am doing some further research as to when in the Western Church passing the plate became 'worship'. Anyone feel free to offer info or opinion.

:thumb:

How do you define 'worship'?

Michael

[Spiritus Naturae]

How do you define 'worship'?

Michael

worship to me, in my understanding of the term, would be extravagant reverence, devotion, respect etc.

In my endeavours as a Christian I have encountered a congregation here and there who like to encapsulate worship into '5 acts' (one of which is the 'collection', taken out of context-see above post) and only those 5 acts are acceptable to the LORD. Very curious thinking to me...

[themuzicman]

1. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
2. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.

Are we expressing love for God when we obey Him in giving our offerings?

[Spiritus Naturae]

1. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
2. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.

Are we expressing love for God when we obey Him in giving our offerings?


Of course, but is that offering somehow one of only 5 acts that are approved by the LORD? I think not...worship is not something that can be so easily categorized or limited, although some would have us do that (Those pesky "legalist" types). There are a myriad of ways in which Christians can express worship to the LORD. The scripture that is often quoted as proof to this end is addressed to another group entirely. If anything the scripture in question points to the ideal of caring for one another, brothers and sisters offering comfort and relief to each other and that being an expression of love to one another and that, ultimately, being love expressed to our God and Saviour.

Jonathan :innocent:

[themuzicman]

I would agree with that. Romans 12:1 says to offer your lives as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to Him, this is your spiritual act of worship.

Maybe they are referrng to corporate worship, when the body is gathered for a worship services. Obviously worship goes beyond the walls of the church.

Michael

[Spiritus Naturae]

I would agree with that. Romans 12:1 says to offer your lives as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to Him, this is your spiritual act of worship.

Maybe they are referrng to corporate worship, when the body is gathered for a worship services. Obviously worship goes beyond the walls of the church.

Michael

Some do refer to the corporate worship and some do not, but even in that, from my understanding of God's Word, we can't limit worship to 'tradition' vis a vis "5 acts of worship". There is dance, music, service, fellowship and many other viable expressions of worship to the LORD which are perfectly acceptable to Him, just not acceptable to some of our(and I have been guilty of the same narrow thinking) 'traditional' leanings when it comes to corporate worship.

And definetely our entire existence should be an act of worship to our God and Saviour, as Romans clearly points out.

Jonathan :innocent:

[themuzicman]

Can't disagree with that.

[Swordman]

So, what I am trying to discuss here is when exactly did it become an act of worship to "pass the plate" around, giving of our means? And who decided this?

Traditions of men is where this practice came from. So far as I have been able to discover, Cyprian (200-258) is the first Christian writer to mention the practice of financially supporting a "clergy class" of people. He argued that just as the Levites were supported by the tithe, so the Christian "clergy" should be supported by the tithe. [Cyprian, Epistle 65.1; Beyond Tithing, p. 104.] This would have some merit if indeed the "clergy" were mandated by the Lord to receive of the people rather than to continue being productive citizens of their respective societies.

And in all honesty, how many congregations spend that money on what is truly neccesary, rather than to finance a multi-million dollar structure or promotional expenses, etc.?

Well, you are expected to trust the "clergy class" without question within many "church" organizations. This is antithetical to the stewardship of which they constantly rant and rave about. If we give blindly to an organization that is abusing what is given, then are we not partakers of their error? There is no example of the first fruits going for buildings, parking lots, "clergy," etc. A man is exercising FAR greater responsibility in his giving when he meets the needs of the poor family down the street than if he gives it to a self-seeking, man-made institution that most call a "church."

Wasn't what was described in 1 Corinthians a special circumstance?

Yes, it was. However, the practice of wresting the word of God in favor of man-made institutions has historical precedence, therefore being deeply set into the mindset of institutional theology. Institutions have historically been trying to build themselves upon biblical foundations, so it comes as no surprise that they see themselves as being the proper repository of an ongoing requirement for tithing and supporting their hirlings and the real estate.

And do I lack some sort of Tweb "mojo" as my posts and threads are seemingly becoming increasingly unpopular. :sad:

Jonathan :innocent:

Any time you utter a word against institutionalism and its many trappings and practices, you will be met with fierce opposition, which speaks mostly of the insideous power it exercises over the thinking of its adherents.

Yes, God has and does use instituional "churches" to His glory, and there are people within them who truly love the Lord. Amen. However, the Lord also used a wicked man like pharoah, so it really is not saying much when pointing only at the good things that happen within them. When one observes the lack of parellels between the word of God and institutionalism, there arises a panoramic mural of distinction that simply cannot be cast aside so easily without compromising one's own conscience. A little leaven still leavens the whole loaf. Mankind cannot build anything up and not expect there to be gross inferiority in what he does in comparison to the biblical mandates and instructions.

Dr. Don Dean

[Spiritus Naturae]

Traditions of men is where this practice came from. So far as I have been able to discover, Cyprian (200-258) is the first Christian writer to mention the practice of financially supporting a "clergy class" of people. He argued that just as the Levites were supported by the tithe, so the Christian "clergy" should be supported by the tithe. [Cyprian, Epistle 65.1; Beyond Tithing, p. 104.] This would have some merit if indeed the "clergy" were mandated by the Lord to receive of the people rather than to continue being productive citizens of their respective societies.



Well, you are expected to trust the "clergy class" without question within many "church" organizations. This is antithetical to the stewardship of which they constantly rant and rave about. If we give blindly to an organization that is abusing what is given, then are we not partakers of their error? There is no example of the first fruits going for buildings, parking lots, "clergy," etc. A man is exercising FAR greater responsibility in his giving when he meets the needs of the poor family down the street than if he gives it to a self-seeking, man-made institution that most call a "church."



Yes, it was. However, the practice of wresting the word of God in favor of man-made institutions has historical precedence, therefore being deeply set into the mindset of institutional theology. Institutions have historically been trying to build themselves upon biblical foundations, so it comes as no surprise that they see themselves as being the proper repository of an ongoing requirement for tithing and supporting their hirlings and the real estate.



Any time you utter a word against institutionalism and its many trappings and practices, you will be met with fierce opposition, which speaks mostly of the insideous power it exercises over the thinking of its adherents.

Yes, God has and does use instituional "churches" to His glory, and there are people within them who truly love the Lord. Amen. However, the Lord also used a wicked man like pharoah, so it really is not saying much when pointing only at the good things that happen within them. When one observes the lack of parellels between the word of God and institutionalism, there arises a panoramic mural of distinction that simply cannot be cast aside so easily without compromising one's own conscience. A little leaven still leavens the whole loaf. Mankind cannot build anything up and not expect there to be gross inferiority in what he does in comparison to the biblical mandates and instructions.

Dr. Don Dean

:thumb:
Thanks for your input and information. Would you happen to be a "House-Church" member? :teeth: