UPTIGHT ABOUT TITHES

Tithing is the ancient Biblical practice of giving one tenth of one’s earnings to God’s representatives, the Levites. They were descendants of Levi, one of the 12 sons of Jacob, and therefore one of the 12 tribes of Israel. They were by birthright an intermediary priestly class. According to the Mosaic Law the Israelites were to pay tithes to the Levites in lieu of spiritual ministry rendered, especially at the Tent of Meeting (Num 18:21). This was not only their pay; it was also their heritage (inheritance/ assets/ social security). They were not to have any other heritage in the Israelite community (Num 18:24).

What got me uptight about tithes was a recent article in a leading Catholic journal advocating tithing to the Church, in order to be a better Christian, and to get an “exceeding great reward” from the Lord. The author of this piece, who is reportedly a theatre personality, rather theatrically/ dramatically interprets the biblical promise to state that the “reward” would be a “rapidly increasing money supply”! That turn of phrase got my goat. This is typical of media savvy tele-evangelists who tirelessly remind their audiences to pay tithes to them; assuring them of prosperity in return thereof. This is referred to as the “prosperity gospel”, which is a far cry from the gospel of service and sacrifice preached by mainline churches, be they Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox. Talk of “rapidly increasing money supply” is more appropriate to the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, than to a proponent of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Proponents of tithing take their cue from the incident of Abram (not yet Abraham the chosen one) giving “a tenth of everything” to Melchizedek (cf Gen 14:20); the A-M episode. It is seen as a worthy precedent of tithing, for which Abram is assured of a great reward, theatrically transliterated into “rapidly increasing money supply”!

This is investment at best, and inducement at worst. Invest 10% in God (church/ priest) and rapidly increase your money supply! If such be the motive for tithing, then it is a selfish financial motive, which by no stretch of the imagination can be termed a virtue or sacrifice. It is pure Laxmi Puja.

To arrive at a better understanding of tithing and its relevance today we need to first see the A-M episode in its actual context. We must look at Jesus’ own views on tithing and the Mosaic Law. We also need to study current church teaching as found in the Documents of the Second Vatican Council (Vat II) promulgated between 1962 – 65; The Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 25/1/1983; and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) promulgated on 11/10/1992.

Let’s begin with Abram. What were the circumstances and context in which he gave one tenth of everything to Melchizedek? This incident occurs just after Abram (then a regional chieftain) defeats 4 regional satraps (kings) with his force of 318 men. By today’s military standards Abram would have been a Major in the Indian army, if he had just 318 troops under his command. Melchizedek encounters Abram when the latter is flush with victory, and blesses him. The former was the King of Salem (possibly modern day Jerusalem), and some sort of priest, unlike the latter day hereditary Levites. The Bible now matter-of-factly states, “And Abram gave him a tenth of everything”.

How much can be read into such a statement and incident, to make it a precedent for all time? In the very next line we read that King Bera of Sodom, whom Abram had saved, asks for his share of the war bounty. Abram returns Bera’s belongings, less expenses incurred in the campaign and wages for his men (cf Gen 14:21-24). The New Jerome Biblical Commentary states that Abram was giving a tenth of the captured booty to Melchizedek (JBC 2:23). The Dictionary of the Bible edited by Rev John McKenzie SJ also endorses this view, and goes a step further. It suggests that the A-M episode is actually an interpolation (a latter day insertion) as it is out of sync with the verses before or after it, where the interaction is between Abram and Bera (DOB Pg 563). So we are treading on very thin ice when using the A-M episode as a precedent for tithing.

I shall take one more step with Abram. It is about the “reward” and “money supply” mentioned in the very next verse – Gen 15:1.Though there is proximity of verses, there is a time gap, thereby making the two incidents unrelated. The verse begins with “Sometime later…”. When Abram does hear God talk of reward he replies in dismay, “What use are your gifts, as I am going on my way childless?” (Gen 15:2). There is therefore no connection between the tithe and the money supply.

What of Jesus’ approach to the Mosaic Law in general, and tithing in particular? He paid scant regard to the Mosaic Law and Jewish customs. His Sermon on the Mount heralds the new covenant, giving the old covenant a decent burial. He unequivocally states; “Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete (fulfil) them” (Mat 5:17). Moses’ “eye for an eye” is replaced by Jesus’ “turning the other cheek” (Mat 5:40).

Do I still hear some whispers about the greatness of the Mosaic Law? According to it, menstruating women and pork are both “unclean”. Should we then ban Whisper ads on TV wishing women a happy period? Should we remove pork salami from the Vatican’s breakfast menu?

Jesus came down heavily on practitioners of tithing on two occasions. Both concern the Pharisees, his arch enemies. In the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector the Pharisee boasts of paying his tithes (cf Lk 18:13). Jesus condemns this hypocritical self-justification. He is harsher still when he says, “Alas for you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You pay your tithe of mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the Law – justice, mercy and good faith. … You blind guides, straining out gnats and swallowing camels” (Mat 23:23). A little explanation is necessary. Tithing covered big things like cattle, grain, oil etc, not small condiments like mint (pudina) and cumin (jeera). But the overzealous Pharisees tithed these small things, while missing the larger picture. This is why Jesus refers to the tiny gnats and the huge camels. Overzealous proponents of tithing today who go for the peripherals and miss the core content of the Gospel are in grave danger of being pharisaic blind guides. Jesus’ attitude to the constricting Mosaic Law is summed up in his declaration that “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27).

What do contemporary church documents say about tithing? Precious little. The CCC, which is the latest of the contemporary documents, refers to modern phenomena like drugs, tobacco and rash driving (CCC 2290), but it is silent on tithing. So too with Vat II and Canon Law. This is not to deny one’s responsibility for supporting the church and its ministers.

The Vat II “Decree on the Ministry & Life of Priests” (PO), Chapter III, talks of “The Means of Support for Priestly Life”. It states that priests are worthy of receiving a just recompense, for the labourer deserves his wages” (PO 20). The recompense should be enough to have an annual vacation (PO 20) and social security (PO 21).

Book V of Canon Law is entitled “The Temporal Goods of the Church” (Canons 1254-1298), Here is what some of them say. “The church has the inherent right to require from the faithful whatever is necessary for its proper objectives (Can 1260). “The faithful are to give their support to the church in response to appeals…” (Can 1262). “The diocesan bishop… has the right to levy on public juridical persons subject to his authority a tax for the needs of the diocese” (Can 1263). This last canon does not apply to the laity. So the laity are obliged to support the church for “whatever is necessary”, but this cannot assume the form of a tax, levy or cess, like tithing. If I recall correctly, in India, only the Government has a right to levy taxes.

From the biblical and ecclesial let us also examine tithing from a socio-economic dimension. The following factors were inherent in tithing:
1. The priests were considered superior. They alone could enter the Tent of Meeting. Others were considered unworthy of entering into God’s presence. But when Jesus died on the cross “the veil of the Sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom” (Mat 27:51), signifying the removal of the obstacles between God and man. Vat II’s “Dogmatic Constitution of the Church” (LG) emphatically states in Chapter IV, that the laity have an equal dignity, sharing in the “priestly, prophetic and kingly functions of Christ” (LG 31). So the question of superiority no longer arises.
2. In Mosaic times the Priests made the rules, the Kings actually ruled, and the Prophets interpreted the rules in specific circumstances. In modern society these three functions are now that of the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary respectively. Unfortunately, despite Vat II, the hierarchically dominated Catholic Church is loath to involve the laity in the democratisation process. When an incensed cleric once told the late Rev Amalorpavadas, the great champion of the laity, that the church was not a democracy, the latter retorted; “The church is more than a democracy, it is a community”. I wonder if in the remaining years of my life I will get to see the true democratisation of the Catholic community in India.
3. The third development, again a fruit of democracy and the French Revolution, is the modern welfare State. This is different from ancient monarchies that were primarily concerned with the welfare, longevity and stability of the king, for which the subjects had to pay their lagaan (taxes). India, as per its Constitution, is a secular, socialist republic. Being secular, it separates religion from governance. Being socialist, it has an obligation to see to the welfare of its people. To meet the demands of development and welfare, the Sate levies taxes. We pay direct taxes like Income Tax, Wealth Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Service Tax and Value Added Tax. We also bear the burden of indirect taxes like Customs, Excise, Central Sales Tax, Octroi, and personal taxes like House tax, Water Tax, Stamp Duty etc. An honest taxpayer could be paying up to 70% of his actual income and expenditure in various forms of tax that contribute to the exchequer, and thereby to society. An honest tax payer is fulfilling a great social need – the type of justice and mercy that Jesus found wanting in the tithing Pharisees (cf Mat 23:23). This makes tithing redundant.

Finally, let us examine “what is necessary” for the functioning of the church. Let us not err in equating the church with the clergy. Every baptised person is a member of the church. Who needs our assistance- the clergy and bishops; or the dalits, tribals, socially deprived, exploited and landless, whose cause we constantly trumpet before the Government? How many dalits and tribals can afford an “annual vacation”? How many have “social security”? The balance of convenience rests in favour of the poor and marginalised, rather than the clergy and the bishops, who are the landed gentry, not the tillers of the soil. If the bishop lives in a palace is it just to expect a tithe from a hutment or slum dweller? If lakhs of rupees are spent on the formation of a priest, is it fair to ask the illiterate masses to donate for his seminary training? If the clergy have the latest motor vehicles (no second hands for them), should the man who wearily trudges to church be expected to tithe for the Pastors’ Fund? Some mischievous youth call it the pastor’s fun!

Water always finds its own level – from up to down. The flow of funds in the church should be like water – from those who have to the have-nots, be they clergy, religious or laity. Since the hierarchical Catholic Church in India has the choicest pieces of land, prestigious institutions, and multi crore annual donations in foreign currency etc, I would count it among the haves, though there are worthy exceptions.

I would thus conclude hat the A-M episode cannot be taken as a precedent for tithing worthy of emulation. The Mosaic Law has served its purpose. Jesus equated tithing with religious hypocrisy. The contemporary teachings of the church do not advocate tithing. A modern welfare State has by and large assumed the role of the benefactor of the poor. The hierarchical church in India is not poor. On all these counts I cannot subscribe to the theatrical support for tithing. I am really uptight about tithing and advocacy of the same in any form.

* Note: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary and the Dictionary of the Bible quoted above are standard reference books in Catholic seminaries. Biblical quotes are from The New Jerusalem Bible, again a scholar’s delight.

# The writer is a former National President of the All India Catholic Union, and has been active in organised lay ministry for the last 40 years.