The Adventist church teaches its members to regard 10 percent of their income as belonging to God. This 10 percent is supposed to be given to one’s local church, and this, in turn, is to forward all tithe funds to the local conference. Neither the individual nor the local congregation has any authority to make management decisions about tithe. Is this the way we’ve always done it? Was this the practice of the Adventist pioneers?

In the beginning, Adventists did not teach “tithing.” But very quickly leaders in the movement realized the need for a consistent source of income, so they began a program of systematic benevolence, asking each family or individual to give a certain amount each week. At this period there was no distinction made between “tithe” and “non-tithe” funds. By the 1880s this systematic benevolence program had grown into our doctrine of tithing.

TITHE POLICY BEGINNINGS
Whether called “systematic benevolence” or “tithing,” these movement-wide efforts were focused on raising money for the evangelistic workers of the church, i.e., ministers. The church’s early publishing, educational, and sanitarium work were not supported through the systematic benevolence plan. While tithe monies or systematic benevolence funds were generally reserved for the support of the ministers, these funds were administered by each congregation rather than being forwarded to the conference, and there was some variety in the actual practice of different congregations.

A practice specific to the Battle Creek congregation comes to light in a letter from C.F. McVagh, president of the Southern Union Conference, to W. C. White on October 24, 1912: “Brethren Nicola, Hart, and other of the older brethren tell me that they distinctly remember that years ago Sister White said that the tithe collector and clerk of the Battle Creek church should be paid out of tithe, and up to the time of the Haughey administration, I guess it is a fact that the Battle Creek church paid its clerk and treasurer out of the tithe, and turned the balance over to the conference.”

W.C. White responded, “My memory of the matter is in full harmony with the statements of Brother Nicola, Hart, and others. . . . [It] was thought by the church council that it would be good policy.” The plan was placed before both James and Ellen White for approval, which they gave! (See W.C. White to C.F. McVagh, October 31, 1912.)

Commenting further, W.C. White writes, “In years past there was no effort made to conceal from other churches the fact that Battle Creek managed its affairs in this way. Our brethren largely recognized that different methods must be followed in churches of different circumstances. I am glad to tell you that the St. Helena Sanitarium church employs a faithful tithe collector and pays for actual service done from tithe.” Ibid.

The varied use of tithe by congregations is further illustrated in a General Conference resolution voted in 1880: “Resolved, that no church should devote any portion of the tithe to the erection or repairing of its church, without the free consent of the State Conference Committee” Review and Herald, October 14, 1880.

Ellen White repeatedly supported the widely held belief that tithe should be reserved for the support of the ministers who were preaching the gospel. But she acknowledged that special circumstances called for special action.

“There are exceptional cases, where poverty is so deep that in order to secure the humblest place of worship, it may be necessary to appropriate the tithes. But that place is not Battle Creek or Oakland” Special Testimony to the Oakland and Battle Creek Churches (1897), Pamphlet 157.

ELLEN WHITE'S PRACTICE
Once tithing had been adopted by the nascent Church as a religious obligation, Ellen White habitually taught people to use tithe in the “appointed lines,” which was proclaiming the Three Angels’ Messages from “the stand.” She prohibited the use of tithe for personal needs, even in an emergency. However, her teaching and practice made room for a number of “exceptional” uses of tithe.

With reference to women who were working alongside their minister husbands as Bible instructors and were “defrauded” (her term) of a salary, she wrote: “I will in the name of the Lord protest. I will feel it my duty to create a fund from my tithe money to pay these women who are accomplishing just as essential work as the ministers are doing” Letter 137, 1898.

White had an ongoing concern for the underfunded work in the South, led by her son, Edson, and for elderly ministers, both white and black, who needed special support for their work in that region. And she freely appropriated her own and others’ tithe to serve these needs. She wrote: “It has been presented to me for years that my tithe was to be appropriated by myself to aid the white and colored ministers who were neglected and did not receive sufficient properly to support their families. When my attention was called to aged ministers, white or black, it was my special duty to investigate into their necessities and supply their needs. This was to be my special work, and I have done this in a number of cases. No man should give notoriety to the fact that in special cases the tithe is used in that way.

“In regard to the colored work in the South, that field has been and is still being robbed of the means that should come to the workers in that field. If there have been cases where our sisters have appropriated their tithe to the support of the ministers working for the colored people in the South, let every man, if he is wise, hold his peace.

“I have myself appropriated my tithe to the most needy cases brought to my notice” Manuscript Releases, Volume Two, pg. 99.

Ellen White did not publicly advocate these practices, but she defended them. In her earliest statements, when she was 54 years old, she said she had been tithing in this manner “for years.” In her last statements, just 10 years before she died, there is no hint she planned to change her behavior.

It is important to balance this picture of “freewheeling” use of tithe with White’s fairly consistent rejection of some proposed uses of tithe: “The tithe is to be used for one purpose—to sustain the ministers whom the Lord has appointed to do his work. It is to be used to support those who speak the words of life to the people, and carry the burden of the flock of God. But there are ministers who have been robbed of their wages. God’s provision for them has not been respected. Those who have charge of our church buildings are to be supplied with the means necessary to keep these buildings in good repair, but this money is not to come from the tithe.

“A very plain, definite message has been given to me to give to our people. I am bidden to tell them that they are making a mistake in applying the tithe to various objects, which, though good in themselves, are not the object to which the Lord has said the tithe is to be applied.... One reasons that the tithe may be appropriated for school purposes; still another would reason that canvassers and colporteurs should be supported from the tithe, but a great mistake is made when the tithe is withdrawn from the object for which it is to be used— the support of the ministers” (Echoes From the Field, June 21, 1905, par 1 & 2).

DENOMINATIONAL PRACTICE
In the denomination’s management of tithe, it has shown the same kind of independence corporately that White demonstrated personally. The church has not had “one policy” over time. Instead, committees adjust tithe policy in light of denominational needs. This has resulted in very significant change in denominational tithe policy. History shows these changes have been driven by financial concerns rather than theological or biblical conviction.

From the 1880s through the first half of the 1900s, the Church strongly resisted calls to use tithe monies for paying teachers. Then in the 1950s and 1960s, a number of individuals began to lobby for a change. Given the prominence of education in the Church’s life and mission and the public declarations that teachers’ work was authentic and essential ministry, it made sense that their work should be funded by the Church’s most reliable revenue stream. Policy changed. Currently one third of teachers’ salaries is funded with tithe. In North America, the Church invests more in educating the children of our members than in evangelists or pastors who are not involved in administration and education.

The need to use tithe for educational salaries is apparent when considering the proportion of Adventist salaries in education. In the early days of Adventism, nearly all Church employees were ministers. And most of these were itinerant evangelists. That is hardly the case now. A case in point: in the Mid-America Union, during 2002 there were 303 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers employed as pastors (employed at the local, conference, and union levels). On the other hand, there were 630 FTEs employed at primary, secondary, and post-secondary schools operated by the conferences. This ratio of pastoral to educational employees is consistent throughout the North American Division.

There are reasonable justifications for using tithe to pay teachers in Adventist schools. Teachers have a greater impact on the youth of our Church than do preachers. Teachers often have non-Adventists, and sometimes non-Christians, in their classrooms. To the extent that they faithfully represent Christ in their classrooms, they are doing the work of evangelism. But the changes in tithe policy to accommodate the payment of teachers with tithe was not driven by Bible study. It was driven by the financial needs of the system.

Other needs have also driven the Church to change its tithe policy. I vividly remember listening to vigorous discussions during my teen years about the trend at that time to “ordain” various conference employees— especially treasurers and those who worked in publishing— so their salaries could be paid with tithe funds. It seemed patently clear that these ordinations fundamentally undermined the “spiritual” meaning of ordination. Today not only are treasurers paid with tithe funds, so are assistant treasurers and secretaries—whether ministers or not.

This “broadening” of tithe use is not a departure from policy, but represents a change in policy. At present, as codified in the current Working Policies of the North American Division, tithe may be used to sustain personnel who are directly engaged in soul-winning work and/or by people who serve in supporting roles. In addition, tithe “may be used for operating expenses” used by these personnel. In practice tithe is used and may be used for salaries (pastoral, teaching, secretarial, janitorial, driving trucks); expenses associated with soul-winning and disciple making; operating expenses related to these activities such as travel, education, snow removal, etc. Tithe can be used for all of these purposes as long as these activities are associated with administrative centers and not local churches.

So, in today’s debates over Adventist tithe policy, what are the lessons of history? First, tithe policy has changed, and changed repeatedly. Second, the changes have been driven more by need than by Bible study. Third, the changes never come easily and seldom come quickly. Fourth, messy as it is, so far the system has had enough elasticity to adapt to the real world. Fifth, (so far not a lesson from our history) we have only two choices: change or go extinct.

Fred Numbers is a pseudonym for several pastors.

pp.15-17  adventist today | vol. 13 issue 5