September 28, 1997

Robert J. Kloosterhuis is to be commended for his honesty and candor in his article, “Where is the Storehouse?” in the August 1997 issue of Ministry. The subject of where the tithe is to be paid has become a source of controversy, and it is important for Church leaders to address this issue.

Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your viewpoint, the very virtues that commend this piece also undermine its central thesis.

My response should not be construed as an attack on the current system. I simply want to show that there is more than one perspective, that there are alternatives, and if we want people to continue to be faithful in paying their tithe through the proper channels, we need to understand their viewpoints. Instead of reacting to change, the Church could be proactive and start developing solutions while there is time. I believe very strongly in the Seventh-day Adventist Church and its divine mission. But that does not mean that everything it does is perfect or cannot be improved.

Kloosterhuis begins by asking the following questions: “When it comes to the returning of tithe, is the storehouse the local conference or the local church?...Which is biblical?” He immediately answers his own question by saying “Unfortunately, the Bible does not provide a clear answer.” Since the Bible does not provide a clear answer, it is wise to refrain from dogmatism on this subject. Kloosterhuis attempts to do this by using words such as “it appears,” and “this passage suggests.” But it is obvious that Kloosterhuis really wants a “clear answer,” and by the end of his article he is convinced that the Bible clearly designates that the local conference is the storehouse. His conclusion Number 6 implies that there would be nothing wrong with designating the local church as the storehouse.

Here is where his honesty is refreshing. This conclusion reveals that we are not dealing with a theological or moral issue, but a policy or ecclesiological one.

There is a problem inherent with the term “storehouse” as used by our Church. Storehouse suggests a repository, a storage area, a collection point. Where do we tell our members to pay their tithe? To the local church. The local church collects and stores the tithe and at regular intervals forwards it to the conference or mission office. For all practical purposes the local church is the storehouse, even in Adventist practice. However, the local church cannot spend any of that tithe. If we are to be consistent with the data presented, we should instruct our members to send all their tithes directly to the local conference office.

LEVITES AND THE TITHE
Kloosterhuis admits that “there may be some validity in the argument that the remittance locally of tithe to the Levites took place in small villages and towns at certain times in the past.” Logic would dictate this to be the case. The Levites and priests received their income from the tithe. They were scattered throughout Israel. Why would the whole population bring the tithe to a central location, taking several days to get there, and then make all the Levites and priests also travel to that central location to take the tithes back to their local areas?

Kloosterhuis makes much of the reforms of Nehemiah and the return of tithes to the temple. Those reforms did take place, but there is nothing to suggest in the passages that all the people brought all their tithes to that one, central location. Certainly tithe was brought there and even stored for future use, but why would Levites and priests, again, travel from all over Israel to get their salaries, if you will, and then return home again? This would be especially true, considering the way tithe was mainly paid—in produce and animals. How often each year would each Levite family have to make the trek to the Temple to collect its share of the tithe, goats, sheep, corn, etc.? How do you store animals anyway? By the time of Malachi, tithing had become much more centralized, but that did not mean that it was the ideal way, or only way, to give the tithe to the Lord.

If we are going to argue so strongly for following the Old Testament detail of the exact location of the storehouse, then we should be consistent and argue for all the details. For example, the people paid their tithes to the Levites, who then paid a tithe to the priests, and the priests did not pay a tithe to anyone, since the tithe was given for their support. “In this way you also will present an offering to the LORD from all the tithes you receive from the Israelites. From these tithes you must give the LORD ’S portion to Aaron the priest” (Numbers 18:28)1 “A priest descended from Aaron is to accompany the Levites when they receive the tithes, and the Levites are to bring a tenth of the tithes up to the house of our God, to the storerooms of the treasury” (Nehemiah 10:38).

If our system is based on the biblical system of tithe paying then we should not require our pastors to pay tithe. The Levites were the teachers and educators of Israel. Maybe the tithe should support all the teachers; then the teachers would pay a tithe to support the pastors, and the pastors would not pay tithe. This would take care of the problem of nontithe- paying pastors! It is a little strange that tithe is given for the support of the gospel ministry, and those paid by it have to immediately give 10 percent back, to be used in the next pay period to pay them again! In essence the Church gets a 10 percent discount on its employees.

I know the arguments that are used to prove that pastors should pay tithe like everyone else, but they already receive a salary lower than other professionals with similar educational backgrounds. Pastors demonstrate every day their sacrificial giving by working for the wages they are paid. When I first entered the ministry in Scotland, we had to save for six months just to buy a towel rail to place in the bathroom (my wife did not work outside the home, since we had two small children).

ELLEN WHITE AND TITHE
Kloosterhuis cannot find much in Ellen White’s writings to support the conference or mission as being the exclusive storehouse. In fact, Ellen White used her tithe to support white and colored ministers outside of regular channels. Some people even sent her their tithes, which she accepted and put to good use outside of regular channels.2 The Church has tried very hard to downplay this aspect of Ellen White’s ministry, but it cannot deny that a precedent had been set. A person is not sinning if they desire to pay their tithe through alternative storehouses.

Now, a very pragmatic reason does exit for the conference office being designated the storehouse. Local churches do not pay their ministers directly, so it makes sense for them to return tithes to the local conference office for this purpose. But does this mean that no tithe can be retained at the local level to pay for additional ministerial personnel? No. At least one conference has begun returning a percentage of tithe back to the local church to be spent for “mission and ministry activities—approved activities allocated by the conference in harmony with church policy for tithe funding.”3

In conclusion Number 5 Kloosterhuis states that according to Ellen White, church members should pay their tithes to the conference office because this is what the Church has decided and “church members should obey the voice of the Church, because Christ has delegated to His church the right of decision.” That would be true if church members had much of a say in running the Church and deciding the tithe policies. These policies are decided by Annual Councils, where only 11 percent of the members are non-Church employees.4 This means that the 89 percent who are employed by the church have a vested (conflict of) interest in determining where the tithe is collected and how it is spent. We argue that we run a representative system of government, yet in practice we run a hierarchical system. If we ran a representative system we would ask each of the members of the General Conference Committee—the representatives of the people—to poll their constituents and ask them what they want. Unless we do this, how do we really know whose interests we are representing?

I believe that if we let the church members make the decision we would see some major changes taking place. Many are already making that decision by selecting where they pay their tithe. We cannot reverse this trend by attempting more legislation. We need to listen to what the people are saying. God speaks through the body of believers as well as through their elected leaders.

WORLD MISSION AND TITHE
Kloosterhuis then says that if we were to change our system “it would, in all probability, destroy one of the most remarkable systems of church financing witnessed in the past century-and-a-half. The world mission program, as it now exists, would cease to function.” Several points need to be made regarding this claim.

First, maybe our system needs to be destroyed and a new one built (though I am not advocating this!). As Jesus said “Can you place new wine into old wineskins without destroying the wineskins?” (Luke 5:37 and 38).

Second, the Mormons have more church members than we do, they are growing faster than we are, and they have no paid clergy. We have 13,787 evangelistic and pastoral workers in the field worldwide and 13,742 in administrative and promotional positions in the conference, union, division, and General Conference.5 All of these people are paid from tithe. In addition, we pay a third of the salaries of elementary teachers from tithe; we pay the principal, Bible teachers, and men’s and women’s deans in our academies and colleges from tithe. No wonder we are unable to obey the counsel of Ellen White, who says we should pay minister’s wives from the tithe.6 There is no money left.

Third, I remember the discussion at the Bangalore, India, Annual Council (1993) concerning the need for fields to become self-sufficient. We voted that all divisions cease to be dependent on the General Conference for operating subsidies. I believe that has now been reached, except for one or two divisions. We no longer need to fund the overseas divisions in the same manner as before. We would not “destroy our mission work” if we changed the way tithe is allocated.

Church leaders have said that if members are upset with the way higher levels spend the tithe, they can make their voice heard—but that the tithe must still flow through approved channels. But it is interesting to note that at one time we allowed our members to “divert” their tithe if they were unhappy with how it was being spent. Some questions arose in 1907 about responsibility in tithe paying. Ellen White was still alive but very frail, so it fell on her son Willie White to publish the following regarding the use of tithe:

“As to the proper use of the tithe: The outline of a statement upon this subject which was agreed upon was briefly this: To give extracts from Sister White’s writings as to the tithe and its use; to show that her testimony and her own usual practice was in favor of paying the tithe into the regularly designated treasury, to be used under the counsel of the committees appointed for such purposes; to show further from her writings that when those who have charge of the expenditure of the tithe so far fail in the discharge of their duty that the regularly organized channels for the distribution of the tithe becomes hindrances to its proper use, then in order to carry out the divine plan that the tithe should be expended in the wisest manner for the furtherance of the work, individuals have the right to pay their tithes direct to needy fields; but this involves a considerable degree of personal responsibility, which must be assumed by those who decide to follow this plan. It was thought that this matter could be handled in a way to show that the departure from the regular lines was authorized only when the regular plans failed to be carried out by those in positions of responsibility.”7

GOSPEL AND TITHE
Kloosterhuis, as has already been stressed, begins his article by saying that the Bible is not clear on where the storehouse is, but then he seeks to make it almost a moral issue that we must pay our tithe through the conference or mission office. This is contrary to grace and righteousness by faith. Paul says that “each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7). Salvation is something that we must choose freely, voluntarily. We respond to God because of His great love in giving Jesus to die for us.

Giving our money is giving ourselves to God. He wants us to do that “cheerfully,” freely, without compulsion. When we mandate where people must give their money, it will be easy for some people to become confused about salvation. Rather, we should explain the benefits of paying tithe to the conference and then make it clear to people that they have complete freedom to choose where to pay their tithe, and that they will not be considered second-class members if they choose otherwise.

Since “the Bible does not provide a clear answer,” we dare not go beyond what God has made plain. Teach tithing? Yes? Teach church structure? Yes. Teach the need for tithe to be paid to the conference? Yes. Teach that this is the only option for a faithful church member? No. We do not make tithe paying a test of fellowship. Let’s give people the same freedom in determining where they pay their tithe.

There is nothing sacred about church structure. It can be changed at any time. Policies and structures are servants of the mission of the Church that is to take the gospel to all the world. Instead of digging in our heels and saying that what was good enough for the past is good enough for the present, we should be examining creative and innovative ways that will enable us to spread the gospel more efficiently and effectively. New wineskins are needed for new and changing times.

I know Robert Kloosterhuis personally to be a true servant of God, and what he wrote was his sincere effort to defend the current system. I trust that he and other Church leaders will not be offended by my critique of his article. A church becomes all the stronger when we can debate in love the issues before us. Our Church was built on debate and discussion, and out of that consensus developed. Let us be as brave as our pioneers.

I have tried to follow Paul’s counsel to “speak the truth in love,” so that “we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work” (Ephesians 4:15-16).

ADDENDUM
The following information was a portion of a presentation on the future of the Adventist Church given to the Association of Adventist Forums, San Diego Chapter, in January 2000. At the time I was the senior pastor of Damascus Grace Fellowship, aSeventh-day Adventist church in the Potomac Conference.

The practical reason for paying the tithe to the conference is the fact that pastors are paid by the conference and not the local church, although that is also changing. Currently our local church pays the full salary for a youth pastor (with conference approval). Other churches are doing the same. But when it costs $200,000 to support each pastor, some thinking people ask whether that is the wisest use of their giving.

The answer to “Where is the storehouse?” is clear. It is wherever people are supported from tithe resources.

Now, regarding how much tithe the conference should send up the system: Remember, we have five levels to support in our system— local church, conference, union, division, and General Conference, with all their offices and staff. The Roman Catholic Church, which also is worldwide and is much larger, has only three levels: local parish, bishopric, and Vatican.

The earliest figures I have been able to find come from the 1926 Annual Council Action, although it seems clear that these percentages had been in force for some time. Let me review our current policy in NAD. The local conference sends 10 percent of tithe to the Union and 20 percent to the General Conference, as well as other percentages to help small conferences.

In 1926 a conference sent 20 percent to the GC only if its tithe income reached $130,000. Below that figure it was a sliding scale, so that if the conference received only $25,999, it sent only 1 percent to the GC. So as conference income increased, so did the percentage sent on up.

Now, one would assume that with inflation, the figures on which the percentages were based would increase. Incredibly, that is not the case. As the years rolled by, every conference finally reached tithe income of $130,000, which meant a reversion of a full 20 percent. Every year at the Annual Council these figures were voted without change. Finally someone saw little point in voting a 20-point sliding scale, when everyone was already at the maximum. So, more than 50 years later, at the 1981 Annual Council, the 20-tiered system was scrapped and all conferences paid the 20 percent.

While the dollar amounts did not change, the needs in the local conference had drastically changed. In 1958 the Potomac Conference employed 52 teachers for 1,059 students, a ratio of one teacher to 20.36 students. In 1998 the conference employed 105 teachers for 1,741 students, a ratio of one to 16.58. The number of teachers doubled, while the number of students only increased by 65 percent, and the student-teacher ratio decreased from 20.36 to 16.58. During this same period the number of pastors increased from 61 to 82, an increase of 34 percent, while membership increased from 9,360 to 22,533, a gain of 141 percent. But here is the highlight. In 1958 each pastor cared for an average of 153 members, while in 1998 each pastor cared for 275 members.

The educational costs to the conference drastically increased, as was the case in all conferences, so much so that at the 1985 Annual Council, the tithe-use policy was changed so that elementary teachers could be paid up to 30 percent of their salary from tithe. Suddenly the extra need for tithe to remain at the local conference increased, without any adjustment made in the amount of the money sent on up.

At the 1991 Annual Council held in Bangalore, India, an action was passed requiring all divisions to become self-supporting. Most of them are now selfsupporting, so the North American tithe formerly needed to fund them is no longer required. Yet the percentages have not changed.

These are just two examples of how the world needs have changed, without affecting the corresponding changes in how much conferences contribute.

My local conference feels these pressures. On July 22, 1998, the following recommendation was brought to the conference executive committee: That the tithe percentages be cut to the union by .5 percent a year until a savings of 2.5 percent is realized, and that the amount to the General Conference be cut until a savings of 5 percent is realized. Thus the union would receive 7.5 percent instead of 10 percent and the GC would receive 15 percent instead of 20 percent. The recommendation also included the provision that the tithe percentages sent up for evangelism, church growth, and education (in addition to the other percentages) be retained at the local conference rather than be sent up, then sent back.

This recommendation, which came from a subcommittee of the executive committee, was strongly opposed by the union president and division administrators. Finally a compromise was reached. In place of the conference committee voting this as fact, it voted it as a recommendation to the union and division, with a response required by December 31, 1999. The response has come back—no change in the system. The ball is now back in Potomac’s court.

As a result of these pressures, the General Conference is trying to impose upon the conferences and unions what are called Model Constitutions. Many do not realize it, but the Adventist denomination is actually congregationally organized. Adventism’s founding fathers had great distrust of organization, so when the local conference constitutions were set up, they gave full and complete power to the local conferences. The bylaws allowed any changes (without exception!) to be made in these constitutions by a two-thirds majority.

Current constitutions promise to follow the financial policies as voted by the General Conference, though one, the Southeastern California Conference, has changed theirs to read: “We follow essentially the policies of the GC.” Still, each conference has full power to make ay changes in the system that it wishes. When the Model Constitutions came to the 1994 Annual Council, they caused such a stir in the corridors (mainly among local conference presidents), that they were never brought to the floor for a vote. Instead they were saved for the 1995 Spring Meeting of the General Conference Committee, when local conference presidents were not present, and they were voted in there.

These model constitutions include provisions that cannot be changed without the approval of the union and division committees. In other words, the union would now have veto power over the conference, and changes in financial and other foundational policies could not be changed as they can now.

J. David Newman, D.Min., is a former editor of Ministry. He submitted this reply to Ministry for consideration under the Viewpoint section. But the editor declined to print this piece. He is now the senior pastor of the New Hope Seventh-day Adventist Church in Burtonsville, MD.

1 All texts are from the New International Version.

2 Ellen G. White, “Watson Letter,” Spalding-Magan’s Unpublished Manuscript Testimonies of Ellen G. White, pp. 215-216.

3 Southeastern California Conference in 1997 remitted back to each local church 10 percent of their 1996 tithe increase over 1995. This amounted to some $120,000. Southeastern California Conference The Church Treasurer, vol. II, no. 2, February 1996. Letter dated February 12, 1997 to all churches from Thomas G. Staples, conference treasurer. 2003 update. This actually lasted for only one year. The conference decided that they could not continue reimbursing the local church this amount of tithe.

4 There are 260 members of the General Conference Committee. Thirty-six of these are lay people, three from each of the 12 divisions. At Annual Council time the local conference presidents of the division where the Council is being held are invited to attend with voice and vote. When the Annual Council is held in North America 58 conference presidents are added to the 260 regular members, making a total of 318

5 The following information is from page 6 of the 133rd Annual Statistical Report--1995. Denominational workers are classified by types of employment. They are divided into General Workers and Institutional Workers. There are 52,358 General Workers and 91,664 Institutional Workers. The General Workers are broken down into five categories: Evangelistic and pastoral, Administrative and promotional, Primary school teachers, Bible Instructors, Literature Evangelists. Since Literature Evangelists are paid from commissions and primary school teachers are really institutional, I am leaving them out of the equation. Also Bible Instructors vary greatly in how they are paid and classified. This leaves the following: E vangelistic and Pastoral (Ordained and Licensed) = 13,787 Administrative and Promotional (Ordained and Other) = 13,742 As you can see, there is almost a one to one ratio of people in the field and people in the office. Now, about another 100 could be added to the evangelistic and pastoral category, because there is no provision in the Statistics for women pastors who receive Commissioned Ministerial credentials and licenses. But there are still not many of them. There is also a miscellaneous category called Other under Evangelistic and Pastoral which I ignore. This category lists 2,645 persons. When I checked to see who these people are (for who are pastors and evangelists other than pastors and evangelists) I found a most curious situation. The office of Archives and Statistics could not tell me the purpose of this category. I investigated North America and found that some unions had placed their elementary teachers in this category (when there is a separate category for them). I also found that some colleges placed their ordained religion teachers in this category rather than under Institutional Workers (Colleges). This section seems to be a catch-all that has no bearing on people actually working in the field, so I left this section out in my calculations. U pdate for 2001. There are now 15,465 evangelistic and pastoral workers and 16,452 administrative and promotional workers.

6 “There are minister’s wives. . . giving Bible readings and praying with families, helping along by personal efforts just as successfully as their husbands. These women give their whole time, and are told that they receive nothing for their labors because their husbands receive their wages. I tell them to go forward and all such decisions shall be reversed. The Word says, ‘The laborer is worthy of his hire.’ When any such decisions as this is made, I will in the name of the Lord, protest. I will feel it in 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, and this tithe I will reserve for work in the same line as that of the ministers, hunting for souls, fishing for souls” Ellen G. White Manuscript Releases, Vol. 5, #267.

7 W. C. White, Memorandum of Plans Agreed Upon in Dealing with “The Blue Book,” from the Ellen G. White Estate, File #213. 

pp.10-14 adventist today | vol. 13 issue 5