"A little research shows that passing the offering plate was not a regular practice until the 19th century"

“a little research shows that passing the offering plate was not a regular practice until the 19th century”

Coincides with the use of an organ in worship

Without an offering … you can’t have an organ offertory!

Really? Seriously? Not passing the plate is more biblical? Do what you want, but don’t give us this “more biblical than thou” nonsense about it.

It irks me when pastors like this preface an explanation for why they do what they do by setting tradition and Bible against one another. What is an unbiblical tradition? One that isn’t mentioned in Scripture? Or, one that is clearly disobedient to Scripture? My church does many things that aren’t biblical in the sense that they aren’t found in Scripture, yet they are by no means disobedient to Scripture.

The temple had a “giving box” (the temple treasury), so what? Where does one think the Pharisees did their giving to be noticed? A giving box on the back wall of the church does not avoid the first four points of his argument. The only thing it might do is to reduce the pressure to give that passing the plate might exert.

The early church met in homes, they didn’t have pulpits or pews. Jesus taught in the synagogue from a sitting position. Don’t get me started. There are ALOT of ways that we are not “biblical” like the early church or like the temple. Not being biblical doesn’t always mean being disobedient to Scripture.

I wouldn’t use a box: I find it interesting but I just send a check to the church. I use a bank bill-pay service. The check always gets cashed. The financial secretary is informed. And no one complains.

One young seminarian asked me if it bothered me that people would be watching me as the offering plate is passed and I don’t put anything in it. Answer: not really!

Jonathan,

I understand what you are saying, but you are reading too much in to my post. Stating that we do something that is non-traditional is not a criticism of tradition. However, I will stand by my statement that using tradition as the sole determining factor when making a decision is a serious problem. I am not putting the Bible against tradition. I am saying that we cant ignore the Bible in order to be in agreement with tradition.

Further, I did not say that passing the offering plate was unbiblical. Its just that we think there is a method that easier aligns itself with the principles we find in Scripture.

When you find yourself in a hole you should stop digging. Your clarification makes things worse.

I am saying that we cant ignore the Bible in order to be in agreement with tradition.

You use passing the plate to illustrate your point here. For you, the problem is that Jonathan and I are too obtuse to understand you. Would it not be better to accept reproof, learn from it, and do better next time?

Good post, Jeremy. We’ve been doing the box in the back for over twenty years. It works great. Personally, I like it when people ask me “How do you give around here?” The main reason for this practice in our church, along with those Jeremy mentioned, is the impression left on unbelievers. Like it or not, unbelievers think we’re after their money. This is an obvious impression from the public face of Christianity many see on the airwaves, and, sadly, in many churches. I think it helps when that impression is shattered in a service where money isn’t brought up, and the plate never passes the unbeliever by, and that “uncomfortable wallet moment” never happens.

Is it wrong to take an offering? Absolutely not! But there’s no reason to do it either.

1. Giving is an act of private worship before it is an act of public worship.
2. We are not to give to be seen of others.
3. When giving, our right hand is not to know what our left hand is doing.

I’m not sure if I understand what # 3 is anyway. I would have to study that out.

So how is putting $$ in the box:

• More private than putting $$ in a passed-plate? I mean don’t people line up to put $$ in the box?
• Ditto with # 2

We considered the box idea many years ago. There are some aspects that certainly appeal to me. What kept us using the “traditional” plate passing? (modern tradition) The worship aspect of giving. When you put money in the box at the back, it is on the way out, when corporate worship is over.

We consider congregational singing a Biblical aspect of public worship, so we sing during the church service. Likewise with prayer and preaching. We also consider giving an aspect of public worship, so we include it in the items we “do” in the worship service.

This is also the reason I give weekly (even though I’m paid monthly). I believe participating in giving is an important-enough aspect of public worship that I want to participate in as many services as possible.

The Pharisees that Jesus criticized for turning their giving into a public performance gave at a box, so Jeremy’s first three points on what giving should be like aren’t successfully addressed by moving from passing the plate to giving at a box. Either method can be abused. People will see you doing both, giving at the box is not a private matter. The only way to make giving a private matter is to have people mail in their giving, or to give electronically; even then it will not be a totally private matter since at least one or two people who handle what is given will know who gave what. I think the burden is on the giver and how he or she gives, and not on the church to come up with some way of making giving a completely private matter. ANY method can be abused. That being said, I’m not opposed to “giving at the box,” it is Jeremy’s freedom to do what is best for his church. Perhaps the passing the plate method was being abused in his church. In fifteen years of pastoring my present church, I have never noticed any such thing.

Since we’re discarding established traditions in the interests of becoming “more biblical,” I’m looking forward to reading the next entry in the series: “Why We Don’t Shake Hands (Romans 16:16)”

:)

[Greg Linscott]

Since we’re discarding established traditions in the interests of becoming “more biblical,” I’m looking forward to reading the next entry in the series: “Why We Don’t Shake Hands (Romans 16:16)”

:)

I am currently finishing up Romans 11 so I have a few years to think about that verse… what will I say? I’m pretty sure I won’t advocate interrupting the service for a lot of confusion.

I think Wayne made some good points. One of them being how the non-believer or new visitor feels when the plate is passed by him. The non-believer feels uncomfortable because he thinks he is being asked to pay money for being there. A new visitor might not want to give money because he doesn’t know anything about the church yet, and is not sure if he wants to support the church financially.

In many Spanish speaking churches, greeting each other with a kiss on the cheek is the norm. In fact, I think it’s purely an American thing not to practice this. Probably because churches are so big, most people never get to know each other well enough.

When I was stationed in Italy, I routinely saw Italian men kissing one another as part of a greeting. It’s normal. To take this even further, they also say “Ciao, bello” when they say goodbye. This literally translates to “Goodbye, beautiful.”

There is nothing homosexual in the greeting or the farewell, but it is a cultural thing. When you think about, what does a handshake even mean, anyway!?