The Presbyterian of the South : [combining the] Southwestern Presbyterian, Central Presbyterian, Southern Presbyterian. [volume], April 16, 1919, Page 4, Image 4

About The Presbyterian of the South : [combining the] Southwestern Presbyterian, Central Presbyterian, Southern Presbyterian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1909-1931

Image provided by: Library of Virginia; Richmond, VA

                
ruling elders to refresh their minds as to these
proposals of the U. S. A. committee. (See
INlinutes of our Assembly, 1918, p. 150.)
4. By giving to the Synod increased author
ity it is entirely possible to safeguard the
principle of local self-government and to leave
in the hands of each Synod the control of its
purely local affairs.
As soon as I realized that union was not in
consistent with local self-government in the
Synod, my attitude toward the problem
changed. If I can judge by the letters that I
am receiving, thejexperience of many others is
similar to my own.
The plan which we call "Synodical" is sim
ply this: to gather into one Synod all the U.
S. A. and U. S. Churches in a given State or
territory; to give to this Synod .v.i-h author
ity as to enable it to control fully all its pure
ly local affairs; to preserve the present Sy
tiodical boundaries, so far as possible, largely
following State lines; to erect over the Sy
nods thus constituted a National General As
sembly composed of commissioners from the
Synods and having direct responsibility for
the general work of the Church.
However, the details might be worked our.
the heart of the suggestion is the entrance into
real union, and at the same time the safe
guarding in the Synods of the principle of
local self-government.
Tilt change proposed would make our sys
tem logical and would bring to all our Synods
new life and power. It would also form a
sound basis for the ultimate union of all the
Presbyterian and Reformed Churches in Amer
ica.
I earnestly hope that the New Orleans As
sembly will carefully consider the "Synodieal
plan of union," before committing our Chinch
to the erection of new and elaborate ecclesias
tical machinery.
Louisville, Ky.
THE TITHE NOT OBLIGATORY.
Second Article.
By Professor Addison Hogue.
Pro. You said at the close of our former
discussion that, the true New Testament doe
trine lifts the whole matter to an unspeakably
higher plane than the law of the tithe puts it
upon. That was an assertion which many of
God's people will find it hard to accept. How
do you justify it?
Con. First, I will set forth the principle
by illustrations; and of course you are too
fair-minded to expect them to tally in every
particular with the truth they are intended to
enforce.
Pro. I recognize that most readily wc 1 ?!
know how futile (and sometimes how gro
tesque) have been the attempts of commenta
tors on our Lord's parables to force some anal
ogy between every detail in the story and the
spiritual truth he was trying to impress upon
his hearers. Now for your illustrations.
Con. A certain couple had two sons who
were "under law" while they were young.
They had to bring to their parents each week
a part of their earnings. This law was in
tended to bring them to a clear conceptior of
one important part of filial duty. The boys at
times felt this to he irksome and were repri
manded for the neglect. When they grew up
and went into business for themselves, of
course this law fell away; and anything they
did for their parents, now old and needy, had
to be left to each son's instinctive love and
gratitude. If he sent his parents nothing, they
had no redress: the earlier days of "law"
were gone, and the sons were supposed to
stand on the lofty plane of devotion to the
parents to whom they owed so much. And
these parents would rather have suffered in
body and in spirit than feel that they were
receiving help based merely on the plane of
"I've got to send this to father." It so hap
pened that they did have just this pain to
bear; for the elder son, a prosperous business
man bent on accumulating a fortune, sent just
the same proportion he had had to *?ive when
lie was "under law": no less, it is true; but
also no more, though he might easily have
supplied every want of the old people and
still have lived in luxury himself.
? The younger son had a business that paid
him- very little. If matters went well he could
just make both ends meet and still send his
parents a token of grateful love. The token
w??s small, but the love was great; and in the
eyes of the parents that love enriched the
gift, and made it far more acceptable than the
much larger sum sent by the elder sou who
was still in bondage to his "assessment." One
Christmas the younger brother had nothing to
'send. There had been long and sore sickness
in the family, and his business had not pros
pered. and he was in debt, sorely against his
will. He knew very well that his parents
would repudiate his sending to them mone>
that belonged to other people: so he sent a
letter full of regret, but also full of the most
gratx'ful recognition of his parents' lovir?g care
of him in his younger years, and likewise full
of the most genuine devotion to them. In re
ply they said: "John, dear, your love and
gratitude are the main things we want, as you
well know; and your letter cheers our spirits*
and warms our hearts. The readiness is there,
and we accept it according as you have, and
not according as you have not. Your brother,
we grieve to say, sends us only what he culls
our 'allowance,' which is pitifully small in
comparison with what is left for himself. He
might send us ? not one-tenth, but- -nine
tenths, and then have very much more than
youi income."
Pro. That's not a bad illustration; that is,
from your point of view.
Con. It is a very bad illustration, unless
the point of view is based on the teachings of
the Book. But my understanding of them, es
pecially as set forth in Galatians, Oolo^sians
and Hebrews, makes me feel that in this mat
tvr 1 have the mind of the Spirit. The letter
k il lei h, but the spirit giveth life; fcnd I fully
believe that the spirit of the New Testament
teachings, if acted upon, would bring far
larger gifts into God's treasury than the mere
letter of the tithe as an inexorable obliga
tion. v
Pi o. You had another illustration, did you
not?
Con. Yes. Our government lays taxes upon
its citizens, and the payment of these is obli
gatory. But they are graded according as a
man hath. Some persons pay no taxes, as the
government recognizes that they cannot afford
it. From the wealthy it takes much larger
stuns; and from those with immense fortunes
it lakes the lion 's- share of the incomc, because
what is not taken still leaves the tax-paver
quite wealthy. Our government has also called
for subscriptions to the Liberty Loans and to
the Bed Cross work; and to each call the na
tion responded with large over-subscriptions,
because we were put on our honor, so to speak.
Of course some men were stingy, and either
did not help, or helped just enough to "save
their face"; but the nation as a whole re
sponded finely to the appeal for voluntary of
ferings: and men who meroly paid their taxes
I
earned the contempt of their patriotic fellow
iicizens who counted it a privilege to show that
the cause for which we were lighting was one
in which it was an honor to "go over the top"
with as large subscriptions as they could
make.
Pro. How do you apply this to the tithe?
I'm not certain that 1 fully understand you.
Con. Why, thus: while no human govern
ment could financc itself with merely volun
tary subscriptions, and consequently must alsc
impose taxes, I believe the New Testament
teaching is that God does now rely on these,
and on these alone. Then, as we recognized
it to be a fair principle for the government to
lay its taxes 011 the basis of how much it left
for himself, so 1 believe Christians should rec
ognize this same principle in their voluntary
oiTerings for what we specially call "the
Lord's work"; and thus in many instances it
would be seen that the tithe was a pitiful and
niggardly sum to give. And finally, the ap
peal to the sense of loyalty to a noble and
righteous cause is an appeal to the sense of
honor, and often meets with a far more gen
erous response than a legal obligation would.
In the Old Testament we iind the chosen peo
ple often censured for 'not bringing in the
tithes; but in Exod. 25 God appealed for a
willing offering: "Of every man whose heart
maketh him willing shall ye take my offer
ing." In ch. 35 Moses presents the appeal
"Whosoever is of a willing heart, let him
bring it, Jehovah's offering" (v. 5). And with
what result? Ch. 36 tells us: Moses had to
make the people cease bringing these voluu
ta"y gifts!
Pro. That's not a bad point you have made
there. I had not thought of. that in this con
nection.
Con. If it helps us to get at the truth, it is
good : otherwise, it is not. But* it at least
points to the fact that human nature often
responds to appeals to its generosity much
more readily than it does to compulsion.
Pro. What would you do, then, in regard
to this matter, if you were pastor of a congre
gation?
Con. Foi; one thing, I should preach ear
nestly against the statement that "one-seventh
of a man's time and one-tenth of a man's in
come belongs to God." I think it likely that
this has done much harm by obscuring the
truth. '
Pro. What truth?
Con. The great truth that ALL of our time
and ALL of our money belong to God ? to be
used in a variety of ways, of course, but all
equally for His glory. If one-tenth of my in
come belongs to God, to whom do the other
nine-tenths belong?
Pro. Oh, of course people know what is
meant by that.
Con. Whatever is meant, the statement it
self is utterly wrong; and wrong modes of
Statement work some harm m our minds, as
wise old Socrates said on the day of his death.
Many a man has doubtless been led to lie
back in careless ease and content, spending
nine-tenths of his income 011 himself and his
family, when by teaching him the truth of the
matter and by appealing to the highest mo
live?: he might have been led to devise liberal
things. You asked me before whether 1 did
not think my view was a dangerous one. I
say now that I think it is your doctrine that
is dangerous.
Pro. But may not many people abuse your
view of giving?
Con. Of course. Men mij,y wrest this doc-,
trine to their own destruction, just as they do