Church tax on income - consistent with the bible?
June 4, 2014 1:21 AM Subscribe
I'm not religious, but would like to know whether the enforcement of a tax on income by the church in some countries - normally around 1% - is consistent with the bible.
Errr... you mean a tax levied BY the Church not ON the Church? Like in Austria? My answer does not apply to that, sorry.
posted by Justinian at 1:25 AM on June 4, 2014
posted by Justinian at 1:25 AM on June 4, 2014
Response by poster: Yes, a tax levied by the church (legally enforceable).
posted by devnull at 1:27 AM on June 4, 2014
posted by devnull at 1:27 AM on June 4, 2014
Matthew 17:24-27 (NIV):
After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”posted by XMLicious at 2:08 AM on June 4, 2014
“Yes, he does,” he replied.
When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own children or from others?”
“From others,” Peter answered.
“Then the children are exempt,” Jesus said to him. “But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”
Best answer: This is a Tithe. Sometimes tithes are enforced by the church, and in other places tithes are enforced by the state on behalf of the church.
Tithes occur in many religions, of course. They are very much part of the Judaism. And from Judaism, there is plenty of mention of tithes in the Old Testament.
However, many Christian scholars read the New Testament as having altered the Old Testament position on tithes (and many other issues). For example, in the Gospels, Jesus calls out people who think they are good because they pay the tithe, but who do not live up to the word of God in other areas of their lives. For example here and here
The New Testament does command followers to support their church financially, in order for the church to survive, spread the word, and do good works. Here, here, and here for example.
However, the New Testament generally supports a position of free giving - where people give of their own will, and are not forced to give. For example here and here. All of this is to say, according to most scholars: No, a forced tithe does not fit with the teachings found in the Bible.
posted by Flood at 4:20 AM on June 4, 2014
Tithes occur in many religions, of course. They are very much part of the Judaism. And from Judaism, there is plenty of mention of tithes in the Old Testament.
However, many Christian scholars read the New Testament as having altered the Old Testament position on tithes (and many other issues). For example, in the Gospels, Jesus calls out people who think they are good because they pay the tithe, but who do not live up to the word of God in other areas of their lives. For example here and here
The New Testament does command followers to support their church financially, in order for the church to survive, spread the word, and do good works. Here, here, and here for example.
However, the New Testament generally supports a position of free giving - where people give of their own will, and are not forced to give. For example here and here. All of this is to say, according to most scholars: No, a forced tithe does not fit with the teachings found in the Bible.
posted by Flood at 4:20 AM on June 4, 2014
This is an interesting question. I think it's significant that the passage that XMLicious linked to is referring to a Jewish temple tax. Every Hebrew was (apparently, and thanks for the link!) understood to owe this tax in response to a census. To be a Hebrew (to be counted as one) was to pay the "ransom", as it's put in at least one translation.
But it sounds like what you're asking is:
If you live in a country in which every person is assumed or forced to be a part of the state Christian church, and as a result the government forces you to "donate" money to that church as part of the process of being taxed, is that supported, recommended, or endorsed by the Bible?
And if that's what your asking, the answer is (I think): that concept is not really directly addressed anywhere in the New Testament (the part where Christians show up), but the idea of an earthly government forcing people who don't necessarily believe in Jesus the Christ as the Son of God (and so on) to pay money to a Christian church is so absolutely counter to almost every idea in the New Testament, both in spirit and in practice, that it amounts to an impossibly monstrous distortion. Tithe or any other money given to "the church" (the operating group of believers as a whole) is meant to be freely given out of what an individual has available to them, not regularly forced from them in a flat percentage.
The idea that non-Christians would be forced to pay that tax (and I honestly do not know if that is the case anywhere, if so to what degree, and if there is any way out of doing so) is definitely NOT consistent with New Testament teaching.
posted by Poppa Bear at 4:33 AM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
But it sounds like what you're asking is:
If you live in a country in which every person is assumed or forced to be a part of the state Christian church, and as a result the government forces you to "donate" money to that church as part of the process of being taxed, is that supported, recommended, or endorsed by the Bible?
And if that's what your asking, the answer is (I think): that concept is not really directly addressed anywhere in the New Testament (the part where Christians show up), but the idea of an earthly government forcing people who don't necessarily believe in Jesus the Christ as the Son of God (and so on) to pay money to a Christian church is so absolutely counter to almost every idea in the New Testament, both in spirit and in practice, that it amounts to an impossibly monstrous distortion. Tithe or any other money given to "the church" (the operating group of believers as a whole) is meant to be freely given out of what an individual has available to them, not regularly forced from them in a flat percentage.
The idea that non-Christians would be forced to pay that tax (and I honestly do not know if that is the case anywhere, if so to what degree, and if there is any way out of doing so) is definitely NOT consistent with New Testament teaching.
posted by Poppa Bear at 4:33 AM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
The first Christian communities expected members to give *all* their possessions to the church. See Acts 5 for the story of Ananias and Sapphira.
So yeah, it's kind of all over the place.
posted by sukeban at 4:52 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
So yeah, it's kind of all over the place.
posted by sukeban at 4:52 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yeah, but the issue with Ananias and Sapphira wasn't that they held back some of their possessions, but that they lied about doing so.
posted by tel3path at 6:40 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by tel3path at 6:40 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Hit send too soon. Seconding that state enforcement of church taxation upon an entire population is completely at odds with New Testament teaching.
posted by tel3path at 6:41 AM on June 4, 2014
posted by tel3path at 6:41 AM on June 4, 2014
this is not a tithe. a tithe is a voluntary payment (typically, 10% of income) made to a church by a member, such as exists in mormonism. their only obligation runs to their conscience; state agents do not come out to their homes to enforce it.
this is not a jewish temple tax either, because only jews had to pay that.
this is closer to "render unto caesar", but when jesus said that, my interpretation is that he was referring to payments of tax to the state's general fund, for the benefit of all its citizens, not solely for the benefit of one church.
this is a theocratic tax, levied against believers and unbelievers alike, for the benefit of one church. it is an "establishment of religion" in the words of our first amendment. while technically "rendering unto caesar", i question whether jesus could have foreseen a day when his people had co-opted caesar, and were therefore forcing others to render unto christianity. evaluating the legitimacy of this starts with his "be not of this world." co-opting caesar is the essence of worldliness.
posted by bruce at 9:08 AM on June 4, 2014
this is not a jewish temple tax either, because only jews had to pay that.
this is closer to "render unto caesar", but when jesus said that, my interpretation is that he was referring to payments of tax to the state's general fund, for the benefit of all its citizens, not solely for the benefit of one church.
this is a theocratic tax, levied against believers and unbelievers alike, for the benefit of one church. it is an "establishment of religion" in the words of our first amendment. while technically "rendering unto caesar", i question whether jesus could have foreseen a day when his people had co-opted caesar, and were therefore forcing others to render unto christianity. evaluating the legitimacy of this starts with his "be not of this world." co-opting caesar is the essence of worldliness.
posted by bruce at 9:08 AM on June 4, 2014
Would "the state", "the church", and "religion" actually have been distinct concepts in the mind of a 1st century resident of Palestine? It seems like considerable amounts of interpretation and interpolation are necessary for any way you might attempt to formulate an answer. It's a bit like asking whether the privacy policy of the Vatican web site is consistent with the Bible.
Also, I wonder if the modern word "tax" corresponds to a single concept or has a straightforward translation. In the passage above the original greek for "temple tax" is just "the two drachmas", "δίδραχμα". The two words corresponding to "duty" and "taxes" are "τέλη" (related to the word for "end" and translated as "custom" or "duty", so the payment on goods when they reach the end or destination?) and "κῆνσον" (form of "kensos", so the same word as census? A note in that page says that it refers to a tax or tribute "by implication.")
I'm thinking that what we have as separate words and concepts: tax, fee, tribute, margin, wage, payment, price, or ransom as Poppa Bear points out, might all be one single word, or some other number of words without a one-to-one mapping.
And of course, this is an author writing in Greek about a conversation third parties had speaking in Aramaic.
posted by XMLicious at 11:16 AM on June 4, 2014
Also, I wonder if the modern word "tax" corresponds to a single concept or has a straightforward translation. In the passage above the original greek for "temple tax" is just "the two drachmas", "δίδραχμα". The two words corresponding to "duty" and "taxes" are "τέλη" (related to the word for "end" and translated as "custom" or "duty", so the payment on goods when they reach the end or destination?) and "κῆνσον" (form of "kensos", so the same word as census? A note in that page says that it refers to a tax or tribute "by implication.")
I'm thinking that what we have as separate words and concepts: tax, fee, tribute, margin, wage, payment, price, or ransom as Poppa Bear points out, might all be one single word, or some other number of words without a one-to-one mapping.
And of course, this is an author writing in Greek about a conversation third parties had speaking in Aramaic.
posted by XMLicious at 11:16 AM on June 4, 2014
Historian here. There is no single answer to your question; as you have seen above, some people insist that such a tax is incompatible with (parts of) the Bible, while others think that it is.
Bruce's answer, for instance, uses definitions of tithe, tax, and establishment that are specific to the modern US. In other times and places, tithes have been legally imposed by an established church or by a secular government (often the lines weren't really clear). In 1618, for instance, John Selden caused an uproar in England with his History of Tithes, showing that they had not always been obligatory; Selden was forced to recant his work.
Infant baptism is nowhere mentioned in the Bible; the only baptisms are of adults. The Anabaptist movements that sprung up during the European Reformation argued that infant baptism was a corruption introduced by the medieval Catholic Church, and that the only valid baptisms were of adults (who understood what the sacrament meant). More moderate Reformers were left in a bit of a pickle, needing to defend a practice that had no obvious Scriptural basis. The Swiss reformer Heinrich Bullinger developed a covenant theology that, he thought, resolved the problem: in the Old Testament, male infants were circumcised as a visible sign of God's covenant with his people. By analogy, baptism was a visible sign of the new covenant (testament) that Jesus had brought. Not everyone was convinced, though.
I'm not an expert on tithes and church taxes, but it wouldn't surprise me if theologians had developed similar arguments. And as sukeban pointed out, the example of the community of goods in the primitive church could serve to justify involuntary tithing.
The normative answer to your question—is it compatible with the Bible or not?—depends on the interpretive practices of your particular Christian community. There is no objective answer outside of a given tradition of Scriptural interpretation. It seems fairly obvious that Christians shouldn't kill, based on both Old Testament and New Testament passages, but there are plenty of Christians who have no problem with military service or the death penalty.
posted by brianogilvie at 12:00 PM on June 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
Bruce's answer, for instance, uses definitions of tithe, tax, and establishment that are specific to the modern US. In other times and places, tithes have been legally imposed by an established church or by a secular government (often the lines weren't really clear). In 1618, for instance, John Selden caused an uproar in England with his History of Tithes, showing that they had not always been obligatory; Selden was forced to recant his work.
Infant baptism is nowhere mentioned in the Bible; the only baptisms are of adults. The Anabaptist movements that sprung up during the European Reformation argued that infant baptism was a corruption introduced by the medieval Catholic Church, and that the only valid baptisms were of adults (who understood what the sacrament meant). More moderate Reformers were left in a bit of a pickle, needing to defend a practice that had no obvious Scriptural basis. The Swiss reformer Heinrich Bullinger developed a covenant theology that, he thought, resolved the problem: in the Old Testament, male infants were circumcised as a visible sign of God's covenant with his people. By analogy, baptism was a visible sign of the new covenant (testament) that Jesus had brought. Not everyone was convinced, though.
I'm not an expert on tithes and church taxes, but it wouldn't surprise me if theologians had developed similar arguments. And as sukeban pointed out, the example of the community of goods in the primitive church could serve to justify involuntary tithing.
The normative answer to your question—is it compatible with the Bible or not?—depends on the interpretive practices of your particular Christian community. There is no objective answer outside of a given tradition of Scriptural interpretation. It seems fairly obvious that Christians shouldn't kill, based on both Old Testament and New Testament passages, but there are plenty of Christians who have no problem with military service or the death penalty.
posted by brianogilvie at 12:00 PM on June 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
I'm a Christian and in my view this isn't supported biblically for today. Fwiw.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 7:43 PM on June 4, 2014
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 7:43 PM on June 4, 2014
The New Testament does not provide specific rules or examples as to how a Christian government would function. In the context of the new testament, the early church was figuring out how to live/exist within the Roman Empire which was rather hostile to it (most of the New Testament authors were traditionally believed to have been martyred). A government with Christians in political power is not really anticipated by the New Testament. People can extrapolate principles and come up with opinions about what may be most in line with the teaching of the bible for more modern contexts, but there is not really a straightforward answer to your question that doesn't involve some subjective interpretation
Brianogilvie - In Acts 16, Paul baptized his jailer along with "all of his household", which presumably would have included children. I beleive those favoring infant baptism cite that story as a New Testament example.
posted by jpdoane at 9:54 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Brianogilvie - In Acts 16, Paul baptized his jailer along with "all of his household", which presumably would have included children. I beleive those favoring infant baptism cite that story as a New Testament example.
posted by jpdoane at 9:54 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Justinian at 1:23 AM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]