Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!



Being the Church

A principled (and practical) guide to tithing

Twice every Sunday the offering plate comes your way. What do you do? Do you chip in whatever you have in your wallet, do you have a cheque already written out, or will you send an e-transfer later in the week? Do you abide by whatever tithing tradition your parents instilled in you, or look around to see what everyone else does, or do you have your own rationale of how to give?

How we tithe is an intensely practical question for everyone, but perhaps one that you’ve not given much thought. Here are some biblical principles for tithing, followed by some practical suggestions, from my experience as a deacon and as a manager of a personal household budget, of how to apply these biblical principles in our offerings.

1. God owns everything

The first principle that we need to recognize when we consider tithing is the fact that everything ultimately belongs to God and not to us. As the Creator and Sustainer of all things and the Redeemer of His people, God not only is the ultimate owner of everything, but we owe Him everything. Like the servants in the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-39), we are merely temporary stewards of the blessings that God has given us.

The tithe – 10% – is a reminder of that fact. Abram offered the first recorded tithe in Genesis 14, when he gave a tenth of the spoils from the defeat of Chedorlaomer to Melchizedek, the priest of God Most High. Jacob also vowed to give God a tenth of everything (Gen. 28:22). This voluntary tithe was enshrined in God’s law in Numbers 18:21-24, when God commanded the Israelites to give a tithe every year to support the Levites and the tabernacle.

The disposition of our heart should not be “how little of my hard-earned money do I have to part with” but “how much of God’s blessings am I able to give back to Him?”

2. Our heart (not just the %) matters

We see cheerful and abundant giving throughout Scripture, whether it was the Israelites giving overabundantly for the construction of the temple (Ex. 35:20-36:7), the early Church freely sharing their possessions (Acts 4:32-37), and later congregations collecting for needy churches (Rom. 15:25-28, 1 Cor. 16:1-4, 2 Cor. 8:1-5, 2 Cor. 9:1-15).

It is entirely possible to give large sums of money to the LORD but without the right motivation. In Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira sold a piece of property and gave some of the proceeds to the disciples. And yet they wound up dead because of their dishonesty. Instead, in 2 Corinthians 9:7, Paul famously reminds believers that

“each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”

While it may be relatively easy to change our giving patterns, changing our heart from being a reluctant, to a cheerful, giver may be far harder. Yet we serve a God who delights more in a pure heart than external sacrifice, and we need to recognize that our giving should come from gratitude over God’s grace delivering us from our guilt. So we must set our hearts in the right direction when we give.

3. First fruits

The Bible also speaks to when we give. Men like Abel gave “the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions” (Gen. 4:4) Throughout the books of the law, God commands the people of Israel to bring to Him the first fruits – not their last fruits – of their field and their flocks. Calling upon His people to bring their first fruits was a way that God set the priorities of His people: give to Me first and provide for yourselves after.

This practice also fostered a trust in God’s people that He would provide if His people obeyed Him and gave their first fruits to Him. In the days of Malachi, when the people of Judah were robbing God of their tithes and contributions (possibly because they thought that they were too poor to afford to tithe), God calls the people to:

“Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need” (Malachi 3:10).

Questions to consider

With these general biblical principles established, here are some more practical suggestions of how we can live out these principles in our tithing.

A. How much should I give?
This is everyone’s biggest question as well as the one that will impact our lifestyle the most. And the usual Christian response is to tithe (to give 10% of our income).

But, interestingly, most Israelites were commanded to give more than a 10% tithe. God also commanded a second tithe every year to fund ceremonial feasts and festivals (Deut. 14:22-27). And every three years, the people were to give a third tithe that was to go not only to the Levite but also the poor (Deut. 14:28-29). They were also to provide for the poor in other ways that would have a financial cost, such as allowing the poor to glean the droppings and corners of the field (Lev. 19:9). So, in reality, the Israelites arguably tithed as much as 23.33% annually. (I say “arguably” because some theologians like John Calvin thought that the tithe to the poor every three years was simply a further explanation of how to spend the first tithe to the priests and Levites.)

We live in a different time period today. The civil and ceremonial law apply differently to the Church today. We don’t support one thirteenth of the population of the Church with our tithes (as the twelve tribes had to support the tribe of Levi in the Old Testament). We don’t have a calendar of feasts and festivals that require another tithe. Various institutions of society, such as the government, do a lot of the work of providing for the poor (through the taxes we pay). And so that strict command to give away 10% (or 20% or 23.33%) of our income may not bind us today.

But I still think that a 10% tithe is a good minimum for us all to strive to give. Even if you’re a student working a part-time job, an unemployed man collecting EI, or a retiree living off a pension, aim to give at least 10% back to the LORD. In Mark 12:41-44, Jesus watched many rich people putting large sums of money into the temple treasury. We have no idea what percentage of their regular income they brought. Perhaps some brought 5%, thinking that the sheer amount of money that they gave was more important than the relative percentage of the income they gave. Perhaps some brought exactly 10%, giving just as much as the law required, no more and no less. And perhaps some brought 15%, priding themselves on exceeding the demands of the law. But then a poor widow comes in and gives two small copper coins. Jesus says to His disciples:

“Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.”

In other words, the widow gave 100%.

While we may not be called to give every cent that we earn to the Church, in The Ministry of Mercy, Timothy Keller calls Christians to give “sacrificially, until their lifestyle is lowered.” Following the call in Galatians 6:2 to bear one another’s burdens, he suggests that “we must give so that we feel the burden of the needy ourselves.” In support of this, he quotes Jonathan Edwards, who said,

“If we be never obliged to relieve others’ burdens, but when we can do it without burdening ourselves, then how do we bear our neighbor’s burdens, when we bear no burdens at all?”

Keller’s book is a real challenge to Christians to give more than just 10%.

Those more well off could and should give more. In 1 Corinthians 16:2, Paul commands the Corinthians “to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper.” Those whom God has prospered are in a position to give more than those who are struggling. To use an example, those of us who earn the median family income in Canada of $98,390 and tithe 10% would give away almost $10,000. Those who earn double that – nearly $200,000 – and still give 10% would give $20,000. The rate of giving is equal. And the richer family gives away more. But who feels the impact of that tithe more?

The average family.

They might have to give up a vacation, live in a smaller house, or pass on enrolling their children in organized sports. The comparatively richer family probably doesn’t have to give up these things and could give far more before they really began feeling it.

B. Tithing pre-tax or post-tax?
If you do decide to give a certain percentage of your income regularly to the Church (say, 10%), some might ask, “should that 10% be pre-tax or post-tax?” Our response to this question may reveal where God and His Church are on our priority list.

Most of us don’t get the full amount of our paycheque. Even before our earnings are deposited into our bank account or we pick up our paycheque, the government takes its share, roughly about 25% of our salary through income taxes, CCP contributions, and EI premiums. If we give 10% of our take-home paycheque, what are we implicitly saying? That the government is entitled to its share first and in full and God gets a tithe of our second fruits (and a lesser amount to boot).

So consider giving of your income pre-tax, before the government claims its share.

C. Tithing at the beginning or end of the month?
Perhaps this isn’t a significant question in your mind, but again it may reveal your heart. If you write a monthly cheque or pre-authorize any bank withdrawals to the Church on the last day of the month, what does that say about your priorities? Are your priorities to make sure that you have enough money to pay your rent, your grocery bill, and your credit card statement and then give some of whatever is left over to the Church? Might this be how you implicitly think about giving?

And so, consider determining, as soon as you get your paycheque, what you are going to give back to God and His Church, giving to God of your first fruits rather than your leftovers.

D. Can I let the offering bag pass me by?
This is another question that many people would raise an eyebrow at. As long as I give my 10%, who cares when I give it?

As a deacon, I saw some people would wave away the offering bag during a service, implying that they had nothing to give that service. Others would write a few (though substantial) cheques a few times a year but give little during the remainer of the year. When December rolled around, we would often collect three or four times our usually monthly donations in a single month, suggesting that some people only gave at the end of the year.

A handful of people in the congregation gave much smaller amounts every week. We as deacons often thought to ourselves that we’d save a whole lot of time if we didn’t have to count as much cash, or input a lot of small cheques, from these frequent givers. But this attitude of giving a little bit every week again reflects a heart that always has giving back to the LORD written on it.

And again, there are Scriptural and confessional hints that we shouldn’t let the offering bag pass us by each Sunday. As already quoted in part, 1 Corinthians 16:2, says, “on the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up , as he may prosper.” Based in part on this passage, Lord’s Day 38 of the Heidelberg Catechism, speaking of what God’s will for us is in the Fourth Commandment, says

“that the gospel ministry and schools for it be maintained, and that, especially on the festive day of rest, I diligently… bring Christian offerings for the poor.”

In the Old Testament, there are also a few warnings against appearing before the LORD empty-handed, even if these passages are not strictly related to tithing (Ex. 23:15, 34:20; Deut. 16:16).

So don’t let the offering bag pass you by. Even if the total amount that you give in a year doesn’t change, give often.

E. How can my tithing go the furthest?
Finally, we can be good stewards of our money by taking advantage of charitable tax advantages. Our federal and provincial governments give significant tax credits (typically 40-50%) to encourage charitable donations. That means that you can get up to 40-50% of your donations back on your tax return every year. If you are the average Canadian family earning $98,390, tithing 10%, and giving away almost $10,000, that could mean a return of $4,000-5,000. We are called to give taxes to whom taxes are due (Romans 13:6-7, Mark 12:13-17, Matthew 17:24-27), but if there are organizations that spend their money more efficiently or that labor more in the Kingdom of God than the government (and I’m sure we can think of many such organizations), making use of our charitable receipts is good stewardship. Through these tax benefits we can give even more generously to the most effective and godly organizations around us.

The key to getting that tax credit is that your donations need to bear your name so that your church can issue a tax receipt. So write cheques or donate cash in envelopes with your name on it. Cash tossed in the collection bag won’t get you a tax receipt, but I’ve heard of some churches allowing congregation members to buy “tokens” through cheque or directed cash so that they can get a tax receipt. This allows parents and children to still donate via the offering plate while taking full advantage of charitable tax receipts.

Conclusion

However you decide to give to your local church, consider both where your heart is and what your hands are doing. As James 2:18 says, “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”

That includes our tithing.



News

Saturday Selections – Mar. 29, 2025

Propaganda techniques (10 minutes)

This 1948 or 1949 movie highlights seven different propaganda techniques, and to be forewarned about them is to be forearmed. This could be great for a high school English class. Click the title above for the full 10-minute color presentation, or watch a 7-minute B&W abridgment below.

News or narrative – when the truth-tellers can't be trusted

What with images and video that can be faked so quickly and so skillfully, the biggest problem with our news consumption might be the speed at which we imbibe. When we just hit headlines, or read whoever the algorithm puts in front of us, we can't know if they are trustworthy – we can't know that this is true. So... slow down.

The slippery slope of theistic Darwinism

Howard Van Till was a physics professor at Calvin College who used to be "the pre-eminent example of an evangelical Christian scientist in the 1990s who defended Darwinian evolution."

Until he stopped being Christian.

Or even a theist.

Doctor Google, influencer moms, and the local Church

"I recently saw some Christian influencers offer a course on marriage, though they had been married for less than two years. They had paltry experience and undoubtedly little wisdom, but they did have a big platform. And many were eager to learn from them. God has carefully constructed his church so that, as much as we may benefit from those who are far off, we are likely to find the greatest and most credible help nearby. Your church has many seasoned saints who have spent their whole lives following the Lord and whose godliness is on display each and every time the church gathers."
- Tim Challies

A mid-life assessment

A pastor's wife discovers with age comes new:

"...temptations to impatience, ungraciousness, pride. This had surprised me then, but I now see this is true not just in ministry. I used to imagine I’d have to fight the same besetting sins my whole life, and while some old struggles still remain, I’ve found I need to also be vigilant for new ones."

Rend Collective: Build Your Kingdom Here

A song and a prayer.


Today's Devotional

April 2 - The psalm of the cross

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” - Psalm 22:1a

Scripture reading: Psalm 22:1-8

These are words we all know. And we especially know them because they became the words our Lord and Saviour cried out when he hung upon the cursed cross as the ultimate sacrifice for all of our sins.

We may well wonder how David’s experience >

Today's Manna Podcast

Manna Podcast banner: Manna Daily Scripture Meditations and open Bible with jar logo

Psalm 1 Two ways to live: Meditations from the Psalms

Serving #800 of Manna, prepared by Rev. Cody Swaving, is called "Psalm 1 Two ways to live" (Meditations from the Psalms) and is based on John 10:10; Psalm 1.









Red heart icon with + sign.
Assorted

A biblical counselor’s advice for church leadership

In the article "Anxiety and the triumph of hope," we shared insights from three biblical counselors about anxiety. What follows is further insight from one of them, Heres Snijder, specifically directed to pastors, elders, and deacons. – MP What advice do you have for church leadership as they minister to those who struggle with anxiety? A posture of compassion: Church leaders are soul shepherds. For preachers, elders and deacons, a posture of compassion is essential because Jesus was moved with compassion when he saw the exhausted and burdened crowds (Matthew 9:36). Anxiety is a heavy and exhausting burden for many. Paul instructed Galatian Christians to train themselves to carry their own burden of responsibility and to share each other’s burden too heavy to carry on their own. Anxiety calls for an understanding, compassionate, encouraging response to the sufferer, and for ongoing training in how to best handle anxiety provoking situations. A posture of patience and longsuffering: Frequently there are several unhelpful thinking styles that have developed over time, and these need to be exposed, identified, and replaced with healthy thinking skills and thought patterns. Paul identified the reality that the evil one wants to establish footholds and strongholds in our minds (Eph. 4:27, 2 Cor. 10:4). When anxiety has become a stronghold in the mind it takes concerted efforts to conquer it. A posture of prayer: Anxiety is one of the many “cries of the soul,” and it reveals our deepest questions about God. It is addressed in many psalms. The poets who wrote these knew about anxiety, personally, and up close. It is therefore indispensable for soul-shepherds to have an intimate knowledge of the content and anxious thoughts expressed in psalms like Psalm 22,  Ps. 23, Ps. 27, Ps. 30, Ps. 34, Pr. 46, Ps. 51, Ps. 61, Ps. 103, and Ps. 121. Training in emotional intelligence and relational wisdom: The attitude of “forget about your emotions” is unhelpful in the extreme. Empathy is an essential skill for pastors, elders and deacons. Encourage those who struggle to seek out counselors: Fortunately, many pastors and elders have this mindset. As one pastor shared with me: “We are always looking for good Christian counsellors as the need is great…but the counsellors are few and the wait times are long.” ...





Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Tariffs as a dressing down: if it is about drugs we should listen

With a lot of bluster and bravado, President Trump has made good on campaign promises to impose trade tariffs limiting other countries’ access to the prized American market, especially if these trading partners are reluctant to go along with concessions and demands from the new U.S. administration. Canada has experienced the uncertainty of these tariff threats, causing unsettlement for businesses on both sides of the border, and raising ill feelings among Canadians towards their southern neighbor. Economists almost unanimously agree that tariffs are ultimately harmful for the overall market: certain domestic industries can benefit from these financial penalties on their international competition, but the resulting prices will hurt domestic companies that use these imports to make their goods. And eventually the consumers who pay for finished goods will see these new increased costs included in the price they pay. Christian economist David Bahnsen recently wrote that Trump’s key economic officials agree that tariffs are harmful: “I believe Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is essentially a free trader who knows in his heart and mind that tariffs are a cost on the U.S. economy paid by U.S. importers, and ultimately, consumers. I believe NEC chair Kevin Hassett knows this. I believe CEA chair Stephen Miran knows this.” If tariffs cause economic harm all around, why is the U.S. President insisting that he will impose them? It all seems to be based on extracting action, not promises, from trading partners that the U.S. has deemed to not be living up to their commitments. U.S. officials allege that Canada is too lax on border security, allowing aliens to enter the U.S. from Canada: “ is not confined to the southern border – encounters at the northern border with Canada are rising as well.” Trump’s team has stated that Canada is not doing enough to capture smugglers bringing fentanyl into the U.S. “There is… a growing presence of Mexican cartels operating fentanyl and nitazene synthesis labs in Canada,” stated a White House fact sheet. I spoke recently off the record with several U.S. border patrol employees in Washington State who indicated that fentanyl coming into the U.S. from Canada is indeed becoming a bigger problem. The Trudeau government responded to the tariff threats by promising to beef up border security and appointing a fentanyl czar, resulting in a delay, but not cancellation of the tariffs. At the time of this writing, the tariffs are still scheduled to come into effect in the beginning of March. Canadians as a whole have been offended by this aggressive talk from our normally friendly neighbor to the south: the U.S. anthem was booed at sporting events, and some consumers have threatened boycotts of American-made products. How should Christians view these developments? It is good to recognize that every government has the duty to protect its citizens and defend its borders: while Canadians may not agree with President Trump’s assessment of dangers coming from “up north,” we should recognize that as chief executive of his country, he has the right to ask for increased cooperation in fulfilling this essential task of protecting his country’s citizens. In Luke 14, the Lord Jesus illustrates negotiation between sovereigns in this way: “…What king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not first sit down and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand. And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.” While citizens might not appreciate the heavy-handedness of demands brought by a nation we consider our friend and ally, our government should respond positively to reasonable requests, especially if they are intended to increase law and order, and stop criminal behavior that is harmful on both sides of the 49th parallel....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

Tariffs are terrible economics: why Canada shouldn’t hit back

Free trade – free of barriers and restrictions – has, traditionally, been pretty exclusive to the Right side of the political spectrum. But now, with President Trump implementing tariffs on steel and threatening tariffs on Canada and Mexico, we’re even hearing the Left talk about the harms that tariffs could cause. And not just to Canada and Mexico, but to American consumers too. As the far-left stalwart Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (aka AOC) noted on X, “Remember: *WE* pay the tariffs….Trump is all about making inflation WORSE for working class Americans, not better.” But what is she talking about when she says Americans pay the tariffs it charges? Think of it this way. Imagine two towns located right next to each other – Town A and Town B – and each has a car mechanic. These mechanics are full-service: they go right to your house to do the repairs. The only difference between the two is that the car mechanic in Town A – let’s call him Arnold – is way cheaper, so not only do all the folks in Town A use Arnold, so do most of the folks in Town B. That, understandably, makes the mechanic in town B – we’ll him Bill – quite unhappy, as it really hurts his business. So Bill demands that his town put in a tariff of sorts. He wants a 25% surcharge on any “out of town” car mechanics. He argues that this surcharge will be incredibly beneficial – applying it to Arnold for the work he does in Town B will help fund Town B’s government. It will also help protect Town B’s homegrown car repair businesses – Bill’s – by making his prices seem more competitive. And, Bill notes, if he gets more business, the government will benefit from the taxes he’ll pay. Bill pitches his tariff/surcharge as a win/win all the way around. But Bill is forgetting someone – several someones, in fact. The surcharge will make Arnold’s prices higher. Any Town B clients who do continue to use him will now be paying 25% more. And any clients he loses to Bill will be impacted too, having to pay Bill’s higher prices for their car repairs, taking a bigger chunk out of their household budget than ever before. In other words, Bill is staying in business at the expense of the car repair consumers in his own town. That’s not win/win at all – that’s a win for Bill, at the cost of everyone else in town. This is what AOC meant when she said that Americans will pay the tariffs they charge. Canada rightly fears American tariffs on the energy and goods they produce. Those tariffs could hurt our producers badly. But hitting back at American tariffs with our own tariffs on US goods is only going to compound the pain. It might benefit some of our producers – whoever makes the goods that compete with imported American goods – but that benefit will come at the expense of Canadian consumers overall by making them pay more. Just like Town B’s car repair “tariff” hurt Town B’s citizens. Is there an explicitly biblical perspective to be brought here? Well, what about Leviticus 19:15? “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” God equates justice and impartiality, which prompts a question: should a government take actions that benefit some of its citizens – some producers – at the expense of other citizens, the consumers and producers who use those goods? Isn’t that partiality? God also speaks to this in His Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12). “Do unto others as you would like done unto you,” applied to the economic realm would mean that car mechanic Bill wouldn’t argue for his surcharge because he wouldn’t want that same surcharge applied to everything he buys. If Town A has cheap car parts, or groceries, or gasoline, he’d love to be able to benefit. The fact is, tariffs always hurt consumers, so no matter what the US does, let’s not let tariffs beget more tariffs. Instead of putting up trade barriers, there are actually interprovincial trade barriers that we could greatly benefit from taking down, as Pierre Poilievre has been highlighting recently. In  the video below Remy highlights one of the ills caused by tariffs – fewer choices and higher costs. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – April 20, 2024

Painting without a license could soon be illegal in Minnesota Government growth is like the slowly rising temperature that eventually boils the frog in the pot alive – so long as the red tape grows only bit by small bit, we don't really protest. Here then, is a cup of cold water (or some sharp scissors if we're going with the tape metaphor) to shake things up and highlight how the government will regulate everything if we give them the chance. Christians should lead the resistance to growing government, since we understand that God didn't entrust our leaders with the responsibility of managing every aspect of citizens' lives. And we know that limited fallible human beings aren't up to the enormity of that task. 3 things a Christian should consider before serving in the military This short piece has an American focus but offers thoughts for Canadians to consider too. Since it was written in 2017, both nations' militaries have taken an ideological turn, so more could be said, which Aaron Renn does here. Today's music really is angrier, more egocentric A new study says it isn't just your imagination, Mom and Dad; song lyrics really are getting more repetitive, "me" and "mine" are popping up more often, and the tone of the lyrics has gotten angrier over the last 40 years. We're all Christian Nationalists now I prefer the term "Christian patriotism" to "Christian Nationalism" due to the latter's many conflicting definitions. But, as Larry Ball suggests, if we run with the definition of Christian Nationalism that the secular media is increasingly using – as Christians who think our rights come, not from the State, but from God Himself – then we are all Christian Nationalists now. What are the reasons disability exists? (10-minute read) AJ was struck with a progressive neurological disability that put him in a wheelchair as a young man. He had questions for God... and he went to Scripture to hear what God had to say. Were the Greek gods real? Douglas Wilson makes things clear with this "yes and no" answer. ...





Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections - November 28, 2020

Lockdowns: if it saves one life? (3 min) It's not simply lives vs. money. Some lives are being endangered by the lockdowns to the extent that, worldwide, 150 million people could be thrown into extreme poverty this year. It's not as extreme in the West, but there are crucial surgeries and diagnostic doctor visits being postponed, as well as an increase in mental health issues caused by the business closures and enforced isolation. There are no solutions, only trade-offs, so we need to count the actual cost. Free book: Randy Alcorn's Pro-choice or Pro-life This short, fantastic e-book ably dismantles 15 pro-choice arguments. The only flaw: this is largely a secular presentation. The end result is that even as author Randy Alcorn can show the pro-choice position to be unreasonable, contradictory, or inconsistent, readers aren't confronted with the clear contrast that exists between the pro-choice position and the Christian position...or at least not until chapter 15. The book remains valuable because the arguments can be improved simply by stacking them on the foundation of God's Truth. So, for example, that the unborn aren't all that different than the newborn is a good point, but unless it is rooted in the biblical truth that all of us are made in God's Image, that argument could be turned around and used as a reason to "abort" newborns...as has been done! It is by arguing as Christians – by stacking our arguments on God's Word and His Truth – that we can be sure we have a solid foundation. Happily married? A 10-step relationship assessment While the article doesn't contain anything we haven't heard before, this 10-item list is a good encouragement to invest energy and effort into our spouse and marriage. A creationist take on global warming (30-minute read) It's a long piece, matching its importance. There's no such thing as "safe sex" for kids The lie about government sex-ed is the presumption that sex outside of marriage can be safe. It leaves kids open to heartbreak and disease, and is an act of rebellion against a holy, righteous God. Quite the lie indeed, to call that safe. A call to divine obedience over civil obedience (10-minute read) This is a strong stand against the latest state-imposed limitations on worship services. In that it is a strong stand, it is controversial too: most everyone could find at least a point or two of disagreement. My own disagreement is with a concession that author Aaron Rock didn't explicitly make. He notes how churches aren't getting treated as well as schools. That is a good point: a government that treats worship as less important than school has gotten things backwards. But if and when churches are treated no different than schools, movie theaters, bars, and businesses, that shouldn't satisfy us. To our government, congregational worship is just another service provided, or another entertainment option. While it's understandable that they think so, that doesn't make them any less wrong. Shuttering God's Church is a big deal in a way that shuttering Ciniplex Odean just isn't. We don't want the worship of God to be given equal treatment; we want the government to understand that shutting a church should be the last thing they'd consider doing. The Marxist Trojan Horse (15 minutes) Larry Alex Taunton on "the Marxist Agenda in America...and how it relates to Black Lives Matter, Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality, and White Privilege." This is a longer video, at 15 minutes, but worth the time invested. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
History

Karl Marx: preaching a different gospel

To mark the 100th anniversary this month, of the Communist Revolution in Russia, we're sharing Piet Jongeling's brief biography of Karl Marx, first published 34 years ago.  **** Karl Marx was both an economist and a politician, but in fact he was much more than that. He was the founder of a new atheistic political religion, the prophet of a new world-to-come in which righteousness would dwell. Man in his own strength would bring this about. Marx proclaimed the coming of a new messiah, the proletariat, which through suffering and struggling would eventually bring salvation to the world. His message has had great influence, not only before his death, but especially after it. At present one third of the world's population lives under a political and economical system that can be called "Marxist" . This indication as "Marxist" is valid, even though there may be many differences between Marx's theoretical concepts and the practical application which the communist countries have made of them. Life story Karl Marx was born on May 2, 1818, at Trier, Germany. He descended from a long lineage of rabbis. His father was the first to break with that tradition. Instead of becoming a rabbi, he studied law and he broke with the Jewish religion. His mother was Dutch. When young Karl was six years old, he was baptized together with the other members of the family. That baptism, being a social affair, had little religious significance. It served only as evidence that the Marx family belonged to those modern Jews who favored assimilation and who desired to eradicate their cultural and religious heritage. Baptism functioned as a ticket of admission to European civilization. That could — as it did in this case — coexist with atheism in practical life. Marx Junior was uncommonly intelligent. He studied law and the history of philosophy in Bonn and in Berlin, and he received his Ph.D. degree in 1841 at Jena. After he was awarded his doctorate, Karl Marx became a journalist. Soon it became apparent that he espoused some very radical social and economic ideals. His paper, accused of inciting rebellion, was closed up. Karl Marx married a woman from an outstanding German family. Shortly after his wedding he fled to Paris. There he studied the history of the French Revolution. He got to know the French laborers in their often bitter poverty and in their just as bitter revolutionary zeal. Sometimes he lived in poverty himself, so as to gain deeper insight into, and firsthand experience in, the painful inequality and the depth of the social injustice of those days. When France also expelled him a few times, he fled back to one of the German states (the federal German state was not in existence yet). In 1849 he departed for London, where he remained living and working until his death in 1883. Turn socialism into a system Marx perceived very clearly that the society of his days was distinctively a class society, in which the working class was badly abused. He even invented a new name for this class: "the proletariat," people who have no possessions except their "proles" – that is, their children. It was Marx's intention to come to the aid of this oppressed bottom layer of society. He believed that socialism was the solution. But the socialism of his days was more of a golden pipe dream of the future than a usable doctrine and practice based on a principled structure. The road towards the ideal state had not been charted in a system that was methodically and logically acceptable. This bothered the intellectual in Marx. Rejecting this socialist romanticism as "Utopian Socialism," he developed a well-thought-out system himself in which he delivered the "proof" that the prevailing economic system, which he gave the name "Capitalism," was itself instrumental in unleashing the powers that would inevitably bring about the downfall of Capitalism and the victory of a new and superior system: Communism. The Communist Manifesto and Das Capital In 1847 Karl Marx and his German friend and spiritual brother, Friedrich Engels, drafted the Communist Manifesto. Published in 1848, it contained three main points: 1. Communism is a historically determined direction of society, a development which will unstoppably continue and whose eventual victory cannot be held back by anything. 2. The road toward that victory is marked by the class struggle, which, after an ocean of misery, shall lead to the great showdown. Capital and the means of production will accumulate in the hands of ever fewer owners. The proletariat shall encompass ever greater numbers, suffer more and more poverty, and so be better prepared and determined for the great battle. Eventually the proletariat will rob the last of the supercapitalists of their possessions. After the great expropriation for the benefit of all, the conflicts between the classes will disappear. 3. The proletariat must be well-organized in national and international societies, accept proper leadership, discipline, and order, and be able to act as one man. The Communist Manifesto thereby condemns the revolutionary movement of the anarchists which had a much greater individualistic character and would not accept a strict organization, a systematic approach to the problems, or subjection to a leadership. The Communist Manifesto was probably written mainly by Friedrich Engels, the son of a rich merchant and manufacturer. Marx and Engels were both gifted students of Hegel, the German philosopher. The two worked together for many years, and during this partnership, Karl Marx became more and more prominent. When the year 1848 did not bring the expected and hoped for breakthrough of Communism, Marx went back to elaborate on the thoughts developed in the Communist Manifesto. He attempted to place the Manifesto on a scientific footing in his trilogy Das Capital. The first volume came out in 1867. The second and third volumes were published after his death by Engels, in 1885 and 1894. Communism in theory and practice Now, this column is not the place for a detailed analysis of the Marxist political dogmas so a few broad outlines will have to suffice. Karl Marx has attempted to construct his study in a scientific manner and to base his conclusions on irrefutable evidence. This impressed a great number of people. The evidence that the communist victory was inevitable was backed up by a mathematical formula! Nothing and nobody could avert that triumph. Later thinkers have undermined this foundation of scientific irrefutability. They pointed at errors in the line of theoretic reasoning. But history has done greater damage to the system than the critics. Many of Karl Marx's predictions never came true. 1. The Soviet Union has had sixty-five years of experience with its "new" system. But although Karl Marx predicted that after a short transition period the state would wither away, the reality was that anywhere Communism took power, the state became stronger, harder, mightier, and more brutal: an all-oppressive dictatorship! Communism is nothing short of state Capitalism! 2. During this transition period, mentioned above, the dictatorship of the proletariat would have to be established to do its task of destroying the capitalist structures, until, after the last remnants of Capitalism had been eradicated, it itself would disappear. But in reality it was a dictatorship not of the proletariat but over the proletariat. And that dictatorship did not disappear. It is bent on self perpetuation. 3. Also in the countries where free enterprise prevailed (called Capitalism by Marx), things went clearly different from what Mr. Marx had predicted. In the previous century, during Marx's lifetime, there were admittedly very serious dark sides to the free enterprise system. However, social laws, social actions, and mutual consultation have brought about great improvements. That does not mean that the world has become a paradise. Sin keeps doing its work. There is much social injustice even now; violations are committed by employers and employees alike. But looking back at the past we must admit: the improvements are enormous. The material welfare of those whom Marx called "the laboring classes" is much greater than in the previous century. The "proletarians" are no longer the dispossessed. The wealth of the working people in the capitalistic West is considerably greater than is the case in the communistic East. And, more importantly, the Western people enjoy a relative freedom, while the Communist system of servitude takes away spiritual freedom, oppresses the church and church members, and places callous atheism high on the throne. A different gospel What the Red Revolution delivered was the opposite of what it promised. It is terror instead of freedom, serfdom under masters instead of equality, brutal force instead of brotherhood, and above all, the dread of the secret police. How could Karl Marx's doctrine then be so successful? It must be admitted that Marxism achieved great victories. One third of the world's population today lives under a political and social-economic system that is named after Marx. The reason is that Marx came to the world with a new gospel! It was the doctrine of self-redemption which he dressed in the shining apparel of scientific certainty. Marx, the man of Jewish descent, may have broken with the religion of Israel, but he was very well versed in it. His rich and impressive writing style betrayed the influence of the Old Testament. In his writings he has the grand manners of the prophet who proclaims to the people the glad tidings of forthcoming deliverance. The Jews had refused to apply Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering servant of God to Jesus Christ, the Savior. The rabbis applied this prophecy to the suffering people of Israel itself, so that its nation, through suffering, would gain deliverance for itself and so also for the world that surrounded its people. Israel was its own messiah! Marx adopted this model in a secularized format. For him the messiah is the proletariat. Through struggles and sufferings the proletariat shall redeem itself and the world and so bring into the world the eternal "peaceable kingdom." This alternate gospel with its false-religious message, with its inversion of Christendom, has cast its spell on many millions of people. It was not an unstoppable historic determinism that brought the victory to Communism. It was not an automatic, inevitable course of world events that led to the Red welfare state. Wherever Communism gained control it was always a power grab by a minority which used the confusion of wartime or national unrest to its own advantage. And once in power, it could only stay that way by keeping its weapons trained on the oppressed people. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany — there are many examples to illustrate this fact. Marx's style of writing is eschatological. He prophecies of a new earth, created and cleansed by man. From that time on, the history of mankind will find rest, because the final destination, the eternal wellbeing of mankind, has been reached. It was that prophetic zeal that attracted so many. Conclusion But how different was the reality! Sixty-five years have passed since the Red Revolution, and still the shining final destiny is far out of reach. This image of the glorious future is a fata morgana – an illusory reflection that recedes as one approaches it and finally dissolves into thin air. According to eyewitnesses, one finds very few genuinely committed communists in the East Bloc countries — percentage-wise, certainly far less than in the Western nations. There is little more than an outward conformation to save one's hide. Open protests will only pave the way to concentration camps, prisons, or, more recently, psychiatric institutions. The Red Bloc, with the Soviet Union as its core, has grown into a superpower, which, armed to the teeth, has become a constant threat to world peace. It is to be hoped that those people who are still free may find the fortitude to oppose that threat. The continuing de-Christianization has robbed the Western nations of their spiritual strength in the face of Marxism, or, at least, has seriously impaired it. If Marx could witness the reality of today, he would very likely be appalled by the manner in which his prophecies of the glorious future have been fulfilled in the drab present. But the negative forces which he has helped to unleash are continuing to have their impact, even now, a hundred years after his death. Piet Jongeling (1909-1985)  was a politician, journalist, and children's fiction author, and it is in this latter role that he might be best known to our readership, though under his pen name, Piet Prins. This article first appeared in the May 1983 edition....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Economics

The rich keep getting richer… and they're not the only ones

Capitalism helps everyone. That might be hard to believe right now, with the worldwide economy in the doldrums, and with many fingering capitalism as the culprit. But before we jump on the anti-capitalist bandwagon, and before we ask the government to take over larger areas of the economy, it would be a good idea to look back and get a proper understanding of the good capitalism has done. The fact is, capitalism is responsible for lifting billions of people out of poverty and creating improved standards of living that previous generations couldn’t have dreamed of. Swedish scholar Johan Norberg has written a brief overview of this phenomenon in The Wealth of Generations: Capitalism and the Belief in the Future. Marx got it half right It’s likely that Karl Marx, the originator of Marxism, developed the sharpest anti-capitalist theory. According to Norberg, Marx believed “that capitalism would make the rich richer and the poor poorer.” If someone was making money in a free market situation, it must be at the expense of someone else. That is, somebody was losing money if another was gaining money. Thus over time the upper class would accumulate more wealth at the expense of the middle class and lower class. The middle class would be pushed into the lower class, and the original lower class would basically starve. Marx made this prediction during the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century. Despite its undeserved bad reputation, the Industrial Revolution resulted in a dramatic rise in living standards. “When Marx died in 1883, the average Englishman was three times richer than he was when Marx was born, in 1818.” Since that time capitalism has continued to raise living standards to the point that “the poor in Western societies today live longer, with better access to goods and technologies, and with bigger opportunities than the kings in Marx’s days.” Lenin got it all wrong Marx’s original theory was obviously a failure; standards of living rose rapidly for all classes due to capitalism. So Marx’s disciple, and Russian revolutionary, Vladimir Lenin had to rework the theory to explain how workers in Western countries were doing so well economically. Lenin argued that the capitalist class of the Western countries looted the poor, undeveloped countries, and gave a portion of the loot to the workers in their own countries. The rich countries were made richer because the poor countries were made poorer. Quite simply, the rich countries took the wealth of the poor countries. But like Marx’s theory, Lenin’s theory contradicts the facts. As Norberg explains, the problem with Lenin’s view is: “all continents became wealthier, albeit at different speeds. Sure, the average Western European or American is 19 times richer than in 1820, but a Latin American is 9 times richer, an Asian 6 times richer, and an African about 3 times richer. So from whom was the wealth stolen?” Capitalism benefits every class, every sector of society, and not just one special group or certain exploitive nations. In fact, Norberg describes the success of capitalism in alleviating poverty in the last three decades or so as “the greatest untold story ever.” As Norberg writes, the proportion in absolute poverty in developing countries has been reduced from: “40 to 21% since 1981. Almost 400 million people have left poverty – the biggest poverty reduction in mankind’s history. In the last 30 years chronic hunger has been halved, and so has the extent of child labor. Since 1950 illiteracy has been reduced from 70 to 23% and infant mortality has been reduced by two-thirds.” This has occurred during a period where many countries around the world have shifted away from socialism and socialistic policies towards capitalism and free market policies. Using creativity to create wealth It’s common to think of creative people as being writers, painters, musicians, and others in the fine arts. But some of the most creative people in the world are entrepreneurs. These are people who use their creative abilities to provide products and services in new and innovative ways. By doing so they create new jobs for countless people and generate wealth where previously none existed. Capitalism allows the greatest freedom and opportunities to people whose creative talents are in the economic sphere. This is a key reason (perhaps the key reason) for the success of capitalism. A thriving economy requires entrepreneurs but socialism stifles and punishes entrepreneurs. Generally speaking, socialists consider businessmen to be the exploiters of workers, therefore these “exploiters” must be heavily regulated and controlled. Capitalism, on the other hand, unleashes the creative powers of entrepreneurial businessmen, and thus becomes a driving force for generating new wealth and economic development. As economic history clearly demonstrates, capitalism is the only system that leads to prosperity. Yes, the rich do get richer under capitalism but so do the poor! Dr. Michael Wagner is the author many books, and is a regular contributor to Reformed Perspective. This article first appeared in the January 2009 issue under the title "The rich keep getting richer...and that's a good thing!"...