Apparently Philippi did just that. But it was an irregular free will offering.
I hear what you’re saying, I think. From where I’ve come to now, I’d say there are so many unintended consequences to that path. That path, even with the best of intentions initially will become a doctrine of Balaam issue within a couple of generations IMO. Coveteousness is ingrained in our human psyche and coupled with power corrupts the leadership entirely.
Coming away from the Levitical model as the norm, Paul and the rest of the apostles would no doubt answer this matter more emphatically and have better reasons. I’d have to think about this question for a bit to line out what I see as the inevitable effects of this.
Fosters a substitutionary mindset, resulting in overburden to perform on the recipient and underburden on the giver. It either creates a sense of obligation to the giver or fosters a sense of entitlement in the gifted or both. It undermines the principle that every man provides his own bread, and sets his own money back to give to him that has need.
The collective storing of alms requires a storehouse, which require maintenance, which requires a steward, all of which creates a drain on the kingdoms funds that was never intended and a yoke on the subjects that is unjustified and a drain on time and attention that should be devoted to his family or studies. There will inevitably emerge a hierarchy, which will then necessitate a hierarchy for the hierarchy.
It removes the recipient from the marketplace, which limits his real time influence and ability to impact another with his real life witness. Real men value nothing higher than ones ability to work and create and provide for a family.
It will reinforce and enable dependence in some who don’t study, independence and isolation in others whose studies conflict with the “chosen one” or are more advanced. It will entirely fail to produce interdependence and unity except by acquiescence to fiat as the growing pains that are normal and necessary in an organism will be suppressed or ignored instead of embraced and studied through.
It fosters a face forward mentality in the congregation which is the antithesis of the given liturgy in 1 Cor 14:26. Our assemblies are to be like our love feasts. Every man brings forth from his own storehouse and shares a portion of what he’s gained with his brothers. Some more depth, some more breadth, but everyone should be sharing the fruits of their studies. I see no better way to encourage and establish men as priests over their own household. Instead of a congregation of priests and young priests in training (each of them able to lead) you will have a structure where the leaders worth is defined by how many dependents he accumulates, rather than how many interdependents he’s mentored and established.
Basically, all the problems I see with Corporate Christianity could conceivably stem from this one act of charity to one who should be the charitable one. Peter, do you love me? Feed from my sheep.
I hear what you’re saying, I think. From where I’ve come to now, I’d say there are so many unintended consequences to that path. That path, even with the best of intentions initially will become a doctrine of Balaam issue within a couple of generations IMO. Coveteousness is ingrained in our human psyche and coupled with power corrupts the leadership entirely.
Coming away from the Levitical model as the norm, Paul and the rest of the apostles would no doubt answer this matter more emphatically and have better reasons. I’d have to think about this question for a bit to line out what I see as the inevitable effects of this.
Fosters a substitutionary mindset, resulting in overburden to perform on the recipient and underburden on the giver. It either creates a sense of obligation to the giver or fosters a sense of entitlement in the gifted or both. It undermines the principle that every man provides his own bread, and sets his own money back to give to him that has need.
The collective storing of alms requires a storehouse, which require maintenance, which requires a steward, all of which creates a drain on the kingdoms funds that was never intended and a yoke on the subjects that is unjustified and a drain on time and attention that should be devoted to his family or studies. There will inevitably emerge a hierarchy, which will then necessitate a hierarchy for the hierarchy.
It removes the recipient from the marketplace, which limits his real time influence and ability to impact another with his real life witness. Real men value nothing higher than ones ability to work and create and provide for a family.
It will reinforce and enable dependence in some who don’t study, independence and isolation in others whose studies conflict with the “chosen one” or are more advanced. It will entirely fail to produce interdependence and unity except by acquiescence to fiat as the growing pains that are normal and necessary in an organism will be suppressed or ignored instead of embraced and studied through.
It fosters a face forward mentality in the congregation which is the antithesis of the given liturgy in 1 Cor 14:26. Our assemblies are to be like our love feasts. Every man brings forth from his own storehouse and shares a portion of what he’s gained with his brothers. Some more depth, some more breadth, but everyone should be sharing the fruits of their studies. I see no better way to encourage and establish men as priests over their own household. Instead of a congregation of priests and young priests in training (each of them able to lead) you will have a structure where the leaders worth is defined by how many dependents he accumulates, rather than how many interdependents he’s mentored and established.
Basically, all the problems I see with Corporate Christianity could conceivably stem from this one act of charity to one who should be the charitable one. Peter, do you love me? Feed from my sheep.
