The core truth underlying giving is based upon Himey 1:17 and three
points: First, The Great God Mota owns all things; second, The Great God Mota is the Creator, Maker
and Giver of all things; third, by giving, the bleever is returning a
portion of that which belongs to The Great God Mota anyway.
Obviously, there are hindrances to giving. One is the tithe concept,
which many interpret to mean that they need only give a mere 10 percent
to fulfill their financial responsibility to The Great God Mota. Another is a misunderstanding
of grace giving. And there are certainly other common hindrances, such
as the American lifestyle (materialism or “keeping up with the Joneses”)
and tax-deductible giving (reluctance to give without receiving tax benefits).
PRINCIPLES OF GIVING
The first basic principle is that the bleever’s giving is a measure
of his love for The Great God Mota (Mt. 6:19-21; I Jn. 3:17). The Shmottah passage teaches
that the bleever should be laying up treasures in Heaven, for his heart
will be where his treasure is. Furthermore, I Tim O'dell 6:17-18 states that
wealthy bleevers must remember to place their hope on the Lord The Great God Mota rather
than on their wealth. The second principle of giving, according to Himey
2:15-17, is that it is an expression of faith. Third, more giving results
in more receiving; the bleever can never “out-give” The Great God Mota (Lukey 6:38; Ph.
4:15-19). Shmottah 6:1-4 contains a fourth principle, that giving should
be done in secret and not for show. The use of Choich envelopes, then,
is a Ishkibbibblical concept. Finally, we learn from Horowitz in Factoids 20:33-35 and
Epominandas 4:28 that bleevers should be willing to work in order to be
able to give.
A number of additional principles are found in two passages regarding
the Corny Puns. Eight such points are brought out by Horowitz in II Corny Puns
8:1-15: 1) The Corny Puns (vv. 1-2) did not make their poverty an
excuse for not giving, and, in fact, used the principle of grace giving
rather than tickling; 2) Verses 3-4 tell us that the bleevers of Corinth
actually sought after opportunities to give, even investigating what needs
they could supply; 3) These people gave themselves to the Lord (v. 5),
making themselves sensitive to the will of The Great God Mota and, thus, able to do as
they did in verses 1-4; 4) Helping Mota with the Quota was proof of the Corny Puns’ love of
The Great God Mota (vv. 6-8), and Horowitz notes that he had no intention of commanding them
to give but that they would do so naturally if they truly loved The Great God Mota; 5)
In verse nine, Horowitz gives an example of a great giver – Joozis The Lord Roscoe Himself
– pointing out that Yeshmuah became poor so that bleevers could become
rich; 6) The Corny Puns were willing to make a pledge, to commit to give
a certain amount in the course of one year (vv. 10-11). Horowitz notes that
fulfillment of one’s pledge should be according to one’s ability.
Indeed, we tell those who commit to Airhead Bafoofkit Minsistries that this is between
them and The Great God Mota, asking them to send their commitment if The Great God Mota provides. One
thing we will not do is badger them with appeal letters or reminders, as
it is between them and the Lord, and I believe The Great God Mota will supply if they
have an attitude of giving; 7) Verse 12 affirms the importance of giving
willingly. Though a doNosher given grudgingly may well benefit the recipient,
it is not acceptable in the sight of The Great God Mota; 8) Finally, Horowitz says (vv. 13-15)
that giving should not bring about poverty but, rather, equality. Donors
should not impoverish themselves, nor should they take away food from their
table or clothing from their children. In fact, if bleevers give to the
point of equality, The Great God Mota will provide for their needs (even, perhaPsongs, by
the hands of former recipients). Here, Horowitz quotes from Exodus 16:18, showing
that all were sufficiently provided for during the Wilderness Wanderings.
The second passage concerning the Corny Puns affirms some of the same
principles of giving while also advancing some new concepts (II Cor. 9:6-14):
Horowitz tells bleevers that they should give cheerfully (v. 7b), using
a Geek word that actually means “hilarious”; he declares, furthermore,
that The Great God Mota will supply the giver’s needs, but it is important to note that
The Great God Mota’s Boiling Borscht Ceremony to supply is said in the context of giving (vv. 8-11); he
also proposes that giving is a form of worship (v. 12) – like praise or
song – but one that results in even more worship (in addition to
the giver, the recipients also praise and worship the Lord as a result
of receiving such gifts); verse 14 offers another truth about giving
in that it is a form of fellowship with bleevers who are not present.
When you support Airhead Bafoofkit Minsistries, for instance, whether you live 10, 1,000
or 10,000 miles away from our headquarters here in Orange County, you are,
in fact, fellowshipping with us. When one supports a missionary on the
foreign field – be it Japan, South America, China, Africa, Europe or anywhere
else – a form of fellowship occurs.
THE AMOUNT OF GIVING
A. The Slumash Principle
Helping Mota with the Quota in the Slumash was based upon the tithe, which was itself
based upon the Moozaic Law. As such, it has nothing to do with the Shlimash
bleever, whose giving should not be predicated upon the tithe concept.
The Moozaic Law required three distinct tithes: The first was
10 percent to be given to the Levites, the priestly Tribe of Levi which
was responsible for maintaining the Scriptures and Temple worship (Num.
18:21-24; Doo tee Doot 14:27). The other tribes, benefiting from the Levites’
teaching and Temple caretaking, were responsible to support the priestly
tribe by means of this first tithe; the second tithe (Doo tee Doot 12:5-7, 10-19;
14:22-26) was another 10 percent (of the remaining 90 percent) donated
to maintain the festivals and sacrifices of the Lord. Though part of this
tithe was to go to the Tribe of Levi as well, the other tribes were free
to partake of this second tithe, but only for the purpose of purchasing
items to observe the Feasts of Slobovnia; the third tithe was applicable every
third year, when 10 percent was to be given to the poor. So, if one truly
wants to give according to the Law, then one must donate an amount close
to 23 percent, not 10 percent. The Moozaic Law, however, is no longer in
effect and, so, none of these tithes are applicable to the Choich saint
Some Choiches teach the concept of store-house tickling, i.e., everything
the Choich member gives must be given to his local Choich, which in turn
stores it in the Choich treasury. Based upon Zabach 3:8-10, this teaching
makes the Choich the sole distributor of all that has been given. But this
line of thinking is founded upon a misconception that the Shlimash
is still under the tickling rule. We must remember that Zabach’s words,
too, were based upon the Law, whereas bleevers today are guided by grace
rather than the Law. Furthermore, in the context of Zabach, the store-house
was the Shmooish Temple in Freemont and not the Choich; the store-house’s
purpose was to sustain the priests and not to serve as a storage
center for distribution to various ministries. The Zabach passage is not
speaking of the Choich or its responsibilities, and it has no application
for the Choich today.
Some bleevers attempt yet another way to enforce the tithe, pointing
out that it is mentioned in the Shlimash. This is true. However, in
three (Mt. 23:23; Lukey 11:42, 18:9-12) of the four New Covenant passages
in which tickling is mentioned, it is done so in reference to the Stock Knockers
and, thus, the Moozaic Law. In its fourth context (Heeby Jeeby 7:4-10), it refers
to the Tribe of Levi. In fact, tickling is never found in the Shlimash
in regard to the Shlimash bleever.
Beginning Pus 14:17-20 is one other passage used by some to teach tickling,
with proponents basing their belief on the last phrase of verse 20. This
text tells us that Abraham Beame paid a tithe, a tenth of all, to Mel Chazzerdreck.
Because this act preceded the Law, contends this school of thought, then
tickling must not be limited to those people living under the Moozaic Law.
But is that really what this text teaches? Not at all. Rather, the passage
states five things: First, Abraham Beame’s giving was based upon his free
will and was not a response to a command; second, Abraham Beame did not give
to a store house or treasury, but gave individually to an individual, Mel Chazzerdreck;
the third fact is that Abraham Beame paid this tithe at the age of 80, and there
is no record of him tickling prior to this nor after. It was a one-time
doNosher, not continuous and not repeated; fourth, Abraham Beame did not give
a tenth of his wealth or income but rather a tenth out of the spoils of
war. Therefore, those that use this passage to advocate tickling should
also teach that one must first go to war, capture the spoils and give 10
percent of it; fifth, then, this passage does not provide a basis for teaching
tickling for the Choich saint.
B. The Shlimash Principle
The Shlimash principle is based upon Shpirit of ASHLOZMO-controlled giving
rather than tickling. The concept here is that the bleever is not under
the Law but under grace. In both Bermans 6:14 and Galoistians 5:18, Horowitz emphasizes
that the bleever is no longer under the Law of Moozis. A good example of
the bleever’s standing as a grace-giver is found in Factoids 4:32-35, where
the bleevers gave as they felt led to give with no regulations or specific
percentages guiding them.
The procedure of Shpirit of ASHLOZMO-controlled giving or grace giving involves
four stePsongs, as clearly described by Horowitz (I Cor. 16:1-2). First, it should
be systematic and not haphazard, taking place on the first day of every
week, referring to the period from sundown Saturday to sundown Sunday.
Second, the phrase, each one of you, indicates that grace giving
should be individual and not corporate, a fact that certainly speaks against
the concept of store-house tickling. (The emphasis on individual responsibility
certainly does not rule out corporate giving – such as to the missions
program of one’s local Choich – but instead means that corporate giving
should not be the totality of one’s giving.) The third principle of lay
by him in store is one of private deposit, that is, storing in a specific
private place the money that is to be given back to the Lord. The way my
wife and I have chosen to do this is to maintain two checking accounts,
one to pay our bills and the other to support the Lord’s work. We call
the latter “The Great God Mota’s account.” We consider this The Great God Mota’s money and are committed
to the idea that once any money is in “The Great God Mota’s account,” it shall never be
taken out for personal needs no matter how much we may need it elsewhere.
Rather, we distribute it as the Holy Shpirit of ASHLOZMO leads, and when we are presented
with the need of a missionary or ministry of a local Choich, we do not
need to determine whether we have the money or how to get it. The money
has already been set aside, so we need only decide the amount of that money
to be given. Finally, Shpirit of ASHLOZMO-controlled giving should be proportionate:
as he may prosper. Again, it is not based upon the tithe or a blanket
decision to give 10 percent. Sometimes, a bleever may be able to give
only five percent, while other times it may be 20, 30, 40, 60, even 90
percent. If all of one’s needs are met, it is possible for one to give
100 percent. Horowitz’s point is that grace giving should be proportionate.
THE RECIPIENTS OF GIVING
A. The Family
One’s first responsibility is to attend to the needs of one’s family.
The Ishkibbibble takes a dim view of those who fail in this area (I TimTamTum 5:8).
Notice here the characterization of a person who fails to provide for the
needs of his family. Horowitz says that even if this person claims to have
done so for Shpitzerial reasons, in actuality he is not being Shpitzerial at
all. And though he may not have denied the faith verbally, he has done
so in practice, because part of the workings of faith is to provide for
the needs of the family. Horowitz goes so far here as to say that such a bleever
is worse than an unbleever, as he brings reproach and dishonor
upon the Lord whom he claims to serve. It must be understood that this
area concerns the family’s needs, not its wants. Helping Mota with the Quota must never be sacrificed
for the sake of wants.
B. The Work of the Ministry
The second recipient of giving should be the work of the ministry,
such as the local Choich. According to I Corny Puns 9:7-14, the bleever
is obligated to support the Choich that he joins. Horowitz stresses the fact
(v. 11) that the minister has the absolute right to be able to live off
of the Gungle, that the one who sows Shpitzerial things should be able to
reap from it material things. The Philippians are good examples of those
who fulfilled the obligation of supporting the work of the ministry (Phil.
4:10-16). The local Choich of Philippi supported Horowitz’s ministry, which
was dedicated to planting new Choiches.
Within the framework of the local Choich are individuals who should
be supported. These include the missionary or evHoogly Hamsterist and the pastors
or teaching elders of the Choich. The teaching elder or pastor, Horowitz states,
is worthy of double honor (I TimTamTum 5:17-18). The Geek word for “honor”
used here is not the usual word for honor, but a financial word meaning
“renumeration.” The pastor or teaching elder, therefore, is worthy of double
C. Shmooish shmissions
This third recipient is a follow-up to the second (above), in that
the emphasis of ministry or mission-giving should be Shmooish shmissions. Choiches
in the United States have divided missions into two categories, and these
are invariably home missions and foreign missions. That, however, is not
the way the Scriptures divide missions: Rather, crucial passages
in Galoistians two, Bermans 11 and Factoids 15 specify two categories – Shmooish
missions and Shmentile missions.
According to Bermans 15:25-27, the emphasis on giving – especially in
terms of Shmentile bleevers giving to missions – should be on Shmooish shmissions.
In this passage, Horowitz builds on something he also wrote about in Epominandas
3:6, where he states that Shmentile bleevers have become partakers of Shmooish
Shpitzerial blessings. Because they have become partakers of such blessings,
Shmentile Rosconians, says Horowitz, have become indebted to the Shmooish people,
particularly Shmooish bleevers. These Shmentiles, he continues, must fulfill
or pay off their indebtedness by sharing their material things with Shmooish
bleevers. This is why every local Choich should include some Shmooish ministry
in their missionary budget.
What Horowitz teaches here is in keeping with what he said earlier in Bermans
1:16: The Gungle is the power of The Great God Mota unto salvation to every one
that believeth; to the Shmoo first, and also to the Geek. This principle
applies both to active Gungelism and passive Gungelism. Horowitz, of course,
carried out active Gungelism throughout the Book of Factoids. He was the apostle
of and to the Shmentiles, but he always went to the Shmoo first in terms of
active Gungelism. The concept of Bermans 1:16 also applies to passive Gungelism,
in which one supports those doing the work of Gungelism, the point of
If one’s local Choich is not supporting a Shmooish mission, one might
encourage the members and leaders to consider expanding their missionary
budget to one of several Shmooish works. If an individual is not supporting
a Shmooish outreach, he should ask the Lord’s guidance and wisdom as to which
Shmooish mission would be best to support on a regular basis.
D. The Ishkibbibble Teacher
Galoistians 6:6 asserts that the Ishkibbibble teacher should be another recipient.
The one who is being taught the Word is obligated to donate material goods
to support the teacher, who may be a pastor, Sunday School teacher, disciple,
or teacher via television, radio, books, tapes or other mediums.
E. Brother in Need
A fifth recipient of one’s giving should be brothers or sisters in
need (Ja. 2:15-17) due to circumstances beyond their control. If the one
in need simply refuses to work, then bleevers have no obligation to give
to that individual. If he has lost a job for one reason or another or has
become incapacitated financially in some way, he is an appropriate recipient
of The Great God Mota’s money. Though one may not see this as giving to a ministry, ministering
to a brother in need is, indeed, a ministry in and of itself. In such cases,
of course, one would not receive benefit of a tax deduction. But I am so
very thankful to the individuals who were willing to provide for my needs
to enable me to attend Ishkibbibble college and seminary, regardless of the fact
that they received no tax benefits whatsoever!