Bob, are there more particulars that the rejected candidate articulated as to what he thought should be done with the agreed upon percentage? I mean, was it really that far off the mark of decency, or even downright evil, what he proposed? Was his plan geared toward those agreed upon percentages flow into the general fund to be handled by himself, or was the intent to build up support for the needy? That's the question in my mind. If it was for the general fund, then that is potentially suspect, but if for the meeting of needs, the scriptures exemplify the fact that the MAJORITY of the people's giving SHOULD be for the meeting of needs BEFORE the building, its bills, staffing, etc., ONLY if that giving by the members is earmarked as that which they are "giving to the Lord." Just curious about the intent.
Thanks, brother. MM