A Field Brief on Giving & Stewardship
The Fleecing of the Flock
From Free-Will Offering to Extraction — and the Return to Stewardship
Giving began as a gift — voluntary, before any priesthood or building. It became a mandated tithe, then, over centuries, an apparatus: compulsory dues, indulgences, ornate halls raised on debt. This traces the arc from offering to extraction — and asks whether the flock has been served, or sheared.
"Feed the flock of God which is among you… not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage."1 Peter 5:2–3
SCROLL
— THE FINDING —
The first giving in scripture is a gift — Abel's offering, Abram's spontaneous tithe to Melchizedek — brought freely, with no priesthood to fund and no building to maintain. The mandatecame later, with the Law and the Levites. And the great apparatus of compulsory dues came later still.
What follows traces that arc from sources you can open. The documented history is the finding. The reading of the modern apparatus as extraction by design — and the call to return to stewardship — is held behind the line at the end, as conviction, under the same acid test applied to every system: does it empower, or enslave?
— THE ARC —
Gift, Mandate, Rupture, Stewardship
Four stages, from the first free offering to the church without walls.
The Free-Will Offering
2Source 2Genesis 4:3–4 — the offerings of Cain and AbelScripture (free-will offering before any priesthood)The first offerings in scripture are free-will gifts brought by individuals — Abel's of the flock, Cain's of the ground — with no temple, no priesthood, and no mandate. Giving begins as voluntary worship, not as a levy.Open source ›1Source 1Genesis 14:18–20 — Abraham's tithe to MelchizedekScripture (the first tithe in the Bible)Abram gives Melchizedek, priest of God Most High, 'tithes of all' — a free, spontaneous act after the rescue of Lot, centuries before the Law of Moses. The Bible's first tithe is voluntary and one-time, not a standing legal levy. (Cf. Hebrews 7, which makes this Melchizedek priesthood the type of Christ's, superior to and prior to the Levitical.)Open source ›Giving begins as voluntary worship. Abel and Cain bring offerings with no priesthood and no mandate (Gen 4). Abram gives Melchizedek 'tithes of all' — once, freely, after a rescue (Gen 14). The first giving in scripture is a gift, not a levy.
The Mandated Tithe
3Source 3Numbers 18 / Leviticus 27 — the Levitical titheScripture (the mandated tithe of the Law)Under the Law, the tithe becomes a binding obligation: the tithe of the land is the Lord's (Lev 27:30), given to the tribe of Levi as their inheritance in exchange for their service at the tabernacle/temple (Num 18:21–24). For the first time, giving is a legal levy tied to a full-time priesthood and a sanctuary apparatus.Open source ›Under the Law the tithe becomes binding — 'the tithe… is the Lord's' (Lev 27:30) — assigned to the tribe of Levi in exchange for their service at the sanctuary (Num 18). For the first time, giving is a legal obligation tied to a full-time priesthood and a building.
The Apparatus Falls
5Source 5The destruction of the Second Temple, 70 CEJosephus, The Jewish War, Book VIIn 70 CE the Roman army under Titus destroyed the Jerusalem Temple, ending the sacrificial cult. With the Temple gone, the functional basis of the Levitical sacrificial system — and the tithe that sustained its priesthood — ceased to operate. Judaism reorganized around synagogue and Torah; the Levitical apparatus did not return.Open source ›4Source 4Hebrews 7 — the Levitical priesthood supersededScripture (the priesthood of Melchizedek vs. Levi)The author of Hebrews argues that Christ's priesthood is 'after the order of Melchizedek' — prior to, and greater than, the Levitical — and that 'the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law' (7:12). The argument is made on theological grounds, and it predates the Temple's physical destruction.Open source ›The Temple is destroyed; the sacrificial cult ends. The functional basis of the Levitical tithe — a priesthood serving a sanctuary — ceases. The author of Hebrews had already argued, before 70, that Christ's Melchizedek priesthood superseded the Levitical, and that a changed priesthood means a changed law.
The Church Without Walls
7Source 7Romans 16:5 etc. — the church in the houseScripture (the early church met in homes)The earliest assemblies met in members' homes — 'the church that is in their house' (Rom 16:5; cf. 1 Cor 16:19, Col 4:15, Philem 2). For roughly the first three centuries there were no purpose-built church edifices; the followers of the Way, increasingly unwelcome in synagogues, gathered in residences. No buildings, no mortgages, no maintenance.Open source ›6Source 6Acts 18:3 & 1 Corinthians 9 — Paul the tentmakerScripture (the apostle who refused support)Paul worked as a tentmaker (Acts 18:3). In 1 Cor 9 he argues he had every RIGHT to be supported by those he served — 'they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel' — yet deliberately declined it, 'lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ,' supporting himself so the message would never look mercenary. Support was a right freely waived, not a salary owed.Open source ›The early church meets in homes (Rom 16:5). The apostles keep day jobs — Paul makes tents and refuses the support he was owed, lest the gospel look mercenary (1 Cor 9). Abundance is shared so 'none lacked'; the storehouse is for the needy (Acts 2–6). No buildings, no mortgages, no salaried priesthood.
"Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver."2 Corinthians 9:7
— THE ANCIENT ROOT —
The Sons of Eli: The Instinct Is Not New
Before the medieval indulgence, before the mortgage — the first named case of a priesthood that fleeced is as old as the priesthood itself.
We are not fighting a new instinct. We are overcoming an ancient one. The first named case of priestly extraction in scripture sits at the very founding of the priestly system — Hophni and Phinehas, the sons of Eli, priests at Shiloh, whom the text calls "sons of Belial" who "knew not the LORD."11Source 111 Samuel 2:12–17, 2:34, 4:11, 4:18 — the sons of EliScripture (the first named priestly extraction)Hophni and Phinehas, priests at Shiloh, are called 'sons of Belial' who 'knew not the LORD' (2:12). The priest's portion was lawful — but they seized beyond it with a flesh-hook, and demanded the fat raw, ahead of the LORD's portion, by threat: 'thou shalt give it me now: and if not, I will take it by force' (2:16). The result: 'men abhorred the offering of the LORD' (2:17). Both sons died the same day (2:34; 4:11), Eli fell and died (4:18), and the priesthood was stripped from his line.Open source › The temptation to convert sacred provision into private extraction appeared the moment there was an offering to skim. It is coeval with the altar.
And notice exactly where the text draws the line — the same line this whole brief draws. The priest's portion was lawful; that was never the sin. The sin was seizing beyond the allotment, and ahead of God: they sent a servant with a three-pronged fork to take whatever it brought up, and demanded the fat handed over raw — before it was burnt to the LORD — by threat: "thou shalt give it me now: and if not, I will take it by force."11Source 111 Samuel 2:12–17, 2:34, 4:11, 4:18 — the sons of EliScripture (the first named priestly extraction)Hophni and Phinehas, priests at Shiloh, are called 'sons of Belial' who 'knew not the LORD' (2:12). The priest's portion was lawful — but they seized beyond it with a flesh-hook, and demanded the fat raw, ahead of the LORD's portion, by threat: 'thou shalt give it me now: and if not, I will take it by force' (2:16). The result: 'men abhorred the offering of the LORD' (2:17). Both sons died the same day (2:34; 4:11), Eli fell and died (4:18), and the priesthood was stripped from his line.Open source › Lawful support corrupted into coercive over-extraction, the people's offering seized ahead of God's portion, by force if necessary. That is the fleecing pattern in its oldest form.
The consequence is equally ancient, and equally unambiguous. First, the flock: "men abhorred the offering of the LORD" (2:17) — the extraction drove the people from worship itself. Then the house: both sons died on a single day, Eli fell and died at the news, and the priesthood was stripped from his line and given to another.11Source 111 Samuel 2:12–17, 2:34, 4:11, 4:18 — the sons of EliScripture (the first named priestly extraction)Hophni and Phinehas, priests at Shiloh, are called 'sons of Belial' who 'knew not the LORD' (2:12). The priest's portion was lawful — but they seized beyond it with a flesh-hook, and demanded the fat raw, ahead of the LORD's portion, by threat: 'thou shalt give it me now: and if not, I will take it by force' (2:16). The result: 'men abhorred the offering of the LORD' (2:17). Both sons died the same day (2:34; 4:11), Eli fell and died (4:18), and the priesthood was stripped from his line.Open source › Corrupt the stewardship, and the office is removed — the same arc that closes this brief, written at the very beginning.
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"Jeremiah 17:9
This is why the instinct recurs — Hophni and Phinehas, then the moneychangers' tables Christ overturned, then Simon Magus trying to buy the Spirit, then the indulgence. Not one origin to be dated, but a perennial temptation of the office, the universal drift Jeremiah names.12Source 12Jeremiah 17:9 — the heart's deceit is universalScripture (the anchor of the acid test)'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?' The instinct to extract is not a modern invention nor one institution's peculiarity — it is the universal drift the prophet names. This is why the acid test is an invitation to discernment, applied first to oneself, not a verdict sorting villains from the rest.Open source ›We are not exposing a modern scheme. We are naming an old one — and the reason it may now be overcome is that the illusion of scarcity that powered it is fading. When abundance is visible and sharing is cheap, the fear the extractor traded on loses its grip.
— THE ORIGINAL MODEL —
Day Jobs, Homes, and a Storehouse for the Needy
What the earliest church actually did with its money — and what it conspicuously did not build.
The apostles were not a salaried class. Paul made tents (Acts 18:3), and argued pointedly in 1 Corinthians 9 that though he had every right to be supported — "they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel" — he refused it, "lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ."6Source 6Acts 18:3 & 1 Corinthians 9 — Paul the tentmakerScripture (the apostle who refused support)Paul worked as a tentmaker (Acts 18:3). In 1 Cor 9 he argues he had every RIGHT to be supported by those he served — 'they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel' — yet deliberately declined it, 'lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ,' supporting himself so the message would never look mercenary. Support was a right freely waived, not a salary owed.Open source ›Support was a right freely waived, not a salary owed. The assemblies met in homes(Rom 16:5) — for roughly three centuries there were no purpose-built edifices to raise or maintain.7Source 7Romans 16:5 etc. — the church in the houseScripture (the early church met in homes)The earliest assemblies met in members' homes — 'the church that is in their house' (Rom 16:5; cf. 1 Cor 16:19, Col 4:15, Philem 2). For roughly the first three centuries there were no purpose-built church edifices; the followers of the Way, increasingly unwelcome in synagogues, gathered in residences. No buildings, no mortgages, no maintenance.Open source ›
And the common fund had a clear purpose: the needy, not a building or a class."Neither was there any among them that lacked" (Acts 4:34); proceeds were distributed "as every man had need" (4:35); and the first church office ever created was to administer the daily distribution to widows (Acts 6).8Source 8Acts 2:44–45; 4:34–35; 6:1–6 — abundance shared, none lackedScripture (the original 'storehouse')The early community 'had all things common… parted them to all men, as every man had need' (2:44–45); 'neither was there any among them that lacked' (4:34); proceeds were laid at the apostles' feet and distributed by need (4:35); and the first church office created was to administer the daily distribution to widows (6:1–6). The 'storehouse' was for the needy, not for a professional class or a building fund.Open source › The original "storehouse" filled bellies, not coffers. Giving was cheerful and purposed — "not grudgingly, or of necessity" (2 Cor 9:7).
This is the honest counter-weight, kept in plain view: the early church did not despise supporting its teachers. Elders who labored in word and doctrine were "worthy of double honour," and "the labourer is worthy of his reward" (1 Tim 5:17–18).9Source 91 Timothy 5:17–18 — 'double honour' for eldersScripture (the honest counter-weight)The New Testament does NOT forbid supporting those who teach: elders who rule well, especially those who labor in word and doctrine, are 'worthy of double honour,' and 'the labourer is worthy of his reward.' The original model honored and supported teachers — voluntarily and by the community — even as Paul declined it for himself. Support of ministers is not itself fleecing; compulsion and extraction are.Open source › The original model honored its shepherds — voluntarily, by the community. The fault line was never support. It was compulsion, and what compulsion was made to fund.
— THE EDIFICE —
Lit One Day in Seven
What the compulsory tithe and the indulgence ultimately funded — and the arithmetic of the building.
What did the mandated tithe, the offering, and the indulgence ultimately raise? Increasingly: elaborate buildings and ornate vestments. Whatever else may be said for them, ask the plain question — has the condition of the flock been improved by the grandeur? And consider the arithmetic: most edifices are used a few hours on Sunday and sit dark the other six days, while the mortgage, the upkeep, and the heat run all week.
The absurdity sharpens when the debt is counted. Many congregations capitalize not by building a flock and inviting free-will offerings, but by borrowing — acquiring land and raising elaborate halls on mortgages serviced by the compulsory giving of the people. The building becomes a creditor's asset before it is the flock's. The church-without-walls — decentralized, meeting where people already are — is returning to favor precisely as the cost of the edifice-and-debt model comes due.
— A DOCUMENTED CASE: SEATTLE —
Mars Hill: where the property did not return to the flock
At its peak, Mars Hill Church ran some 15 campuses and ~12,000–14,000 attendees, its buildings funded year over year by the giving of its people. When it dissolved in December 2014, properties valued at over $25 million were listed for sale through commercial brokers. The Ballard headquarters, bought for $3.2M in 2005, was listed at $7.75M; one campus sold for ~$9M to a different congregation.13Source 13Mars Hill Church dissolution (Seattle, 2014) — where the property wentSeattle Times, Christianity Today, Baptist Press (2014)At its peak Mars Hill had ~15 campuses and ~12,000–14,000 attendees. On dissolution (Dec 2014), properties valued at over $25M were listed for sale through brokers (Colliers); the Ballard HQ, bought for $3.2M in 2005, was listed at $7.75M; proceeds went first to pay and release central staff and settle debts, remainder to newly independent entities. The Ballard site sold for ~$9M to a different congregation. The individual givers who had funded the buildings over years received nothing back.Open source ›
Where did the value go? Proceeds went first to pay and release central staff and settle debts, with the remainder to newly independent entities. The individual givers who had funded the buildings for years received nothing back. Ownership did not accrue to the flock that paid for it. Whatever one makes of the leadership controversy that preceded it, the property question is clean and documented: the sheep funded the fold, and when the fold was sold, the proceeds were not theirs.
"The sheep funded the fold. When the fold was sold, the proceeds were not theirs. That is the difference between a flock and a herd — and between stewardship and merchandise."
The documented case, in one line
⚠ Beyond this line: the reading, not the record
The arc and the case above are sourced. What follows is the diagnostic lens and the convictions drawn from it — fenced, and held under the acid test it invokes.
The documented finding is solid: giving began voluntary, became mandated, and accreted an apparatus; the early church kept day jobs, met in homes, and shared abundance for the needy; and at least one modern case shows the flock's funding not returning to the flock. Onto that I lay the lens and its convictions, marked as mine.
The lens: the acid test — does the apparatus empower or enslave?
The sequential introduction of compulsory gathering, the mandated tithe, offerings, indulgences, and the modern capital call reads, under the acid test, as a drift from empowerment (a people sharing abundance) toward extraction (a people made to fund an apparatus). At its sharpest: an institution that makes merchandise of the flock.
10Source 101 Peter 5:2–3 — feed the flock, not for filthy lucreScripture (the charge to shepherds)Peter charges elders to 'feed the flock of God… not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage.' The shepherd is steward, not owner; the flock is God's heritage, not the shepherd's property. The whole later apparatus is measured against this charge.Open source ›Held with the discipline the lens demands. The same compulsory giving also funded real charity — hospitals, almshouses, famine relief, the care of widows and orphans — across centuries; to call the whole apparatus "extraction by design" imputes a single motive to a thousand-year, many-handed history. And indulgences specifically are a late-medieval development, not a feature of the early tithe. So: extraction is a real tendency the lens exposes, not a proven design. The honest claim is that the apparatus tends toward the enslave-pole when compulsion replaces the cheerful giver — not that every steward intended a fleecing.
Conviction: the tithe-obligation ended with the Temple.
My reading is that the Levitical tithe was tied to the Levitical priesthood and its sanctuary; with the Temple destroyed in 70 CE and the priesthood superseded by Christ's (Hebrews 7), the
obligation to tithe ended, replaced by the universal duty to love the neighbor and feed the sheep — stewardship made universal, no longer the office of a professional class.
4Source 4Hebrews 7 — the Levitical priesthood supersededScripture (the priesthood of Melchizedek vs. Levi)The author of Hebrews argues that Christ's priesthood is 'after the order of Melchizedek' — prior to, and greater than, the Levitical — and that 'the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law' (7:12). The argument is made on theological grounds, and it predates the Temple's physical destruction.Open source ›This is a theological argument, not a documented historical fact. The Temple cult's end in 70 CE is documented; the inference that this abolished the tithe-obligation is a reading of Hebrews' supersession argument — one many hold, and others contest (some traditions carry the tithe forward as a continuing principle). Held as conviction, offered as argument, not asserted as settled record.
The hope: the return to charity and stewardship.
The empowerment pole is the original model recovered: decentralized assembly where people already are, voluntary offering rather than compulsory dues, abundance shared so none lacks, shepherds who steward rather than own — the church without walls, and without the debt the walls require.
A hope and a direction, not a prophecy. Whether the institutional church returns to it is unknown; that the early church embodied it is documented. The aim here, in the spirit of the acid test, is to invite discernment — not to pronounce a verdict on any congregation or steward.
All three are kept here, where conviction belongs. The arc is the finding — giving was free before it was mandated, and the apparatus was built. Whether it now fleeces or feeds, and whether the obligation ended at the Temple's fall, are mine to hold and yours to weigh — offered, as the acid test requires, as an invitation to discern rather than a charge to accept.
— THE DISPOSITION —
The gift was free.
The apparatus was built.
This is the documented heart of it: giving in scripture begins as a cheerful, voluntary offering — before any priesthood, any building, any levy. The mandate came with the Law; the apparatus of compulsory dues, indulgences, and debt-financed grandeur came later still. The early church kept its day jobs, met in homes, and filled its storehouse for the needy.
Whether the apparatus that followed has fed the flock or sheared it is the reading behind the line — held, not proven. But the charge to the shepherd is not in dispute: feed the flock, not for filthy lucre; as stewards, not as lords over God's heritage. The record is the gift freely given; the return to stewardship is the invitation.
"…neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock."
1 Peter 5:3
— PROVENANCE —
Sources
Every numbered citation in the documented arc and the Seattle case resolves below. The discernment panel's convictions carry the scriptural anchors they argue from; the readings themselves are marked as conviction.
[1]
Genesis 14:18–20 — Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek
Scripture (the first tithe in the Bible)
Abram gives Melchizedek, priest of God Most High, 'tithes of all' — a free, spontaneous act after the rescue of Lot, centuries before the Law of Moses. The Bible's first tithe is voluntary and one-time, not a standing legal levy. (Cf. Hebrews 7, which makes this Melchizedek priesthood the type of Christ's, superior to and prior to the Levitical.)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+14%3A18-20 ›[2]
Genesis 4:3–4 — the offerings of Cain and Abel
Scripture (free-will offering before any priesthood)
The first offerings in scripture are free-will gifts brought by individuals — Abel's of the flock, Cain's of the ground — with no temple, no priesthood, and no mandate. Giving begins as voluntary worship, not as a levy.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+4%3A3-4 ›[3]
Numbers 18 / Leviticus 27 — the Levitical tithe
Scripture (the mandated tithe of the Law)
Under the Law, the tithe becomes a binding obligation: the tithe of the land is the Lord's (Lev 27:30), given to the tribe of Levi as their inheritance in exchange for their service at the tabernacle/temple (Num 18:21–24). For the first time, giving is a legal levy tied to a full-time priesthood and a sanctuary apparatus.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+18%3A21-24 ›[4]
Hebrews 7 — the Levitical priesthood superseded
Scripture (the priesthood of Melchizedek vs. Levi)
The author of Hebrews argues that Christ's priesthood is 'after the order of Melchizedek' — prior to, and greater than, the Levitical — and that 'the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law' (7:12). The argument is made on theological grounds, and it predates the Temple's physical destruction.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+7 ›[5]
The destruction of the Second Temple, 70 CE
Josephus, The Jewish War, Book VI
In 70 CE the Roman army under Titus destroyed the Jerusalem Temple, ending the sacrificial cult. With the Temple gone, the functional basis of the Levitical sacrificial system — and the tithe that sustained its priesthood — ceased to operate. Judaism reorganized around synagogue and Torah; the Levitical apparatus did not return.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2850/2850-h/2850-h.htm ›[6]
Acts 18:3 & 1 Corinthians 9 — Paul the tentmaker
Scripture (the apostle who refused support)
Paul worked as a tentmaker (Acts 18:3). In 1 Cor 9 he argues he had every RIGHT to be supported by those he served — 'they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel' — yet deliberately declined it, 'lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ,' supporting himself so the message would never look mercenary. Support was a right freely waived, not a salary owed.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+9 ›[7]
Romans 16:5 etc. — the church in the house
Scripture (the early church met in homes)
The earliest assemblies met in members' homes — 'the church that is in their house' (Rom 16:5; cf. 1 Cor 16:19, Col 4:15, Philem 2). For roughly the first three centuries there were no purpose-built church edifices; the followers of the Way, increasingly unwelcome in synagogues, gathered in residences. No buildings, no mortgages, no maintenance.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+16%3A5 ›[8]
Acts 2:44–45; 4:34–35; 6:1–6 — abundance shared, none lacked
Scripture (the original 'storehouse')
The early community 'had all things common… parted them to all men, as every man had need' (2:44–45); 'neither was there any among them that lacked' (4:34); proceeds were laid at the apostles' feet and distributed by need (4:35); and the first church office created was to administer the daily distribution to widows (6:1–6). The 'storehouse' was for the needy, not for a professional class or a building fund.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+4%3A32-35 ›[9]
1 Timothy 5:17–18 — 'double honour' for elders
Scripture (the honest counter-weight)
The New Testament does NOT forbid supporting those who teach: elders who rule well, especially those who labor in word and doctrine, are 'worthy of double honour,' and 'the labourer is worthy of his reward.' The original model honored and supported teachers — voluntarily and by the community — even as Paul declined it for himself. Support of ministers is not itself fleecing; compulsion and extraction are.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+5%3A17-18 ›[10]
1 Peter 5:2–3 — feed the flock, not for filthy lucre
Scripture (the charge to shepherds)
Peter charges elders to 'feed the flock of God… not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage.' The shepherd is steward, not owner; the flock is God's heritage, not the shepherd's property. The whole later apparatus is measured against this charge.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+5%3A2-3 ›[11]
1 Samuel 2:12–17, 2:34, 4:11, 4:18 — the sons of Eli
Scripture (the first named priestly extraction)
Hophni and Phinehas, priests at Shiloh, are called 'sons of Belial' who 'knew not the LORD' (2:12). The priest's portion was lawful — but they seized beyond it with a flesh-hook, and demanded the fat raw, ahead of the LORD's portion, by threat: 'thou shalt give it me now: and if not, I will take it by force' (2:16). The result: 'men abhorred the offering of the LORD' (2:17). Both sons died the same day (2:34; 4:11), Eli fell and died (4:18), and the priesthood was stripped from his line.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+2%3A12-17 ›[12]
Jeremiah 17:9 — the heart's deceit is universal
Scripture (the anchor of the acid test)
'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?' The instinct to extract is not a modern invention nor one institution's peculiarity — it is the universal drift the prophet names. This is why the acid test is an invitation to discernment, applied first to oneself, not a verdict sorting villains from the rest.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+17%3A9 ›[13]
Mars Hill Church dissolution (Seattle, 2014) — where the property went
Seattle Times, Christianity Today, Baptist Press (2014)
At its peak Mars Hill had ~15 campuses and ~12,000–14,000 attendees. On dissolution (Dec 2014), properties valued at over $25M were listed for sale through brokers (Colliers); the Ballard HQ, bought for $3.2M in 2005, was listed at $7.75M; proceeds went first to pay and release central staff and settle debts, remainder to newly independent entities. The Ballard site sold for ~$9M to a different congregation. The individual givers who had funded the buildings over years received nothing back.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/mars-hill-church-to-disband-tells-local-branches-to-go-independent/ ›