 |

Home
Church Community
Statement of
Beliefs
Contact Us Search Our Site
Bible
Study Resource
|
 |
 |

Particulars
of Christianity:
312
The Church Ethic
Introduction:
Financial Support for Ministers
The
Importance of Music in Worship
The Church and Going to Church
Ministers, Pastors, and the Calling
(Part 1)
Ministers, Pastors, and the Calling
(Part 2)
Introduction: Financial Support for
Ministers
Financial Support for Ministers (Part
1)
Financial Support for Ministers (Part
2)
Church Leadership and Authority
Conditional
Communal Living
Before
we get into the trenches on this issue, we want to humbly
say a few words on our behalf to avoid any potential ad hominem
argument against us. We are about to embark on a study that
will disprove the doctrine that pastors and ministers should
be paid any form of regular (particularly full-time) salary.
This study will also attempt to show that such salaries are,
in fact, an abuse of their authority (whether they know it
or not). Furthermore, this study will show that Paul believed
(perhaps somewhat prophetically) that such excessive practices
would hinder the Gospel.
Because of the topic, many might suppose that we are simply
selfish people who are unwilling to financially support those
who devote their lives to full time ministry. First of all,
every Christian should devote their life to full-time ministry.
Second, we believe that becoming a leader in the Church is
a personal choice, not a secondary calling from God. (See
our article "Ministers, Pastors, and the Calling.")
But we also want to state up front that as people who grew
up in the Church, from the time we were first employed, we
paid the tithe and gave offerings with every paycheck. For
a time we even embarked upon tithing our time to God. In part,
this lead at different periods of our life to devoting large
chunks out of our schedule and free time to involvement in
various local church ministries. We do not reject the practice
of salaried, full-time ministers because we are selfish or
lazy, but because it is not Biblical as we will now demonstrate.
And it is also necessary for us to preemptively avoid any
straw men arguments against us. So, we will clearly state
our position (which we will prove by the scripture.) First,
there was a different mechanism and level of support for Christian
leaders doing missionary work than for those doing local ministry
to their home congregations.
Second, missionaries had the right to forbear work because
"the laborer was worthy of his reward." The Gospels themselves
demonstrate that missionaries had the right to expect support
from those they were ministering (particularly from a single
household) and the rest of the New Testament also shows that
it was also acceptable (and advantageous) for missionaries
to receive support from other Churches NOT the ones they were
going to "plant" by doing missionary work. The goal of this
was so that they could minister the Gospel without charge
to those they were ministering to. But in either case, their
entitlement was "full" rather than partial, due to the fact
that their displacement, and thus their ability to secure
livelihood, particularly consistent livelihood, was itself
so complete. As we will see, this axiom, "the laborer was
worthy of his reward," was also applied to local leaders,
but for only partial support, since compared to missionaries,
their livelihood was only partially disrupted.
Third, the entire Church of this time participated in an economic
system described for us in Acts (2:44-45, 4:34-35) in which
members at times sold their possessions and brought the proceeds
to the leaders who then redistributed them among the entire
Church according to need. This system was universal for the
whole Church, but it was supplemental and there was a rule
(II Thessalonians 3:10.) He who did not work did not eat,
which meant that if a man did not do what he could to support
himself, he could not draw from the redistribution of the
Church.
Fourth, it was from this weekly distribution that LOCAL Christian
leaders were to receive "double honor" or "double their regular
distribution" IF they did their jobs well particularly labor
in the word and doctrine. So, by this we understand that LOCAL
Christian leaders could only receive SUPPLEMENTARY income
because the entire system was only supplementary in nature.
The distribution was according to need. And, we have no reason
to assume that the rule of II Thessalonians 3:10 would not
apply to leaders as well. To the extent they could provide
for themselves they should. Their reward (or wage), according
to I Timothy 5 was nothing more than being able to take a
double portion of the supplement from the weekly Church distribution.
Fifth, since the modern Church has long since abandoned the
communal and supplemental economy of the first century Church,
there is no basis for using these passages as a basis for
paying local Church leaders full-time salaries. At most, the
could receive supplementary income as a reward for their labor
to the Church. But without that system in place, it is entirely
out of context to maintain only a portion of it. And not to
mention that the portion they want us to maintain has been
greatly elaborated since local Church leaders no longer receive
a double supplement for support, but a full-time salary that
excuses them from working to meet their own needs as much
as possible.
That being said, we do believe that the Bible does support
giving financial support to leaders but the particulars of
the Biblical protocol are quite different from the system
at work in the Church today. So, let no one set up a straw
man argument by asserting that we do not believe any form
of financial support for Church leaders. That is not true.
We do believe the Bible provides for some forms of support,
just not the form we have in the modern Church today.
|
 |
|
 |

|
 |