Who should be paid to serve in the church?

I was asked to write an answer to this question because of some thoughts I’ve developed over the years but have never written down. Quite frankly, I am hesitant to write them down now. I am confident that my words will hit a sore spot in the church today. I am writing nonetheless, and, actually, for that very reason. Not to ignite division, but to challenge us to see something about ourselves that may not be healthy. This is a very critical question for the church to ask today. In order to approach this subject with cooler heads and calmer hearts, may I suggest we commit ourselves to addressing this from the New Testament rather than from our traditions, practical challenges and emotional bias. Can we read the New Testament as if we never read it before?

 

---

Can we consider this question as if we did not have 2000 years of history weighing in on our perspective? Can we ask this question divorced from the concern of where our next paycheck will come from or worrying about career choices and educational investments? Is this an impossible request? Yes, probably, but we should at least try.

It is my personal belief that much of our theology of church financing is dictated by two things. We are heavily influenced by the Old Testament principles of supporting a centralized religious government, and secondly, by our own need to support a new centralized religious institution. Frankly, I believe we draw much from the Old Testament for the very reason that we need to support a centralized religious institution and the New Testament is found lacking in that regard. Not that the New Testament is lacking in content about finances, in fact principles of financial stewardship is voluminous in the New Testament. Jesus spoke more about money than about heaven and hell, but the New Testament does away with the centralized religious institution. All of us are priests. All are servants empowered by the anointing of the Holy Spirit for the work of the ministry.

As I have studied the New Testament with this question in mind I have discovered that there are only two roles that are expected to make their living being supported by the church. If we could only pay two roles in the church today, which would we choose? Senior pastors and missionaries? Pastors and worship leaders? Denominational executives and pastors? Push comes to shove, I’d probably want to include a gifted secretary in the mix, but that’s more reflective of my own weakness than of any understanding of the Bible. I am confident that whatever two roles we would choose, they would not be the two mentioned in the New Testament.

The role of the apostle. In 1 Corinthians 9 Paul makes a case for his right to make his living from the gospel just as the other apostles do. He even cites the Lord as the source of the directive (v. 14) perhaps a reference to his commissioning of the twelve and the seventy to take no purse with them for a laborer is worthy of his wages (Matt. 10:9-10; Luke 10:4).

Paul and Barnabas, however, forgo their right for such payment and choose rather to work to support themselves. Paul worked as a tentmaker while starting the church in Corinth at least until others arrived to help in the support so as not to be a burden to the emerging church.

The purpose of this article does not allow for a full explanation of the role of an apostle. It is enough to note that this particular passage makes reference to proclaiming the gospel to those who have not yet been won to Christ. Apostolos, the Greek word translated “apostle” means one sent on a mission as a representative or a special envoy. They are the ones to lay a foundation for the expanding church in every region and among every tribe and nation.

Such a role is not limited to a single church in a given region, but is commissioned to church an entire region. They are not likely to manage an existing church, but lay the foundation for others to build upon...and then are likely to go do it again somewhere else.

This role is actually defined as having a “right” to make a living from the preaching of the good news (vv. 3-9). It is important to note, however, that this right can be laid aside and surrendered for the sake of the church as Paul and Barnabas chose to do. This right should never be demanded at the detriment of the church. Have we hurt the church by making her responsible to employ her leaders like a business? I believe the answer to this question is yes, in many ways. Besides draining her of resources, perhaps the worst detriment is how we have segregated the body into a professional class that does the ministry and a nonprofessional class that works hard to pay them. The old joke is that the clergy are paid to be good and the laity is good for nothing. The joke is only funny because it hits a nerve of reality in our experience.

The widow indeed. The second role defined in the New Testament as needing full time support is what Paul calls the “widow indeed” in 1 Timothy 5:3-16. Paul delineates clearly what the qualifications are for this role and what the job description is. She is to be at least 60 years old, have no family to support her and to have been faithful in serving the Lord and His people. It appears as though she is to actually make a pledge to serve the Lord and not to be remarried, and for this reason younger women are exempt from this role. Her sole job description is to continually pray, night and day.

With God’s plan, not only is a woman without means granted stable provision, but perhaps even better, the church is blessed with constant prayer bombarding the throne of God! This has got to be a powerful partnership. Not only is this woman given financial support, but she is also granted a meaningful purpose for her remaining days. She is given a privilege of great significance.

Wow. I wonder what our churches would be like if we had apostles starting churches all the time in new areas and among new peoples, and the churches were supported by fulltime prayer warriors—night and day! I can’t think of a better investment in kingdom resources. Church would actually be investing in spiritual endeavors of kingdom expansion and we would be investing in spiritual battle with fulltime prayers and intercession. In this cast-aside society where people are routinely brushed off as not valuable because of a lack of vocation or a handicap of sorts, this principle could make a huge difference. In God’s economy there are no useless Christians who are welfare cases. An elderly, arthritic woman who can barely rise to answer the door, is an extremely valued servant who is needed to breakdown walls of separation, destroy spiritual strongholds and set captives free! She has a calling on her life and is supported full time to serve in this way. I can see why Satan would want for us to get away from such a function. He’d much rather we pay a fulltime staff person to keep our youth entertained and focused while the adults have fellowship and teaching. Could it be that the enemy is more threatened by this old woman than the highly educated professional pastor! Ouch.

Paul makes one thing clear in this passage that he also made a point of in 1 Cor. 9—the role is not to be a burden to the church if it can be helped (v. 16). We’ve grown accustomed to seeing the church as a burden to the pastor, but Paul saw things the other way around.

Double honor to the preachers and teachers. Paul does go on to mention giving “double honor” to elders, and especially those that work hard at preaching and teaching. I am in favor of giving honor and double honor to godly elders who shepherd, mentor and teach the churches. But I have a hard time interpreting “double honor” as a full-time salary and benefits. We have come up with the word “honorarium” based on this expression in the New Testament. When we present a speaker with a financial token of appreciation I actually think we are closer to Paul’s intent in this passage.

To be fair, Paul does refer to a “worker worthy of his wages” which is a quote from the Old Testament and from Jesus as well, however, it is probably in reference to paying for a day’s hire rather than a yearly salary. We should definitely be generous in sharing all good things with those who teach us (Gal. 6:6), but the goal is always the strengthening of the church, not the sapping of her strength. I also think we are rather limited and uncreative if we think that money is the only thing that we should give to those who teach us well.

I think that the principle of the New Testament is to release the servant to be able to fulfill a specific need in the church. I also think that the precedent is that the servant will have already been performing the service before the honor is given, rather than becoming a condition of service in advance.

What about pastors? Should we pay pastors to shepherd the church? We have so many godly people who would be without income if we put a stop to this. So many have spent lots of money and went deep into debt to prepare themselves professionally to be pastors. What would become of this investment if we no longer paid pastors?

The scope of this article will not allow us to satisfactorily cover this question. I will however say this: it is in the context of shepherding sheep that our Lord Himself makes a contrast between those who are true shepherds and those who are merely hirelings. If you’re not willing to shepherd the flock without pay, then you’re not qualified to do so for pay. If you can’t lay your paycheck down for the sheep, you certainly won’t lay your life down for them.

In the context of organic churching, where churches are intentionally smaller, more intimate and rapidly reproducing, there is not need to pay someone to pastor. The bar for ministry is down low enough that it is easy to shepherd 10 to 20 people without needing to be paid to do so. In such a context, the whole body is more easily mobilized to serve and ministry is not as dependent on a single professional leader.

While it is not a sin for a church to employ someone, I do think it may not be the best investment of kingdom resources. It is investing in our weaknesses and throwing more fuel on the separation of the clergy and laity, which is a dichotomy not found in the New Testament. A huge pool of anointed, under appreciated and certainly underused servants are sitting in pews every week. Some of them may be in their 70’s retired and feeling useless, just waiting for their trip home. Perhaps its time we look at the church in a different light and start asking some critical questions.

Neil Cole
Long Beach, CA
December 2001

Написать комментарий