A Response to “Pagan Christianity?”
3.9 Chapter 8 Review – Tithing and Clergy Salaries: Sore Spots on the Wallet
In Chapter 8, Viola and Barna address two separate issues: tithing and the payment of pastors. On the matter of tithing, I basically agree with them. I do not believe that giving 10% of one’s income to the church is a New Testament obligation, although I think we can apply the fundamental principles underlying Old Testament tithing to the church today. In the New Testament, the imperative is to give generously from the heart, not out of compulsion (2 Corinthians 9:7). On the matter of paying pastors, however, we are not in agreement. I have already given a brief Biblical case for the financial support of elders by the congregation (see section 3.6, my review of chapter 5). By contrast, Viola and Barna confidently assert that “Elders (shepherds) in the first century were not salaried.” They object to paid elders on the basis that it “elevates them above the rest of God’s people” and that “when the church functions as she should, a professional clergy becomes unnecessary.” Because they do not see the pastor as occupying a defined “office” in the church, they do not understand him as having any particular work to do that would warrant pay. I have already addressed these objections. What’s more interesting is how Viola and Barna respond to the traditional Biblical case made for the payment of pastors for their labours. We will consider this below.
Viola and Barna have thus far proven themselves very hesitant to deal substantially with the text of Holy Scripture, so you can imagine my surprise and delight to find they have, in this case, actually attempted to do so (even if it is a very poor attempt). In addressing 1 Timothy 5:17-18, they try to deny that “double honour” carries any implication of payment. Let’s remind ourselves of the text:
17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The labourer deserves his wages.”
They want to understand the quotations in verse 18 to be merely analogies or parallel illustrations of the statement in verse 17, rather than providing any insight into the nature of the “double honour” that is due to elders. They say, “Just as the working ox deserves corn, and just as the laborer deserves payment, the elder who cares for God’s people well deserves “double honor,” that is, greater respect.” Thus, they limit “double honour” to mean nothing more than respect. But this is not convincing. Let us explore why.
First, consider what is said in verse 17. The elders especially deserving of double honour “labour in preaching and teaching”. When someone is undergoing “labour”, or “toil” for someone, the obvious implication is that some form of compensation (or payment) is owed, as a matter of justice. It would be to profoundly dishonour the labourer to refuse to give the compensation that justice demands. I do not intend to limit the concept of honour to payment. It certainly means more than that, but in this context, I cannot believe it means less than that. To honour[1] the labourer with double honour, then, would suggest generous compensation, perhaps even beyond the demands of mere justice.
This is reinforced when we look at the use of the same word earlier in the chapter. Verse 3 of 1 Timothy 5 reads, “Honour widows who are truly widows.” On its own, this statement would not necessarily imply that honouring of windows would have anything to do with providing material support, but the next verses make this explicit. “True” widows, in Paul’s argument, are those who are “left all alone” and live piously (verse 5). Faithful, elderly widows are to be “enrolled” to receive support from the church (verse 9). Younger widows should remarry (verse 14) and those with female relatives should be cared for by those relatives (verse 16). Paul concludes in verse 16, saying “Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows.” Thus, the honouring of “true” widows in verse 3 is directly connected with them receiving special material support from the church. With this as its immediate context, the “double honour” deserved by elders in verse 17 would very naturally be read as something of the same category, only intensified because the honour owed is now “double”.
It is also a mistake to understand the two quotations supplied by Paul in isolation from how they are applied elsewhere in Scripture. Both have direct implications for the material support of gospel ministers. “The labourer deserves his wages” is a direct quote from Luke 10:7. In context, the passage applies to the seventy-two disciples that Jesus sends out to minister in the towns. The disciples are to stay with supportive locals and live off the food and drink provided by them: “And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the labourer deserves his wages.” The quotation is a general principle, like a proverb, which Jesus applies to his disciples. The disciples are laborers in the harvest, and they are due payment, in the form of support for their material needs, in return for their work of ministry. Knowing this background, the direct applicability of this principle to the elders in Timothy’s situation is obvious and unavoidable. Those who benefit from the work of ministry should supply the needs of those who minister.
The quotation about the ox comes from Deuteronomy 25:4, and in context is a civil law concerning agricultural practices in Old Covenant Israel. The idea seems to be that the ox as it labours in the field (“treading out the grain”) has a right to benefit from that labour by eating some of the grain. This clearly reflects a deeper, universal, moral principle with implications far beyond oxen. Paul clearly understands the passage in this way. In 1 Corinthians 9, he explains that he has a right to receive material support from those to whom he ministers, though for the sake of his ministry, he chooses not to demand his rights. He appeals to Deuteronomy 25:4 to support his case. He writes:
8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the ploughman should plough in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?
Paul is clear in his application of the principle. In verse 13, he further refers to those who minister in the temple receiving food from the temple. Paul makes clear that the same principle should apply to New Covenant ministry as well (v. 14): “In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.” Thus, the general principle is abundantly clear and undeniable. And yet, ever eager to deny the plain teaching of Scripture, Viola and Barna insist that this principle only applies to those whom they call “apostolic workers”, by which they mean itinerant church planters. Only they, Viola and Barna claim, are entitled to “receive full financial support” unlike local elders.[2] And yet, Paul makes no such distinction. The principle he is drawing upon is extremely broad in scope: applying to oxen just as well to ploughmen and temple priests. Thus, to limit to limit the application of these principles to apostles only, would be to fundamentally deny the foundation of Paul’s argument. And if we needed any further evidence that Paul would apply this principle to elders, we need only return to 1 Timothy 5:18, where the principle is explicitly invoked in the case of elders.
Further support for this idea is, of course, found in Galatians 6:6: “Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches.” Viola and Barna try to soften this passage by claiming that it only allows for the giving “free-will offerings … from time to time”. But no reason can be found in the passage itself to limit this principle in this way.
I want to finally address one more passage that Viola and Barna point to, that supposedly indicates that elders should not receive payment. This is Paul’s advice to the elders of Ephesus in Acts 20:33-35. He says:
33 I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. 34 You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. 35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
Here, Paul is advising the elders of Ephesus to minister selflessly and follow his example of working for his living, so that he does not place a burden on the churches whom he serves. It is clear from 1 Corinthians 9 that, in saying this, he would not deny that it would be right for gospel ministers to make a living from the gospel. This passage only shows that there would be cases where it would be advisable for elders to be “bi-vocational” as we might call it today. This passage fits perfectly with my position. Scripture does not require elders to accept material support from their churches, only that churches should make support available wherever possible. It may often be the case, in smaller and poorer churches, that full support cannot be provided to pastors, necessitating that the pastors work secular jobs as well. That may be acceptable according to New Testament principles.
Thus, from this study, we should be able to see without any doubt that Scripture does expect the work of the New Testament elder to be materially supported by the congregation. An elder is free to turn down such support and supply his own needs, in imitation of the apostle Paul, but that is an exception, not the rule. To what extent or by what means first century elders were actually compensated for their labours is not revealed in Scripture, but the principles outlined in Scripture have clear application to today’s churches. If a modern church has the means to do so, their pastors should certainly be paid as just compensation for their labour.
[1] It is interesting to note that the Greek word for “honour” here (τιμης) is linguistically related to the idea of monetary value. Its first and most literal meaning is “a valuing, a price”; that is, literal monetary value. This then becomes applied by analogy to the more abstract concept of esteem or honour. We use the word “value” similarly in English. This obviously does not prove that money is involved wherever τιμης is used (it usually isn’t!), but it does show that the concepts are not as unrelated as Viola and Barna would have us think. A Greek reader, it would seem, would easily associate the idea of honour with payment. See: See: Bible Hub. (n.d.) 5092. timé. https://biblehub.com/greek/5092.htm
[2] One has to think this highly convenient. Frank Viola seems to fancy himself as an “apostolic worker”, so of course he deserves financial support, while local elders do not!
Next Section: 3.10 Chapter 9 Review – Baptism and the Lord’s Supper: Diluting the Sacrament
0 Comments