And yet, Paul said in the New Testament in relation to "the elders that rule well",
1 Timothy 5:17-18
Therefore, there was an obligation on the part of those who are NOT "elders who rule", to supply "honour" to give to those elders, which was to be the same as the "corn" allowed to the oxen who did the threshing, and the "reward" (translated in the OT as "hire") given to the laborer.
Barnabas and Paul were given the right not to hold a job, because they were given a salaried position:
1 Corinthians 9:
Therefore, if we receive spiritual things from a minister of the gospel, we owe wages to him, in carnal things.
Paul also said that he did a wrong to the Corinthian church, in not allowing them to support him financially.
2 Corinthians 12:13
Look! This actually made the Corinthian church inferior to other churches!
Why? Because it's a principle of sowing and reaping.
Financially supporting the ministry is an obligation of the church, in the sight of God.
God wants those who are fed spiritually, to express their valuation of that spiritual food, by giving back financially.
If we refuse to do so, we are saying our money is worth more than the spiritual food, care, and guidance.
And those who don't give back, become spiritually inferior.
It's a process that happens on a spiritual level.
Paul said to Timothy:
2 Timothy 2:
How do all these verses tie together?
Paul was telling Timothy that he had a job to do. This job took time and effort. And that meant a difficult lifestyle.
Why? Because it required him to give up earthly entanglements... entanglements in trying to reap the fruits of earthly labor.
Timothy could have gone out and gotten a job to support himself.
But that would have taken time, energy and focus away from his first calling. The ministry.
It would have been an "entanglement."
And it would have been "unlawful".
Because it would have gone against the guidelines of "the husbandman that laboreth must be first partaker of the fruits."
You see, I grew up in the Mennonites. And to the outsider, it looks like these people have finally gotten it right:
The ministry is always chosen by lot from within the families within the local church. They actually do a version of drawing straws, to determine who will fill the pulpit for the rest of their lives. And whoever is chosen, is consiered to be chosen by God.
The churches I come from (the very conservative branch) require their ministers to support themselves financially. They do not pay a salary. However, they will occasionally give a free-will offering to individual ministers.
What I have observed, is that this type of ministry is very damaging to the church. The ministers are run ragged, trying to visit the sick, counsel the struggling, study to give quality spiritual food in sermons, etc. It's a full-time job they have to do on the side. And it can't all get done.
The word says the husbandman that laboreth must be FIRST partaker of the fruits.
The church owes him a salary.
Now, in the OT, the tithe was to be paid, to support the priesthood and the Temple.
In the New Testament, we protestants like to focus on the idea that we are all priests, and there is no "temple" made with hands where God dwells... our bodies are the temple of the Living God.
Yet, if the church owns no building, she will have to rent one. And rent, over time, costs more than ownership.
(Which is why landlords exist.) And if she does not pay her ministers, she expresses wordlessly just how much she values such labor.
In fact, in the "housechurches" I have observed from the inside, over the period of a few years, I have seen that those who believe in eliminating "elders who rule"... end up floundering terribly. They have no leadership, and act much like a body with no head... like a decapitated chicken, flopping all over the place... lots of activity for a while... but it quiets down soon, and dies out.
The New Testament is very clear. The tithe that was given in the Old Testament was given to support the priesthood.
In the NT, we are supposed to have ministers in leadership, same as the priests in the OT were to lead spiritually.
If the tithe were the minimum in the OT, we ought to consider that at least the bottom line for "voluntary giving" in the NT.
That is, if we value spiritual things as much as we say we do.
Sister ..I agree provided we take things in context. Paul , Barnabas , Silas , etc obviously spent NO money on a flat screen TV's ...were not putting children through college ..did not take vacations ...expecting the Lord soon , they were busy !!!!! and these people were poor ..I mean daily food was a blessing. When Paul stayed with Simon the tanner who lived near the sea , it was not a resort home .....a tanners home smelled of dog feces and urine which was used to tan leather ...no one wanted to be near that person. That was the reason he was near the shore.And yet, Paul said in the New Testament in relation to "the elders that rule well",
1 Timothy 5:17-18
Therefore, there was an obligation on the part of those who are NOT "elders who rule", to supply "honour" to give to those elders, which was to be the same as the "corn" allowed to the oxen who did the threshing, and the "reward" (translated in the OT as "hire") given to the laborer.
Barnabas and Paul were given the right not to hold a job, because they were given a salaried position:
1 Corinthians 9:
Therefore, if we receive spiritual things from a minister of the gospel, we owe wages to him, in carnal things.
Paul also said that he did a wrong to the Corinthian church, in not allowing them to support him financially.
2 Corinthians 12:13
Look! This actually made the Corinthian church inferior to other churches!
Why? Because it's a principle of sowing and reaping.
Financially supporting the ministry is an obligation of the church, in the sight of God.
God wants those who are fed spiritually, to express their valuation of that spiritual food, by giving back financially.
If we refuse to do so, we are saying our money is worth more than the spiritual food, care, and guidance.
And those who don't give back, become spiritually inferior.
It's a process that happens on a spiritual level.
Paul said to Timothy:
2 Timothy 2:
How do all these verses tie together?
Paul was telling Timothy that he had a job to do. This job took time and effort. And that meant a difficult lifestyle.
Why? Because it required him to give up earthly entanglements... entanglements in trying to reap the fruits of earthly labor.
Timothy could have gone out and gotten a job to support himself.
But that would have taken time, energy and focus away from his first calling. The ministry.
It would have been an "entanglement."
And it would have been "unlawful".
Because it would have gone against the guidelines of "the husbandman that laboreth must be first partaker of the fruits."
You see, I grew up in the Mennonites. And to the outsider, it looks like these people have finally gotten it right:
The ministry is always chosen by lot from within the families within the local church. They actually do a version of drawing straws, to determine who will fill the pulpit for the rest of their lives. And whoever is chosen, is consiered to be chosen by God.
The churches I come from (the very conservative branch) require their ministers to support themselves financially. They do not pay a salary. However, they will occasionally give a free-will offering to individual ministers.
What I have observed, is that this type of ministry is very damaging to the church. The ministers are run ragged, trying to visit the sick, counsel the struggling, study to give quality spiritual food in sermons, etc. It's a full-time job they have to do on the side. And it can't all get done.
The word says the husbandman that laboreth must be FIRST partaker of the fruits.
The church owes him a salary.
Now, in the OT, the tithe was to be paid, to support the priesthood and the Temple.
In the New Testament, we protestants like to focus on the idea that we are all priests, and there is no "temple" made with hands where God dwells... our bodies are the temple of the Living God.
Yet, if the church owns no building, she will have to rent one. And rent, over time, costs more than ownership.
(Which is why landlords exist.) And if she does not pay her ministers, she expresses wordlessly just how much she values such labor.
In fact, in the "housechurches" I have observed from the inside, over the period of a few years, I have seen that those who believe in eliminating "elders who rule"... end up floundering terribly. They have no leadership, and act much like a body with no head... like a decapitated chicken, flopping all over the place... lots of activity for a while... but it quiets down soon, and dies out.
The New Testament is very clear. The tithe that was given in the Old Testament was given to support the priesthood.
In the NT, we are supposed to have ministers in leadership, same as the priests in the OT were to lead spiritually.
If the tithe were the minimum in the OT, we ought to consider that at least the bottom line for "voluntary giving" in the NT.
That is, if we value spiritual things as much as we say we do.
1 Timothy 5:18 "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."
That's money.
Try paying your utilities with food and drink. Preachers are modern humans, and have modern bills. They don't live in nomad tents.
Mass in the catholic church is free...
Churches are, in principal, ... "Good societies" ...
Paul collected offerings from the New Testament churches to support his (and others') ministries.
That's not quite true ...
Ok. But that is not a Christian church you describe.
In the context of the referenced posts, it is. Otherwise, the word has many meanings.this conversation was started by me statement that church is not to replace the functuons of the whole society, that her purpose first of all is spiritual.
Frankly, I don't care whether Christians or churches have large budgets or spend money. Both need money to operate and we no longer operate on the first century barter system.My view of modern churches is, that they have an $X monthly minimum budget to operate. In USA it can be thousands of dollars, in Kazakhstan - hundreds. Still, they need money-money-money (which makes the world go round). If they do not receive $X or more every month, they're in big trouble, they can get into debt and then go bankrupt. Constant need of money. They can't really earn money today like in the old days, when churches owned land, peasants, manufacturing facilities etc. Today, they're mostly stripped of those feudalist or capitalist privileges and can only collect donations. Churches on odd occasions rent out their premises, but that's not their main business and doesn't cover $X.
I see it as a big problem. Because church as organization isn't forced by serving Jesus anymore, but by this constant "Damoclis gladius" hanging over their heads... Constantly finding $X this way or another to survive, turning them into a parasite of society... It's very bad, I think. Very bad. Very corrupting.
What do you think?
Frankly, I don't care whether Christians or churches have large budgets or spend money. Both need money to operate and we no longer operate on the first century barter system.
What concerns me and the Scripture writers is how Christians and churches spend what they have. I've seen several churches where mission and outreach giving has become a "discretionary" item in the budget. After meeting all of their program and infrastructure budget, the "excess" gets used elsewhere. Even in this case, special offerings are taken to support giving outside of the church. Other churches pay a denominational apportionment which supports the overall church heirarchy and then gives a portion to selected missions. Thus, many member churches indirectly claim "mission giving" --- which is really more of a 'membership fee.'
The Bible strongly supports giving the FIRST PART ("Whole Tithe") to the Lord. While churches often encourage this type of giving among its members, many churches themselves do not exercise the same standard in their giving.
One of the greatest indicators of the heart of a Christian or church is it's spending. One's checkbook or the church budget provide a clear, unfiltered view of the truth.
So how is a man supposed to live? Jesus did not condemn work. It is sinful to make so much money that you have a private jet, a mansion, a fancy car, $1000 suits and so on, in the name of Jesus. It is not sinful to get paid for doing the Lord's work. People have to eat and have a roof over their heads. And don't try to tell me that you can go out and be a handyman and still do the Lord's work. When the phone rings in the middle of your 'day job', are you going to drop everything and serve the needs of the parishioner? I doubt it.Do it free of charge, do it for God. Not for money. It's greed. It's bad. It's sin. It's being a hireling, Jesus condemned it.
Where does God designate the functions of the "whole society" ?
James 2
15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you tells him, “Go in peace; stay warm and well fed,” but does not provide for his physical needs, what good is that?
So how is a man supposed to live? Jesus did not condemn work. It is sinful to make so much money that you have a private jet, a mansion, a fancy car, $1000 suits and so on, in the name of Jesus. It is not sinful to get paid for doing the Lord's work. People have to eat and have a roof over their heads. And don't try to tell me that you can go out and be a handyman and still do the Lord's work. When the phone rings in the middle of your 'day job', are you going to drop everything and serve the needs of the parishioner? I doubt it.
The Barna group pegs the average Protestant church size in America at 89 adults. 60% of protestant churches have less than 100 adults in attendance. Only 2% have over 1000 adults attending.
Unlike the OT "tithe", the NT/NT church demands nothing from its members, rather, the principle for NT giving can be found in verses such as .. 2 Corinthians 9:6-7/Galatians 6:1-10 (see Gal 6:6-8 in particular) "reaping and sowing". IOW, the amount one gives is now between the believer and God, and God has told us ahead of time what the results will be, one way or the other.
House churches can operate on an amazingly small budget, obviously, but churches with buildings that house more people have bigger operating expenses. All are welcome to go to house churches, but many of us "choose" to go to churches that have these greater expenses (and that for all kinds of different reasons).
Do you have a problem with people choosing to go to the church of their choice
BTW, while most churches have people that pass plates to collect donations, none of them do so with an upholstered sidearm to guarantee donations We don't charge a monthly fee to attend and we don't sell tickets. In fact, in my church, we don't even pass a plate, ever! We have a donation box in the back of the sanctuary that is never talked about before, during or after any of our services. Rather, people who are new to the church who want to give have to ask us how that's done. And the only time "giving" is mentioned during a sermon is when the Biblical text dictates that it is (which happens far less than once per year).
My church is hardly a megachurch (we have about 200-250 in attendance on Sunday mornings), so we can't do some of the things that our local megachurches can. For instance, the megachurch closest to me has (as just one of its ministries) a daily outreach to hundreds of our city's local poor and homeless. While the city feeds all of these people one meal per day, 7 days a week, this megachurch opens its doors to these same people so then can have a second meal each day. The meal is prepared and served by the members of the megachurch, at the megachurch, and it's completely paid for by church donations. A church with a smaller building and a smaller budget could not hope to do something like this!
Of course, the secret word in all of this is, "donate", isn't it. It is people's "choice" to do what they will with their own money (and one of the reasons that church members give is because churches do things that make other's lives better, spiritually and physically .. we give 20% of our gross income to missions, for instance).
The other "thing" in all of this is the Biblical principle of "giving". Biblically, God intends giving to be a blessing to the giver, because when it's done according to Biblical principles (i.e. done in secret), it carries with it an eternal "spiritual" blessing .. e.g. Luke 12:33-34.
Finally, member "giving" is not only the 'principle' way that churches are supposed to secure their needed income, Biblically, it's the only way churches (big or small) are supposed to do that (because "giving", be it our resources or our time, is the key to everything in Christianity).
Yours in Christ,
David
2 Corinthians 9 (cf Proverbs 3:9-10)
6 Now this I say, he who sows sparingly shall also reap sparingly; and he who sows bountifully shall also reap bountifully.
7 Let each one do just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver.
.
On this we can agree. It has been researched, and found that 7% of Catholics are active in ministry in the Catholic Church, and yet we do so much. But we, the body are there to support the priest, our pastor, not just to listen to him. At the end of Mass the priest says the English form of "Ite, missa est", which means go out and do the mission I have just given you. Most get in their cars, nearly run over whoever is in their way, and move on. Some just don't go. Could we imagine if just one more percent of the body were to actually live what the priest teaches us? Game-changer!The question is, what is expectation from a priest. I think our modern concept of church has put on his shoulders a lot more than what was designed by Jesus. Show love. Tell about Jesus. Anywhere and any time. All Christians, not just the clergy. Even the best of clergy can't be everywhere all the time, serving each and every one in need. This is the job of the Holy Spirit. He's doing it very well, if only we allow Him.
Not good when in a body only the head is developed and active. It's a very unhealthy and ineffective human being.
On this we can agree. It has been researched, and found that 7% of Catholics are active in ministry in the Catholic Church, and yet we do so much. But we, the body are there to support the priest, our pastor, not just to listen to him. At the end of Mass the priest says the English form of "Ite, missa est", which means go out and do the mission I have just given you. Most get in their cars, nearly run over whoever is in their way, and move on. Some just don't go. Could we imagine if just one more percent of the body were to actually live what the priest teaches us? Game-changer!
My view of modern churches is, that they have an $X monthly minimum budget to operate. In USA it can be thousands of dollars, in Kazakhstan - hundreds. Still, they need money-money-money (which makes the world go round). If they do not receive $X or more every month, they're in big trouble, they can get into debt and then go bankrupt. Constant need of money. They can't really earn money today like in the old days, when churches owned land, peasants, manufacturing facilities etc. Today, they're mostly stripped of those feudalist or capitalist privileges and can only collect donations. Churches on odd occasions rent out their premises, but that's not their main business and doesn't cover $X.
I see it as a big problem. Because church as organization isn't forced by serving Jesus anymore, but by this constant "Damoclis gladius" hanging over their heads... Constantly finding $X this way or another to survive, turning them into a parasite of society... It's very bad, I think. Very bad. Very corrupting.
What do you think?