19 Responses to “Heaven’s Underground Community Blueprint Part 5 of 5”

1. Steevo Says:
   November 21st, 2006 at 4:00 pm

   Thanks for the series, it has put a lot of confusing issues into perspective by aligning some pretty powerful scriptures together.

   I never payed attention to who was going to build the church, just focusing on the fact that it would be built… it’s soo true, we need to let Him build it and let Him use us if and how he pleases by being obedient to the word and not our own assumptions.

2. abe Says:
   November 22nd, 2006 at 1:09 pm

   Good stuff, hard hitting truth. Thankyou.

3. davemurray Says:
   March 6th, 2007 at 4:31 pm

   the way i see it, the subject of money is a bit like the subject of sex - 90% of people avoid the subject entirely while the 10% roll around in the filth of it…yet all the while it remains a central theme 2 our entire existence. Keep boldly exploring and declaring God’s blueprint in this area. True Reformation in the Church cannot take place without true reformation in our wallets.(Mt 6:21)

4. Tom Sparks Says:
   April 16th, 2007 at 9:01 am

   Brett, I’d like to make some comments to your approach to ministerial wages, but I want to preface them by saying I respect all you’ve said here, and sense the Spirit in most of it, but I do sense some “pinching” over a few comments.

   The idea that ministers should anticipate, like any other form of labor, a consistent weekly income, seems very foreign to the NT and what we know of early church history.

   It does not appear evident that anything like a “professional” clergy/ministry developed until long after the apostolic period, and much closer connected with 325 AD and Constantine’s influence. And, its development seems wholly unhealthy to the Church.

   While it is exceedingly clear that ministers can and should look to the body to provide financial and material sustenance to them, for the ministry they bring, it is not as clear that it could or should be anticipated to be as regular or guaranteed as that which a day laborer might expect.

   For example, apart from a given minister pressuring those he is ministering to, how would a “consistent” income be realized? In other words, what biblical passages would he take his flock to, to teach them they were to regularly contribute to his/her ministry? Give, yes! Regular, consistent, long term, not so evident. Why, is giving to the poor, who have “regular” needs, as would a minister, to be a “spirit led” approach on the part of the givers, but not so with the giving to a minister? You indicate that “institutionalization” should be able to be avoided, even though we promote a “professional” clergy, but how would that be avoided? It seems it would logically incline in that direction.

   I love the idea of ministers being the recipients of financial support, but something within me, as well as by observation of NT approach to ministry, tells me that the moment we choose one area as not being according to the principle of “spirit led” among the body, and imply they are to settle on a set amount to contribute to a minister, and then continually give that amount, week by week, we run a very great risk that the very thing you believe wouldn’t happen (I.e. institutionalization/hierarchy) would likely develop.

   This evidences a “salary,” and salaries work best in institutions because institutions generally have excess funds, beyond that which is paid to a minister, but in the small simple home setting, void of institutional business elements, the likelihood of continual income from the body is diminished, and his needing to rely upon the leading of the Spirit in their lives increases. I’m not saying He couldn’t lead the body to consistently give, but I suspect the minister would be unwise to expect it, anticipate it, and certainly pressure for it.

   I’m new to your blog, so if I’ve asked something I should have addressed to you privately please guide me to the proper protocol. My question is not presented in an argumentative spirit, but in true desire to sort these issues out myself.

   I have written an article on my own web site: www.fpmin.com that addresses some of my concerns in this area. If you care to check it out, you can find it at http://www.fpmin.com/teachings/ministry_is_not_a_business.pdf . I hope you will be as charitable towards me, and the perspective I have brought to this subject, as I have been towards you. I have no fondness for argumentation or ill will.

   I’d like to believe I’m teachable, though I must admit I’m cautious as regards this area, but I’d love your input.

   Thanks!
   Tom

5. Brett Jacobsen Says:
   April 17th, 2007 at 4:47 pm

   Response to Tom,

   Hi Tom,

   Your comments do seem to be motivated from Love, and therefore are warmly welcomed in the public arena. Also, I am always keen for further dialegomai - dialogue/disputation. As I am not just a talker but a practitioner of this stuff, I will speak practically at times to put legs on some of these biblical concepts.

   Firstly, this five part teaching (Heaven’s Underground Community Blueprint) is a chapter from my book ‘Heaven’s Underground Blueprint’. As I have stated in the book, I could only scratch the surface in regard to finance in the very limited space. A whole book dedicated to finance in the Kingdom would be needed to bring a greater degree of clarity; and many of us are seeking further clarity. In fact, from my observation, the two most continually nutted out subjects amongst crew who are into fuller reformation seem to be ‘authority in leadership’ and ‘finances’.

   Now I will respond to your thoughts.

   Q. “The idea that ministers should anticipate, like any other form of labour, a consistent weekly income, seems very foreign to the NT and what we know of early church history.”

   A. The scriptures that I used in the article are fairly clear that it is a ‘wage/rations/hire/due reward’ that is to be anticipated by true gospel ministers.

   …the workman is worthy [axios – due reward] of his meat [trophe – rations/wages]. (Matt 10:10)

   …the labourer is worthy [axios – due reward] of his hire [misthos – hire, wages]. (Luke 10:7)

   Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy [axioo – to deem entitled] of double honour [time – value, money paid, price], especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture says, You shall not muzzle the ox that treads out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy [axios – due reward] of his reward [misthos – hire, wages]. (1 Tim 5:17-18)

   Also, we see Paul the servant/apostle say to the Corinthians:

   Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? Who goes to warfare any time at his own charges? who plants a vineyard, and eats not of the fruit thereof? or who feeds a flock, and eats not of the milk of the flock? Say I these things as a man? or says not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treads out the corn. Does God take care for oxen? Or says he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that plows should plow in hope; and that he that threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown to you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power[exousia- authority]; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so has the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. (1 Cor 9:6-14)

   Allow me to point out a few key statements in context of Paul’s exhortation: He asks “have not we power [exousia- authourity] to forbear working?” which gives a rhetorical implication of ‘we do have authority to do so’. He further states: “If we have sown to you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?”. Again the implication is ‘yes we do’. Although Paul, and modern true ministers, do have authority to “forbear working” and “reap” natural things, they in no way should demand them. The saints always have liberty and grace to give as the Spirit leads. This being led by the Spirit however, does have some biblical principles to strongly consider- it is not a flippant, flaky giving to anything/anyone when we are talking about a firstfruits type of giving.

   Now, he uses something to prove his point which many Christians will ignore or pass off as some kind of legalism. His basis for anticipation of financial support/ honour[time]/ wages etc, is: “it is written in the law of Moses”. Of course this is not his, or my, attempt to re-establish tithing as law; just as it isn’t to re-establish a Levitical priesthood and temple service etc. He is drawing out God-inspired principles which have been with us through New and Old Testament times.

   He goes on to say: “You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treads out the corn. Does God take care for oxen? Or says he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that plows should plow in hope; and that he that threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope.” This shows how God feels about His servants getting supported for the work they do. Now is when it gets a bit more specific. He says: “Do you not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?”. This is, of course, in reference to the Levites who ministered at the altar, in the temple. Again, he is not aiming to re-establish Old Testament traditions; he is however, showing God’s continued principle for not leaving the Levites (I am not calling paid ministers priests here, just occupational gospel servants) without their due reward.

   Because Paul used this analogy we can also use the same Levitical comparison when we look at Nehemiah 13 (see my article ‘Tobiah in the house’) which shows how angry God is when His Levites are forced to work in the fields rather than minister in the house (by house I mean the spiritual house, not church buildings etc).

   I am not suggesting that any paid gospel servant should demand support from anyone. They should, according to the laws of the land, have a legitimate registered ministry with a bank account attached. They should expect a wage each week etc from that ministry. There are two erroneous extremes which can be avoided by a set wage for gospel ministers: 1. Too much money which can lead to all sorts of corruption like: Mammonistic mindsets, preaching watered down messages because it gets better offerings, and seeking keynote speaker gigs at Hollywood style conferences rather than ministering when and where and what the Lord wants whether money follows or not. 2. Not enough money which can lead to: ministers begging bread, running from their ministry to something more profitable, and tax scamming (i.e.: cash in pocket). Remember the labourer is worthy of his hire/wage, not a profitable company nor a hit and miss pay packet.

   How that bank account is topped up is another story altogether for underground, organic church/Kingdom of Heaven communities. Let me explain how we operate in this regard: There is a number of people who I have been working with over the past season apostolically. I have been re-laying the foundation of Christ under this community by teaching and by modelling how the Kingdom should function. We used to take up offerings at the different house/park get-togethers but for some time now we have not. Certain ones from among this community who are mature and Spirit-led enough to give regularly in a firstfruits fashion towards the advancement of the Kingdom, “Upon the first day of the week [they] lay by him in store, as God has prospered [them], that there be no gatherings[collections] when I come.” (2 Cor 16:2) When I get around to pray with, teach/dialogue with, break bread with etc, them they usually just hand me their contribution, or credit it into the bank. They do not have to give me anything, but the ones who do, recognise the principle of ’sowing spiritual things and reaping natural’ (1 Cor 9:11) and ‘labourers being worthy of wages’ (1 Tim 5:18). This is not Old Testament tithing but rather New Testament liberality, with an understanding for God’s heart for Kingdom advancement. Some of these supporters give because I have sown spiritual things to them, while others are past that, as they have matured to a place of apostolic offensive and kingdom advancement. Simply, they give to send me out to others to lay and re-lay the Christ foundation in other not-yet-Christian and in-need-of-reformation communities. Again, this is from freedom, yet the only thing that comes close to compulsion in this equation is a Holy Spirit/Word of God conviction of duty to the furtherance of the gospel. Wow, that was a mouthful! Of course there are those who do not give at all, or those who give only to hungry Ethiopians, or maybe even fancy preachers who they don’t even know. That is their prerogative and freedom… but I do hope they get further revelation with the matter.

   Q. “It does not appear evident that anything like a “professional” clergy/ministry developed until long after the apostolic period, and much closer connected with 325 AD and Constantine’s influence. And, its development seems wholly unhealthy to the Church.”

   A. I agree. I do not in any way promote/condone the clergy concept. However, this is where I may think differently to others who are fleeing Christendom. Some say that to pay any minister a wage is a step toward a re-establishment of the clergy. They reason that the ministers should “believe for their money” so they aren’t set apart as special clerics. I propose the opposite: if we place a different set of rules on ministers than the rest of the Christian population we have effectively re-established the clergy/laity lie. To say that an apostle or prophet/teacher should believe God for their wage any differently than a plumber or shop keeper, is to set them apart as different; some might say spiritually special. Why should a gospel teacher believe for his/her wage to fall from the ravens mouths if he/she is no different (in spiritual class) than any other Christian. Of course we all must believe God for our sustenance but there are also practical principles that come into play.

   Q. “While it is exceedingly clear that ministers can and should look to the body to provide financial and material sustenance to them, for the ministry they bring, it is not as clear that it could or should be anticipated to be as regular or guaranteed as that which a day labourer might expect.”

   A. I think I covered this above. However, I will add that: just as a business can only continue to pay wages to its workers as long as it is financially viable, gospel ministries can only pay the gospel labourers if there is money in the bank. If the Lord is Lord of that ministry (the same applies to a business) then it will have the money when needed. If not, then what has gone wrong on man’s end of the deal? Remember, it is for the local community to support the sent out ones, not just the people that they go to minister to. If this is adhered to there should be plenty of money to do all the Lord has ordered and pay all who the Lord has employed.

   Q. “…apart from a given minister pressuring those he is ministering to, how would a “consistent” income be realized? In other words, what biblical passages would he take his flock to, to teach them they were to regularly contribute to his/her ministry?”

   A. This was also covered above. However: we must remember that he doesn’t have a flock (I realise you weren’t getting all Senior Pastor on me) he is merely another part of God’s flock, though he/she may play a more full on roll. Regular contribution should be given from the saints to equippers who are sent from their midst. They need not pressure the saints. If the saints are mature in Christ and you are proven as presbuteros and called then it will flow by the Spirit.

   Q. “Why, is giving to the poor, who have “regular” needs, as would a minister, to be a “spirit led” approach on the part of the givers, but not so with the giving to a minister?”

   A. As I said above- both giving to the poor and supporting true ministers is Spirit led, but it is also to be done according to biblical precedent. The Bible seems to urge us to give to the poor when the opportunity arises. However, with firstfruits type giving to called ministers for the equipping and advancement of the Kingdom, it seems encouraged to be more consistent.

   Q. “You indicate that “institutionalization” should be able to be avoided, even though we promote a “professional” clergy, but how would that be avoided? It seems it would logically incline in that direction.”

   A. Again, I’m not into institutions or clergy. Clergy means ‘to be above the normal people’. I’m talking about paying gospel labourers (mostly apostolic teams and other teacher/equippers) who are equal with all the brethren, yet have a specific household (Eph 2:20-22) service to perform.

   Q. “the moment we choose one area as not being according to the principle of “spirit led” among the body, and imply they are to settle on a set amount to contribute to a minister, and then continually give that amount, week by week, we run a very great risk that the very thing you believe wouldn’t happen (I.e. institutionalization/hierarchy) would likely develop.”

   A. Spirit led all the way for me I say. I am not necessarily suggesting a set amount all the time, although I do believe tithing to be a good starting principle. Let me explain before the reactionary people shoot me and say I’m preaching legalistic tithing. I know well that we are not under the law and we don’t need to tithe. However, like Paul’s exhortation referring back to the Levites wages and oxen’s food, I propose that a general, Spirit led principle of tithing (some say ten percent, others show that it was more like 23 percent) is still helpful for some people. Not to be bound to, but as a rough figure to give towards ministers service. Of course we all should give in other areas of life too, including to the poor. Again, I am not teaching a ‘tithe or writhe’ message.

   Also, being Spirit-led does not of necessity mean everyday change or a lack of consistency. For example, I believe I was Spirit-led to marry my wife and I trust the Spirit won’t lead me to change that in a hurry. On a less consistent matter, I have people who I will probably serve God with forever, though that is contingent on the Spirit’s ongoing approval and planning. Obviously, if we feel to consistently support someone in ministry, we continue to check with God if He’s still into it or not; this too is Spirit-ledness. In the same manner as apostle is not a set position or title but rather a function of ministry for seasons which the Lord leads, so to with consistent giving towards ministry is to be Spirit-led (only while you believe the Spirit is sending the servant etc). This however, does not mean we shouldn’t be consistent as the Spirit leads.

   Q. ” This evidences a “salary,” and salaries work best in institutions because institutions generally have excess funds, beyond that which is paid to a minister, but in the small simple home setting, void of institutional business elements, the likelihood of continual income from the body is diminished, and his needing to rely upon the leading of the Spirit in their lives increases. I’m not saying He couldn’t lead the body to consistently give, but I suspect the minister would be unwise to expect it, anticipate it, and certainly pressure for it.”

   A. I pastored a church until 2-3 years ago. Since then we have gone through a process (an ongoing one) that has us now resembling a church in no way that I can see. Even on paper and in the governments eyes we changed from having a church to being a registered ministry (we changed our constitution to indicate so also). From then till now the finances haven’t changed much at all. Even when we decided not to hand around offering buckets anymore. It has been an interesting journey (it still is) with many changes but I believe that because we have been willing to go with God, sometimes making hard choices, He has looked after the finances. Of course there was, and still is, a lot of re-training of our brains and hearts on issues like this. And I have been a little on the nervous side at times.

   It is painfully clear to the saints I do life with that we do not form an organisation, I am not their boss, Jesus is, there is no central point besides the Lord, and we are merely endeavouring to flow with the Spirit together, with a strong but liberal commitment to each other in relationship, in Christ. I only receive financial support from those who, by the Spirit, recognise the maturity and calling I have in Christ, both to help them (and them me) and for others out there.

   Wow, that was heavy.

   I hope this brings clarity to my very brief comments in ‘Heaven’s Underground Blueprint’. Again, I wish I had more time to go deeper, as there is so much more to say and do in the matter. I am happy to continue the conversation (it’s a shame it’s via typing; I type slow) on this subject, or others.

   Grace and peace,

   Bretto

6. Tom Sparks Says:
   April 18th, 2007 at 10:55 am

   Bretto,

   Thanks again for the opportunity to dialogue on these matters with you.

   I would like to quote some friends and language sources, as well as make some of my own comments.

   I look forward to your comments.

   Frank Viola writes, and I am in material agreement with his analysis:

   Frank Viola…

   Cyprian (200-258) is the first Christian writer to mention the practice of financially supporting the clergy. He argued that just as the Levites were supported by the tithe, so the Christian clergy should be supported by the tithe. But this is misguided thinking. Today, the Levitical system has been abolished. We are all priests now. So if a priest demands a tithe, then all Christians should tithe to one another!

   Cyprian’s plea was exceedingly rare for his time. It was neither picked up nor echoed by the Christian populace until much later. Other than Cyprian, no Christian writer before Constantine ever used Old Testament references to advocate tithing.” It was not until the fourth century, 300 years after Christ, that some Christian leaders began to advocate tithing as a Christian practice to support the clergy. But it did not become widespread among Christians until the eighth century! According to one scholar, “For the first seven hundred years they [tithes] are hardly ever mentioned. ”

   As far as clergy salaries go, ministers were unsalaried for the first three centuries. But when Constantine appeared, he instituted the practice of paying a fixed salary to the clergy from church funds and municipal and imperial treasuries. Thus was born the clergy salary, a harmful practice that has no root in the NT. In fact, the clergy salary runs against the grain of the entire New Covenant. Elders (shepherds) in the first century were never salaried. They were men with an earthly vocation. They gave to the flock rather than took from it.

   Salarying pastors makes them paid professionals. It elevates them above the rest of God’s people. It creates a clerical caste that turns the living Body of Christ into a business. Since the pastor and his staff are “paid” to do ministry—they are the paid professionals. The rest of the church lapses into a state of passive dependence.

   When the church functions as she should, a professional clergy becomes unnecessary. Suddenly, the thought that says, “that is the job of the pastor” looks heretical. Put simply, a professional clergy fosters the pacifying illusion that the Word of God is classified (and dangerous) material that only card-carrying experts can handle.

   But that is not all. Paying a pastor forces him to be a man-pleaser. It makes him the slave of men. His meal-ticket is attached to how well his congregation likes him. Thus he is not free to speak freely without the fear that he may lose some heavy tithers. Herein lies the scourge of the pastor system.

   A further peril of the paid pastor system is that it produces men who are void of any skill (occupational tent making type skill, my interpretation of his words added here)—something we inherited from the pagan Greeks. For this reason, it takes a man of tremendous courage to step out of the pastorate.

   Unfortunately, most of God’s people are deeply naive about the overwhelming power of the pastor system. It is a faceless system that does not tire of chewing up and spitting out its young. Again, God never intended the professional pastorate to exist. There is no Scriptural mandate or justification for such a thing. In fact, it is impossible to construct a Biblical defense for it.

   Tom Sparks…

   As regards 1 Timothy 5:17, Steve Atkerson and Beresford Job, make some interesting comments, of which I am in some agreement, but completely. I will comment within the body of their words, some adjustments I think appropriate:

   Steve Atkerson…

   Temporarily stationed in Ephesus was Timothy, Paul’s traveling companion and fellow apostle (1Th 1:1; 2:6), whom Paul left there to squelch strange doctrines (1Ti 1:3). Concerning the same Ephesian elders as in Acts 20, Paul wrote that elders who did a good job directing the affairs of the church and who worked hard at “preaching and teaching” were worthy of something called “double honor” (1Ti 5:17). Then, using almost the exact same reasoning as in 1 Corinthians 9:9, 1 Timothy 5:18 states, “For the Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The worker deserves his wages.’” This parallel should not be minimized. The implications are clear.

   But does honor mean pay? No. From the Greek word “time”, it primarily means “respect”.

   Tom Sparks…

   Here is where I would materially disagree with Steve. A study of “The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature” shows that this word is well able to support a monetary meaning, and not just “respect.”

   I include here, two quotes from this work:

   1. price, value (Hdt. et al.; POxy. 1382, 18 [II ad]) suneyhvfisan ta;” tima;” aujtw`n (s. sumyhfivzw) Ac 19:19. Also concrete the price received in selling someth. 5:2. W. the gen. of that for which the price is paid (Is 55:1; Jos., Vi. 153, Ant. 4, 284; Test. Zeb. 3:2) hJ timh; tou` cwrivou the price paid for the piece of ground vs. 3. hJ timh; tou` tetimhmevnou (timavw 1) Mt 27:9. timh; ai{mato” the money paid for a bloody deed (ai|ma 2a), blood money vs. 6. Pl. (Diod. S. 5, 71, 3; 6=prize, price, reward) ta;” tima;” tw`n pipraskomevnwn Ac 4:34. ta;” tima;” aujtw`n the prices that they received for themselves 1 Cl 55:2.-W. the gen. of price w| (by attr. of the rel. for o{) wjnhvsato jAbraa;m timh`” ajrgurivou which Abraham had bought for a sum of silver Ac 7:16. Abs. timh`” at or for a price, for cash (Hdt. 7, 119; PTebt. 5, 185; 194; 220 [118 bc]; BGU 1002, 13 devdwkav soi aujta; timh`”.—Bl-D. §179, 1 app.; Rob. 510f; Dssm., LO 275f [LAE 323f]) hjgoravsqhte timh`” 1 Cor 6:20; 7:23 (ajgoravzw 2).-oujk ejn timh`/ tini Col 2:23 may be a Latinism (cf. Ovid, Fasti 5, 316 nec in pretio fertilis hortus; Livy 39, 6, 9; Seneca, Ep. 75, 11. See Lohmeyer ad loc.) are of no value (RSV). See also s.v. plhsmonhv.—GBornkamm, ThLZ 73 ’48, col. 18, 2 observes that t. here has nothing to do with ‘honor’, as it does in the expr. ejn timh`/ ei\nai X., An. 2, 5, 38; Herodian 4, 2, 9; Arrian, Anab. 4, 21, 10; Lucian, De Merc. Cond. 17.

   And later:

   e. honorarium, compensation (test. of Lycon [III bc] in Diog. L. 5, 72, a physician’s honorarium; Sir 38:1; s. 2a above), so perh. 1 Ti 5:17 (MDibelius, Hdb. ad loc. and see s.v. diplou`”.—Mng. 2b is also poss. In that case cf. Ael. Aristid. 32, 3 K.=12 p. 134 D.: diplh`/ timh`/ timh`sai.—JoachJeremias combines both mngs.).—MGreindl (s. dovxa, end).

   Steve Atkerson again…

   There is a specific Greek word for pay (misthos) and, significantly, it is used in 1 Timothy 5:18 (about employees), but not in 1 Timothy 5:17 (about elders). “time” can in certain contexts mean price, but since a price is the quantity of one thing that is demanded in sale for another, it hardly makes sense in this passage (are elders for sale?).

   Tom Sparks…

   I’d like to insert some comments here. While I agree that misthos is the typical word to describe compensation for labor performance, and Paul is simply describing the nature of the means of compensating a day laborer, at the same time his use of this analogy was to teach something, and that something appears to be the compensation for a teaching minister. Now, to say that compensation is to take the form of a misthos/wage/salary, as if the minister were equivalent to a laborer, I believe is to misunderstand Paul’s words and to take them to a meaning he was not pursuing.

   His point is that just as a laborer receives a wage/salary for his labors, as an employee of a master, so it is appropriate to compensate the minister financially or through material means, for the service he has brought, though not in the form of regular wages/salary, since the laborer is a paid employee, and the minister is wholly other than this. Paul is not drawing a one for one equivalency, but is simply using the day laborer as an illustration to make his point. To force the salary element is to overstate his point and miss the point of the analogy.

   While it is true that elders are not for sale, as hirelings are, yet, in alignment with Paul’s analogy they are deserving of a form of remuneration for their service to the body, as a laborer is for his work for the master he is employed by.

   Thus, the elder is worthy of both respect and financial support (“time”), he is not deserving of, nor logically connected to receiving a consistent salary (misthos).

   I will say however, that it is very likely Paul has “respect” in mind as the primary compensation for the teaching elder, and only secondarily is financial support in view.

   Steve Atkerson again…

   This same word (“time”) is also used immediately following in 1 Timothy 6:1, “All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect (“time”).” Are slaves to pay their masters? One practical application of this honor is that an accusation brought against an elder is not to be received unless it is substantiated by more than one witness (1Ti 5:19 ). 1 Timothy 5:19 logically follows 5:17 -18 if honor refers to respect (an accusation involves dishonor), but follows awkwardly if honor refers to pay. A good parallel verse is 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13, wherein the church in Thessalonica was asked to “respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work.”

   However, “time” is also used immediately prior to the passage about elders. In 1 Timothy 5:3 honor is to be given to widows who are really in need (the NIV renders it as “proper recognition”). This occurrence of “time” obviously means granting the widow more than respect! Giving the widow food, helping her with her house and yard work, visiting her, offering her living quarters if needed, and of course even monetary assistance, is the idea. Honor was also clearly understood by Jesus to refer to material support in Mark 7:10. The Law of Moses required, “Honor your father and your mother”. Unhappy with the religious leaders of Judaism, Jesus said, “But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received by me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down” (Mk 7:11 -13). Thus, it is clearly within the realm of possibility that honor to an elder might include giving him a love offering, an honorarium.

   Tom Sparks…

   I appreciate Steve’s coming to this reasoned conclusion, and I wish it factored as largely into his overall approach than it appears to. In other words, he seems to functionally lean towards the respect element so greatly that he virtually ends up cancelling the financial support element. (Remember his statement: “But does honor mean pay? No. From the Greek word “time”, it primarily means “respect”.) My guess is that this is due to his concerns that ministry not be considered a business, and I am in strong support for that. I just think it can be avoided without denying the financial element to “time”.

   Steve Atkerson again…

   So why did Paul use “time” (honor) instead of misthos (wages) in 1 Timothy 5:17 ? Perhaps because the elder’s relationship to the church is not to be as a hireling. Nor is he to charge a fee for his services. Jonathan Campbell wisely stated, “There is a difference between being paid to do a job and being released to do a work.” Concerning voluntary giving (an honorarium) versus a salaried position, Dan Trotter warned, “The widows of 1 Timothy 5:3-16 weren’t earning a salary, they were receiving charity. And “the laborer is worthy of his hire” quote in Luke 10 referred obviously not to disciples receiving a salary or wages, but hospitality (eat and drink what’s set before you, etc.). The word wages in the Old Testament quotation (1Ti 5:18 ) is obviously metaphorical (just like the unmuzzled ox eating straw is metaphorical). If you push that metaphor too far, we’ll have Christian workers eating straw!

   In another example of the metaphorical use of wages, Paul wrote to the Corinthians that he had robbed other churches so as not to accept wages from Corinthians. Vines states that the word wages in 2 Corinthians 11:8 is clearly metaphorical, which, of course, it is. I don’t think it’s anybody’s business if a Christian worker (whether apostle, prophet, elder, teacher, or whatever) receives voluntary offerings from anybody for whatever reason. But the minute a salary or wages is paid, the principle of voluntary giving of service to the body is violated, the principle of clergy-less Christianity is violated, the priesthood of all believers is violated, etc. I’m not getting on that train, because its heading over the cliff. The number one stench in the institutional church is money, plain and simple. It is an abomination, a disgrace not only to God, but to the human race. And once we open the door with a hireling clergy, we are finished.

   Tom Sparks…

   Brett, while I deeply respect the position you take, I have to say that my 40 years of ministry experience confirm Steve’s concerns.

   Steve Atkerson again…

   In conclusion, if Paul had meant double wages in I Timothy 5:17, why didn’t he say double misthos, or double opsonion, two perfectly clear words which mean wages and would have conveyed what he meant? And if he meant wages, why didn’t the early church follow his example?”

   Beresford Job writes…

   London pastor Beresford Job comments, “I think it unlikely that there would be much need for anyone to be a full time elder unless they also had a ministry wider than just to the house church of which they are a part. It is significant that when Paul addresses this issue when he wrote to Timothy he assumes that any elders who might need some kind of support were precisely those engaged in preaching and teaching, which would lead me to believe he is referring to people who were among the evangelists and pastor-teachers who, with apostles and prophets, comprised the fourfold trans-local ministries of Ephesians 4:11. I therefore conclude that there are men who are called to share themselves out amongst more than one church who won’t necessarily have time to do a secular job as well. Assuming they aren’t millionaires, or have a business that supports them and which functions pretty much without needing their attention, they are going to have to be funded from elsewhere.

   However, the apparent contradiction we seem to have in scripture is that although the laborer is indeed worthy of his hire (such men have bills to pay and families to support too), ministry is nevertheless free of charge and we see nothing whatsoever in the New Testament of salaried positions. Indeed, the idea of churches employing someone is perfectly at odds with the teaching of the New Testament as a whole. So let me put it to you that what we have here is that if someone feels called to a ministry which prohibits them the time to earn money from other employment, then they can well trust the Lord to provide their needs. It will, of course, be through the freewill offerings of the Lord’s people, but nothing must be done by the one called into full time service to ever procure money because that would transgress scriptural teaching that all ministry is free of charge.

   For myself I have been in full-time ministry for twenty-five years and don’t charge money, don’t take collections, have never requested that collections be taken on my behalf, have never mentioned expenses incurred, never sent out a prayer letter or made needs known to others in any way. I finance everything I do myself and simply respond to whatever I believe the Lord would have me do, whether it’s driving locally to teach or buying plane tickets for myself and my wife and daughter to come over to the States to do various things as invited. And this I do knowing that if I work free of charge then the Lord will provide for myself and my family in answer to prayer. I call it ‘living by faith properly’as opposed to ‘living by faith - and hints and prayer letters and collections’.”

   Tom Sparks…

   I’m in complete agreement with Beresford here. This is why it so deeply concerns me, when we begin to talk of regular salaries. So many of our brethren, who are coming out of the IC are, in my opinion, bringing along with them too much of the system they hope to leave behind, and one of the manifestations of this, in my opinion, is doing the very things that Beresford says he does not do, I.e. emails selling books, tapes, CDs, DVDs, online courses, online teachings, upcoming seminars, private training sessions, hats, tee shirts, etc. etc. There are frequent requests for financial assistance and a need for donations so as to continue their great work. These are the very things I contend all need to be left behind, in the system we have come out of.

   But, as always, I’m interested in your take, and respectfully submit this things for your reply.

7. Tom Sparks Says:
   April 18th, 2007 at 11:36 am

   Bretto,

   Wanting to accurately communicate Steve Atkerson’s point, I’d like to offer one additional excerpt from his article:

   “First, Jesus commanded that those who preach the gospel (evangelists) should make their living from the gospel. Paul, in an illustration, applied this same principle to apostles (1Co 9). Finally, it was applied to qualified elders (1Ti 5), using the same arguments found in 1 Corinthians 9. Acts 20 is addressed to elders in general. In general, elders are to be bi-vocational and will thus be in a position of giving monetarily to the church, rather than receiving from it. The exception to this generalization is 1 Timothy 5, written with reference to those elders who not only “direct the affairs of the church well” ( 5:17 ) but who also “labor in the word and doctrine” (NKJV). Though all elders are worthy of honor (1Th 5:12 -13), some elders are worthy of double honor. This double honor most likely is a reference to financial support from the church.”

   So, that while earlier in his article it appeared as though he did not support an understanding of “time” with the meaning of “financial support,” it is evident that he actually does, but is apparently uncomfortable with leaning the emphasis in that direction, and prefers to maintain the “respect” element as the primary meaning.

   I agree. Just so long as we don’t miss the financial element.

   By the way, Steve’s excellent article can be found at :
   http://www.ntrf.org/articles/article_detail.php?PRKey=21

8. Brett Jacobsen Says:
   April 18th, 2007 at 9:35 pm

   Hey Tom,

   I am busy over the next few days so I will consider your coments and then respond as soon as I can. I have had a quick glance over your thoughts, and the thoughts of others, and I think (from a glance) that you have miss-represented, or miss-understood, what I’ve said. For example: Frank’s article, I have read myself before; I don’t think it’s even applicable as I have already stated that I’m not talking about clergy at all. Also, I’m not talking about “churches” employing “clergy”, just ministers paying themselves a set wage rather than having rich businesses, or poor ones. Anyway, I will respond when I get a chance.

   Gospel love,

   Bretto

9. Tom Sparks Says:
   April 19th, 2007 at 10:12 am

   Bretto,

   I want to preface my comments by saying how much I appreciate the opportunity to discuss such a delicate matter in the body of Christ, so understand my challenges are not meant disrespectfully, but I would like to comment to your entry above.

   I can appreciate that it may look like I’m miss-representing or miss-understanding your rejection of “clergy status,” and while I am very aware that you steadfastly reject such a status, my concern is, that while you reject such a category of definition in the body of Christ, I believe the position you are maintaining will logically lead to the very thing you reject.

   I can tell, by the things you have written, that you have “come out” of the old systems of clergy, and I love what you have to say in this regard, but I can’t envision operating according to the “regulated salary” approach that you reference, without it effectively resulting in the establishment of a new order of clergy…differently defined, but all too similar.

   It seems to me, the very moment we talk of anyone receiving a consistent salary, or setting up any formation for such a thing to take place, we won’t be able to avoid the pitfalls of institutionalization. I believe you completely, when you say you have avoided it, and it shouldn’t be a necessary outcome, but while you might be careful to avoid it, I find it impossible to imagine that if we champion such an approach, that it won’t lead to what we are coming out of.

   For example, and I mean no disrespect, but part and parcel with salary setting, is the development of a carefully constructed marketing plan, complete with the sale of products, email and spoken petitions for donations, describing our monetary needs for our ministry, etc. To my way of thinking this is a returning to an “organisational” approach to Church and ministry, and turning ministry into the business I don’t see any of the apostles espousing.

   How do we effectively do these things and avoid the development of clergy status? I know some would say that “clergy status” has primarily, if not exclusively, to do with issues of hierarchy and control, but I’m not so convinced. It seems to me it has to do as much with a caste of individuals who are set apart, not as much by the ministry service they bring to the body, as by the fact that they are “full time salary paid” ministers, while the rest of the body are not.

   It seems one thing to receive honor related gifts and provisioning for specific ministry provided or ministry venture being undertaken, but entirely different to communicate to folks that they should regularly/monthly contribute to a ministry fund, overseen by either ourseleves or an administrative accountability group, and then paid out to us in the form of a salary. I can appreciate it could look like I’m quibbling over semantical issues here, but I really don’t think they are. At some point we run the risk of creating a caste of ministers that are more delineated by money than is healthy.

   This is why I so appreciated Steve and Beresford’s comments, about the way they conduct their ministry. Please don’t hear me as one of their groupies. I’m not. But, I am familiar with these brothers, and know them both personally, and appreciate the perspective they are bringing to this area.

   Anyway, enough for now. If you are willing, and when you have the time, I look forward to your replies and clarifications. I’m not in a hurry, and if this comes at an inconvenient time please take all the time you need. And, if you need to break from this discussion please know I will put no pressure on you to address it until you are ready.

   Respectfully in Him
   Tom Sparks

10. Tom Sparks Says:
    April 19th, 2007 at 11:13 am

    I would like to return to your first lengthy reply to me, and address each of your comments, item by item, but in separate blog entries.

    You previously wrote:

    Bretto: Allow me to point out a few key statements in context of Paul’s exhortation: He asks “have not we power [exousia- authourity] to forbear working?” which gives a rhetorical implication of ‘we do have authority to do so’. He further states: “If we have sown to you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?”. Again the implication is ‘yes we do’. Although Paul, and modern true ministers, do have authority to “forbear working” and “reap” natural things, they in no way should demand them. The saints always have liberty and grace to give as the Spirit leads.

    Tom: Agreed! No problems with this statement. But the next one begins to concern me…

    Bretto: This being led by the Spirit however, does have some biblical principles to strongly consider- it is not a flippant, flaky giving to anything/anyone when we are talking about a firstfruits type of giving.

    Now, he uses something to prove his point which many Christians will ignore or pass off as some kind of legalism. His basis for anticipation of financial support/ honour[time]/ wages etc, is: “it is written in the law of Moses”. Of course this is not his, or my, attempt to re-establish tithing as law; just as it isn’t to re-establish a Levitical priesthood and temple service etc. He is drawing out God-inspired principles which have been with us through New and Old Testament times.

    Tom: I am very familiar with this approach to what Paul has said here, and to this subject. However, in all of my experience, to even mention “first fruits” and “tithing” in connection with this theme, even while you decry legalism, will almost surely commute to such a place. I am not convinced Paul had in mind some form of overlapping theme, connected with God’s OT methods for provisioning Levitical priests, but was simply saying that in every generation, and under every covenant, God has always had an approach to taking care of the needs of His specialized servants. But, to pull over anything to do with “firstfruits” and “tithe,” is fraught with gigantic red lights, and ones I think we are best to heed. I see no evidence that Paul taught any of his Gentile believers to give in a way connected with these two themes of the OT. If he did, we have no clarity on this matter, and I think are therefore best to leave the entire area untouched. I have never seen it taught, in any way shape or form, where it did not end up causing a legalistic/control/manipulation approach to getting the saints to give. I.e. Give to my ministry, because God taught that the OT Levitical ministers were to receive this way, and He wants a similar approach to it now. Or, we must give of our first fruits to God, and one area is to give it to NT ministers. I truly don’t believe He does. I truly do not believe we are in any way connected to the Levites, either in function, description, or title. I know you agree that all saints are Priests under the New Covenant, and as such any referencing to NT ministers as the distant inheritors of their unique separated ministry, is to enter into very dangerous territory and not a territory I’m at all comfortable with walking into again.

    Bretto: He goes on to say: “You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treads out the corn. Does God take care for oxen? Or says he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that plows should plow in hope; and that he that threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope.” This shows how God feels about His servants getting supported for the work they do.

    Tom: Agree completely!

    Now is when it gets a bit more specific. He says: “Do you not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?”. This is, of course, in reference to the Levites who ministered at the altar, in the temple. Again, he is not aiming to re-establish Old Testament traditions; he is however, showing God’s continued principle for not leaving the Levites (I am not calling paid ministers priests here, just occupational gospel servants) without their due reward.

    Tom: Even though you maintain Paul is not redefining a new Levitical priesthood, in describing Paul’s purpose for what he has said, it seems to end up at the very place you indicate it won’t. The way I would avoid this is relatively simple. Never fund a minister or his ministry. It is not about him being an occupational minister, and it is not about his having a ministry that needs funding. It is all about financially supporting specific ministry God says needs to be done, and appreciating God for the ministry He has brought through His servants. In other words, it is all about Jesus, and not about providing the minister with a set salary. As Jesus says “This ministry direction or mission is something I am calling for, so I want you to give to this ministry,” or “Because it was Me who ministered through Bretto I want you to bless Me by blessing My servant.” Event driven, rather than occupation driven. Could He lead brethren to send amounts greater than a ministers current need, so as to prepare him for future services to the body? I would assume so, but then I would suggest that money should be put into an account, specified for future acts of ministry, and not to be used as a monthly salary. In the case of Paul, he was continually on the go, and when he wasn’t he did not rely upon the Church to fund his needs…he made tents. This seems only remotely connected with his concerns about the Corinthian believers, and their attitudes, and has much more to do with his ministry philosophy. I just think it is an outstanding philosophy and avoids sooo many pitfalls of a regular salary.

    Bretto: Because Paul used this analogy we can also use the same Levitical comparison when we look at Nehemiah 13 (see my article ‘Tobiah in the house’) which shows how angry God is when His Levites are forced to work in the fields rather than minister in the house (by house I mean the spiritual house, not church buildings etc).

    Tom: I agree to some degree. When God wants His ministers to be available to them they are not to be tied down by some worldly occupation, but avoiding such a thing does not necessitate a regular salary, as much as it necessitates a consistent faith for His provision. Once again, I refer back to what Beresford said. He is open to the Lord to go anywhere He leads him, and he never bases his decisions on money being sent to him or coming to him by a regular salary. He just goes.

    I will relate a story from a senior brother in the Lord, whom I often had come and speak to my students, in the days when I was teaching in a Bible College. His name was Phillip Stanley. He taught all of us, after an entire lifetime of walking according to this principle, that He always knew the Lord would provide for him if He was doing what God had called him to do. One time, he had accepted a call to minister overseas, but he didn’t have a dime to his name. He went down to his local international airport, stood near the ticketing line for a specific airline, and prayed. Suddenly, he was hailed by a sister who knew him. She walked over to him, they discussed where he was heading to, and nothing was said about needing a ticket or finances. He prayed with her, about a personal need she had, and they parted company. He turned back towards the ticket desk and continued to pray for God’s provision. Suddenly, this sister, having walked around 100 feet from him, stopped in her tracks, turned around, came back to him, and said “Brother Stanley, do you have all you need for your ticket?” He said “no, but He was confident the Lord would provide.” She told him how suddenly the Lord put it on her heart to turn around and offer him a set amount of money for his ministry. It turned out it was exactly the price of his airline ticket. He thanked her, prayed with her again, proceeded to the ticket counter, bought his ticket, and left on his ministry trip. He told our class that these sorts of things had taken place hundreds of times over the 60 years of his ministry. I say this to say, that I think we sell God short, if we systemitize His provision, in ways that approach a salary, and away from a moment by moment confidence in His provisioning what He has called for.

    Bretto: I am not suggesting that any paid gospel servant should demand support from anyone. They should, according to the laws of the land, have a legitimate registered ministry with a bank account attached. They should expect a wage each week etc from that ministry.

    Tom: Bretto, I can’t exactly tell you why, in a way that could convince you, but as I read that statement something in me seized up, and I feel sooo certain I heard the Lord say…”Not so.” I know that is dangerous to say, and I can easily be wrong, but this statement hit a super sour note in my spirit, though I say that in all the respect to you I can.

    Bretto: There are two erroneous extremes which can be avoided by a set wage for gospel ministers: 1. Too much money which can lead to all sorts of corruption like: Mammonistic mindsets, preaching watered down messages because it gets better offerings, and seeking keynote speaker gigs at Hollywood style conferences rather than ministering when and where and what the Lord wants whether money follows or not. 2. Not enough money which can lead to: ministers begging bread, running from their ministry to something more profitable, and tax scamming (i.e.: cash in pocket). Remember the labourer is worthy of his hire/wage, not a profitable company nor a hit and miss pay packet.

    Tom: I hear you Bretto, and I like the logic and the wisdom of your words. I just think there are better ways to avoid this, than the approach you are suggesting. I think it is possible to honor our respective governments and their tax laws, without the approach you mention.

    Bretto: How that bank account is topped up is another story altogether for underground, organic church/Kingdom of Heaven communities. Let me explain how we operate in this regard: There is a number of people who I have been working with over the past season apostolically. I have been re-laying the foundation of Christ under this community by teaching and by modelling how the Kingdom should function. We used to take up offerings at the different house/park get-togethers but for some time now we have not. Certain ones from among this community who are mature and Spirit-led enough to give regularly in a firstfruits fashion…

    Tom: I break in here for a moment. I think, if we teach a firstfruits approach we will find those, especially those just coming out of an IC, who feel best about continuing in the tithe as taught by the IC, with a new twist to it, but I’m not convinced this is a good thing to encourage them to do. Better that we help them come all the way out, leave all that behind them, and encourage them to give “only” as the Spirit leads them. The moment anything of “firstfruits” is mentioned, we pull in the Levitical system and legalism, and we are moving in the wrong direction. We have not fully come out yet.

    Bretto: towards the advancement of the Kingdom, “Upon the first day of the week [they] lay by him in store, as God has prospered [them], that there be no gatherings[collections] when I come.” (2 Cor 16:2)

    Tom: I’m sure you are aware of the context of Paul’s teaching here, and it has nothing to do with supporting ministers, and everything to do with the setting aside of a priorly committed amount of money towards the saints in the Palestinian region, who were experiencing a local famine and great financial need. To commute this beyond the specific need Paul was addressing, and develop a “first day of the week,” type approach to giving, as though it were his teaching to systemitize their giving, is treading on very tenuous exegetical grounds. Not a ground I would “at all” be ready to walk on, much less develop a concept of financing ministers from.

    Bretto: When I get around to pray with, teach/dialogue with, break bread with etc, them they usually just hand me their contribution, or credit it into the bank. They do not have to give me anything, but the ones who do, recognise the principle of ’sowing spiritual things and reaping natural’ (1 Cor 9:11) and ‘labourers being worthy of wages’ (1 Tim 5:18). This is not Old Testament tithing but rather New Testament liberality, with an understanding for God’s heart for Kingdom advancement. Some of these supporters give because I have sown spiritual things to them, while others are past that, as they have matured to a place of apostolic offensive and kingdom advancement. Simply, they give to send me out to others to lay and re-lay the Christ foundation in other not-yet-Christian and in-need-of-reformation communities.

    Tom: I have no problems with this, and it seems clean and appropriate, minus the mention of their giving according to “firstfruits” thinking. I’d like to add a comment here, to the “firstfruits” idea. I think I share your belief that the “principle” of firstfruits is a timeless one. It simply teaches that we recognize the blessing of the Lord and seek Him for how to honor Him with a portion of what He has given us. I’m with you here. I think we all should do this. It has a clear spiritual and timeless principle in it. But, to commute that to funding a regular salary for Levitical/NT ministers…???…I just cannot go there, both because of the nature of the New Covenant, and because I don’t at all see Paul making this connection.

    Bretto: Again, this is from freedom, yet the only thing that comes close to compulsion in this equation is a Holy Spirit/Word of God conviction of duty to the furtherance of the gospel. Wow, that was a mouthful! Of course there are those who do not give at all, or those who give only to hungry Ethiopians, or maybe even fancy preachers who they don’t even know. That is their prerogative and freedom… but I do hope they get further revelation with the matter.

    Tom: I hear you. I’m convinced the body needs a great deal of teaching in making the transition out of an IC thinking about giving, or a legalistic thinking, or a compulsion/manipulation oriented thinking. We who teach have much cleaning up of our approaches, so we can help the body to sort these issues out for themselves and their giving.

    I love your spirit in this matter, but I suggest the things I have, as slight adjustments to the approach you follow, as humbly as I know to express it.

    Having said that, I await your reponse, in your time.

11. Brett Jacobsen Says:
    April 26th, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    Response to Tom,

    Hi Tom,

    I will respond to your last four or so blog entries with this one. It will probably be a little scattered though.

    I must preface my response with this thought: I too have fled the dying institutions of Christendom with all its banner-waving denominationalism, corrupted hierarchies, idealistic- hideaway- human constructs, and all the other rotten fruit that is produced by it. However, it is my observation that many who have come out, do become reactionary, at least to a degree, and at least with certain aspects of ‘Kingdom of Christ’ life. Two of the main areas that I believe we are in danger of swinging the pendulum too far the opposite way with are - authority and finance. (I include myself in this error of imbalance at times).

    Anyway, here goes.

    Part one, Frank Viola’s article-

    I have read this article of Frank’s before, I think it’s on the ball for the most part. I will only comment briefly to this section as I don’t believe it is rebuttal against my thoughts. Frank said: “Cyprian (200-258) is the first Christian writer to mention the practice of financially supporting the clergy. He argued that just as the Levites were supported by the tithe, so the Christian clergy should be supported by the tithe. But this is misguided thinking. Today, the Levitical system has been abolished. We are all priests now. So if a priest demands a tithe, then all Christians should tithe to one another!

    Bretto - I agree. I didn’t say that a “Christian clergy should be supported by the tithe”. I also made it clear that no-one should “demand” anything, let alone “a priest” demand “a tithe”.

    >Frank said - “Elders (shepherds) in the first century were never salaried. They were men with an earthly vocation. They gave to the flock rather than took from it.”

    This is a far too narrow view of the term elder. The term elder (presbuteros) in the NT is not in reference to a position or function: you can’t go and do elderness to someone, and there are no official positions in the NT, just ministry gifts and functions. John the apostle called himself elder, though he was clearly an apostle. Peter called himself co-elder though he also was an apostle. Both locally and trans-locally, elders functioned in one of or both outworkings of their proven maturity (eldership); these two main areas of function were episkopos- overseeing as a team, or diakonos- performing certain mandates or tasks from the Lord. (For more clarity on eldership etc see chapter six of Heaven’s Underground Blueprint). The point is that you can’t say that all elders were never salaried, or that they had “earthly vocations” and gave to the flock. Local episkapos-overseer elders mostly were like that. So were most of the local diakonos-deacon elders. However, apostles, as well as other equipping/teaching gifted people received from God’s flock financial remuneration.

    >Frank - “Salarying pastors makes them paid professionals. It elevates them above the rest of God’s people. It creates a clerical caste that turns the living Body of Christ into a business. Since the pastor and his staff are “paid” to do ministry—they are the paid professionals. The rest of the church lapses into a state of passive dependence.”

    Bretto - I’m not talking about salaried pastors. I’m not into the ‘you pay so I’ll play’ deal. I will clarify later what I am talking about with paid ministers. Remembering that I’m not talking about a pastor and his staff getting paid (because it does retard the body into being lazy laity, among other things), I do however, think that we do need “paid professionals”. Let me explain. I function primarily, in this season, as a reformation apostle/ prophetic teacher (my title is doulos - bond-slave). If I was paid (a professional you might say) to do ministry that the body is all supposed to do, then yes, I would become a clergy-class professional Pope. However, if I am merely paid (a professional you might say) to perform the equipping tasks that my gifts and calling require, then what is wrong with being a paid professional in that respect?

    >Tom, you agreed partially on ‘time honour’ - “A study of “The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature” shows that this word is well able to support a monetary meaning, and not just “respect.”

    Bretto - I say, not just “well able” but the actual context of the statement.

    Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy [axioo – to deem entitled] of double honour [time – value, money paid, price], especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture says, You shall not muzzle the ox that treads out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy [axios – due reward] of his reward [misthos – hire, wages, pay for service, reward]. (1 Tim 5:17-18)

    Verse 17 says they are to be “counted worthy”- axioo- deemed entiled to “double time” - value, money paid, price (Vines says of time’s rendering as price: “a price paid or received”. It is clearly used here as received). It goes on to say “especially (malista- particularly, chiefly, most of all) they who labour in the word and doctrine.” It is the equippers who “labour in the word…” that are more specifically deemed entitled to this monetary value. This is not paying Senior Pastors to do the work of the ministry, therefore retarding the saints growth, it is enabling the equippers to equip, as well as apostolic teams to go out. The translators have done well to begin verse 18 with “for”; they are aware of the continuation of the context from verse seventeen. My point is that while still talking about “elders” (specifically ones who teach and equip) being deemed entitled to monetary value, he analogically likens them to oxen and a labourer- (ergates - toiler, teacher, worker). He actually says that the labourer is “worthy” - (axios- due reward) of misthos- (hire, wages, pay for service). Just like any other “labourer”, equipping and sent-out elders are ‘deemed entitled’ as their ‘due reward’ to receive monetary value/misthos- wages, pay for service. Verse 18 merely elaborates on his point in verse 17. It’s not time for elders, misthos for farmers. The analogy presents both time and misthos (in some way, shape or form) to be ‘due reward’ for elders (specifically teach/equipping ones).

    Again, I will re-iterate at this point: to say a gospel labourer ought to believe for his/her wage in a different way to a plumber or field labourer etc, is to set them apart from the ‘normal Christians’. You in fact create a clergy/laity gap by the double standards. When we promote ‘itinerate ministry’ with honorariums and book sales etc to be open slather for the gospel labourer to dip into with no set wage, we ‘make ministry a business’. Attached with that is most often the man-pleasing sermons, the key-note Corinthian stage-strutting, among other things. This kind of imbalance often leads to paupers and profiteering: Paupers - ministers with no set wage that end up begging bread with little sponsor me forms (usually living off a pittance) among other jobless attributes. Profiteering - when it’s anything goes in the business of “ministry”; pushing book sales and lingering in the limelight at cushy conferences etc.

    >Tom, you said - “Paul is simply describing the nature of the means of compensating a day laborer, at the same time his use of this analogy was to teach something, and that something appears to be the compensation for a teaching minister. Now, to say that compensation is to take the form of a misthos/wage/salary, as if the minister were equivalent to a laborer, I believe is to misunderstand Paul’s words and to take them to a meaning he was not pursuing.
    His point is that just as a laborer receives a wage/salary for his labors, as an employee of a master, so it is appropriate to compensate the minister financially or through material means, for the service he has brought, though not in the form of regular wages/salary, since the laborer is a paid employee, and the minister is wholly other than this. Paul is not drawing a one for one equivalency, but is simply using the day laborer as an illustration to make his point. To force the salary element is to overstate his point and miss the point of the analogy.

    While it is true that elders are not for sale, as hirelings are, yet, in alignment with Paul’s analogy they are deserving of a form of remuneration for their service to the body, as a laborer is for his work for the master he is employed by.

    Thus, the elder is worthy of both respect and financial support (“time”), he is not deserving of, nor logically connected to receiving a consistent salary (misthos).”

    Bretto - As I just stated above, to separate the word misthos-wage from the context of 1 Tim 5:17-18 is to miss the main point he is making. Yes, he is showing the entitlement to financial remuneration, but he is also anti-clergifying the situation by presenting an equality between the saints who labour in the farming fields and the saints who labour to equip the saints (as well as apostles etc who work the spiritual harvest fields. more on that another time). I don’t “force the salary element” and it is not to “overstate his point” to promote a normal moderate wage just like many people. He drew the analogy, he chose the wording, and he likened elders who labour in the word to labourers who work the fields, he said misthos rather than another word which could have at least implied sporadic “love offerings” rather than consistent wages. (I must add here that it is an interesting exercise to do a study on offering/offerings in the NT: it barely exists, though many put aside tithing/first-fruit principles in favour of offerings).

    The twelve said: “It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: (Acts 6:2-5)

    It is obvious that “prayer, and… the ministry of the word”, and whatever stemmed from that, was the twelve apostles vocation. (This doesn’t have to take away from the other saints time in prayer and the word). It would be a waste to have these workers out serving tables or being a brick-layer.

    Allow me to present my own ministry as an example of non-clergy, non-begging, non-extravagance, non-saint retarding, given to “prayer, and the ministry of the word”, merely equipping and being sent-out, normal wage earning vocation. I do not look to any man to pay my wage, except Jesus; I do not demand or pressure people for money; I do not charge for the gospel, or any other ministry; I do not take offerings in baskets, or buckets; I do not have an organisation to join (like a “house church”, i.e.. mini-me construct); and I am not looked at by my local spiritual family, or any other Christian, as a step above the rest. For quite some time I have been paying myself a set wage per week out of my legitimate ministry account (overseen by a board). This ministry account is given into by some people who I have sown to spiritually over a season. They aren’t paying for services rendered (forgive me but the honorarium ‘you pay for my preach/teach’ is a business attitude, and it misses Paul’s point in 1 Cor 9 about sowing and reaping). They are enabling others to be sown into in like manner at no cost. They are enabling me to equip the saints in a no-compromise way that speaks the Word how God wishes without the need to man-please (as I don’t rely on an audience to fund me). As Paul said “I robbed other churches, taking wages [opsonion- rations for a soldier, i.e. (by extens.) his stipend or pay:–wages] of them, to do you service” to the Corinthians, so do some of my friends permit me to receive off them so I can do others service. (2 Cor 11:8) This dynamic is beneficial in many ways. One way is that it promotes giving to equipping ministry for the sake of others, rather than for ‘feed me’ selfishness. (Of course I don’t believe the Macedonians and “other churches” were paying Paul’s wages each week, but I reckon that the money that they “supplied” to Paul, he would have allowed himself a moderate wage/ration etc to live off rather than just free spending).

    Another point of importance is, most itinerates (even Emerging church/House church/Simple church etc ones) are ‘went ones’ more than ’sent ones’. I, am clearly sent-out when I minister, whether I go away preaching/teaching, or if I’m at home writing etc. Paul often talked to saints about them bringing him on his way:

    “that ye may bring me on my journey” (1 Cor 16:6)
    “of you to be brought on my way toward Judaea.” (2 Cor 1:16)
    “to be brought on my way there by you” (Rom 15:24)

    John the apostle said to the church to bring forward (financially enable) the apostles who went to the Gentiles. Of course they would probably not be well supported by the new Gentile converts too quickly. This attitude of the local, established saints financing the extension and equipping of the Kingdom was normative in the early church:

    “Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers; Which have borne witness of thy charity before the church: whom if thou bring forward on their journey after a godly sort, thou shalt do well: Because that for his name’s sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles. We therefore ought to receive such, that we might be fellowhelpers to the truth.” (3 John 1:5-8)

    >Steve fella said: “I don’t think it’s anybody’s business if a Christian worker (whether apostle, prophet, elder, teacher, or whatever) receives voluntary offerings from anybody for whatever reason. But the minute a salary or wages is paid, the principle of voluntary giving of service to the body is violated, the principle of clergy-less Christianity is violated, the priesthood of all believers is violated, etc. I’m not getting on that train, because its heading over the cliff. The number one stench in the institutional church is money, plain and simple. It is an abomination, a disgrace not only to God, but to the human race. And once we open the door with a hireling clergy, we are finished.”
    Tom, then you said: “Brett, while I deeply respect the position you take, I have to say that my 40 years of ministry experience confirm Steve’s concerns.”

    Bretto: Steve’s comment is, in my estimation, fear based, overboard, and unfounded. When he says “the minute a salary or wages is paid, the principle of voluntary giving of service to the body is violated, the principle of clergy-less Christianity is violated, the priesthood of all believers is violated, etc”

    Wow, that is sensationalism if I’ve ever seen it. Yes, if the church (organisations) is paying a salary to a clergy class of super doers who demand from the flock of God, this could, and probably will happen. But, as I said, (and do) if ministers are supported by the local ekklesia to do what they are called to, if they don’t overstep their role and create retarded laity, and if they do pay themselves a set wage in the process, there is no reason for all these comments of Steve’s to transpire.

    Regarding your comment: I’m not being smart here, but I don’t reckon your “40 years of ministry experience” was within the context of underground, New Testament Christian community; I could be wrong. (This stuff is what I meant about reaction and imbalance in the ‘no more Cathedral crew’). Even if your experience had a little to do with a fuller expression of NT community, that doesn’t mean things will always go bad, just because they have before you. My few years of experience in pressing into real NT community has not brought us closer to institutional clergyism etc, but on the contrary, has drawn us further away. (Don’t forget that I have paid myself a wage over the whole time). I am not just theorising about orthopraxy here, I am practicing what I preach. Too many people are fearfully preaching a downhill spiral into further dark-age institutionalism because some practitioners of NT community and ministry are consistently compensated. This is a shame. No disrespect intended, but, I don’t think you are in a position to comment too deeply here; though you can clearly speak theologically. I have made,(and still do) many real decisions and died many deaths to be a part of the NT community I relate to. I am in the midst of the outworking of this doctrinal debate. I can say from both scripture and experience that if you continue to keep in check the main issues of ecclesiology and NT orthopraxy then you will move with God, not towards institutionalism.

    >Pastor Beresford Job said: “I think it unlikely that there would be much need for anyone to be a full time elder unless they also had a ministry wider than just to the house church of which they are a part.” … “Indeed, the idea of churches employing someone is perfectly at odds with the teaching of the New Testament as a whole.”

    Bretto: I must say that I am a little bit disappointed that our dialogue has regressed to the place where we are quoting Pastors who are talking about churches (whether house churches or other). Again, I am not talking about “churches” employing Pastors. I am talking about the church (the called-out saints) voluntarily, though taught the right principles, giving to ministers who pay themselves a set wage. We don’t have “house churches” with an elder. We are a community of believers who flow house to house to beach to park to work etc. There are elders amongst us who oversee (these are not set positions though). And there are elders who teach/equip and are sent-out (we’re only getting there though). I am the first one to be employed, but there will be more. I am not employed by a “church” (there isn’t one). I am employed by my ministry. Also, I am looking to pay some Timothy/Junior apostles/’apostles in training’ as soon as the Lord is willing. These won’t have to compromise by promoting themselves around the place in order to get preaching engagements, they will not have to pragmatically push on with pointless church work. These will be free to give themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word which stems from it. Whether they are prophetically proclaiming the end of man’s rule in the church (at “churches”) or studying the word with two people in a park, if they are called, they will get the chance to progress without all the clutter. They will be paid for their service to the Kingdom.

    >Tom: “…when we begin to talk of regular salaries. So many of our brethren, who are coming out of the IC are, in my opinion, bringing along with them too much of the system they hope to leave behind”
    Bretto: I agree

    >Tom: “…and one of the manifestations of this, in my opinion, is doing the very things that Beresford says he does not do, I.e. emails selling books, tapes, CDs, DVDs, online courses, online teachings, upcoming seminars, private training sessions, hats, tee shirts, etc. etc”

    Bretto: Paper costs money, so do cd’s and DVD’s. Perhaps your comment is aimed at the fact that I have a book for sale on my site? (I don’t have hats and t-shirts though). Yes there are extremes and profiteering. Shall we cast out the baby with the bath water? Any profit (more than what the books cost me) that I make is quite simply used to resource others (like giving free books to equip others). I’m sure there are many others who operate similarly. The written word for teaching and the like has proven to be a great resource for the church. If anyone wants my book, but can’t afford it, I will gladly send them a free e-version. See, I charge not for the word or the gospel, or the teaching. Again, because I am supported/paid and sent-out by the local community I don’t have to profit from things mentioned above. Because I have faith in God for my provision, I don’t send out beggar emails and the like.

    >Tom: “There are frequent requests for financial assistance and a need for donations so as to continue their great work. These are the very things I contend all need to be left behind, in the system we have come out of.”

    Bretto: I agree that frequent requests are burdensome and un-called for. But, Paul and others obviously saw fit from time to time to teach/provoke the brethren to love and good works in the area of finances. We need the biblical balance of this, not reactionary imbalance.

    >Tom: “while I am very aware that you steadfastly reject such a status, my concern is, that while you reject such a category of definition in the body of Christ, I believe the position you are maintaining will logically lead to the very thing you reject.”

    Bretto: Thanks for your concern. But, as I said before, the opposite is proving to be the case.

    >Tom: “It seems to me, the very moment we talk of anyone receiving a consistent salary, or setting up any formation for such a thing to take place, we won’t be able to avoid the pitfalls of institutionalization.

    Bretto: I am no better than anyone else: I’m open to the same corruption. I just don’t believe that a minister who is truly void of an office, and free from the system will return to their vomitus systems because they pay themselves a consistent wage. Perhaps the people that you are imagining have left the system, not allowing the system to leave them?

    >Tom: “I believe you completely, when you say you have avoided it, and it shouldn’t be a necessary outcome, but while you might be careful to avoid it, I find it impossible to imagine that if we champion such an approach, that it won’t lead to what we are coming out of.”

    Bretto: There are quite simply more real elements of concern. If you have truly left behind the big no-no’s, consistent income should not affect you negatively.

    >Tom: “For example, and I mean no disrespect, but part and parcel with salary setting, is the development of a carefully constructed marketing plan, complete with the sale of products, email and spoken petitions for donations, describing our monetary needs for our ministry, etc. To my way of thinking this is a returning to an “organisational” approach to Church and ministry, and turning ministry into the business I don’t see any of the apostles espousing.”

    Bretto: I think it is a little disrespectful to assume that someone who pays themself a consistent wage rather than living big or little (depending on the offering etc) is going to badger people for money, or do AMWAY-like marketing (I don’t live in America champ).

    >Tom: “I can appreciate it could look like I’m quibbling over semantical issues here, but I really don’t think they are.

    Bretto: I don’t wish to come accross as anti-semantical here, but, I think you are going over and over the same point.

    Bretto: Tom, I don’t agree with your take on 1 Cor 9. He referred to the Levites for a reason. There was obviously some similarities to how God consistently looked after them by way of the other 11 tribes giving firstfruits/tithes. I am not promoting legalistic tithing or legal compulsion of giving. I am however, in agreement with Paul’s pressing the carnal Corinthians to regularly contribute to the furtherance of the gospel, by using the OT analogy. He didn’t use an analogy which spoke of sporadic blessings, he used an analogy which spoke of consistent support. You have made his discourse seem too vague I think. He was quite specific in his terminology. By the way, Levite doesn’t only = priest, it = servant in the house. priest = priest. Yes, we are all priests to God. But, no we are not all Levites according to Paul’s analogy. The majority will work normal jobs while a minority should be supported by there giving; this is a NT concept, not just OT.

    Also, you referred to Paul’s tent-making as if it were normative. Not so. He didn’t do it much; he only did it because of the Corinthians carnal lack of financial willingness, and to teach the Thessalonians about work ethics; he “robbed other churches” so he didn’t have to keep making tents.

    >Tom: “When God wants His ministers to be available to them they are not to be tied down by some worldly occupation, but avoiding such a thing does not necessitate a regular salary, as much as it necessitates a consistent faith for His provision.”

    Bretto: Again, my consistent salary (not paid by an institution but by my ministry account) makes me more like the normal (one might say laity-like) saints rather than setting me apart as above them.

    I also know that the Lord provides for me in what He wants me to do, just like he provides for my friends who run a business or work a job: we get paid.

    Thank you for the story about brother Stanley. I also know many stories of the like (I am in some of the stories). I still have to believe God for finance to live and finance to minister. Just because I run it through a bank account and take a wage for my living expenses doesn’t mean others have more faith. That is nonsensical to suggest it so. Both scenarios require the Lord to provide the finances. Also, remember what Paul said: “Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?”. (1 Cor 9:4-7) These are very natural everyday life things that Paul is declaring his right to (i.e.: food and drink, a wife). We do err towards re-creating a clergy class if we don’t afford to the gospel ministers the normality of the necessities of life. Again, we make them to be super Christians if we require them to “live by faith” any differently than any other believer.

    >I said this before: I am not suggesting that any paid gospel servant should demand support from anyone. They should, according to the laws of the land, have a legitimate registered ministry with a bank account attached. They should expect a wage each week etc from that ministry.
    Tom: Bretto, I can’t exactly tell you why, in a way that could convince you, but as I read that statement something in me seized up, and I feel sooo certain I heard the Lord say…”Not so.” I know that is dangerous to say, and I can easily be wrong, but this statement hit a super sour note in my spirit, though I say that in all the respect to you I can.

    Bretto: Wow, in the same breathe you hit me with a “I heard the Lord say” and then a “I know that is dangerous to say”. To qualify what I gather you “seized up” over: The laws of the land statement is in accordance with Romans 13 (submission to the authorities, and tribute etc) and Jesus’ “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” statement. (Mark 12:17) If it is the “expect a wage each week etc from that ministry” statement, I say that is merely the faith that you and brother Stanley speak of, it just has a legitimate ministry account in the middle. I am not expecting from people, I’m expecting that God will provide the money for that wage as well as money to minister when and where necessary.

    >Tom: “The moment anything of “firstfruits” is mentioned, we pull in the Levitical system and legalism, and we are moving in the wrong direction. We have not fully come out yet.”

    Bretto: I disagree, though I am aware that certain people will do this. This is why clear thorough teaching is needed on the matter. Firstfruits does not necessitate legalism, just as telling a brother not to commit adultery or to steal does not. Enforcing it with legal requirement is legalism, not promoting a God given principle in a NT context.

    >Tom: “I’m sure you are aware of the context of Paul’s teaching here, and it has nothing to do with supporting ministers, and everything to do with the setting aside of a priory committed amount of money towards the saints in the Palestinian region, who were experiencing a local famine and great financial need. To commute this beyond the specific need Paul was addressing, and develop a “first day of the week,” type approach to giving, as though it were his teaching to systemitize their giving, is treading on very tenuous exegetical grounds. Not a ground I would “at all” be ready to walk on, much less develop a concept of financing ministers from.”

    Bretto: Well said. I am aware of the context. When I use this verse I usually use it only to present a principle of laying aside regularly for the Lord. I did word that statement unfortunately. Sorry.

    >Tom: “I have no problems with this, and it seems clean and appropriate, minus the mention of their giving according to “firstfruits” thinking. I’d like to add a comment here, to the “firstfruits” idea. I think I share your belief that the “principle” of firstfruits is a timeless one. It simply teaches that we recognize the blessing of the Lord and seek Him for how to honor Him with a portion of what He has given us. I’m with you here. I think we all should do this. It has a clear spiritual and timeless principle in it. But, to commute that to funding a regular salary for Levitical/NT ministers…???…I just cannot go there, both because of the nature of the New Covenant, and because I don’t at all see Paul making this connection.”

    Bretto: I am not saying that the believers are to only give to one person, as I am not saying they are to only give to the same place. What I am implying is that the firstfruits principle continues (by the Spirit of course) and that the local ‘called out saints’ do well to use it primarily to give to those who equip them and go out from them. (This is a rather large subject in itself).

    Mate, I really believe that we share more commonality in our views than the semantical see-sawing gives credit to. I, in no way promote or condone thoughts or actions which set-up “churches”. (The body is the church everywhere). So, in affect, I am not suggesting that the “church” pay salaries to Bishop-like positions and people (especially ones who do all the ministry, usually heaping the saints up under themselves). I am merely agreeing with you, or you with me, that true gospel labourers are worthy of m