Hi Steve:
I was listening to your discourse on pastors, the Apostles and support and would like to ask a few questions and make a few comments and observations.
How do you know that the Apostles weren't paid a regular salary? Is this your assumption or do you have authoritative proof? I have searched the scriptures and find nothing that says they weren't paid. In fact, I find to the contrary.
Doesn't, 1 Corinthians 9, indicate a predictable support system for the Apostles? How do you know that a certain amount wasn't specified at some point as the needs arose? Even though Paul refused support from the Corinthians, he certainly didn't from others.
How about 2 Corinthians 11:8 where Paul uses the word "op-so'-nee-on" which is translated “wages” by the: KJV, NKJV, ASB. NASB, New Jerusalem and as the dynamic equivalent in the other translations. How can you say that it wasn't an expected amount when he thanked the Philippians for their repeated and continuous generosity.
As far as a pastor/elder's support, how about 1 Timothy 5:17? Doesn't that indicate that an elder received regular support? In in fact, verse 18 seems to make it very clear that "op-so'-nee-on" were expected.
I have respect for your decision, early in your ministry, not to take a salary. But doesn't the fact that the ministry you head, (at least in the past) provide you with a car, fuel, and repairs; payment of utility bills; purchase of groceries; and other expected regular income that you have received- undermine your claim?
I have no objection to your ministry providing these things, as long as you don't try to dodge the tax bill. But just renaming your remuneration doesn't change the fact that you have and perhaps do receive regular support.
I have a lot of sympathy for the majority of pastors who labor with minimal support and yet come under condemnation from you, and those who believe in you, because their support is called a salary.
The fact is, many of them receive a salary only if the money is there. It was that way for my ministry for the first 9 years and still is sometimes. To this day, I don't have a predictable payday. But, I do call it a salary, because that is what it is. When the day comes that I receive a regular check on a particular day of the month, every month for the same amount, that will be wonderful and it will still be a salary.
If a pastor simply changed the terms and asked the church to buy his groceries, pay his house payment, provide his car, and pay his family’s other expenses, would that make it more sanctified? I don't think so. In fact, the IRS would consider that tax fraud and would take action against such.
I believe that you have a mindset on this and you portray your idealism while neglecting to tell the listener the whole story. It grates on me to hear you go on when I know that you live other that you speak.
A Friend
Supported vs Salaried ministry
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Supported vs Salaried ministry
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Dear Friend,
I am glad you asked about these things. Before I address the texts about which you inquired, I would like to clarify something about my own financial policies. I regularly claim that I do not receive a salary for the ministry, and that I don’t inform people of our personal needs, but only trust the Lord for them. These statements are true, but have a modicum of exaggeration in them. For example, in 31 years of ministry, and many thousands of occasions of need arising, there have been two or three times (to my recollection) where my faith was weak and where I did make a need known to some person or other. These instances represent highly exceptional cases where my faith failed the test, but do not give the lie to my claim that I (as a very consistent policy) do not (or I can even say, apart from these few exceptions, “have not”) let my needs be known. This is not the issue upon which you wrote, but is an example of a similar case. I say that I have never received a salary for ministry. While this is true, it is not 100% true. I did receive a salary for one month as a youth minister in a Baptist church when I was in my teens. After receiving this salary the first month, I felt convicted and told the pastor that I wished to serve without salary from that point on. Since then I have never taken a salary. So there was one exception to my general policy, but I do not think that it constitutes a reason for me to cease to describe my policy as I have.
For about six years (1983-89) I did have my food, housing and utilities paid by the ministry. I did not (and don’t today) consider this a salary. We were living in a Christian community where everyone received the same privileges, whether they were in ministry or not. I received no pay, and no more benefits than did any of the other volunteers working or students studying there. In fact, all of my income came from honoraria from outside speaking engagements (which I still distinguish from “salary”) and I tended to give about 50% of all the money I brought home to the needs of other families in the community. Despite this fact, I always reported the value of my housing, etc. when filing my personal taxes. My accountant told me that these were non-taxable benefits that I derived from my volunteering in a tax-exempt organization. Apparently the IRS agreed, because they never challenged me on this.
When we moved to McMinnville, the school initially continued to feed and house me, as it did all others in the community, though, when my grandmother gave us a house in Amity, in 1992, the school no longer provided my housing. For a while, we still sometimes allowed the school buy our groceries, sometimes we bought them ourselves, depending on the school’s finances. We received nothing predictable from the ministry during those years. At a certain point, because the ministry required me to travel by car a lot, and I could not afford it at the time, the school purchased a ten-year-old vehicle for my family’s use, which I drove for five years until it fell apart on the road. Since then I have always bought my own vehicles.
After moving to Idaho, I received no benefit from Great Commission School or The Narrow Path, except that I still drove the school-owned Suburban, which was mostly used for ministry trips, and when its engine died, I paid for a new engine out of my own pocket. For maintenance (like lube jobs) I sometimes did allow the school to share the expense, and other times I paid out of my own resources. I paid for my own cord wood (the only heating in our house) and for the propane that we used to heat water and to cook. The ministry usually (not always) covered our phone bill, since our personal phone is used more often than the office phone for “business” calls. We bought all of our own groceries, fuel, clothing, etc., from our own resources.
In other words, we have often received financial help from the ministry organization, but have no regular help from there and have never taken any money for ourselves from that pocket. Of course, all of our income comes as a result of ministry, but that is just the distinction that I make between salary and support. We have never had one month in which we had any advance knowledge or guarantee of money that would come to us to pay our bills. For me to receive sporadic assistance in certain ministry-related expenses from either our organization or from outside donors is not the same thing as what I am calling a salary. Nor would I expect our listeners to see it otherwise. As near as I can ascertain, I teach and practice what I believe Jesus and the disciples in ministry practiced.
Which brings us to the specific texts you cited. When Paul was speaking of the support of elders (1 Tim.5:17-18), he quoted Jesus’ words in Luke 10:7—“The laborer is worthy of his wages [or reward].” This Jesus said when sending out the seventy. Jesus said essentially the same thing in Matthew 10, when he sent out the apostles to preach, only substituting the word “food” for “wages.” My instincts are that he meant the same thing in both passages, suggesting that, when Jesus spoke of the minister’s “wages,” he essentially meant “food.” (This is also the currency in which the Levites were supported). This would agree with the repeated policy of not muzzling an ox while it works.
Even if “wages” [Gr. Misthos] in Luke 10 and 1 Tim.5 refer to more than mere food, the word does not carry the meaning of a salary. This word suggests, rather, the financial return that comes to a contract laborer in exchange for performing a day job (e.g., Matt.20:8; James 5:4; 2 Pet.2:15, the latter referring to a one-time payment offered to Balaam in exchange for cursing Israel), but does not connote an ongoing, regular wage received by a person holding a permanent salaried position. For example, the word refers (metaphorically) to the “wages of unrighteousness” that will come to evil men (2 Pet.2:13)…certainly not a weekly, monthly or annual salary, but a one-time retribution, probably at the judgment seat of Christ.
The same can be said about the word opsonion, which is not used of the support of elders in 1 Tim.5:17-18, but which Paul does use in 2 Cor.11:8, speaking (in all likelihood) of the honoraria he received from preaching in other churches, but would not accept from the Corinthians. This word can, no doubt, refer to the pay given to a career person (like a soldier—Luke 3:14; 1 Cor.9:7). However, since the wages (opsonion) of sin is said to be death (Rom.6:23), it seems that a one-time reward can be designated by this word, rather than an ongoing salary. In 2 Cor.11:8, Paul says that he had received “wages” from other churches. The churches Paul had preached in prior to Corinth could hardly have paid him what we call a salary, since he spent no more than a few weeks in each. Their gifts to him could not have taken the form or a regular income. Nor is there any reason to believe that the gifts he received from the Philippians were of the nature of a salary, since they only sent to him three times (Phil.4:16), and the third gift apparently came after some considerable interval (Phil.4:10).
In any case, whatever Jesus meant by the laborer being worthy of his “food” or “wages,” he could not have meant what we think of as a salary, since he also says, two verses earlier (in Matthew 10:8), “Freely you have received, freely give.” How can one receive a wage, and also be working freely (“without charge”)? Why did Jesus place both of these thoughts in such immediate proximity to each other?
I believe that the solution is found in the minister seeing himself as God’s slave (this is the meaning of the word that Paul, Peter, James and Jude all used in their epistles to describe their positions). A slave is not salaried, but he is supported by his master. He does not say to his master or to his fellow servants, “I will do so much work for so much pay.” A servant may say this, but not a slave. The slave thinks nothing about remuneration. His only concern is to serve his master. What he receives by way of support for his sustenance and the means through which the master chooses to provide that support are not the concerns of the slave. He is concerned only about doing his master’s will. He knows the master will supply his needs some way or another, since this is in the master’s interests to do. Thus the slave “freely gives,” yet he is worthy of his food, and his master attends to that without consulting the will of the slave in the matter.
This is how Jesus served his father. There is no evidence that Jesus received a monthly, pre-agreed-upon stipend for his labors. Had someone said to him, “Jesus, we have formed this religious organization and we are making you our CEO. We will give you so much money in exchange for your fulfilling such and such responsibilities…” I suspect he would have been repulsed by the suggestion. Had someone made the same offer to Peter, he might have said (as he did on one occasion), “Your money perish with you, because you thought the gift of God could be purchased with money!” Jesus received no salary, but was supported (at least partially) by certain grateful women, who ministered to him from their possessions (Luke 8:1-3). When Peter said, “Silver and gold have I none,” it would appear that he had no salary from the church, unless he had already spent his whole paycheck that week.
When people ask me about this, I am always concerned to state the principles without mentioning any names or particularizing the matter to individual cases of other men who follow another practice. There are many things that modern churches do with which I am not in agreement (e.g., trans-local authority structures, professional clergy, women in leadership over men, etc.). This does not mean that I condemn those who practice these things. It does mean, however, that when people ask me about them, I will give an opinion and will give the biblical reasons for that opinion. If some pastors or ministers receive a predictable remuneration for their labors, I do not condemn them. I only point out that this arrangement has no precedent in Scripture, and that it seems to go against some biblical principles. Even if there was nothing to object to in principle in these policies, I think that they create entanglements, both political and in terms of freedom of conscience, that would make them undesirable to me personally.
In Jesus,
Steve
I am glad you asked about these things. Before I address the texts about which you inquired, I would like to clarify something about my own financial policies. I regularly claim that I do not receive a salary for the ministry, and that I don’t inform people of our personal needs, but only trust the Lord for them. These statements are true, but have a modicum of exaggeration in them. For example, in 31 years of ministry, and many thousands of occasions of need arising, there have been two or three times (to my recollection) where my faith was weak and where I did make a need known to some person or other. These instances represent highly exceptional cases where my faith failed the test, but do not give the lie to my claim that I (as a very consistent policy) do not (or I can even say, apart from these few exceptions, “have not”) let my needs be known. This is not the issue upon which you wrote, but is an example of a similar case. I say that I have never received a salary for ministry. While this is true, it is not 100% true. I did receive a salary for one month as a youth minister in a Baptist church when I was in my teens. After receiving this salary the first month, I felt convicted and told the pastor that I wished to serve without salary from that point on. Since then I have never taken a salary. So there was one exception to my general policy, but I do not think that it constitutes a reason for me to cease to describe my policy as I have.
For about six years (1983-89) I did have my food, housing and utilities paid by the ministry. I did not (and don’t today) consider this a salary. We were living in a Christian community where everyone received the same privileges, whether they were in ministry or not. I received no pay, and no more benefits than did any of the other volunteers working or students studying there. In fact, all of my income came from honoraria from outside speaking engagements (which I still distinguish from “salary”) and I tended to give about 50% of all the money I brought home to the needs of other families in the community. Despite this fact, I always reported the value of my housing, etc. when filing my personal taxes. My accountant told me that these were non-taxable benefits that I derived from my volunteering in a tax-exempt organization. Apparently the IRS agreed, because they never challenged me on this.
When we moved to McMinnville, the school initially continued to feed and house me, as it did all others in the community, though, when my grandmother gave us a house in Amity, in 1992, the school no longer provided my housing. For a while, we still sometimes allowed the school buy our groceries, sometimes we bought them ourselves, depending on the school’s finances. We received nothing predictable from the ministry during those years. At a certain point, because the ministry required me to travel by car a lot, and I could not afford it at the time, the school purchased a ten-year-old vehicle for my family’s use, which I drove for five years until it fell apart on the road. Since then I have always bought my own vehicles.
After moving to Idaho, I received no benefit from Great Commission School or The Narrow Path, except that I still drove the school-owned Suburban, which was mostly used for ministry trips, and when its engine died, I paid for a new engine out of my own pocket. For maintenance (like lube jobs) I sometimes did allow the school to share the expense, and other times I paid out of my own resources. I paid for my own cord wood (the only heating in our house) and for the propane that we used to heat water and to cook. The ministry usually (not always) covered our phone bill, since our personal phone is used more often than the office phone for “business” calls. We bought all of our own groceries, fuel, clothing, etc., from our own resources.
In other words, we have often received financial help from the ministry organization, but have no regular help from there and have never taken any money for ourselves from that pocket. Of course, all of our income comes as a result of ministry, but that is just the distinction that I make between salary and support. We have never had one month in which we had any advance knowledge or guarantee of money that would come to us to pay our bills. For me to receive sporadic assistance in certain ministry-related expenses from either our organization or from outside donors is not the same thing as what I am calling a salary. Nor would I expect our listeners to see it otherwise. As near as I can ascertain, I teach and practice what I believe Jesus and the disciples in ministry practiced.
Which brings us to the specific texts you cited. When Paul was speaking of the support of elders (1 Tim.5:17-18), he quoted Jesus’ words in Luke 10:7—“The laborer is worthy of his wages [or reward].” This Jesus said when sending out the seventy. Jesus said essentially the same thing in Matthew 10, when he sent out the apostles to preach, only substituting the word “food” for “wages.” My instincts are that he meant the same thing in both passages, suggesting that, when Jesus spoke of the minister’s “wages,” he essentially meant “food.” (This is also the currency in which the Levites were supported). This would agree with the repeated policy of not muzzling an ox while it works.
Even if “wages” [Gr. Misthos] in Luke 10 and 1 Tim.5 refer to more than mere food, the word does not carry the meaning of a salary. This word suggests, rather, the financial return that comes to a contract laborer in exchange for performing a day job (e.g., Matt.20:8; James 5:4; 2 Pet.2:15, the latter referring to a one-time payment offered to Balaam in exchange for cursing Israel), but does not connote an ongoing, regular wage received by a person holding a permanent salaried position. For example, the word refers (metaphorically) to the “wages of unrighteousness” that will come to evil men (2 Pet.2:13)…certainly not a weekly, monthly or annual salary, but a one-time retribution, probably at the judgment seat of Christ.
The same can be said about the word opsonion, which is not used of the support of elders in 1 Tim.5:17-18, but which Paul does use in 2 Cor.11:8, speaking (in all likelihood) of the honoraria he received from preaching in other churches, but would not accept from the Corinthians. This word can, no doubt, refer to the pay given to a career person (like a soldier—Luke 3:14; 1 Cor.9:7). However, since the wages (opsonion) of sin is said to be death (Rom.6:23), it seems that a one-time reward can be designated by this word, rather than an ongoing salary. In 2 Cor.11:8, Paul says that he had received “wages” from other churches. The churches Paul had preached in prior to Corinth could hardly have paid him what we call a salary, since he spent no more than a few weeks in each. Their gifts to him could not have taken the form or a regular income. Nor is there any reason to believe that the gifts he received from the Philippians were of the nature of a salary, since they only sent to him three times (Phil.4:16), and the third gift apparently came after some considerable interval (Phil.4:10).
In any case, whatever Jesus meant by the laborer being worthy of his “food” or “wages,” he could not have meant what we think of as a salary, since he also says, two verses earlier (in Matthew 10:8), “Freely you have received, freely give.” How can one receive a wage, and also be working freely (“without charge”)? Why did Jesus place both of these thoughts in such immediate proximity to each other?
I believe that the solution is found in the minister seeing himself as God’s slave (this is the meaning of the word that Paul, Peter, James and Jude all used in their epistles to describe their positions). A slave is not salaried, but he is supported by his master. He does not say to his master or to his fellow servants, “I will do so much work for so much pay.” A servant may say this, but not a slave. The slave thinks nothing about remuneration. His only concern is to serve his master. What he receives by way of support for his sustenance and the means through which the master chooses to provide that support are not the concerns of the slave. He is concerned only about doing his master’s will. He knows the master will supply his needs some way or another, since this is in the master’s interests to do. Thus the slave “freely gives,” yet he is worthy of his food, and his master attends to that without consulting the will of the slave in the matter.
This is how Jesus served his father. There is no evidence that Jesus received a monthly, pre-agreed-upon stipend for his labors. Had someone said to him, “Jesus, we have formed this religious organization and we are making you our CEO. We will give you so much money in exchange for your fulfilling such and such responsibilities…” I suspect he would have been repulsed by the suggestion. Had someone made the same offer to Peter, he might have said (as he did on one occasion), “Your money perish with you, because you thought the gift of God could be purchased with money!” Jesus received no salary, but was supported (at least partially) by certain grateful women, who ministered to him from their possessions (Luke 8:1-3). When Peter said, “Silver and gold have I none,” it would appear that he had no salary from the church, unless he had already spent his whole paycheck that week.
When people ask me about this, I am always concerned to state the principles without mentioning any names or particularizing the matter to individual cases of other men who follow another practice. There are many things that modern churches do with which I am not in agreement (e.g., trans-local authority structures, professional clergy, women in leadership over men, etc.). This does not mean that I condemn those who practice these things. It does mean, however, that when people ask me about them, I will give an opinion and will give the biblical reasons for that opinion. If some pastors or ministers receive a predictable remuneration for their labors, I do not condemn them. I only point out that this arrangement has no precedent in Scripture, and that it seems to go against some biblical principles. Even if there was nothing to object to in principle in these policies, I think that they create entanglements, both political and in terms of freedom of conscience, that would make them undesirable to me personally.
In Jesus,
Steve
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Hi Steve:
Thank you for your prompt reply.
If you, for several years, expected that your groceries and housing costs would be provided, that is regular income. It may not be salary or even the same amount each month, but it was regular, it was expected and you fail to mention that as you berate those who don't agree with your position on ministerial support.
Your conviction on this matter is often used as a stinging criticism toward those in ministry who do receive a salary. I agree with you that it is abhorrent for a minister to refuse to minister unless a certain amount is guaranteed. (There was a year or so that I did this on my own accord and feel greatly embarrassed that I acted so foolishly.) But, for those who are called to eldership and are expected to devote 40-60 hours per week, it leaves little time for family, and other needs if they must also work. For such a man, they should expect that those they enrich spiritually would enrich them financially. For a charismatic speaker, such as yourself, who can develop ministry support from a broad cross-section of believers, your way works well. But for the guy who labors in the local body, it is that local body that should be taking care of him.
I understand the sting of church politics and agree that an unencumbered ministry is best. However, not everyone has the freedoms you have. Many men are trusting God and getting by on very little. More pastors work a job while pastoring, than are on a substantial or even regular salary.
In my letter, I painted you with the same broad brush strokes you often use to paint others. (Matt. 7:2) It is unfair for you to hold yourself up to such virtue when indeed you, semantically, apply your teaching to yourself differently. While you blow your own horn, you rarely (I say rarely in case you may have one time made mention of the details and I missed that one occasion) mention the reality of your own situation in the past or now. It would be good of you to do so—every time you talk about this.
It is one thing to have a "ideal." It is another to live it and quite another to apply it to all. You are a charismatic man, who draws men and women by your knowledge and presentation of the scripture. To many, what you say is gospel. The sad fact is, your idealistic portrayal is not one-size-fits-all. You fail to account for the faithful ones God has called and instructed to do it differently than you.
When you go on at length, as you sometimes do about, how you never make your needs known, you are making your needs known. It worked well for George Mueler too. As he sent out his newsletters, the readers sent back their donations.
I still point out that you argue from the assumption that none of the apostles received a certain amount. Even your interpretation of these various scriptures leaves open the other possibility. Therefore, have your conviction. Teach your students your way. But, in public, on the radio, you should use care. If you were perfect, it would be good to encourage the rest of us to be like you. You are not, nor am I. Paul could say, "be like me." You are not Paul, you are Steve.
May the Lord bless you.
A Friend
Thank you for your prompt reply.
If you, for several years, expected that your groceries and housing costs would be provided, that is regular income. It may not be salary or even the same amount each month, but it was regular, it was expected and you fail to mention that as you berate those who don't agree with your position on ministerial support.
Your conviction on this matter is often used as a stinging criticism toward those in ministry who do receive a salary. I agree with you that it is abhorrent for a minister to refuse to minister unless a certain amount is guaranteed. (There was a year or so that I did this on my own accord and feel greatly embarrassed that I acted so foolishly.) But, for those who are called to eldership and are expected to devote 40-60 hours per week, it leaves little time for family, and other needs if they must also work. For such a man, they should expect that those they enrich spiritually would enrich them financially. For a charismatic speaker, such as yourself, who can develop ministry support from a broad cross-section of believers, your way works well. But for the guy who labors in the local body, it is that local body that should be taking care of him.
I understand the sting of church politics and agree that an unencumbered ministry is best. However, not everyone has the freedoms you have. Many men are trusting God and getting by on very little. More pastors work a job while pastoring, than are on a substantial or even regular salary.
In my letter, I painted you with the same broad brush strokes you often use to paint others. (Matt. 7:2) It is unfair for you to hold yourself up to such virtue when indeed you, semantically, apply your teaching to yourself differently. While you blow your own horn, you rarely (I say rarely in case you may have one time made mention of the details and I missed that one occasion) mention the reality of your own situation in the past or now. It would be good of you to do so—every time you talk about this.
It is one thing to have a "ideal." It is another to live it and quite another to apply it to all. You are a charismatic man, who draws men and women by your knowledge and presentation of the scripture. To many, what you say is gospel. The sad fact is, your idealistic portrayal is not one-size-fits-all. You fail to account for the faithful ones God has called and instructed to do it differently than you.
When you go on at length, as you sometimes do about, how you never make your needs known, you are making your needs known. It worked well for George Mueler too. As he sent out his newsletters, the readers sent back their donations.
I still point out that you argue from the assumption that none of the apostles received a certain amount. Even your interpretation of these various scriptures leaves open the other possibility. Therefore, have your conviction. Teach your students your way. But, in public, on the radio, you should use care. If you were perfect, it would be good to encourage the rest of us to be like you. You are not, nor am I. Paul could say, "be like me." You are not Paul, you are Steve.
May the Lord bless you.
A Friend
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Dear Friend,
Most of what you have just written is in defense of a man being supported by those to whom he ministers. I defend this very thing, as the Bible is clear concerning the duty of those who receive spiritual blessing from a man to see to it that his physical needs are met. If I did not believe this, I would go out and "get a real job."
The examples you gave of many pastors and of your own case do not, in themselves, disagree with my point. You said that a pastor's support should (and usually must) arise from within his own congregation. This is in full accord with my own understanding and teaching.
I do not, however, equate support and salary. A “salary” is paid to a worker by an employer—the latter is either an individual, or, more commonly, a corporation. The employer who pays the salary also defines the duties of the employed individual, and can fire him, or dock his pay if he does not measure up to what that employer believes the employee should be doing. Thus a salaried worker is the servant of whoever signs his paycheck. In secular employment, this arrangement generally does not create any ethical problem or conflict of interests. However, the man who is in God’s service does not seek to please man (Gal.1:10), but God. God is his Master, and His Master provides his “support” according to His wishes. Since God owns all the wealth held in every bank account, He may send support to His servants from any unpredictable source. More often than not, the support comes from those to whom the man directly ministers, though this needn’t always be the case. The servant of the Lord is not bartering his services for money with people. He serves the Lord, and allows the Lord to provide in any way and in any amount He may choose.
If the eldership or deacons of a church choose to give their full-time staff some honorarium on a regular basis, which seems to me entirely legitimate, this is still not a salary, but an honorarium. For example, when I teach at a particular church where I have often taught in Santa Cruz, it is reasonably predictable that they will give me $300 after three days of teaching. This estimation is based on past giving on their part. However, they make no guarantees along these lines, and I agree to come without reference to this or any other figure. For years I taught in YWAM Honolulu three times a year. It was fairly predictable what the honorarium was likely to be for that week of teaching. One time I went, however, and received no honorarium other than a coffee cup and two tee-shirts. I confess this surprised and, initially, disappointed me. But it was a wake-up call for me to check my attitude concerning the relationship of my service to remuneration. I am not working for YWAM but for God. If YWAM reimburses me nothing, then God (my Master) will provide through some other avenue.
If I were to teach every week of the year for some YWAM base or other, and received a predictable and equal honorarium each week, this would appear (perhaps to the IRS) as if I were receiving a salary. However, I am really receiving support, or an honorarium, or opsonion. Likewise, a pastor or radio minister, or missionary, or slave, might very justly receive a rather predictable stipend on a weekly or monthly basis, without the mentality of a "salary" entering the picture. What I am calling a salary is an agreed-upon figure offered by an employer to an employee in exchange for the latter's fulfilling of certain agreed-upon responsibilities on an open-ended, ongoing contract. Isn't this what most people understand by the term? Under such an arrangement, the employee can legally lay claim to his paycheck so long as he has faithfully fulfilled his contracted responsibilities. This is called "having a job." A slave, by contrast, does not have a paying job. He is owned, and every minute of his day belongs to another. He can "claim" nothing from his master, though he may, in fact, receive a great deal of support and reward for his good conduct. This is the essential difference between what I call a salary and what I understand as support.
I am sorry that you have heard in my radio statements something that sounds like I am presenting myself as a paragon of virtue...especially on the basis of my financial policies. I do not regard myself in this way. However, I do love to testify to the faithfulness of God. If I say that God has met my every need for thirty years without my having any predictable income, I am not making a statement about myself, but about God. If it seems that I am holding my own faith in God up as some kind of boast, then I am giving the wrong impression. To trust God as Jesus and the early Christians did is, I think, normal, not exceptional, Christianity. To the extent that I may do this, and encourage others along these lines, it is not to set myself above others, but to encourage others that it is "safe" to do the same thing. This was, I believe, George Mueller's stated motive for his practices as well.
I have often heard people suggest (as you did) that Mr. Mueller used his newsletters to generate financial support, and was therefore not really living up to his own principles. This misunderstands what Mr. Mueller’s principles actually were. He published his report annually, and often delayed its release by several months when he was in dire need, in order that he might not look to the report as a means of moving people to give. His newsletters did not inform anyone of his current or future needs. He merely reported the work that had been done, and how God had faithfully supported it during the previous year. While it is true that hearing these reports might have caused some people to decide to help the work in the future, yet they were never informed as to what needs the work or the workers might have at any given time.
Unless one hides his light entirely under a bushel, there is always a chance that someone will notice his good works and be moved to contribute something to his ministry. Mueller’s whole purpose of living the way he did was to be a testimony to the world and the church of God’s faithfulness, and thus to encourage Christians to trust God more. Without reporting about these things, there could have been no such testimony given. It grieves me to hear poorly-informed Christians, who are threatened by Mueller's kind of faith, do all they can to destroy this powerful and hard-won testimony of God's faithfulness, by misrepresenting the facts about this humble servant's practices. I think that a mere reading of one of the many biographies of the man would clear up this misunderstanding, and would cause those who have sought to undermine his testimony to be utterly ashamed of having done so.
Mueller never claimed to be a paragon of virtue, nor did he pretend that this way of life made him superior to others (like most saints, he had no awareness of how great he really was!). He was himself inspired to live the way he did by the examples of other great men known to him like A.H. Francke and A.N. Groves, who had lived by the same convictions, and he knew other missionaries and ministers contemporary with himself (like J. Hudson Taylor and Henry Craik) who were living the same way as well. Many other notable people, inspired by Mueller, have also chosen to live in the same manner for the glory of God—e.g., Watchman Nee and Rees Howells (I am not such a great man, but my decades living in the same way have proved that God is faithful to little men as well as to the great).
George Meuller simply wished to live in such a way as to demonstrate that a man can safely trust in God without looking to man for his needs. Those who live this way understand him better. Those who do not, apparently, feel threatened and even condemned by his example, and commonly misrepresent him.
I have never said (nor did George Meuller) that the essence of "living by faith" is that one never tells anyone else about his needs. I have said dozens of times over the air that "living by faith" simply means "doing the will of God, and leaving the consequences with Him." If God has convicted me not to tell others of our personal needs as they arise, then, for me, "doing the will of God" includes this practice. If God has led others to raise money or to inform others about their needs (as I have myself done concerning the radio show's needs), then this is "doing the will of God" for them. If yet others feel led of God to get secular work to support their ministry (as Paul did), then this is, for them, "doing the will of God." Living by faith is not defined by the particular thing that God requires a person to do, but by their doing that very thing and leaving the consequences (including financial consequences) with God.
My appeal is for men in ministry to think clearly about the tradition of having ministers salaried in the manner that employees are salaried by an organization, a tradition which, to my mind, is at variance with the concept of being God's slave and "freely giving" of what God has freely given to them. Many of the professional ministers with whom I have discussed this do not seem to have thought through these distinctions to a clear and biblical conclusion. I do not berate or condemn them, as you say I do. I merely would never wish to trade places with them!
I hope I have made it clear that the fact that you or any pastor is financially supported in ministry is, as I said, neither contrary to my teaching or my practice.
Most of what you have just written is in defense of a man being supported by those to whom he ministers. I defend this very thing, as the Bible is clear concerning the duty of those who receive spiritual blessing from a man to see to it that his physical needs are met. If I did not believe this, I would go out and "get a real job."
The examples you gave of many pastors and of your own case do not, in themselves, disagree with my point. You said that a pastor's support should (and usually must) arise from within his own congregation. This is in full accord with my own understanding and teaching.
I do not, however, equate support and salary. A “salary” is paid to a worker by an employer—the latter is either an individual, or, more commonly, a corporation. The employer who pays the salary also defines the duties of the employed individual, and can fire him, or dock his pay if he does not measure up to what that employer believes the employee should be doing. Thus a salaried worker is the servant of whoever signs his paycheck. In secular employment, this arrangement generally does not create any ethical problem or conflict of interests. However, the man who is in God’s service does not seek to please man (Gal.1:10), but God. God is his Master, and His Master provides his “support” according to His wishes. Since God owns all the wealth held in every bank account, He may send support to His servants from any unpredictable source. More often than not, the support comes from those to whom the man directly ministers, though this needn’t always be the case. The servant of the Lord is not bartering his services for money with people. He serves the Lord, and allows the Lord to provide in any way and in any amount He may choose.
If the eldership or deacons of a church choose to give their full-time staff some honorarium on a regular basis, which seems to me entirely legitimate, this is still not a salary, but an honorarium. For example, when I teach at a particular church where I have often taught in Santa Cruz, it is reasonably predictable that they will give me $300 after three days of teaching. This estimation is based on past giving on their part. However, they make no guarantees along these lines, and I agree to come without reference to this or any other figure. For years I taught in YWAM Honolulu three times a year. It was fairly predictable what the honorarium was likely to be for that week of teaching. One time I went, however, and received no honorarium other than a coffee cup and two tee-shirts. I confess this surprised and, initially, disappointed me. But it was a wake-up call for me to check my attitude concerning the relationship of my service to remuneration. I am not working for YWAM but for God. If YWAM reimburses me nothing, then God (my Master) will provide through some other avenue.
If I were to teach every week of the year for some YWAM base or other, and received a predictable and equal honorarium each week, this would appear (perhaps to the IRS) as if I were receiving a salary. However, I am really receiving support, or an honorarium, or opsonion. Likewise, a pastor or radio minister, or missionary, or slave, might very justly receive a rather predictable stipend on a weekly or monthly basis, without the mentality of a "salary" entering the picture. What I am calling a salary is an agreed-upon figure offered by an employer to an employee in exchange for the latter's fulfilling of certain agreed-upon responsibilities on an open-ended, ongoing contract. Isn't this what most people understand by the term? Under such an arrangement, the employee can legally lay claim to his paycheck so long as he has faithfully fulfilled his contracted responsibilities. This is called "having a job." A slave, by contrast, does not have a paying job. He is owned, and every minute of his day belongs to another. He can "claim" nothing from his master, though he may, in fact, receive a great deal of support and reward for his good conduct. This is the essential difference between what I call a salary and what I understand as support.
I am sorry that you have heard in my radio statements something that sounds like I am presenting myself as a paragon of virtue...especially on the basis of my financial policies. I do not regard myself in this way. However, I do love to testify to the faithfulness of God. If I say that God has met my every need for thirty years without my having any predictable income, I am not making a statement about myself, but about God. If it seems that I am holding my own faith in God up as some kind of boast, then I am giving the wrong impression. To trust God as Jesus and the early Christians did is, I think, normal, not exceptional, Christianity. To the extent that I may do this, and encourage others along these lines, it is not to set myself above others, but to encourage others that it is "safe" to do the same thing. This was, I believe, George Mueller's stated motive for his practices as well.
I have often heard people suggest (as you did) that Mr. Mueller used his newsletters to generate financial support, and was therefore not really living up to his own principles. This misunderstands what Mr. Mueller’s principles actually were. He published his report annually, and often delayed its release by several months when he was in dire need, in order that he might not look to the report as a means of moving people to give. His newsletters did not inform anyone of his current or future needs. He merely reported the work that had been done, and how God had faithfully supported it during the previous year. While it is true that hearing these reports might have caused some people to decide to help the work in the future, yet they were never informed as to what needs the work or the workers might have at any given time.
Unless one hides his light entirely under a bushel, there is always a chance that someone will notice his good works and be moved to contribute something to his ministry. Mueller’s whole purpose of living the way he did was to be a testimony to the world and the church of God’s faithfulness, and thus to encourage Christians to trust God more. Without reporting about these things, there could have been no such testimony given. It grieves me to hear poorly-informed Christians, who are threatened by Mueller's kind of faith, do all they can to destroy this powerful and hard-won testimony of God's faithfulness, by misrepresenting the facts about this humble servant's practices. I think that a mere reading of one of the many biographies of the man would clear up this misunderstanding, and would cause those who have sought to undermine his testimony to be utterly ashamed of having done so.
Mueller never claimed to be a paragon of virtue, nor did he pretend that this way of life made him superior to others (like most saints, he had no awareness of how great he really was!). He was himself inspired to live the way he did by the examples of other great men known to him like A.H. Francke and A.N. Groves, who had lived by the same convictions, and he knew other missionaries and ministers contemporary with himself (like J. Hudson Taylor and Henry Craik) who were living the same way as well. Many other notable people, inspired by Mueller, have also chosen to live in the same manner for the glory of God—e.g., Watchman Nee and Rees Howells (I am not such a great man, but my decades living in the same way have proved that God is faithful to little men as well as to the great).
George Meuller simply wished to live in such a way as to demonstrate that a man can safely trust in God without looking to man for his needs. Those who live this way understand him better. Those who do not, apparently, feel threatened and even condemned by his example, and commonly misrepresent him.
I have never said (nor did George Meuller) that the essence of "living by faith" is that one never tells anyone else about his needs. I have said dozens of times over the air that "living by faith" simply means "doing the will of God, and leaving the consequences with Him." If God has convicted me not to tell others of our personal needs as they arise, then, for me, "doing the will of God" includes this practice. If God has led others to raise money or to inform others about their needs (as I have myself done concerning the radio show's needs), then this is "doing the will of God" for them. If yet others feel led of God to get secular work to support their ministry (as Paul did), then this is, for them, "doing the will of God." Living by faith is not defined by the particular thing that God requires a person to do, but by their doing that very thing and leaving the consequences (including financial consequences) with God.
My appeal is for men in ministry to think clearly about the tradition of having ministers salaried in the manner that employees are salaried by an organization, a tradition which, to my mind, is at variance with the concept of being God's slave and "freely giving" of what God has freely given to them. Many of the professional ministers with whom I have discussed this do not seem to have thought through these distinctions to a clear and biblical conclusion. I do not berate or condemn them, as you say I do. I merely would never wish to trade places with them!
I hope I have made it clear that the fact that you or any pastor is financially supported in ministry is, as I said, neither contrary to my teaching or my practice.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Regular Support for Ministry
I only heard a few minutes of the April 30th broadcast, but it seems like scripture makes it very clear what is to be provided for those who "tend the temple," as follows...
Numbers 18
21 "I give to the Levites all the tithes in Israel as their inheritance in return for the work they do while serving at the Tent of Meeting.
Leviticus 2
3 The rest of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the offerings made to the LORD by fire.
Exodus 29
28 This is always to be the regular share from the Israelites for Aaron and his sons. It is the contribution the Israelites are to make to the LORD from their fellowship offerings.
Jesus did not have a temple-based ministry, but he was provided for by his followers and supporters. It seems like, scripturally, both methods are acceptable to YHWH.
Lin
Numbers 18
21 "I give to the Levites all the tithes in Israel as their inheritance in return for the work they do while serving at the Tent of Meeting.
Leviticus 2
3 The rest of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the offerings made to the LORD by fire.
Exodus 29
28 This is always to be the regular share from the Israelites for Aaron and his sons. It is the contribution the Israelites are to make to the LORD from their fellowship offerings.
Jesus did not have a temple-based ministry, but he was provided for by his followers and supporters. It seems like, scripturally, both methods are acceptable to YHWH.
Lin
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
salaried ministry
I have NEVER heard arrogance in steve's messages on ANY biblical subject matter. I appreciate his teachings and close adherance to GODS
words and standards tothe BEST of his ability.
words and standards tothe BEST of his ability.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: