Issues Facing Missions Today: 6.
Remuneration for Ministry
We find in
Scripture at least six different views on remuneration for ministers. These involve different models for ministry,
each with a different focus, different metaphors for ministry, different things
being opposed, and different values.
What we learn from Scripture in examining these models is not the Biblical practice that we ought to
follow today but ways in which to discuss these matters as people of the Spirit
in our own contexts. What is required of
us is a good performance in our contexts of the various concerns and values
that we find in the various Biblical models for ministry.
First Model: The Levitical, Institutional Religion Model
Texts: The Pentateuch
Focus: Centralized Temple Ministry for All
the People
Metaphor for Ministry: Wave Offering, Gift,
Priests
Opposition: Freedom of religion
Values: Obedience and loyalty (hierarchical
roles), diligence (fulfilling duties in established programmes of ministry), honour
(ministry as a gift), geo-political religious unity
Remuneration: The tithe, housing,
retirement, no inheritance
The first
model is the most well-known. It is the
Pentateuch’s Levitical, institutional religion model for ministry, but it has
its related forms in the geo-political religions of Europe—the Orthodox Church,
Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism.
In America, most denominations follow some version of this model, with
their ordained clergy, salaries taken from tithes, housing, medical plans, and
retirement. Furthermore, the minister is
seen as a leader among the people.
Moses, Aaron and Miriam were both leaders of Israel and from a Levitical
line (Ex. 2.1). The Levites were in
charge of the tabernacle, God’s dwelling place (Num. 1.50ff). They were also
set apart from the rest of the people (cf. Num. 8.14) in various ways. They had their own camp around the tabernacle
(Num. 1.53), they were not counted with the rest of the people because they had
no inheritance (Num. 2.33; 26.62; Dt. 10.9; 12.12), they were a priestly, first
offering of the people (Num. 3.12) and a gift for them (Num. 18.6). Their ordination is described in Num. 8.9ff
as a wave offering, with the laying on of hands and a purification ceremony. Similarly, Aaron’s and his sons’ ordination
is described in Ex. 29. The priests and
Levites are consecrated as a holy order, set aside to do the Lord’s work,
ministering on behalf of the rest of the Israelites.
Thus the Levites and priests represent
institutional religion. The Levites were
to begin work at 25 and retire at 50 (Num. 8.24f). Regarding their remuneration, we read in Num.
18:
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.
The Levites,
in turn, were to give a tenth of Israel’s tithe to the Lord, that is, to the
priesthood (Aaron; Num. 18.26-28).
Moreover, the Levites were given towns and farmland around the towns
(Num. 35.2ff). But they themselves had
no inheritance to pass on to their offspring as other Israelites did.
When
ministry is understood in institutional terms, it is possible to consider it as
leadership, which in turn is hierarchically arranged. Power struggles inevitably follow, as
described in Num. 16 between some Levites and the priesthood. The definition of holiness often becomes
paramount, as being set apart for ministry involves being particularly
holy. And such a calling at the spiritual
level requires support at the physical level by those less spiritual. These views, it seems, are carried over in
various degrees by many denominations today.
Second Model: The Radical Missionary Model
Text: The Gospels
Focus: Travelling Discipleship
Metaphor for Ministry: Kingdom
Opposition: Institutional Religion
Value: Dependency of disciples on hearers
rather than the otherway around, sacrificial ministry, no hierarchy, service (not servant
leadership)
Remuneration: Hospitality as rightful pay for ministry
Jesus
deconstructed the previous model for ministry with his radical missionary
model. Jesus’ antagonism towards the
Temple goes beyond that of Qumran: He announces its replacement with Himself
(Jn. 2.19-22), or with a religion of Spirit and truth (Jn. 4.23-24), or with
faith (Mt. 21.21-22). He calls the
scribes at the Temple people who devour widow’s houses (Lk. 20.46f) and the
Pharisees lovers of money (Lk. 16). And
he undermines the authority of each group of leaders within Israel at the
Temple (Mt. 21-23).
But he does
not replace this leadership with an alternative group of leaders. His disciples are described as children
rather than as leaders (e.g., Mt. 20.20-28).
They have no privileges of ministry.
The travelling band of disciples are cared for by several women (Lk.
8.1-3). They find some feasting at the
tables of interested audiences (especially in Luke’s Gospel). However, Jesus has no place to lay his head
(Mt. 8.20; Lk. 9.58) and requires would-be disciples to sell all they have and
give to the poor before following him (Lk. 14).
His hungry disciples pick grain along the road even on the Sabbath (Mt.
12). He appreciates those who have left
their homes and families and even become eunuchs—a reference to singleness, it
seems—for the Kingdom (Mt. 19.12).
Some mission
agencies have tried this approach. One
mission agency would not permit its missionaries to ask for support from
individuals and churches; they just shared their vision for ministry and hoped
people would offer to support them. Jesus’
words in Lk. 9.3 and 10.4 become the paradigm: Take no staff, no bag, no bread,
no money, no sandals, no extra clothes.
Yet there is
a remuneration of a sort for the radical missionary model of ministry. Such a minister is to stay in one house
rather than move from house to house, and he or she is to accept such
hospitality because, as Jesus says, ‘the workman is worthy of his hire’ (Lk.
10.7). The last supper was held in a
guest room (Mk. 14.14), and we see this model later in Acts 10.32: Peter a
guest of Simon the tanner in Joppa. Paul
also found himself dependent on early Christian hospitality (Phlm. 22).
Paul knows
of this view of Jesus for ministry, for in 1 Cor. 9.14 he says,
In
the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get
their living by the gospel.
This is the
exact opposite of Israel’s institutional religion, though. The models share one characteristic: the one
ministering should be paid for ministry, whether in the Temple or on a mission
into the towns and villages of Palestine.
Yet ministry is no longer institutional: here now are independent
missionary disciples, living off the hospitality of others while they heal the
sick, cast out demons, and preach the good news of the Kingdom. For such a model to work, a strong fellowship
of concerned, hospitable believers is required.
Luke tells us that several women travelled with Jesus and his disciples,
providing for them out of their resources (Lk. 8.2-3). Close fellowship and private funding (‘individual
versus church donors’) did not reject the synagogue outright. Nor was it opposed to taking the necessary
precautions: in the time of persecution the disciples were to carry a purse,
bag and even a sword for protection (Lk. 22.36). Thus our second model is not an ascetic model
but a radical missionary model.
Third Model: the Kingdom Community Model
Text: Acts 1-6
Focus: Kingdom Community
Metaphor for Ministry: Jubilee Year
Opposition: Landowners of Israel oppressing
the poor
Values: Community,
Equality, Voluntarism
Remuneration: None
A third
model is offered in the Jerusalem Church, as Acts 1-6 reports it. Here is a voluntary society living in radical
community. Some sell what they have and
put the money into a common pot.
Administrators, identified as ones who serve rather than as leaders,
were appointed by the laying on of hands by the apostles (Acts 6.2-6). They were appointed to distribute things
fairly, with particular concern for the widows and ethnic equality. It may be that this is an ideal model based
on the Jubilee Year understanding of redistribution of capital for the sake of
equality among members. It is not a
missional model but a Kingdom community model.
Money goes towards the needs of the community, which gathers together
for teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer. Church growth comes about by public
proclamation of the Gospel and by the attractive nature of the community. The twelve disciples in the community attend
to the ministries of teaching, public evangelism, and prayer (Acts 15.42;
16.4). They receive no pay for this
work. Peter tells the lame man at the
Temple that he and John have no silver and gold to give (Acts 3.6). Their wealth is the community itself.
This model
seems to make particular sense in the social context of first century
Palestine, where landowners were amassing land and wealth while many poor lived
from day to day as day labourers. The
Jerusalem Church seems to be opposing the socio-economic situation of Palestine
with the Jubilee Year notion (Lev. 25; Dt. 15) of the redistribution of the
land.
In the
sixteenth century, the Hutterite, Anabaptist community in Central Europe was
particularly known for reliving this model.
New arrivals at the community gave their possessions to the Hutterite
leaders to be used for the community. Another
example of such a model, from the 20th century, was Dietrich
Bonhoeffer’s attempt to establish a Kingdom community, described in Life Together. Mission societies tend to pay all their
members the same; pay rises or falls depending on how many children a family
has or on what the cost of living is in the region of the world where they
work.
Fourth Model: the Household Model
Text: 1 Thessalonians 2
Focus: Church planting
Metaphors for Ministry: Members of a
household
Opposed to: Sophists and charlatans—flattery,
greed, praise from others; use of authority
Value: Gospel for Free
Remuneration: None
There are
various ways to describe Paul’s ministry.
I have chosen one image from 1 Thessalonians 2. Here Paul’s focus is church planting, and his
metaphor for the church is the household.
He seems to be worried about his travelling ministry being seen like
that of the Sophists or charlatans in the Roman Empire, who used clever
rhetoric to attract public groups and received offerings for their antics. They might pride themselves on arguing both
sides of a point: what mattered was rhetorical skill.
Paul’s
understanding of the church, meeting in households, is that of a family. So, he compares himself to a mother or nurse,
a child, and a father. He says:
1 Thessalonians 2:7
we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children.
1 Thessalonians 2:11 As you know, we dealt with each
one of you like a father with his children,….
Yet Paul can turn this language around. When Paul and his fellow apostles were forced
to leave the Thessalonians, he speaks of this as ‘being made orphans’ (1 Th.
2.17). Now he is the child and they are
the parents. And he calls them
‘brothers’ in the epistle (e.g., 1 Th. 2.17), thus relating to them on equal
terms despite his obvious, apostolic authority.
The fluidity of these familial metaphors in 1 Thessalonians is
remarkable, since they require everyone to think less in terms of the
partriarchal family hierarchy of the 1st century and more in terms
of the love existing between all members of the family. Hence the familial virtues that Paul exemplifies
include gentleness (2.7), caring deeply (2.8), love (2.9), and urging,
pleading, and encouraging like a father (2.12).
Needless to say, this familial model for ministry lacks remuneration—one
is not paid to be a member of the family but works hard to contribute to the
family.
Paul says that he does not want to be a burden to
the family, and so he toils night and day to avoid needing remuneration (1 Th.
2.9).
This is the view of ministry and remuneration one
meets in Eastern Europe. In Croatia, where
the goods in the shops cost about what they do in the West, the pastor of the
largest church in one denomination was paid a monthly salary of about $436.00 in
2006. A school teacher, by comparison, earned
about $785.00 per month. As a colleague
of mine from the Balkans once put it, ‘Most of the pastors do not think of the
pastorate as a ‘job’ but rather as voluntary service for the Kingdom of God.’
Fifth Model: The Qualified Household Worker Model
Text: Pastoral
Epistles
Focus: Qualified
ministry in the church from false teachers
Metaphors
for Ministry: Household with qualified overseers, servants, widows, and elders
Opposed
to: False Teaching
Value: Right
doctrine, right teaching, right qualities in ministers
Remuneration: Pay for services rendered
The Pastoral Epistles give us a fifth Biblical
model for ministry and remuneration.
Here we still have the metaphor of a household for the church, with
various virtues and vices listed for old and young men, old and young women,
masters and slaves, and children. Here
the household is under threat of false teaching, and so a qualified ministry in
the church is in focus. Qualified
overseers, deacons, and deaconesses are valued in the church, and the requisite
virtues for such appointments are listed in 1 Tim. 3. Also valued are qualified widows and elders,
described in 1 Tim. 5.
We know that overseers and deacons handle money,
but remuneration for ministry is only mentioned briefly in 1 Tim. 5. Older widows are not so much paid for their
work in the church but permitted charity because of their work and needs. Elders who rule well are worthy of double
honour, especially those who preach and teach (1 Th. 5.17). By ‘preach and teach’ Paul probably means
evangelistic proclamation and teaching.
‘Double honour,’ probably means respect plus pay, since Paul follows
this direction in the following verse with a quotation from Scripture (Dt.
25.4):
1
Timothy 5:18 for the scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it
is treading out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves to be
paid."
In 1 Cor. 9.13, Paul argues analogically from Old
Testament Temple service: those who are employed in the Temple get their food
from there. And Paul already has a place
in his thinking for respecting those who minister in what is possibly his
earliest surviving letter. In 1
Thessalonians 5:12-13 he writes:
12 Now we ask you,
brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the
Lord and who admonish you. 13
Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work.
This ‘respect’ may well involve remuneration.
Thus Paul argues for the right to remuneration,
using the Old Testament to establish a legal argument that Christian ministers
should receive pay. The principle of the
tithe per se is not invoked, but
people ought to pay the piper for his efforts.
Sixth Model:
the Pauline, Tent Making, Missions Model
Text: 1
Cor. 9
Focus: Proclaiming
the Gospel
Metaphors
for Ministry: Voluntary slavery, athletic training, ‘tent making’
Opposed
to: Paid servant
Value: Not
claiming rights, whatever wins the most for Christ
Remuneration: None
When discussing his own remuneration in 1 Cor. 9,
Paul quotes once again the passage from Deuteronomy that one should not muzzle
the ox while it treads the corn (v. 9).
He offers several other examples of paying workers for what they
do. But all this is to suggest a
different perspective, given his focus of proclaiming the Gospel. This alternative perspective on ministry
entails the metaphor for ministry of a voluntary slave or an athlete who trains
hard and runs to win the prize. Another
metaphor is ‘tent making,’ since Paul worked as a tent maker while involved in
his mission work (Acts 18.3). He freely
subjects himself to hardship, not for ascetic purposes but for the cause of the
Gospel. So, while arguing that there are
all sorts of arguments for seeing ministers as paid servants, Paul opposes this
understanding of his own ministry.
For Paul, the matter of ministerial remuneration
is just another topic in 1 Corinthians on which to argue that, while believers
have rights, there is a higher path. In
this epistle, Paul affirms that believers have the right to sex within
marriage, to marry, to seek justice in disputes with one another, to eat food
from the market that has been sacrificed to idols, and to prophesy and speak in
tongues. And those ministering among
them have the right to be paid.
Yet he believes that it is better not to marry,
it is better to be wronged, it is better not to cause someone to stumble by
what one eats, not to create confusion in the church, and not to receive pay
for his ministry. He values not claiming
rights. His reasons vary. As to remuneration for ministry, he argues
that, by offering the Gospel freely, he will win more to Christ (1 Cor.
9.19). Paul wants to take remuneration
out of the equation when offering the Gospel of grace. This is rather the opposite of the television
evangelist calling on listeners to send in their money or buy prayer shawls to
keep the ministry going. Money confuses
the issue and possibly corrupts.
It should be said that Paul’s letter to the
Philippians (4.15-19 ) makes us aware
that he did accept gifts—not support--freely given (possibly also 1 Cor.
16.17). And the letter to Philemon
indicates that he accepts, even requests, hospitality. He expects the Corinthians to host him—even possibly
for the entire winter—on his travels (1 Cor. 16.6). We must also note that Paul travelled without
a wife or family—the cost of hosting him was low. Still, Paul appears to have done his level
best to avoid associating money with ministry.
Conclusion
Today we have other models for ministry, with
their attendant views on remuneration. The
different views are somewhat determined by the culture in which people
live. A common model in the West is the ‘professional
model,’ where pastoral remuneration is treated in ways similar to other businessmen. Some large churches and ministries in
capitalist countries have even developed this model to the related but quite
distinct model of ‘business executive.’ Indeed,
whereas the NT terms that predominate for ministry are terms that suggest
service and littleness and family, today’s terms come from the business and
political world. ‘Leadership’ has
replaced ‘ministry’ as the catch-all term for various functions in the church
(with grave consequences, I might add).
One even meets ‘leaders’ in the church or ministry bearing titles such
as Chief Executive Officer. Another
model for ministry comes from the entertainment world. Pay for ministers skyrockets because of someone’s
rhetorical skill. The church is built
around and grows to a large size because of these amazing orator-entertainers.
New Testament models for ministry often
offer a different picture of the church from the ones favoured today. Yet there are different models for ministry
within the New Testament itself, let alone between the Testaments. At times,
they offer very different understandings of ministry and remuneration, although
some models are compatible with one another and overlap. These models are instructive rather than definitive for
us. What these models leave us with is a
challenge to us to place ministry above leadership and the free proclamation of
the Gospel above remuneration. They also
challenge us to think about what sort of community the church is before
answering the question, ‘How shall we remunerate those who serve among us?’
In conclusion, note Paul’s warning to Timothy in
1 Tim. 6. Certain false teachers have
thought godliness a means to gain (v. 5).
They have wanted to become rich and plunged themselves into ruin and
destruction. Paul calls instead for
contentment. He says:
1
Timothy 6:6-8 Of course,
there is great gain in godliness combined with contentment; 7 for we brought nothing into the
world, so that we can take nothing out of it;
8 but if we have food and clothing, we will be content with
these.
There is agreement on the various models for
ministry that the minister should be
paid. Just what this means takes on
rather different meanings from model to model.
The focus is on proclaiming the Gospel and teaching what is true rather
than what excites the audience. The
level of remuneration is tied more to the need for food and clothing than to
performance. Yet, in all these models,
the nature of the community is as much an issue as the nature of ministry and
the remuneration for it. What Scripture,
particularly the New Testament, offers us today are ways to think about
ministry and remuneration so that our practices promote the Gospel and reflect
the virtues and values of the community of Christ.
Comments