Corporate Christianity

[steve]

Take away modern church offerings and the whole of American churchianity collapses overnight. Completely. That is a difference in kind to what you see in the NT.

That is the best perspective, in my opinion.
Western churches enable, but they don’t empower the believers.
Shallow roots, and the plant dies when the sun comes out.

 

[Mojo]

Western churches enable, but they don’t empower the believers.
Shallow roots, and the plant dies when the sun comes out.

Amen!

 

[Mojo]

This isn't like sin, we're talking about how Christ constituted His church, and He didn't constitute it with paid clergy.

He didn't constitute it with lots of things. If we go down this line of thinking, be careful how you interact with other brothers online. Jesus didn't have the Internet, so therefore, it's a bad thing. It's the sortvof thinking that gets us the Amish and others. I admire their devotion, but how far do we go in avoiding what's not mentioned specifically in scriptures and use that as our guide?

Bottom line, folks in the NT were supported in some fashion in what they did. Meals were mentioned earlier in this thread. Food equals resources, even if it's not direct exchange of precious metals. Someone labored to make it. Time is a resource, even if it's not a direct exchange of precious metals.

If it's not prohibited, and not abused, then it becomes a matter of opinion and Liberty.

 

[aineo]

It's not a mistake. The word translated "honor" in that passage literally means "price", and only metaphorically means "honor". A couple of English words that would better illustrate the double meaning would be "value" (Latin) or "worth" (Anglo-Saxon). If something has worth or value, then if you want it (or want some of it) the question becomes what are you willing to exchange for it? Or if someone has given it to you, what are you willing to give back in appreciation?

Related to this, the NET version has a footnote that I think applies here:

5:17 c tn Like the similar use of "honor" in v. 3, this phrase denotes both respect and remuneration: "honor plus honorarium."

 

[Mojo]

Related to this, the NET version has a footnote that I think applies here:

5:17 c tn Like the similar use of "honor" in v. 3, this phrase denotes both respect and remuneration: "honor plus honorarium."

I was going to mention honorarium, but forgot to. Thanks brother.

 

[rockfox]

He didn't constitute it with lots of things. If we go down this line of thinking, be careful how you interact with other brothers online. Jesus didn't have the Internet, so therefore, it's a bad thing. It's the sortvof thinking that gets us the Amish and others. I admire their devotion, but how far do we go in avoiding what's not mentioned specifically in scriptures and use that as our guide?

Bottom line, folks in the NT were supported in some fashion in what they did. Meals were mentioned earlier in this thread. Food equals resources, even if it's not direct exchange of precious metals. Someone labored to make it. Time is a resource, even if it's not a direct exchange of precious metals.

If it's not prohibited, and not abused, then it becomes a matter of opinion and Liberty.

I'm with you right up until you mention the Amish. Check our fruit against theirs. We loose.

I can point out the scriptures justifying paying a pastor better than most. Yet the practice still, as done, inevitably results in great harm.

The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

I guess I'd just ask the person defending it: does your church look, in form and fruit, more like the one of the 1st century or more like the one of today?

99.999% of those asked, if they are honest, will have to confess the former. They'd also be forced to admit that their 'pastor' is like unto someone from the outside who is hired in to do a job and not like an elder from amoung them who is recognized and supported via individual free will for the worthy time and work he puts in.

Also, I'm not entirely certain that 'if not prohibited/abused then liberty' is actually a Biblical stance for the work and structure of the church. But neither am I sure it is not. At the risk of a very truncated quote, there is nevertheless something to..."hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you."

 

[Mojo]

I'm with you right up until you mention the Amish. Check our fruit against theirs. We loose.

I can point out the scriptures justifying paying a pastor better than most. Yet the practice still, as done, inevitably results in great harm.



I guess I'd just ask the person defending it: does your church look, in form and fruit, more like the one of the 1st century or more like the one of today?

99.999% of those asked, if they are honest, will have to confess the former. They'd also be forced to admit that their 'pastor' is like unto someone from the outside who is hired in to do a job and not like an elder from amoung them who is recognized and supported via individual free will for the worthy time and work he puts in.

Also, I'm not entirely certain that 'if not prohibited/abused then liberty' is actually a Biblical stance for the work and structure of the church. But neither am I sure it is not. At the risk of a very truncated quote, there is nevertheless something to..."hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you."

I totally admire the Amish. I don't want to change them. I just don't think that what they are about is the only correct way of doing things. It's merely one way.

We agree. I think that the hireling system is bunk. If one doesn't come from among the assembly, he is suspect and probably not as dedicated. He will see it as a vocation, not a calling or dedication.

Trust me, I'm not defending what is out there. I hope to see all congregations be re-formed under a purer model.

 

[frederick]

I guess I'd just ask the person defending it: does your church look, in form and fruit,

You have hit the nail right on the head. Unfortunately most church leaders today do think it's their church they are building and not the one Jesus Christ purchased with His own blood. Because of that wrong starting point, it's like they're on a train on different tracks going a different direction... .

 

[Mojo]

Unfortunately most church leaders today do think it's their church they are building and not the one Jesus Christ purchased with His own blood.

So, so true. That's why I mentioned earlier that they are busy building an empire, not the Kingdom.

 

[IshChayil]

I’m definitely guilty of viewing things thru the lenses of American Christianity

At 42 years old I’m trying to adjust my eyes to new glasses and sometimes it gives me a headache

Hang in there little brother,
at least no one is saying "all your learning has made you mad!"

 

[steve]

It is interesting that elders are mentioned a lot and seem to be expected (always in plural) in the New Testament church, but pastors not at all.
Just in the one listing in Ephesians.

 

[andrew]

There are also a number of smaller prohibitions. First, centralized giving by check and tabulated or tax purposed violates all the principles of giving Christ outlined. Second, the tithe/offering was given for a specific purpose and strictly by free-will, most churchian offerings have some level of coercion; if for no other reason that the whole structure depends on it. Then there are the condemnations of those who make merchandise of the saints.

In general, when you have salaried pastors the result inevitably turns into something opposite what the scriptures line out.

But near anonymous free will offerings from person to elder (or missionaries via a collection) are biblical near as I can see.

Take away modern church offerings and the whole of American churchianity collapses overnight. Completely. That is a difference in kind to what you see in the NT.

I agree 100%. Going back to what I said about the dojo system, that is quiet and personal and doesn't involve shaking everybody down once a week. A Patreon account would be a more comparable 21st century tool (I think this has been mentioned before by someone...) for facilitating individual support of an "elder who rules well" than passing the plate once a week.

And then there's checks, and tax deductions and all the rest (don't get me started).

So there are (at least) two questions presented here: Whether elders should be 'valued' materially, and if so, how to do that appropriately (which in this context means 'scripturally'). The first seems to have a pretty obvious answer (nice catch on that footnote, @aineo); the second is not so obvious (at least to me...).

 

[andrew]

It is interesting that elders are mentioned a lot and seem to be expected (always in plural) in the New Testament church, but pastors not at all.
Just in the one listing in Ephesians.

I have this funny feeling we've had this conversation before....

 

[steve]

I have this funny feeling we've had this conversation before....

Yup
I just don’t keep track of where I have had them before, so it’s always a brand new conversation.

#ageprivilege

 

[rockfox]

I have this funny feeling we've had this conversation before....

We have. Probably a few times. Last time this came up I suggested the Patreon thing. Sadly anyone not to the left of Stalin is increasingly being shut out of digital commerce, and patreon won't be an option much longer.

I'm actually kind of curious how it was done in the early church before the corruption came in. How were elders supported in a manner that fulfilled not letting your left hand know what your right hand was doing?

 

[andrew]

We have. Probably a few times.

Yeah, that was totally tongue in cheek.

Last time this came up I suggested the Patreon thing.

Ah, thanks. Sorry I couldn't remember who to credit. I thought that was a good observation on your part and filed it away.

Sadly anyone not to the left of Stalin is increasingly being shut out of digital commerce, and patreon won't be an option much longer.

True dat.

I'm actually kind of curious how it was done in the early church before the corruption came in. How were elders supported in a manner that fulfilled not letting your left hand know what your right hand was doing?

My first thought is that it was simply quiet and personal. Which reminds me that once upon a time I led a house church, and I never talked about money or asked for it, but two of the families involved (not everybody, but two of them) decided to start supporting me and mine on a regular monthly basis. I don't actually know whether each of them knew the other was doing it or whether anyone else in the fellowship was aware it was happening; it just happened. Something like that maybe?...

 

[rockfox]

My first thought is that it was simply quiet and personal. Which reminds me that once upon a time I led a house church, and I never talked about money or asked for it, but two of the families involved (not everybody, but two of them) decided to start supporting me and mine on a regular monthly basis. I don't actually know whether each of them knew the other was doing it or whether anyone else in the fellowship was aware it was happening; it just happened. Something like that maybe?...

Ya and something else to keep in mind about times past (pretty much any time before the 20th century): support wouldn't have just or even mostly meant money. Much of peoples sustenance was self-provided; so it could have come in the way of clothing, food, or wares. In many times and places what little drive for money there was was only necessary for a few rare goods or to pay taxes.

 

[andrew]

Excellent point. I think our culture is confused about "money" these days (as it is about so many things...), but certainly bartering and rendering personal service would have kept it more intimate and personal. As long as our paper money is useful generally I guess it's useful for showing elders what they're worth to you, but at this point in history we should already be thinking about how we're going to exchange value without paper debt markers....

 

[steve]

And if some of the elders were to put their thoughts into books, many would probably buy them.
*cough, cough*

I realize that the amount would be minuscule per individual contribution, but it would allow someone to “elder” a wider audience with resultant greater numbers of individual contributions.

 

[PeteR]

@steve ... nicely played.