Should members give money to their church?

We've gone a bit astray from the OP, but I'll help chase this rabbit with this story:

A former pastor, shortly after arriving on the field, gave members a survey sheet listing various activities, and asked them to write down how many hours they expected him to devote to each one.

Among the choices--Preaching, sermon preparation, teaching, preparing for teaching, hospital visitation, personal witnessing, hospital visits, counseling, involvement in denomination activities, involvement in civic activities.

After tabulating the responses, he told us that we expected him to work 122 hours a week. He stated the obvious. "I can't do that. I need to spend at least 20 hours a week in sermon preparation. I do personal witnessing because that's part of my responsibility as a member of this church. I do hospital visits because that's part of my responsibility as a member of this church. So I'm going to do some things that a pastor does, and some that any member shoujld do.

But I won't be your member for you. I won't do the jobs you should be doing. If you want certain things done, you'll have to do them. If you don't do them, they won't get done."

This is consistent with Paul's obsrvation that one job of the pastor is to equip the saints. Remember why the Jerusalem church created the office of deacon?

 

This passage has to do with support for those who travel (missionaries and evangelists) who are sent out from the church and, by definition, cannot have a steady, reliable, full-time secular job. Paul was referring to himself, and he was not a church elder. A church elder is planted in a church to edify the saints and help send people out. When the Bible references those "that preach the Gospel," it is always a reference to those who are sent out from the church who travel around proclaiming the Gospel. This is not to say that a church elder cannot "preach the Gospel" by delivering salvation messages to his congregation; but the phrase used in its context in Scripture always refers to those who are sent out and travel.

The passage that refers to compensating church elders is elsewhere:

Here, Paul (one who "preach[es] the Gospel") is instructing Timothy to commend his church to compensate elders for their labor in the Word and doctrine. From the grammar of the passage, I would assume that elders, like everyone else, had secular jobs, and that the work of an elder was labor on top of that; therefore, the elders should be compensated for their ministry by the church on top of their normal unrelated secular wages.

I have explained my viewpoints more exhaustively on this issue in Double Honor, Elders, and Missionaries.

 

Hmm. Let me see. The Apostle Peter referred to himself as an elder in 1 Peter 5:1. But the Apostle Paul can't be an elder according to you? Sorry, you have no support in Scripture for this view.

You also have no support for your view that those "that preach the Gospel" are always travelers. For examples, missionaries often stay in one place for years planting a church. The Apostle Paul stayed three years in Ephesus.

"From the grammar of the passage?" What grammar? There is no grammar whatsoever in the passage that supports your theory. There is no grammar whatsoever in the passage to indicate full time, part time, or other jobs than being a pastor (or "elder" if you must).

 

H'lo JoJ!

We sang a song in our Sanctuary tonight that your grandfather did the arrangement for back in the 60's...

He's All I Need

Oh that many would grasp the truth found in those 2 verses!

 

Praise the Lord! I'm glad to know that "he being dead, yet speaketh."

 

Hey Folks...Let's Go Back On Topic!

In regard to the question: "Should members give money to the church???" My response is: IF NOT THE CHURCH, THAN TO WHOM SHOULD WE GIVE???

Pastor Paul:type:

 

Did you visit the link I provided? I explained my reasoning there, not here.

 

Let me get this straight. You enter a debate forum, make some statements, then don't defend them but say I have to sit at your feet and learn from a totally different debate forum? That's pretty strange even for an internet debate.

First of all, I am not a member there and have no desire to be. Secondly, for the record, yes I did read what you wrote there and I stand by my statements. You did not prove the things I am objecting to (whatever else you believe you proved there).

So I ask again, what grammar?

 

I apologize. I figured that copying and pasting here would be redundant and posting a link would be much simpler (just as links to other things are posted here as well).

The grammar of I Tim 5:17-18:

Verse 18 is a reference to Deu. 25:4, and the idea is that one is not to use oxen as merely work tools; one is to care for and feed the ox and compensate it for its labor. This is further elaborated in the context of the passage quoted in the OP:

Although this passage is from Paul pertaining to himself and his work of evangelism, his obvious point is that, because what he is doing is a form of labor, he should expect that those who benefit from his work should compensate him (i.e. take care of him). He should not be doing this for nothing.

Now, we come to the passage where Paul is instructing Timothy's church about compensating elders who labor in the Word. The reading is essentially the same as this: "Give those who labor in the Word twice wages (or two wages), because someone who works should get paid, as even the law says." Was the idea that if a teaching elder was not paid twice as much as the average wage-earner for one job (full-time church eldership) that anything less would be "muzzling the ox"? As explained before, "not muzzling the ox" seems to mean being paid for labor period: compensation for labor. What I see this passage as saying is that teaching elders, by having to devote time and effort into studying the Word to teach the flock, they should be counted worthy of another wage (i.e. in addition to whatever wage they earn in their regular labor). The flock should not expect elders to have to labor in the Word and doctrine for them for free: that would be "muzzling the ox."

As much as it may seem like what I am saying is a stretch of logic at first, when you really think about it, the alternative requires an assumption that is not evidenced in Scripture: that the sole occupation and the only real source of living of elders in the early church was that of being an elder and laboring in the Word and doctrine. This may be the structure and tradition today, but that does not mean that we can read today's traditions into the text of the Bible.

If you do a word study on all lexical forms of "preaching the Gospel", you will find that it is always referring to the act of travelling around and doing the work of an evangelist, and it is always said of, or by one, that was doing exactly that. By logical deductive reasoning, when Paul (a travelling evangelist) refers to his need for care and compensation, he refers to "[those] which preach the gospel" that they should live of the gospel. Based upon all the occurrences of all forms of preaching the gospel in the Bible, it does not seem apparent that Paul is referring to the job of a stationed church elder equipping the saints in his city as one who, of necessity, should "live of the gospel," by virtue of the nature of the work of an evangelist and its definitive dependence upon the gratuity of disparate churches recipient of his ministry.

Pertaining to elders, it is abundantly clear that the early churches had multiple elders. Don't believe me? Do a word search and see for yourself. Surprisingly, there is not one obvious instance of a single-elder-led church. If this is indeed the case, it would very much make it possible that being a church elder was not one's sole occupation; the edification of the saints could be split among the eldership, and no one person was overburdened with the weight of an entire assembly. Of course, being an elder studying the Word required time and effort; therefore, Paul instructed Timothy's church that laboring in the word and doctrine was still labor and, just as the Law says, one who labors should be compensated. It wasn't enough that an elder already had sustenance, but he should not be expected to labor and feed the flock for free (hence, muzzling the ox). Elders having to labor in the Word should be counted worthy of double honor ("twice wages" or "two wages") because, since they are laboring extra, they should be paid for their labor.

 

My point in using the word "grammar": you are not discussing the grammar, but the vocabulary. And I don't even recall you mentioning the word "but" (Gr. gar) in your posts on the other forum. (I apologize if I missed that.) I suggest that you learn to discriminate between grammar and vocabulary if you want to debate effectively about the Bible.

There is no grammar in 1 Tim. 5 that supports your theory that the elders of 1 Tim. 5 were working a secular job. In fact, even the vocabulary is against you. There is no vocabulary in the passage to suggest "double honor" means "secular job plus being an elder." In fact, the term "double" occurs only two other times in Scripture: Matt. 23:15 and Rev. 18:6. In both cases the term "double" refers to two of the same thing, not two different things such as a secular job and the task of serving God.

Again, taking the Gr. timh as financial remuneration (not necessarily a done deal), I say that according to the grammar the "double honor" refers only to God's work. Note the adverb "well," connected grammatically to the participle "rule." This must define the "double honor," which comes to elders who "rule well."

The grammar of the second half of v. 17 is also against you. The verb there is a present participle, and in Greek the participle is ruled by the main verb of the sentence, in this case "consider worthy." Thus, the double honor comes because the elder is doing God's work, not because he is doing two jobs.

Um, you're now mixing the two passages together. You're interpreting the two passages as if they were only one passage. I can't really answer this until you exegete the two passages seperately. Seems like you did that on the other forum, where I believe you applied the Corinthian passage to Paul and said it didn't apply to preaching elders.

Your assumption is also not evidenced in Scripture. Neither one is. God leaves it ambiguous in the Word as to whether or not the pastor works a secular job. I think God gives us freedom in this matter.

I refer you back to my previous post where you evidently missed a couple of things I said, which you did not deal with on the other forum, and thus left unanswered when I brought them up. First of all, you said that the Apostle Paul was not an elder, but I pointed out that the Apostle Peter said he, Peter, was an elder. So why is the Apostle Paul not an elder? I also said that Paul spent three years in Ephesus. Now, according to your theory, the Apostle Paul could not teach and preach as an elder to the Ephesians for those three years, but had to simply preach the Gospel for three years.

As a church-planting pastor in a Gospel-resistant country, I disagree strenuously with the idea that a missionary never pastors. Your dichotomy between a missionary and a pastor (or "teaching elder" if you prefer) is false. If a man is in one place for years trying to plant a church, don't the people have the right to be taught, counseled and led?

I refer you to Christ's teaching on the church in Matt. 18. He teaches there that a church can be only two or three people. So where is the plurality of elders? Case history: Pastor Tanaka (name changed--a friend of mine) tries for years to plant a church in his town, but in this difficult country he only is able to win women to Christ for the first few years. According to your theory his church is unbiblical because he can't/doesn't have a plurality of elders. Now suppose he wins a man to Christ. In this country, he will then have to take years to disciple the man up to elder level.

 

The word “elder” or “elders” is used in the NT in the following cases to refer to elders in a church:

(1) Acts 11:30—“Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.” This is referring to the elders of the churches in famine stricken Judaea. There is no way to tell if this means the elders of just one church, or plural elders in the churches.

(2) Acts 14:23—“And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.” The Greek idiom here is kat ekklhsian, kata with the accusative with a distributive meaning, or literally “according to the church.” It does mean “in every church,” but it is a real stretch to make this mean a plurality of elders in every church. That idiom would be pasai ai ekklhsiai (Rom. 16:4). So elders were appointed in all the churches, but we don’t know if plural or singular elders were appointed in each church.

(3) Acts 15 uses the plural term five times concerning the church at Jerusalem, Acts 16:4 and 21:18 both use it once. This was the very first church. It started with 1000s of members and all the 12 apostles. It would be very strange if it did not have plural elders. That doesn’t make it a model for every little church in the 21st century.

(4) Acts 16:17—“And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.” No problem. Ephesus had multiple elders. But we have no idea of the size of the church.

(5) 1 Tim. 5 uses “elder” several times to refer to the pastor of a church. No information is given to say how many elders must be in a church.

(6) Titus 1:5 uses the same idiom as Acts 14:23. See (2).

(7) James 5:14—“Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.” This assumes but doesn’t mandate multiple elders in the churches of the Hebrew Christians James is writing to.

(8) 1 Peter 5:1—“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed.” Nothing can be concluded about multiple elders in every church from this passage.

Conclusions. There are only two specific churches named in Scripture as having multiple elders: the Jerusalem “super church” and the church at Ephesus. We have no information about the size of the church at Ephesus, so how can we decide there is a mandate here for even small churches to have multiple elders? James mentions multiple elders in the Jewish churches but doesn’t mandate it. So, why not say that God gives us freedom in this area? There is no Biblical command or mandate for multiple elders in every church or for a church government consisting only of elders.

 

I think I bolded the word that is key to misunderstanding this subject. Scripture is not saying the OX should be fed for his labor, the OX should be fed FROM his labor. If the ox doesn't do a good job and there is no crop then there is no reward. However, he plows many acres that yields bountiful crops then he should be rewarded accordingly.

Look at the other examples Paul gives;

1Co 9:7 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?

The vineyard owner is not being paid for planting and caring for the vineyard. He partakes of the fruit FROM the vineyard. No fruit, no take... If you have a flock of milk bearing animals, should you want for milk or should it be provided from the flock? Anyone ever fight in battle and have to feed clothe themselves? God forbid.

This is what Paul is saying, the Pastor labors to build a fruitful ministry. There are many facet's of the word fruitful ministry and supporting the ministry is just one of them. No Pastor should have to work for pay, he should be supported from the fruits of his labor. No fruit, no reward...

Now if the Church is not able to support the ministry, the Pastor may have to take a secular job to make ends meet. Remember Paul going back to tent making when the Church couldn't support him? I am sure Peter could always fish in a similar situation.

Lastly, I don't feel any Pastor receives a salary. He is not paid for what he does. What price can you put on his work? What do you pay a man to stand in the gap between the living and the dead? He is supported from the fruits of his labor as any good Church should support the ministry. The ministry is a labor of love not work.

And so you know my sincerity, I voluntarily took a cut in my support when my Church got in financial trouble. I also took a secular job on the graveyard shift at a 7-11 to make ends meet at the house. I never to this day told the members about my secular job.

 

In my 20+ years of preaching, I have only received an offering twice for myself... the total of the offerings? $375.00

I had been in the hospital prior to those offerings and the Church knew I would need bills paid. I did not know they had taken the offering for me until after the fact.

God supplied my need then and for all those years I preached on no salary as well.

But, I am not against giving the man of God a salary who feeds the flock the Bread of Life and points the thirsty soul to the Living Water.

If the Church can afford to pay the pastor, let them pay him. The laborer is worthy of his hire. If he refuse pay, that is his choice.

 

That reminds me of another subject, we never count a love offering. I feel if you count the offering it is no longer love because it has a value attached. If we collect and give it to the preacher uncounted then it is given from the Love of those he blessed.

Also, we don't want to deny the congregation their opportunity to be blessed by giving....

Lk 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

 

If the preacher who receives the love offering counts that offering, does that negate it being a love offering?

I would think if it were just one or two (treasurers) counting the money and not blabbing it for all to hear, it would still be a love offering from those who gave the money from their hearts.

Does counting really take away the love after it has been collected? And if so, the preacher will never be able to know what was given him. lol

 

Back from being gone 2 weeks. I am all for giving to church AND paying pastors. What I am against is, preaching a false gospel to get it. Preaching tithing for Christians is a false gospel. If Pastors that preach tithing to get their money would only study what they are teaching. A friend of mine has a good satire about how to teach churches to teach tithing. It is satire, but it rings of many truths. I'm only quoting nine of the twenty-five principles to save bandwidth, the rest can be read at the link at the bottom of the article.

 

There were 24 courses of priests and Levite taking turns on rotation weekly. They were to be allowed to live at the other time on land provided by Israelites, for them AND their cattle and beasts. The land still belonmged to the tribe that owned it but, the priests and Levites still lived and tilled it and raised the animals that were tithed to them.

Num 35:1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying,

Num. 35:2 Command the children of Israel, that they give unto the Levites of the inheritance of their possession cities to dwell in; and you shall give also unto the Levites suburbs for the cities round about them.

Nun. 35:3 And the cities shall they have to dwell in; and the suburbs of them shall be for their cattle, and for their goods, and for all their beasts.
................

Joshua 21:2 And they [Eleazar and Joshua] spoke unto them [the tribes of Israel] at Shiloh in the land of Canaan, saying, The LORD commanded by the hand of Moses to give us cities to dwell in, with the suburbs thereof for our cattle.
Joshua 21:3 And the children of Israel gave unto the Levites out of their inheritance, at the commandment of the LORD, these cities and their suburbs.

 

A false Gospel? You mean a person can't be saved if he believes in preaching tithing for Christians? That's what the Gospel is, you know, the message through which we are saved.

The Bible sets out the Gospel clearly in 1 Cor. 15:1-8. Nothing about giving in there.

 

I mis-worded it. False doctrine would be closer.

 

With the false teaching that tithing is for todays' Christians, did you ever think that maybe God isn't as much involved with the growth of your church as much as a man made doctrine? Of course we should give to our Churches, but not under false pretenses.