Guest Blogger: (Part 2) Working with people who are already in a community for the sake of the gospel
Yesterday, I published the first part of this guest post about working with people who are already in a community without making them dependent on outsiders. The post was written by Jonathan who is currently living in a community and is watching what is happening among the people of that community when outsiders come in. Even the best of intentions can lead to problems of dependence. (See Part 1 at the link above for Jonathan’s description of his work in this community.)
Here is part 2 of our interaction:
————————————
Question (from Alan): Your situation does sound similar to many situations related to “foreign missionaries.” You said that the short termers “pay into the ministry.” What is this money used for? Why do you think “not very much local ministry is being raised up”? What do you think is causing that?
Answer (from Jonathan)
The local church plant cannot afford salaries for church positions. The summer programs and short terms pay for salaries, along with additional fundraising to keep things going. The pastor is pretty clear about what the money is for – no subterfuge at all. I’ve argued, are we ‘creating’ work for short termers to do – just for the money? The last time I brought this up, I was told we need to have a ‘long term’ conversation about that. Originally the church was NOT dependent on short termers, but was not told what changed.
A few non white leaders coordinate the short termers, but all the interns and the majority of short termers are white. The church is half white, poor, and the neighborhood is very poor. At first I didn’t think so, but now I believe there’s a dependence on the outside money; from leaders AND neighborhood members. The financial piece is troubling. Even if all the money and personel were non white, I still feel that 1 Theassalonains 4:11-12 should be followed.
Disturbingly in our city, New Orleans, I know of three other miniseries in poor neighborhoods all run by different organizations and denominations; this is the model. Outsiders come in, lead, fundraising activities, bring short termers in then… Show me how the people of the culture lead, and you’ll be hard pressed to find someone who grew up in that neighborhood or city; leading. Lack of Discipleship. My theory is the material needs in urban areas are so great that the educated folks began the programs and fundraising, but those become the idol.
Question: Do you have any suggestions as to how discipleship would help locals get involved in ministering to their >own neighbors without depending on outside help?
Answer
I think this is a tough one that takes time. IN the spiritual realm it’s a matter of showing someone that Christ is all sufficient but our tendency is to do program based things, which are needed (literacy, food, etc).
Currently my wife and I talk often about this as she’s away on sabbatical. When she returns, we plan reach out hospitality-wise. We’ve invited people to our home, but our perception is this may be a class hurdle (we got the nice house and they’re on subsidies attitude). So we’re trying to find ways to go to their home (i.e., playing with the kids, hanging out on their porch).
Clearly things have to be Holy Spirit led. It’s so hard to wait and hear from God when you see so many physical needs. We do address physical needs: food, (we have to be careful with) money, helping with errands, and medical emergencies.
We see things more relationally then programmatically. I don’t come from a simple gathering background but it seems applicable here. Follow the Holy Spirit, Build Small via relationships. I think it’s key to let myself and new disicples see that it’s God doing it and not a human person, ministry, or aid group.
Guest Blogger: (Part 1) Working with people who are already in a community for the sake of the gospel
A few weeks ago, in response to my post “Why can’t we work together for the gospel?” Jonathan left a very intriguing comment. In the comment, he said that he is currently “living this out” in his neighborhood and has seen how easy it is to “drop money and personnel” into a context. But, it is much harder to live among the people in a community and trust God to work through them.
In response to that comment, I emailed Jonathan asking for more information about his situation. That email started a thread that was very helpful for me. I asked him if I could publish this as a “guest post,” and he agreed. I’ll publish our interaction as two posts, with the second part being published tomorrow…
————————————
Question (from Alan): I’d love to hear more about how you’re working with “locals”…
Answer (from Jonathan)
My wife and I joined a neighborhood church that’s been around for 10 years, but is a plant of an para church organization. We’ve been there five years and since 2009 have chosen, with a few others, to live in a neighborhood that is plagued with crime, drugs, poverty, and some prostitution. BUT we see God at work.
My frustration comes from the short termers. They help run a day camp, provide games to the neighborhood kids in the evening, as well as pay into the ministry. Two issues immediately arose. I’ve asked, “What would happen if these teams didn’t come?” Clearly, there’s the financial aspect, because the Church (sigh) is dependent on the outsider. Second, in my opinion, not very much local ministry is being raised up, as things are coordinated by a few locals, but all the money and personel leave after a time. Honestly, I look at it a little differently now that I LIVE with my neighbors. I’m not driving in or stopping by. Dealing with my neighbors is on the job training in ‘Loving my neighbor’.
Without complaining here’s the challenge: How do you give believers not from our community the cross cultural experience, without all the voyeurism or vertical relationship. I’m seeing these last few years that it’s one thing to organize a program for the poor than to live with and friend the poor. All the isms are very real when the person you’re serving is your friend.
I think to minister in some of these urban environments (ok all) we need more discipleship. One Sun morning I didn’t go to my local service, but walked around and prayed about 10:30AM. I saw what I saw everyday-Life. I counted five church services in session, but I still saw drunks staggering, people loitering, not sure if I saw the dealing that morning, but for everyone not going to a service-life as usual. It tells me, “We need a different approach to engage people physically where they are.” My wife has a vision of living water flowing out of our neighborhood. My vision is that someone will call 911 not because a crime is committed, but because there are too many people assembling praising God.
Question: Your situation does sound similar to many situations related to “foreign missionaries.” You said that the short termers “pay into the ministry.” What is this money used for? Why do you think “not very much local ministry is being raised up”? What do you think is causing that?
Answer: Coming tomorrow…
Helping people who are relying too much on a leader or leaders
Sometimes, people become too dependent on one or more leaders among the church. Sometimes people expect leaders to do specific tasks or answer certain types of questions. This kind of dependency is not healthy for the leaders or for others.
In his post “Raising Up Leaders in House Church,” Keith at “subversive1” offers some good advice when this is happening. Keith’s post is actually an email that he sent to someone in reply to a question about “raising up leader.”
While Keith’s answer is given in the context of “house church,” I think he offers some good advice for people meeting in different ways, assuming that any of the questions or interaction is allowed.
For example, at the beginning of the post, Keith writes:
[T]he secret, if there is one, I’d say is to get out of the way and allow the Holy Spirit to do as much as possible. At first our house church always looked to me or to my wife to do everything – answer every Bible question, lead the communion, baptize the people, etc. So, sometimes I would just leave the room during prayer or after worship to let them figure things out together. Other times if someone asked me a question about the Bible I would lean back and say, “I don’t know. What do you guys think?” and allow people to discuss this question without my interference. Sometimes I would ask another person, maybe even a child or a teenager, to lead us in communion, or to read a scripture to everyone. You can do this on the spot, or you can ask them ahead of time if they would do this when the time comes. That way you don’t have to be the one to ask them but they will just do it because you’ve already asked them in advance. The hope being that, eventually, they will feel confident to read scriptures on their own and to take initiative when it’s time for communion, or prayer, etc.
This is only one part of Keith’s post, so I would recommend reading the whole post.
When people are specifically looking to one person or one group to do everything for the church, Keith’s advice is sound: the leader(s) may need to get out of the way. Stop doing what others think you should do. Give others opportunities as well.
What do you think about Keith’s advice? How do you think it would be beneficial to the church and the leaders? Could their be any problems?
There are no perfect churches
I can’t tell you the number of times that I’ve been part of a conversation about the church, when the other person seeks to end the conversation by saying something like, “Well, there are no perfect churches.”
The point, I assume, is that since there are no perfect churches, then there is no reason to seek to be perfect. Usually, of course, these conversations center around the differences between what I understand about the church and what the other person understands about the church.
The other person, at some point, might admit that there are problems with his or her understanding of the church, but, as is often said, “there are no perfect churches.”
I agree with that statement. Churches are gatherings of people. There are no perfect people, and so there are no perfect churches. I have no problem with that statement. Instead, I’m concerned about what is typically meant by that statement: since there are no perfect churches, then you should not expect us to change, even if we are imperfect.
But, there’s a huge difference between imperfect, and seeking to grow and change and become more like the church that is described in Scripture.
Believe it or not, I’m not surprised when people disagree with me. I’m not taken aback. I don’t separate from people or stop fellowshiping with them because they disagree with me about the church. As long as someone is in Christ, then I accept that person as a brother or sister, and attempt to treat them as such.
But, I think there’s a problem with accepting imperfect churches without seeking to grow and change.
Paul addressed many imperfect churches. He wrote to churches among which there were many different kinds of problems; some with problems understanding who God or Jesus Christ is; some with problems understanding how to respond to the gospel; some with problems understanding the end times; some with problems concerning the church itself.
The only group of believers that he almost separate from were the churches in Galatia. He almost separated himself from them because they were walking away from the gospel. However, he did not separate from them right away, but instead wrote to them to help them understand their error.
For the others, he accepted them as brothers and sisters as they were. He called them saints (holy ones). He called them children of God. He recognize that they were indwelled by the Holy Spirit. In spite of the fact that they were imperfect churches, the accepted them.
But, he did not want them to stay the way they were. He wanted them to grow and mature in their relationship with God and also in their relationships with one another. He knew they would never be a perfect church, but he wanted them to continue growing, changing, and maturing.
I think this should be our view of ourselves as well. We are in Christ, but we are still growing in our understanding of him and what it means to live according to the Spirit that is in us. We are not perfect, but we should be maturing.
In the same we, churches are not perfect either. However, we should be surprised if we are not continually growing and changing and maturing as individuals and as churches.
No, there are no perfect churches. But, there should be no static churches either.
A great example of denying self in order to love others (even enemies)
Last week, I read a great story by Chad at “Captain’s Blog.” The post is called “The Forgiveness and Reconciliation Train.”
I don’t want to say too much about this story. It’s filled with heartache and pain, and forgiveness and love. Plus, it’s a story about giving up something that’s important in order to care for and demonstrate the love of God to someone else – even someone who may consider you an enemy.
I’m not even going to quote from this post. You need the read the whole thing. Trust me.
Elders/Pastors and Financial Benefits – Conclusion
Last week, I published the first five posts in this series on the connection between elders/pastors and financial benefits. After introducing the series, in the next four posts, I analyzed the only three passages in Scripture that mention elders/pastors and finances in the same contexts: Acts 20:33-35, 1 Timothy 5:17-18, and 1 Peter 5:2.
In those passages, I concluded that Luke recorded Paul referred to his own example and told the elders from Ephesus to work with their hands (separate from their work shepherding and helping others) so that they could support themselves and others. (Acts 20:33-35) While it’s impossible to tell whether or not “double honor” refers to some kind of financial benefit, Paul tells Timothy that the “double honor” should be given to those elders who are already leading well and working hard in the word and teaching. “Double honor” is not given so that so someone would serve as an elder. (1 Timothy 5:17-18) Finally, Peter said that elders should not serve for the purpose of financial gain, but should do so freely. (1 Peter 5:2)
So, in the only passages of Scripture in which elders/pastors and financial benefits are mentioned in the same context, there is no indication that churches should pay salaries to people so that they will be their elders/pastors. In fact, these passages teach the opposite: elders/pastors serve others without regard to any type of financial benefit and work (independent of the “work” shepherding others) to support themselves.
Now, as I said in the introduction, I said that Scripture does not support the idea of paying a salary to someone to be an elder/pastor. The passages that I analyzed above form part of the reason that I believe that. However, these passages are not the only reasons that I believe Scripture does not teach that people should be paid salaries so that they will be elders/pastors. There are other passages that inform my understanding on that topic as well.
For example (but again, not extensively), Galatians 6:6 is one of the passages that most clearly indicates that some type of financial gift could be given from one Christian to another based on someone’s service. Here is that passage:
Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches. (Galatians 6:6 ESV)
Now, the phrase “all good things,” may not refer to some type of financial benefit, but it could refer to that. However, the problem is that “all good things” is to be shared with “the one who teaches.” This does not refer exclusively to elders/pastors but to anyone who teaches someone else. There is nothing in the passage or context that reduces the phrase “the one who teaches” to only certain people teaching in certain contexts. Instead, in this passage, Paul is talking to “the one who is taught” and instructing that person about their response to someone (anyone) who teaches them.
Many times, other passages are brought into this discussion, passages such as 1 Corinthians 9 or Matthew 10. However, these passages specifically refer to apostles or others who are traveling away from home (see 3 John for another example of these itinerant servants). The authors of Scripture clearly indicate that we should care for those who are traveling away from home – which means they are also traveling away from their places of business and source of income. (Of course, some itinerant servants – perhaps many – can support themselves while they travel, and so they should.) Elders do not travel away from their home, so the connection is not valid.
The same could be said for arguments that reach back to the Levites or priests in the Old Testament. The Levites were not allowed to own land which meant that they could not use their land to support themselves. Again, this is not the case today for elders. Also, the New Testament authors never connect elders/pastors with Levites or priests. Instead, all believers are said to be priests now.
Finally, the argument is made that it is beneficial for the church if elders/pastors can spend more of their time studying, preparing lessons/sermons, discipling people, administrating the church programs, etc. These are not scriptural arguments, and these are not responsibilities placed on the shoulders of elders/pastors. It is much more beneficial for the church for elders/pastors to “work with their hands” to support themselves and, at the same time, serve others in the ways that God has gifted them. Why is this beneficial? Because this is what every other believer does, and according to Paul the church grows when all believers work together, not when the elders/pastors have more time to do the work.
Yes, it would be a huge change to elders/pastors and to churches if churches did not pay salaries to people in order for them to be their elders/pastors. In the short term, it would be difficult for all involved, and if anyone decides to move in this direction, it should be carried out carefully. However, in the long run, it would be better for both the churches and the elders/pastors.
—————————————-
Elders/Pastors and Financial Benefits Series
Elders/Pastors and Financial Benefits in 1 Peter 5:2
In many sectors of the church, elders/pastors and financial benefits seem to go hand-in-hand. In fact, until a few years ago, I had never heard of a church that did not fall into one of the following categories: 1) already employed one or more people as elders/pastors, 2) actively looking for one or more people to employ as elders/pastors, or 3) could not afford to hire someone as elder/pastor but was working toward that goal.
In this series, I am examining three passages (in four posts) in which elders/pastors and financial benefits are explicitly connected. Those three passages are Acts 20:33-35, 1 Timothy 5:17-18, and 1 Peter 5:2. I think it is important to analyze each passage to determine what it can or cannot mean before synthesizing the information together to help us understand what Scripture says about the connection between elders/pastors and financial benefits.
In this post, I’m going to examine what Peter wrote to elders in 1 Peter 5:2 regarding elders/pastors and financial benefits. (By the way, of these three passages, 1 Timothy 5:17-18 is not written to elders. Only Acts 20:33-35 and 1 Peter 5:1-4 are written directly to elders.)
Here is the passage that Peter wrote directly to elders:
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. (1 Peter 5:1-4 ESV)
Peter uses three pair of contrasting descriptors to explain how he expects elders to shepherd by exercising oversight: 1) not under compulsion but willingly, 2) not for shameful gain but eagerly, and 3) not domineering but being examples. The pair of descriptors that may indicate some type of financial benefits for elders is the second pair: not for shameful gain but eagerly.
These two descriptors are composed of adjectives. The first has the following range of meanings: “eagerness for gain,” “greedily,” “fond of sordid gain,” etc. The primary idea is a desire for money. The second adjective as the following range of meanings: “willingly,” “eagerly,” “freely.”
If we recognize that Peter was using these descriptors to contrast one another, we see that he is pitting the idea of shepherding others with a purpose of financial gain versus shepherding others willingly or freely. Unfortunately, interpreters often focus on the “sordid gain” (or “filthy lucre”) range of meanings of the first adjective and miss the second contrasting adjective. Peter is not telling them to seek “good” financial gain instead of “bad” financial gain. He’s telling them to serve other free of charge.
Of course, once again, this does not mean that NO financial benefits may come their way. Instead, Peter is saying that they should not serve so that they can earn financial benefits. So, for Peter, the elders should shepherd others even if they receive no money or other financial benefits in return.
—————————————-
Elders/Pastors and Financial Benefits Series
Elders/Pastors and Financial Benefits in 1 Timothy 5:18
In many sectors of the church, elders/pastors and financial benefits seem to go hand-in-hand. In fact, until a few years ago, I had never heard of a church that did not fall into one of the following categories: 1) already employed one or more people as elders/pastors, 2) actively looking for one or more people to employ as elders/pastors, or 3) could not afford to hire someone as elder/pastor but was working toward that goal.
In this series, I am examining three passages (in four posts) in which elders/pastors and financial benefits are explicitly connected. Those three passages are Acts 20:33-35, 1 Timothy 5:17-18, and 1 Peter 5:2. I think it is important to analyze each passage to determine what it can or cannot mean before synthesizing the information together to help us understand what Scripture says about the connection between elders/pastors and financial benefits.
In this post, I’m going to examine what Paul wrote to Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:18 regarding elders/pastors and financial benefits. (Yesterday’s post examined the preceding related verse 1 Timothy 5:17.)
Here is the verse under consideration along with the preceding verse:
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” (1 Timothy 5:17-18 ESV)
In my previous post concerning 1 Timothy 5:17, I concluded the following:
The people are only to consider elders worthy of double honor if they are already leading well and working hard in the word and teaching. There is no indication here that the people should provide “double honor” SO THAT elders lead well and work hard. So, the “double honor” in this passage is not similar to the modern concept of the salary. If anything, it is closer to the modern concept of the honorarium or “love offering.”
However, it is often brought out – correctly, I might say – that Paul uses the term “wages” in 1 Timothy 5:18, a term which probably does refer to something similar to the modern cay concept of salary. Does Paul’s use of the term “wages” indicate that Paul sees “double honor” as “salary”?
The argument is that Paul is equating “elders” with “laborers”, and he is also equating “double honor” with “wages/salary.” Thus, according to this interpretation, elders are laborers and should be paid their wages just as other laborers.
However, there is a problem with this interpretation. Mainly, it does not work with the first part of the verse. In order for this interpretation to work consistently, then Paul must also be equating “elders” with “ox,” and he must also be equating “double honor” with “grain.” However, no one argues that elders are oxen who should be given grain. Instead, it is recognized that this is a metaphor.
The metaphorical connection between “elders”/”double honor” and “oxen”/”grain” helps us understand how to interpret the connection between “elders”/”double honor” and “laborers”/”wages.” The connection is the concept of something being deserved.
Elders (who lead well) deserve double honor in the same way that oxen deserve to eat grain while threshing and in the same way that laborers deserve the wages they were promised. Thus, elders are not laborers just as elders are not oxen. And, double honor is not wages just as double honor is not grain. The metaphor is used to demonstrate that one things deserves something else.
So, 1 Timothy 5:18 does not connect “double honor” with wages. Again, “double honor” could indicate some type of financial benefit, but it is impossible to tell in that context (since the term is used in different ways in the same context – see my previous post on 1 Timothy 5:17). The use of the term “wages” in 1 Timothy 5:18 does not affect the meaning of the phrase “double honor.”
—————————————-
Elders/Pastors and Financial Benefits Series
Wait… God can use kids, too?
I recently ran across a blog written by someone named “Little Miss Blogger.” The blog is called “Shawnee Home Church,” and the “Our Story” and “About Home Church” tabs offer some great information about this group of believers.
For this post, I want to point you to an article on that blog called “When Kids Do House Church…” To be honest, I get very tired of hearing things like “Kids are the future of the church.” Kids (who are in Christ) are ALREADY part of the church, whether we recognize it or not.
But, the post above does not make that kind of statement. Instead, the author makes a great statement about kids as part of God’s family and how God can use them as part of the church:
Kids have assigned gifts and a calling from the day they’re born. Why is it they don’t realize it until they’re in the throws of adolescence or when they’re in their 20’s or 30’s? Because they don’t have a VOICE in their church or parents who know how to look for those gifts in their kids.
All too often we can end up silencing our kids just because they’re kids. It’s really important, no matter what setting your services are in, to give them a chance to be used by God. Over the years I’ve seen Nate go up to total strangers and strike up a conversation, not bat an eye while telling some one they’re wrong (not kidding!) and find his way into just about every home on the block.
He’s an evangelist and a prophet. NOW, right now, that gift is affecting another child down the street and he’s learning he has a ministry NOW!
hmmm… I wonder how much different our churches and children would be if they were taught that God wants to use them NOW, and they were actually given the opportunity for God to work through them NOW while the church gathered together. (And, I’m not talking about handing out bulletins or taking up the offering.)
Elders/Pastors and Financial Benefits in 1 Timothy 5:17
In many sectors of the church, elders/pastors and financial benefits seem to go hand-in-hand. In fact, until a few years ago, I had never heard of a church that did not fall into one of the following categories: 1) already employed one or more people as elders/pastors, 2) actively looking for one or more people to employ as elders/pastors, or 3) could not afford to hire someone as elder/pastor but was working toward that goal.
In this series, I am examining three passages (in four posts) in which elders/pastors and financial benefits are explicitly connected. Those three passages are Acts 20:33-35, 1 Timothy 5:17-18, and 1 Peter 5:2. I think it is important to analyze each passage to determine what it can or cannot mean before synthesizing the information together to help us understand what Scripture says about the connection between elders/pastors and financial benefits.
In this post, I’m going to examine what Paul wrote to Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:17 regarding elders/pastors and financial benefits. (Tomorrow’s post will examine the following related verse 1 Timothy 5:18.)
This passage is in the middle of a section regarding relationships between different followers of Jesus Christ, similar to – but a little different than – the common household relationships that Paul normally uses. The section begins in 1 Timothy 5:1 and ends in 1 Timothy 6:2 (although the 1 Timothy 6:3 continues by callings these “teachings that accord with godliness”).
Here is the specific passage in view:
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. (1 Timothy 5:17 ESV)
1 Timothy 5:17 is not directed to elders. Instead, it is directed to those who are not elders. Those who are not elders are instructed to “consider [certain elders] worthy of double honor.” Which elders are to be considered worthy of “double honor”? Well, the primary designation is those “who lead well.” (“Rule” or “lead/guide” are possible translations. “Lead/guide” is probably a better translation than “rule” given Jesus’ statement about “ruling” in the Gospels.)
The following designation of “especially those who are working hard in the word (probably “gospel”) and teaching.” These are not separate groups of elders (i.e. “leading” and “teaching). Instead, it is more like that some who are leading are also proclaiming the gospel and teaching.
The question of financial benefits lies in our interpretation of the noun phrase “double honor.” Does “double honor” indicate some kind of financial benefit? To begin our analysis, we must recognize that the word for “honor” in this passage CAN indicate the assumption of some kind of financial benefit (as seen in the verb form in 1 Timothy 5:3). On the other hand, the term for “honor” can also be used in a way that CANNOT indicate the assumption of some kind of finances (as seen in 1 Timothy 6:1). Thus, in the same context, we find “honor” used in a way that could include some type of financial benefit and in a way that could not be financial. So, context is not a big help in this situation. So, the best we can say at this point is the “double honor” may indicate that people should consider elders who lead well to be worthy of respect and honor that could include some type of financial benefit.
However, notice that the “leading” and “working hard” on the part of the elders occur BEFORE they are considered worthy of double honor. The people are only to consider elders worthy of double honor if they are already leading well and working hard in the word and teaching. There is no indication here that the people should provide “double honor” SO THAT elders lead well and work hard. So, the “double honor” in this passage is not similar to the modern concept of the salary. If anything, it is closer to the modern concept of the honorarium or “love offering.”
In tomorrow post, I will examine the next verse – 1 Timothy 5:18 – to see if it indicates some additional type of financial benefit for people who are elders.
—————————————-