Labour For Love:
Remuneration of Christian Ministers in the Mission Context of Today
1. The Concern of this Paper
The major concern of this paper is to raise the question of criteria for determining the stipend of what are commonly known as “church staff”. (The problem with this nomenclature will be raised below.) This is done under the conviction that, by and large, the church has taken on the value systems of the world and failed to rigorously examine all things by biblical principles. Whatever the trends in past or present society, no matter whether it has understood itself to be “Christian” or otherwise, society’s approach to finances cannot be equated with the kingdom of God. Jesus taught a great deal about money, so the subject under consideration must lie close to the concern of God that his full favour rest upon his people.
Even if there are no immediate practical outcomes from this exercise, it may serve to stimulate a more consistent theological approach to the systemic issues that are an unavoidable part of church life.
In addition, if this discussion does lead to change, it is important that the foundational principles responsible for such action be recorded, not only for future reference at [your church] but for the interest of others who may wish to follow our example.
2. Avoiding Some Disturbing Current Trends
Recent research from the United States (Ministries Today – March 2003) indicates an increasing professionalisation of ministry. This is manifest by references to “career” rather than “calling”, failure to understand the difference between salaried employment and the receipt of “a living”, remuneration on the basis of “success” and the very notion of “church staff.”
In contemporary society “career” by its very nature is dominated by self advancement in one’s chosen profession and is usually measured by financial reward, prestige and influence. That such advancement may serve the interests of others is very secondary.
“Calling” however is not self-chosen but initiated by God. It is to a lifetime of service for the sake of others. It is important to realise that all Christians are equally called of God even if the form this call takes in life is different. The whole of the Bible is undergirded by a consciousness of belonging to a chosen community called to the service of God (Ex 19:6; Isa 41:2;42:6; Hos 11:1 -2;Matt 3:13; Acts 2:39; Rom 1:6-7; 1 Cor 1:9; Gal 5:13; Eph 4:1,4; 1 Pet 2:9 etc.)
We must ask how deeply this consciousness is part of the life of the current people of God in Australia. In particular, there is a great danger of a creeping social contract between the paid “employees” of the church and the congregation. Implicitly, there can exist a qid pro quo, a “we pay you to take care of us” mentality.
Salaried employment easily fits into this pattern. Such employment is highly conditional and characteristically results driven. The one constant observed across the U.S. in terms of pastors’ salaries was that these went up with the size of a congregation. In other words, “successful” pastors were rewarded financially by church boards as if they were company CEOs. There can be little doubt that this is the trend among the larger local Australian churches.
This situation is appalling. God’s love for us is unconditional and totally independent of effectiveness by any indicator (John 3:16; 1 John 4:10). It is difficult to see how the radical nature of grace can be adequately conveyed in a system based on rewards for performance. Indeed, I believe there is a deep consistency between the nature of the “salary packages” of “ministers” and the image of God prevalent in a congregation.
If God himself works for love and not money we must suppose that all his followers should live on the same basis. God does not love us to obtain something from us, such as worship and obedience, but because he is love (1 John 4:8). He has no ulterior motive for serving us. Only as this principle is consistently applied to financial remuneration in the church can the free gift nature of the gospel be revealed.
Paul was quite aware of his apostolic rights to be reimbursed for his efforts, but chose to be a tent maker in order that the gospel he preached might be made available “free of charge” (1 Cor 9:18). However this pattern is applied it remains foundational for today.
3. A Comment on “Church Staff”
One of the complicating factors in this discussion is the notion of “church staff”. Embedded, however unintentionally, in this terminology are a host of concepts which cannot be traced back to the New Testament but originate in secular society. Many of these ideas have already been referred to above.
If love is the motivation for all Christian service then another term needs to be found for the role of those presently so designated. This may not be easy to achieve, but if church culture is to be transformed in the process of breaking down the unbiblical clergy – laity distinction it will be necessary. (My own personal view, is that we should revert to the biblical vocabulary of elders and deacons in a much more consistent manner.)
However the linguistic question is resolved, it needs to be made plain that the reward of those in paid employment for the church is relational and not financial. Such is not only a biblical imperative but vital in our sceptical Australian setting.
4. Receipt of a Living
a. New Testament Support for this Practice
Rights to support for ministry are uncontroversially laid out in the New Testament. Jesus and the apostles were supported by a group of wealthy women who accompanied them on their travels (Luke 8:3). Peter and other apostles made use of the right to material benefits from their work (1 Cor 9:5,12)
Paul details at length a number of reasons behind this principle. The first of these is the words of Jesus: “The Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should receive their living from the gospel” (1 Cor 9:14). He may have in mind the words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels on the occasion of the sending out of the seventy: “the labourer deserves to be paid” (Luke 10:7; Matt 10:10).
The second strand of argument consists of examples from the Old Testament and the Gentile world where the priests received a share of the offerings at the altar (1 Cor 9:13 cf. Lev 6:16; Deut 18:1).
The third strand draws from the law, the example of the freedom of the ox to eat the grain it treads is a type of the right of gospel ministers to a return from their spiritual labours (1 Cor 9:8 – 10). Although Paul generally chose not to use this right, there are exceptions to this practice (Acts 18:5; 2 Cor 11:8-9; Phil 4:15 16).
In addition to these apostolic examples, 1 Timothy 5:17-18 reads: “let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching; for the scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and, ’The labourer deserves to be paid.’”
The key term here, is the Greek time, which can legitimately be translated as “compensation.” It was, for example, used of the honorarium of a physician. Where the same word is used a little earlier, in 1 Timothy 5:1, it does have financial connotations (5:4-9). The term seems to include both public esteem and financial supply.
b. How Much is “a Living”?
There appear to be three kinds of support in the New Testament situation: Travel (Rom 15:23-24; Tit 3:12-14). Hospitality (Matt 10:9-10; 3 John 6-8). Living expenses (Rom 16:2; 1 Cor 9; 1 Tim 5:17-18).
The difference between “a living” and a salary is that the former is not a recompense for work performed but a supply to enable the accomplishment of such work.
5. Principles for Establishing Financial Remuneration
I have tried to list what are some obvious grounds for decision making in this area, but have restricted remarks to the distinctively Christian aspects of the question.
a. Qualifications: the major problem is how qualifications are to be measured. Academic qualifications do not exist in the New Testament, so that we are left to rely on matters of gifting and character. This requires spiritual discernment.
b. Experience: this can be gauged with some accuracy. However, great experience does not mean spiritual maturity , nor is the reverse the case.
c. Responsibility: given the example of Jesus and the apostles, it would almost seem that a reverse correlation between responsibility in the church and financial return exists.
d. Need: I believe this is one of the great forgotten factors in dealing with this whole question. The present (unrevised) policy document for the Mission Ministry Team of [your church] takes into account factors for distribution of Fund money that include the number of adults in a family in mission service, numbers of children and training contexts. It would be simple to add to this other elements like independent financial means, spouse income and so on. Such a system, I believe, would ensure maximum “fairness” to all concerned. I explain below what I consider “fairness” to mean.
e. Equality: the equality of the members of the Godhead is a non – negotiable for Christians. Salvation is provided on an equal basis by a God who shows no partiality (Rom 2:11; Gal 2:6; Eph 6:9). Similarly, Paul exhorts us as fellow members of the body of Christ that its “parts should have equal concern/care for one another.” (1 Cor 12:25). If we take the apostle’s earlier remarks to be relevant, “God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honour to the inferior part” (1 Cor 12:24) , then we may conclude that equality of care does not imply identity of care. The greater the need the more the supply will be required for equal concern. This is a pastoral application by the church towards ministers.
6. The Missionary Context of the Church
It is imperative that we grasp that the old Christendom paradigm no longer fits the world in which we live. Everything we do as a people must reflect the essential missional nature of the church. We must make the transition from a “settler” mind – set to a “pioneer” (apostolic) mindset in freedom and grace as quickly as possible before such a decision is forced upon us, not by neutral unfavourable circumstances but by the sovereign dispensation of God.
If [your church] is indeed seeking to be a church that embraces all the dimensions of the apostolic and prophetic gospel, then these matters go right to the heart of your identity, both in the seen and unseen realm. I therefore commend these issues to your biblical and prayerful testing.