Don’t misunderstand my article last week, I was not saying it is a sin for preachers to take compensation from a church. All I am saying is that 1 Corinthians 9:14 cannot be used to defend the practice of paying a regular ongoing salary.
Taking a salary as a minister is a choice, as is deciding not to take a salary. Each person must decide for themselves which way of living will be of most benefit to the gospel of Jesus Christ and to the people whom they seek to serve.
Maybe the command was not primarily for the one preaching the gospel, but for those who were receiving the benefit from the teacher. That is, the command is for the hearers. Certainly generosity plays a significant part in this equation. A local congregation was indeed expected to provide for someone, particulary a visitor, doing the teaching. If the one doing the teaching and preaching turned down gifts, that was fine, as Paul the Apostle did.
There were times when the Apostle Paul experienced extenuating circumstances beyond his control where, due to the likely dire nature of the situation at hand, he was forced to accept support from local Christians, who for the most part in that time and age were impoverished people. One could call such support “wages”. This was clearly not his normal operating procedure and he considered this support to be akin to “robbery”. Strong words, and words we rarely ever hear in the discussion of compensation for the preaching ministry.
Paul was clear about his feelings on the matter when He said, “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service”. Notice what he says in 2 Corinthians 11:7-9...
(7) Have I committed an offense in abasing myself that you might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely? (8) I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service. (9) And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.
Some argue that Paul used the word “robbery” here because it was the Corinthians responsibility, not the Macedonian's responsibility to support him. Not the case at all.
Paul's strong general teachings against collecting money from the church simply does not support this view. Also, some argue that 1 Corinthians chapter 9 is referring only to a special isolated case or a special set of circumstances where Paul took extra care not to offend the Corinthian church due to alleged unique problems that were going on with this church, that if not for these problems, Paul would have gladly collected money from them. They claim that this was his normal way of operating. Not so. Paul's teachings on the subject of collecting money from churches demonstrate the exact opposite and he provides an excellent example for all churches to follow.
All in all, Paul expounded and lived what we could call, “the better way”. We know from other Scriptures that Paul was not lazy as are so many so-called “pastors” today.
He was not a nosy busybody poking around in everyone's personal business, meddling in things that were none of his concern. Within his God-given calling, the Apostle Paul was not like so many modern day ministers who operate outside of their scope of pastoral authority, which is supposed to be to care for the flock by watching, warning and preaching the truth from the Bible – not creating or promoting man–made doctrines and commands, especially so when such “commands” are directly beneficial.
Even a brief perusal of the New Testament Epistles shows that Paul worked hard to support himself, to be generous and have something to share with others, not to take from others as is so common today. It is also clear that he only accepted sporadic financial or material help from the brethren when he was in serious need or where his work in preaching the Gospel truly required some extra help.
Paul exemplified poise and balance in the area of receiving money or material assistance as a Christian minister. Paul was a rare man of God in his own time and such committed men are even rarer in modern times.
So although there is a power or right to accept a sporadic or regular income from the Gospel, the good minister, the most faithful and trustworthy among us will simply not use this right unless there is a dire need and only after they have exhausted every other means of support at their disposal.
In our day and age we see men “going into the ministry” as a church career with a regular income and retirement in mind. Well this might be very normal as far as the modern church is concerned, but this is far from normal for a good minister according to what the Bible teaches, a minister who wants to present Christ in the best light and not hinder the Gospel.
So instead of isolating verses such as 1Corinthians 9:14 out of context, as if this were some kind of mandatory “command” for preachers to receive an income from the church, Christians need to read the whole passage in context. If they have “eyes to see and ears to hear” they will hopefully understand that this is not the case at all, but rather that those who preach the Gospel have a right of support under certain special conditions or extenuating circumstances, and that to abstain is the better way so as not to hinder the Gospel.
We have the heart of God on the matter - Jesus speaking through His Word and basically saying that He loves us and will not allow those who preach the Gospel to starve, which could be a hinderance to the precious Gospel. Through the example and inspired words of Paul, we are admonished to forgo compensation for preaching the Gospel. Love can see this view. Greed cannot. This is one of the reasons it is so important for Christians to approach the Bible from the right perspective or they risk deceiving themselves.
By no means did Paul approve of collecting an income from the church, let alone a regular ongoing income. Paul was no hired hand and would not compromise the Gospel to appease the wishes and desires of those who might have paid him “wages”. He did not settle-in to a community, expecting a comfortable income from church members. In times where he may not have been able to find work for his hands (he was a tent maker by trade) or where various urgencies may have come up and his traveling schedule may not have permitted him to work, etc., he accepted help yet obviously would have done so very reluctantly.
Again, I am not saying that churches should not financially help a genuine minister in times of genuine need. I am arguing against incomes, regular salaries, retirement schemes, etc., based on the teachings of Scripture and Paul's excellent example.
