Editor’s Note: Wow! That’s all I can say to this post. Neil Cole presents a compelling argument for supporting prayer warriors. What I appreciate about this post is the emphasis on the elderly and their rightful/important/needed place within the Body of Christ. Somehow, this seems to resonate within my spirit. Though I am a supporter of the 24/7 house of prayer model, defining the elderly for this position seems more appropriate and fitting in my understanding of Scripture.
Source: Cole-Slaw by Neil Cole
The second role defined in the New Testament as needing full time support is what Paul calls the “widow indeed” in 1 Timothy 5:3-16 (NASB). Paul delineates clearly what the qualifications are for this role and what the job description is. She is to be at least 60 years old, have no family to support her and to have been faithful in serving the Lord and His people. It appears as though she is to actually make a pledge to serve the Lord and not to be remarried, and for this reason younger women are exempt from this role. Her sole job description is to continually pray, night and day.
This is not just a case of charity. With God’s plan, not only is a woman without means granted stable provision, but perhaps even better, the church is blessed with constant prayer bombarding the throne of God! This has got to be a powerful partnership. Not only is this woman given financial support, but she is also granted a meaningful purpose for her remaining days. She is given a privilege of great significance rather than brushed aside.
Wow. I wonder what our churches would be like if we had apostles starting churches all the time in new areas and among new peoples, and the churches were supported by full-time prayer warriors—night and day! I can’t think of a better investment in kingdom resources. Church would actually be investing in spiritual endeavors of kingdom expansion and we would be investing in spiritual battle with full-time prayers and intercession.
In this cast-aside society where people are routinely brushed off as not valuable because of a lack of vocation or a handicap of sorts, this principle could make a huge difference. In God’s economy there are no useless Christians who are welfare cases. An elderly, arthritic woman who can barely rise to answer the door, is an extremely valued servant who is needed to breakdown walls of separation, destroy spiritual strongholds and set captives free! She has a calling on her life and is supported full time to serve in this way. I can see why Satan would want for us to get away from such a function. He’d much rather we pay a full-time staff person to keep our youth entertained and focused while the adults have fellowship and teaching. Could it be that the enemy is more threatened by this old woman than the highly educated professional pastor! Ouch.
Paul makes one thing clear in this passage that he also made a point of in 1 Cor. 9—the role is not to be a burden to the church if it can be helped (v. 16). We’ve grown accustomed to seeing the church as a burden to the pastor, but Paul saw things the other way around. I think our concerns are often misplaced because our values are far removed from the New Testament. I wonder how our churches would be if we were more concerned for the stress placed on the church than on getting as much from her as we can?
Editor’s Notes: I think this issue is especially pertinent to Western Christianity. According to recent statistics from the Barna group, annual giving to faith-based organizations is expected to drop significantly in the next few years. While some may attribute this solely to the economy, I think there’s a larger issue underneath — perhaps I will develop this in a later post. Take some time to read through Neil’s thoughts and post your comments. Who has the right to receive financial support from the Body?
Source: Cole-Slaw by Neil Cole
In 1 Corinthians 9 Paul makes a case for his right to make his living from the gospel just as the other apostles do. He even cites the Lord as the source of the directive (v. 14) perhaps a reference to his commissioning of the twelve and the seventy to take no purse with them for a laborer is worthy of his wages (Matt. 10:9-10; Luke 10:4).
Paul and Barnabas, however, forgo their right for such payment and choose rather to work to support themselves. Paul worked as a tentmaker while starting the church in Corinth at least until others arrived to help in the support so as not to be a burden to the emerging church.
Apostolos, the Greek word translated “apostle” means one sent on a mission as a representative or a special envoy. They are the ones to lay a foundation for the expanding church in every region and among every tribe and nation.
Such a role is not limited to a single church in a given region, but is commissioned to church an entire region. They are not likely to manage an existing church, but lay the foundation for others to build upon…and then are likely to go do it again somewhere else.
This role is actually defined as having a “right” to make a living from the preaching of the good news (vv. 3-9). It is important to note, however, that this right can be laid aside and surrendered for the sake of the church as Paul and Barnabas chose to do. This right should never be demanded at the detriment of the church. Have we hurt the church by making her responsible to employ her leaders like a business? I believe the answer to this question is yes, in many ways. Besides draining her of resources, perhaps the worst detriment is how we have segregated the body into a professional class that does the ministry and a nonprofessional class that works hard to pay them.
Source: Cole-Slaw by Neil Cole
This is a very critical question for the church to ask today. In order to approach this subject with cooler heads and calmer hearts, may I suggest we commit ourselves to addressing this from the New Testament rather than from our traditions, practical challenges and emotional bias. Can we read the New Testament as if we never read it before? Can we consider this question as if we did not have 2000 years of history weighing in on our perspective? Can we ask this question divorced from the concern of where our next paycheck will come from or worrying about career choices and educational investments? Probably not, but we should at least try.
It is my personal belief that much of our theology of church financing is dictated by two things. We are heavily influenced by the Old Testament principles of supporting a centralized religious government, and by our own need to support a new centralized religious institution. Frankly, I believe we draw much from the Old Testament for the very reason that we need to support a centralized religious institution and the New Testament is found lacking in that regard. Not that the New Testament is lacking in content about finances, in fact principles of financial stewardship is voluminous in the New Testament. Jesus spoke more about money than about heaven and hell, but the New Testament does away with the centralized religious institution. All of us are priests. All are servants empowered by the anointing of the Holy Spirit for the work of the ministry.
As I have studied the New Testament with this question in mind I have discovered that there are only two roles that are expected to make their living being supported by the church. If we could only pay two roles in the church today, which would we choose? Senior pastors and missionaries? Pastors and worship leaders? Denominational executives and pastors? Push comes to shove, I’d probably want to include a gifted secretary in the mix, but that’s more reflective of my own weakness than of any understanding of the Bible. I am confident that whatever two roles we would choose, they would not be the two mentioned in the New Testament.
In the next few blog posts I will examine this issue and share who is supported “full time” in the NT.
RawReligion.com Editor Comment: What is your take on this subject? What roles do you think should be supported by the Body of Christ?
