To Be Paid or Not To Be Paid

Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar?  So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.  But I have used none of these things. And I am not writing these things so that it will be done so in my case; for it would be better for me to die than have any man make my boast an empty one. (1 Corinthians 9:13-15 NASB)

 Chapter 9 of 1 Corinthians seems to be a parenthetical deviation from Paul's argument about eating food sacrificed to idols.  It's not.  It's actually a long, involved example of not exercising our rights as believers for the benefit of others.  And yet, he also takes this opportunity to 'correct' a view the church had about him, which invalidated his apostleship.

Both the basis of his example and the discrediting view of the church stemmed from Paul's service to the church there without asking for payment from the church.  In other words, Paul worked for his own wages (making/mending tents) instead of seeking support from the church.  For those in Corinth, this practice deviated from the typical itinerant philosopher/speaker types they found passing through Corinth.  It was also different from other traveling missionaries, even Peter and James.  So, for the church in Corinth, this also meant Paul wasn't all that.

As a true parenthetical comment, it seems from Acts 18:2-5 that Paul actually worked until funds from other churches came in.  When Timothy and Silas came from the churches they had just started, Paul didn't need to work, but started 'devoting himself completely to the word.' So, yes, he didn't accept payment from the church in Corinth, but he was supplied from other churches where he had worked previously.  This detail becomes important in how this chapter in 1 Corinthians get's misapplied today.

I attended a church in Arizona where one of the elders got his short in a knot with the pastor over whether pastors should be paid or not.  It was a vain, arrogant, godless, unscriptural, and thinly veiled attempt to preempt the authority of the pastor by a self-absorbed pompous lawyer-type.  He attempted to point out that pastors were, as an office, unnecessary; that the board of elders could provide the same work but for free.  It was when he tried to demonstrate this as scriptural, failed, set aside Scripture and the authority of Jesus, and the board acquiesced that I hit the roof.  I unsheathed my literary sword, sharpened the blade with all my education, and lined the edge with the venom of my resentment toward my previous church.  It was ugly, and I'm not proud of what I wrote the board, but the key line in it went something like this: "Church history past and present has taught us that where you are headed leads to little paper cups filled with cyanide and juice."  Anyway, they didn't like it.  I eventually apologized for the tone (not the content).

The reason I get so focused on this is that, in the church tradition from which I come, it seems that paying pastors always becomes the hardest thing for a church to justify.  It's as if they just can't bring themselves to pay someone to 'sit around' thinking up what to say from week-to-week; because, of course, that's all pastor's do...  The iceberg of ministry is the utter frustration of ministers.  People in churches only seem to validate that small piece they see.  It's one big reason many ministers leave the ministry, or as in my case, don't go back into it.

This isn't always the case, and many ministers make a very good living from ministry.  I never did, but I didn't stick with it all that long either.  So, this isn't a universal problem, but in smaller churches, it can be very deep and hurtful one.  This chapter in 1 Corinthians does serve to demonstrate that Paul's focus was  not his own benefit, but that of others.  But it does not demonstrate the 'value' or theological or biblical position for not paying ministers.  In fact, to support his point, Paul proves the reverse.  He has to, or his whole point in this part of the letter is completely invalidated.  If he has no right to receive payment for his services, then what 'bragging rights' does he have for not?  Look at verse 15.  He would rather die than have any man make his boast an empty one.  There's not much to boast about if he's not supposed to be receiving it in the first place.

Perhaps churches look at this passage, and then at their pastors, and ask, "why can't you be like him?" Perhaps they think that their pastors wouldn't become all things to all people so that by all means they may win some.  But haven't these ministers, by not using the obvious skills needed to minister in church setting to make much more money in a commercial setting, done the same thing?  Haven't they set aside a much easier life where they are more approved, more affirmed, and more highly paid?  Haven't they, instead, taken on a role with more stress, more misunderstanding, less control, and less money so that they might participate in the Kingdom take-over of a community and a people?  Is that diminished because they also want to be able to take care of the financial responsibilities of their families?  Really?

Yeah, this is a sore point for me.  I'm, perhaps excessively, protective of ministers.  And yes, it does stem from my own pain in previous ministry experience.  That doesn't make my perspective wrong.  What I learn from this chapter is that I have a responsibility not to 'muzzle the ox while it's threshing' (perhaps that I can call my pastor an ox?), and that I have a responsibility to help others in my church to understand this biblical principle as well.  It glorifies my Master.  And that needs to be my motivation, since that is the motivation of Paul in writing this in the first place.