Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
The Dorian Principle, A Biblical Response to the Commercialization of Christianity, by Conley Owens.
Chapter 11, The Scope of Ministry, Impunity vs. Jurisdiction One morning on the way to my high school,
I was listening to the host of a radio show recount the story of a woman who led a band of police officers on a high -speed chase.
Racing down the interstate, she eventually exited and led the authorities through a suburban area.
Surprisingly, she neither crashed nor pulled over in surrender. Instead, she peeled into the driveway of her home and ran inside.
What is it that caused this woman to do this? The radio host accepted answers from callers.
Did she have a medical emergency? Did she need to use the bathroom? The first caller answered correctly.
She believed she could not be arrested on her own property. However, as the woman learned when the strong arm of the law forcibly entered her home, that is not how police jurisdiction works.
Similarly, many imagine that within their own class of ministry, they may operate with impunity outside any kind of stipulations.
However, just as the Lord reigns over all the earth, the jurisdiction of the Dorian Principle extends to all gospel ministries.
In this chapter, I want to explore the boundaries of this jurisdiction in the context of the church.
Hopefully, by offering practical application, we will reify the act that it put forward in previous chapters, but I also want to give it shape by attempting to sketch its limitations.
Because we will be referring to this principle more frequently from here to the end of the book, I'll restate our biblical ethic of ministry fundraising one more time before we continue.
In the context of gospel proclamation, accepting support as anything other than an act of co -labor compromises the sincerity of ministry.
Now let's embark on the journey of practical application. Defining Gospel Ministry The Dorian Principle begins with the phrase, and the context of gospel ministry.
Given that our stated principle looks to regulate the work of ministry, we must ask what exactly ministry is, and how far its scope extends.
Some recent attempts to understand vocation in light of the Bible bridge the secular -sacred divide between the work of ministers and laymen.
While such attempts may have some merit in seeing God's calling for all walks of life, this blurring of distinctions can only provide confusion for our purposes of defining boundaries.
There must be some activities that are particularly ministry, and some that are discernibly not ministry.
Otherwise, our principle would reject all commercial exchanges. As a starting point, the
Apostle Paul's concerns regarding ministry fundraising revolve around the proclamation of the gospel, 1
Corinthians 9 .18, 2 Corinthians 11 .7. We may therefore begin by qualifying our considerations, limiting them particularly to gospel ministry.
In other words, the Dorian Principle concerns the explicit proclamation of the
Word of God, rather than other forms of charitable service, which may be too broad to warrant regulation.
However, we should pause given that Christ's command extends beyond preaching, including miraculous healings among those things which should not be offered for a price.
Matthew 10 .8 In context, the purpose of those miraculous healings is to demonstrate the veracity of the good news.
Matthew 10 .7 Even here, the gospel is still in view. Certain types of service, like miracle working, have such a relationship to that message that while the gospel may be proclaimed apart from them, they cannot rightly exist divorced from the proclamation of the gospel.
For our purposes, gospel ministry is any activity that proclaims the gospel or directly attends to its proclamation.
Though not immediately obvious, this includes all religious instruction. From a biblical standpoint, the goal of any
Christian teaching is not to stand on its own, but ultimately to communicate the gospel, 1
Corinthians 2 .2, Hebrews 6 .1. Consequently, the
Dorian principle regulates teaching in many formats and contexts. From sermons to books, both live and recorded formats lie in its purview.
From Sunday school to seminary, it governs contexts both within and outside the regular operations of the church.
Accepting Support The Dorian principle speaks of support and its acceptance.
Within the category of acceptance, we may define three modes, requirement, request, and receipt.
Each forms a concentric circle within the other. Those who require support are willing to request and receive it, and those who request support are willing to receive it.
The Dorian principle forbids each one outside the context of co -labor, but identifies each inner circle as more problematic than the preceding.
Requirement Most clear among the three, a minister cannot require support in exchange for ministry.
To hold ministry hostage for a ransom would make one a free agent rather than a servant with a charge from his master.
Rather than requiring repayment, a godly minister should, like Paul, be willing to spend and be spent.
Beyond requiring payment, the Dorian principle prohibits requesting anything in exchange for ministry.
Such a request implies a direct obligation to give in exchange for the service rendered. Voluntary payment is still payment, not co -labor.
Receipt Finally, ministers ought not to receive in exchange for ministry.
Many imagine that unsolicited gifts should be free from scrutiny, but even that which is not requested may constitute reciprocity.
Of course, all these prohibitions hinge on the phrase in exchange for ministry.
That is, they only forbid reciprocity, not co -labor. One may receive co -labor, even request it since a request does not impose a direct obligation, but appeals to divine obligation.
Additionally, one may even require co -labor for ministry, voluntarily abstaining from ministry as determined by financial need.
For example, in Corinth, Paul refrained from full -time ministry and instead labored to support himself.
When fellow evangelists from Macedonia arrived, presumably with financial relief,
C .F. Philippians 4 .15, Paul resumed full -time ministry, Acts 18 .5.
Jesus even commanded his disciples only to go where they would have support to do the work of ministry,
Matthew 10 .14. In these circumstances, money is a means rather than an end.
Ministerial Staff Considering the Dorian Principle and the life of the
Church gives us an opportunity to evaluate how we think about weekly financial contributions.
First, the congregation ought not be misled about the nature of their giving. Rather than being taught that they owe ministers directly, they should be taught that they owe it to God to support his ministers, especially those from whom they have benefited.
Beyond this, they should understand that their giving is an act of co -labor. In the words of D .A.
Carson, The congregation works together with their ministers to ensure the gospel is proclaimed.
As such, it moves the charitable act from a negative center to a positive center, from the canceling of debt owed to investment in the kingdom of heaven.
Not only does a right understanding of giving correct the erring ethic, it has the power to enliven the giver.
Of course, ministers also should recognize the nature of their income. To quote another prominent theologian,
Christian ministers should refuse remuneration for the sake of the gospel. When Christians accept money for ministry, they ought never view it as a wage but as a gift.
While the distinction between wage and gift might differ from our chosen vocabulary of reciprocity and co -labor, the concerns coincide.
Naturally, preaching ministry should offer sermons at no charge. Few churches, if any, have a turnstile at the door, but it was not that long ago that many charged pew rents.
Moreover, with the rise of technology, sermons have been sold in print and digital form for some time.
As just one prominent example, an archive of Tim Keller's sermons currently costs $1 ,600, marked down from a list price of $3 ,300.
In contrast to these commercial practices, the church should engage in the free proclamation of the gospel, not only by permitting visitors to freely enter the building for worship services, but also by providing any recordings freely.
Most churches already practice this, sharing their sermons freely on sites such as Sermon Audio. Honorariums do not violate this ethic, but should be regarded as a fruitful means of supporting interim preachers and teachers.
If the purpose of a church is to gather for the collective worship of God in the preaching and hearing of the word, the congregation and preacher work toward the same end.
Anchored by a mutual desire to properly honor God, a church provides an honorarium as an act of co -labor.
If a regular preacher receives from his church in coordination with his labors among them, then a visiting preacher may do the same.
Thus, Peter was able to arrive at Corinth and receive financial support for his work there.
C .F. 1 Corinthians 9, 5 Special Services Irregular religious worship services warrant special scrutiny.
Any amount of religious instruction, including worship leading, should be offered without pay.
Such charges are not unheard of in modern times. For example, the church pastored by the then -president of the
Southern Baptist Convention charged for entry to their 2019 Good Friday worship service.
Frequently, special worship events run outside the context of a church, under the auspices of a concert or conference.
Such affairs typically charge not only to recuperate physical costs, but also for religious instruction.
Ticket sales that fail to identify the exact object of purchase food? music? a message?
along with a blurring between worship and entertainment threaten to transgress the
Dorian principle. Our concerns regarding special services extend to weddings, funerals, and even counseling.
Unlike typical teaching or worship services, these tend to focus on a particular party, the newlyweds, the family of the deceased, or the counselee.
In these circumstances, the needs of the few rise to the forefront, and an exchange of money suggests that it is offered in return for the gospel ministry provided in that context.
Not only should churches and its ministers refrain from advertising a fee, they should also not accept one.
As already stated, honorariums do not necessarily violate our stated principle, but where money changes hands between one in need of a service and one who provides it, is it clear that gospel ministry is not being purchased?
Conceivably, one could give as an act of co -labor at a special service, but the context suggests that any such money would constitute a direct payment.
Nothing apparent distinguishes a check proffered to a counseling pastor and a check proffered to a secular therapist.
The ambiguity of the situation typically places the minister in a position where he cannot discern the intent of the individual and accept money responsibly.
Such a minister ought to, like Paul, simply refuse funds in situations that suggest direct repayment and look forward to accepting support in less compromising circumstances.
The Importance of Context As we've seen, context indicates a financial exchange as reciprocity or co -labor.
For example, in the context of a church plant, Paul rejects Corinthian funds as reciprocity, 1
Corinthians 9 .15. In the context of being sent out to other regions, he gladly receives them, 1
Corinthians 16 .6. Several aspects of context may indicate the nature of a contribution, but chief among these are language and or earmarking.
For example, using the language of co -labor, a ministry might advertise,
You've seen our impact, please consider partnering with us. By employing the terminology of partnership, this call to action indicates that any who give join in laboring for the
Lord. bringing their resources into a common pool for a common purpose. However, a ministry might solicit donations with the following appeal,
You've benefited from our teaching, please consider giving back. This language of reciprocity suggests a direct obligation to man rather than an indirect obligation mediated by God.
Similarly, suggested donations offer a clever attempt at relieving one of the notion of obligation, but almost certainly earmark a contribution as repayment.
Opposition and boycotts. The Dorian principle stands at odds with much gospel proclamation as it exists in the world.
While inconsistency on this point may indicate false teaching, true teachers also adopt compromised practices, unaware of the implications.
Should we oppose or boycott such ministries to promote a biblical ethic? Thankfully, the
Apostle Paul gives a rather direct answer. Observing that some preach Christ not sincerely, he responds,
What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.
Philippians 1 .18 Along with Paul, we should rejoice at the gospel efforts of those who preach truly, but not as sincerely as they ought.
Antagonistic pursuits such as boycotts are not only unnecessary, but largely unhelpful, and it would be unwise to intentionally cut oneself off from the vast array of biblical teaching offered at a cost.
Similar to boycotts, one may circumvent paywalls that restrict access to ministry, e .g.,
via illicit downloads. If the gospel is the Lord's to offer, and ministers are not permitted to sell their teaching, such behavior may seem justified.
In considering the temple tax, Jesus offers a nuanced response to unjust financial impositions attached to spiritual blessings.
What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?
And when he said from others, Jesus said to him, Then the sons are free. However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel.
Take that and give it to them for me and for yourself. Matthew 17 25b -27
Having a right to the benefits of the temple, the disciples do not owe the tax to those who collect it.
However, for the sake of peace, it is often best to bear such burdens. Conclusion The Dorian Principle offers a foundation from which we can begin to concretize the
New Testament model of ministry fundraising. In the next chapters, we will explore more specifics, beginning with the relationship between the