Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
The Dorian Principle. A Biblical Response to the Commercialization of Christianity.
By Conley Owens. Chapter 1. The Command of Christ. Reciprocity vs.
Co -Labor. When I was six years old, I had a
King James Version Bible, with the words of Christ marked in red. So many pages consisted only of dull black, so when
I would arrive at those pages with crimson verses, I felt that I had stumbled upon a great treasure.
Years later, I learned that the Gospels were not originally printed in books with color or other typographic novelties, but simply penned in whatever ink was available.
Moreover, as I matured, I recognized that if the Apostles and Prophets were authoritative messengers sent by God, then the black letters carry all the same weight as the red.
That is not to say I hadn't stumbled upon a great treasure. Just as certain miracles were reserved for Christ to perform,
John 9 .32, certain messages were reserved for Him to proclaim. Where best to begin but with the words of the
Master. Luke and Matthew. When you consider the financial maintenance of ministers, what passage first comes to mind?
If you have studied the Bible for any significant amount of time, it is likely you landed on the phrase in the middle of Luke 10 .7,
the laborer is worthy of his wages. Why this particular phrase?
One, it is undeniably catchy. In fact, this adage was already a traditional proverb by the time that Christ first uttered it.
Two, it formed the basis for Paul's understanding of the same topic, 1 Timothy 5 .18.
The Apostles' ethic is little more than an extensive application of Christ's command.
Three, it represents the first clear teaching on the matter offered at the dawn of Christian ministry.
However, if you take a look at the passage, you will discover that Luke places this instruction alongside the sending out of the 70 disciples, sometime after the sending out of the 12 disciples.
Although a useful starting point, it would be better to travel back a little further in time and see what
Jesus said to the original 12. In God's providence, Matthew records this for us, albeit in a phrase that garners less popular recognition.
The laborer deserves his food. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons.
You received without paying, give without pay. Acquire no gold or silver or copper for your belts, no bag for your journey, or two tunics or sandals or a staff, for the laborer deserves his food.
Matthew 10 .8 -10. Food, in Matthew 10 .10,
coincides with wages in Luke 10 .7. It makes little practical difference if a traveling disciple receives a denarius or a denarius's worth of bread.
Both count as compensation for the work done. From this extended imperative in Matthew 10, we can develop an understanding of Christ's teaching on the relationship between money and ministry.
The question of payment. Take another look at the passage.
Notice anything interesting? It says the disciples are to give without pay.
At first glance, this appears to conflict with the idea that the laborer deserves his food.
Should the laborer receive wages or not? It is unthinkable that any coherent speaker, let alone
Jesus, the treasure store of wisdom himself, would offer two contradictory approaches in the same breath.
We must find some way to resolve these polar injunctions to refuse and to receive.
Before exploring a more fitting resolution, let us first walk through a few less satisfactory options.
Option one. Jesus forbids the disciples from taking a miserly approach to their work, but permits receiving payment.
The phrase freely give may seem to indicate encouragement toward offering ministry bountifully rather than a prohibition against compensation.
However, translations that say give without pay are not mistaken.
The Greek word used here, dorian, indicates the giving of something apart from any remuneration.
In a context explicitly concerning money, this is the same word Paul uses to describe his gratuitous, freely offered preaching.
2 Corinthians 11 7. Option two.
Jesus forbids the disciples from receiving pay, but permits them to regard themselves as worthy of it.
This option attempts to maintain the honor of the ministry while denying its honorariums.
On the contrary, in Luke 10 7, Jesus says that because laborers deserve wages, they should receive from the one they stay with.
Furthermore, the apostle Paul understands this verse to command the support of ministers.
1 Timothy 5 17. Option three. Jesus forbids the disciples from requiring pay, but permits them to receive pay.
That is, the disciples are fit for remuneration only when they are willing to minister without it.
While this may be an attractive solution, it stands at odds with the actual words of the verse.
If the disciples may receive payment, why does Jesus tell them to give without pay?
Option four. Jesus forbids the disciples from requesting pay, but permits them to receive pay.
This proposed solution suffers from the same problems as the preceding option. Moreover, if the disciples may not request payment, why does
Jesus tell them to seek out people who will receive and support them? Matthew 10 11 through 14.
Luke 10 5 through 8. Option five. Jesus forbids the disciples from accepting money, but permits them to receive food and lodging.
First, this proposal creates an arbitrary distinction in capital, as though no interchange exists between gold and groceries.
Someone who receives one could easily exchange it for the other. Additionally, the solution fails to address the explicit reference to money in Matthew 10 9.
The disciples are to rely on others for their financial needs. In fact, by all accounts, the
Apostle Paul regards this passage as promoting monetary support. First, Timothy 5 17 through 18.
Option six. Jesus forbids the disciples from receiving payment in exchange for miracles, but permits them to receive payment in exchange for preaching.
This option wrongly suggests that the disciples might work wonders apart from any proclamation of the gospel.
The disciples are to give freely because they have received freely. They have not received miraculous healings, but the good news of the kingdom of God.
Option seven. Jesus forbids the disciples from receiving excess profit, but permits them to which meets their needs.
Such a mediating approach fails to satisfy either pole of inquiry. Regarding the command not to receive pay, it allows compensation.
Regarding the statement that a minister is worthy of his wages, it implicitly denies he deserves anything more than bare sustenance.
Option eight. Jesus forbids the disciples from acquiring greedily, but permits them to receive with pure motives.
While similar to the previous option, this proposal offers an ethic of motivation rather than an ethic of moderation.
That is, rather than regulating the disciples external activities, it regulates the desires of the heart.
However, nothing in the text substantiates this resolution. We need a better option.
As is typically the case in interpreting scripture, the key to understanding this passage is found in the context.
The source of payment. The primary concern of Matthew 10, 8 through 10 is not what is received or how it is received, but from whom it is received.
The disciples are not to receive from those to whom they minister. They are to receive from God.
The key to all this is found in the word laborer. Both Matthew and Luke speak of a laborer being worthy of payment, yet neither author newly introduces this term at this point in their respective gospels.
Rather, they appeal to the words of Christ and the preceding passages where he calls for laborers to enter the harvest.
Then he said to his disciples, the harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few.
Therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.
Matthew 9, 37 to 38. C .F. Luke 10, 2.
The employer of the laborers pays their wages. In this metaphor, the employer is the
Lord of the harvest, not the grain. Translating this image to reality,
God is the employer, not the recipients of the gospel message. While we may be tempted to identify those individuals who provide for the disciples as the employers or clients who pay the wages, they are rather God's instruments in this kingdom economy.
The Lord of the harvest commissions his laborers, orchestrating their supply from the grain of the field.
This stands in stark contrast to the idea that in saying the laborer is worthy of his wages,
Jesus calls those who receive the gospel to offer payment to ministers as their employers or clients.
Such a conclusion mistakes the grain for God, the harvest for its
Lord. According to their commission, the disciples are not at liberty to give their ministry in return for payment.
But in the course of ministry, they may receive support that God has furnished at the hands of men.
In the words of John Noland, the provision of food is not thought of as coming from those who benefit from the ministry, which they identify as worthy ministry.
The provision is thought of as being arranged by God wherever it might come from at a practical level.
Reciprocity and co -labor. We are farther on our journey toward the truth, but we are still faced with the difficulty of differentiating between payment from men and payment from God.
Since the disciples receive support at the hands of fellow men and not in packages falling from heaven, how does one begin to distinguish the two?
How do we articulate the difference between horizontal payment from man to minister and vertical payment from the
Lord of the harvest to his laborer? The key here is the notion of obligation.
In a purely horizontal exchange, a man finds himself obligated to a minister.
In a contribution representing a vertical payment from God, some other obligation secures the arrangement.
I will call these two sorts of transactions ministerial reciprocity and ministerial co -labor, shortening them simply to reciprocity and co -labor.
Ministerial reciprocity, support material or otherwise given to a minister out of a sense of direct obligation for his ministry of the gospel.
The term reciprocity describes a contribution offered out of a direct obligation, i .e.,
one that is not mediated by God. One who gives out of direct obligation considers himself primarily beholden to the one who receives.
For example, reciprocity occurs when one gives money to a minister.
This notion includes asymmetric exchanges and voluntary exchanges. For example, ministerial reciprocity occurs even when only a pittance is offered and even when no fee is requested, so long as the giver gives from a sense of indebtedness to the minister.
Ministerial co -labor, support material or otherwise given by man to a minister out of a sense of obligation to God to honor or aid in the proclamation of the gospel.
Unlike the direct sense of obligation involved in reciprocity, co -labor acknowledges a mediated obligation, the giver considering himself indebted directly to the
Lord and through that obligation finding himself duty -bound to give to a minister.
I call this co -labor because it is the product of fellow servants working toward a common goal of a common employer.
Jesus forbids ministerial reciprocity in Matthew 10 .8 when he commands his disciples to give without pay.
On the other hand, he permits and even promotes ministerial co -labor in Matthew 10 .9
-10 when he instructs the disciples not to bring their own provisions because the laborer deserves his food.
In the chapters ahead, I will refer to this dual ethic as the
Dorian principle, Dorian being the word in Matthew 10 .8 translated as freely or without pay.
The Dorian principle, in the context of gospel proclamation, accepting support as anything other than an act of co -labor compromises the sincerity of ministry.
Wages as co -labor. With these definitions in mind, we can move forward to Matthew and Luke and establish that the pattern of support
Jesus describes should be regarded as an instance of co -labor. First, the disciples are not to receive money from all who benefit from their ministry, but are to restrict themselves to the hospitality of one in each city,
Matthew 10 .11, Luke 10 .7. If they were to gather support more broadly, we might imagine a pattern of ministerial reciprocity.
All recipients of ministry would be counted as owing the disciples, and at least the willing ones would be called to compensate them with their resources.
However, the selective sources of support indicate that the disciples are not permitted to broadly impose direct obligation on those to whom they minister.
Second, an act of co -labor takes place when two servants coordinate their efforts for the sake of a common master, and indeed, those who support the disciples share the same master.
While we may only be able to term them citizens of the kingdom of God anachronistically, cf.
Matthew 10 .7, Luke 10 .9, those who support the disciples are firmly established among God's people.
Jesus restricts the disciples from going to Gentile or Samaritan territories,
Matthew 10 .5. But within each Judean city they visit, they are to find one who is worthy,
Matthew 10 .11 -12, and a son of peace, Luke 10 .6.
This vocabulary indicates one who is already qualified to co -labor for the good of the coming kingdom.
The passages further evidence the expectation of support from the
Judean population through an especially strong response to rejection. To pronounce condemnation, the disciples are to shake the dust off their feet,
Matthew 10 .14, Luke 10 .10 -11. Thus, Jesus can say it will be better for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for those who have rejected the gospel,
Matthew 10 .15, Luke 10 .1. A parallel command of Christ at the end of Luke further demonstrates this principle of co -labor.
He said to them, but now let the one who has a money bag take it, and likewise a knapsack, and let the one who has no sword sell his cloak, and buy one,
Luke 22 .36. Before, the disciples were told that they should take no money bag because a laborer is worthy of his wages.
Now they are told that they should take a money bag. Certainly, the laborer has not become less worthy.
On the night of his betrayal, Jesus modifies his earlier command in order to prepare his disciples for their imminent journey into a hostile environment.
Previously, the disciples could venture into new territories and expect to find fellow servants of God ready to co -labor with them by providing material support for their mission.
From now on, this expectation would be abandoned and replaced with the anticipation of opposition.
In the context of this passage, Jesus warns the disciples of the coming persecution at the hands of Jews, but his words apply equally to Gentiles.
A people not for Christ is a people against him, Matthew 12 .30, Luke 11 .23.
However, we should hesitate to conclude that Jesus only sought to address overt hostility.
The disciples encountered curious minds more than willing to pay for their services, C .F.
Acts 8 .18. In settings absent of the converted, they found lands potentially ripe for reciprocity, but barren for co -labor.
It seems reasonable to suspect Christ instructed his disciples to carry money bags not merely because they could not predictably expect support, but because they could not even ethically receive it.
Regardless, Jesus' instructions to his disciples in Matthew and Luke fit neatly into a pattern of co -labor.
They are to receive help from those who offer out of service to a common master. In offering the gospel, they are not to request a commercial exchange from anyone, especially not from the broad masses they seek to reach, the zeal of Christ.
Before we move away from the red letters to other parts of the New Testament, I would like to emphasize just how seriously
Jesus regarded the intersection of money and ministry. In one particular event, recorded by all four gospel authors,
Jesus forcefully chased money changers out from the temple. Clearly, he objected to the misuse of the things of God for the sake of gain, and his disapproval is no small matter.
In fact, the disciples recognized his consuming zeal as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.
In this vein, Jesus rejected
Satan's propositions of material gain. He likewise expects his followers to resist temptation rather than compromise for the sake of wealth.
As he himself said, you cannot serve both God and money. Matthew 6, 24.
Luke 16, 13. Conclusion The words of Christ are a great treasure.
Beginning there, we have found a distinction between ministerial reciprocity and ministerial co -labor.
The former establishes a direct obligation between man and minister, and the other mediates that obligation through God, the
Lord of the harvest. Popular theologian D. A. Carson notes a similar scheme in Matthew 10, 8 -10, remarking that while the service rendered must not be bought or sold, a church has the duty to provide for its ministers.
He further observes, this particular arrangement continues, I would be prepared to argue, in the letters of Paul.