Chapter 10 - The Testimony of History

The Dorian Principle, a Biblical Response to the Commercialization of Christianity by Conley Owens Chapter 10,

The Testimony of History, Claim Versus Evidence In 2008,

Tom Biscardi snagged a significant amount of camera time when he claimed that he had discovered the carcass of a

Sasquatch. Someone had finally found Bigfoot. Except he had not.

Rather predictably, the animal turned out to be nothing more than a rubber costume shoved into a freezer.

I suppose there will always be believers in Bigfoot, but I am relatively certain no such creature exists.

No one has ever found the beast or captured convincing video of it. What's more, no one has ever found an authentic Sasquatch track or even

Sasquatch droppings. Things that exist leave traces of their existence.

It's a simple fact of reality. A claim is only a claim apart from evidence.

Similarly, true apostolic practices leave their mark on the church.

If the Dorian Principle was practiced by the apostles in the first century, we should expect to see traces of this practice in the second century.

Even if the church experienced times of radical transition, we should expect to see some evidence of this ethic.

I believe that when we look to the pages of history, that is exactly what we find.

In the last chapter, we examined the practice of the Dorian Principle in the first century church.

In this chapter, we will examine its practice in the following century. After establishing that the second century church fully embraced this ethic, we will briefly look at how the

Protestant Reformation attempted to recapture it. The Didache Quite possibly the oldest extra -biblical

Christian writing, the Didache functions as a manual of church practice. Also known as the

Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, it attempts to capture apostolic doctrine and the practice of the church into an orderly guide.

Despite these lofty goals, it draws from Matthew to the exclusion of the other Gospels, and possibly to the exclusion of all other

New Testament books. This document does not attempt to forge new ground or expand upon previous revelation, but only to apply what had already been provided by available scripture.

However, this is largely to our advantage since we have founded our own understanding of biblical fundraising ethics on Matthew 10, 8 -10.

In other words, the Didache helps us answer the question, how did the early church apply

Jesus' words in Matthew? The Didache's importance stems largely from its early authorship, dating to the mid to late 1st century.

The primitive simplicity of the Didache's teaching, as well as its silence on persecution, provide the strongest arguments for a 1st century date.

However, perhaps the early date should not impress us as much as the respect it garnered from the early church.

For example, the early church historian Eusebius lists the Didache among true

Orthodox writings, and Athanasius, the early theologian who defended the doctrine of the

Trinity, includes it among books approved for baptismal candidates. Additionally, the

Didache appears to be referenced by Clement of Alexandria and other early Christian witnesses,

Ignatius arguably being among their ranks. This support for the

Didache confirms that it largely represents the early church's understanding of the practical matters it addresses.

Given this brief overview of the document, we can conclude with some degree of confidence that where the

Didache offers guidance on ministry fundraising, its instruction emerges from an evaluation of New Testament sources, and that its judgments were largely shared by the early 2nd century church.

Further, given its early date, one may reasonably conclude that its prescriptions do not stray far from the practice of the apostolic church.

At most, it represents a minor evolution from the original pattern of the church, rather than a freshly designed program.

With that in mind, we turn to the relevant text. He is a false prophet.

And when he departeth, let the apostle receive nothing save bread, until he findeth shelter. And if he ask money, he is a false prophet.

And whoever shall say in the Spirit, Give me silver or anything else, ye shall not listen to him.

But if he tell you to give on behalf of others that are in want, let no man judge him. Didache 11 .4

-6 .12. Clearly, the

Didache takes serious precautions against itinerant teachers who would take advantage of the church. In a different context, it labels anyone who wrongly accepts the support of the

Christian community a trafficker in Christ, or Christmonger. Didache 12 .5.

We may identify several prohibitions here. 1. Staying in a home for three or more days.

2. Taking more than bread for one's journey. 3. Asking for money for one's journey.

4. Asking for money under the pretense of divine instruction. On the surface, several points stand at odds with our conclusion from the former chapters.

Benjamin Franklin quipped that fish and visitors stink after three days. But beyond this humorous sentiment, it is not clear why there would be a prohibition against prolonged hospitality, especially if Paul is willing to spend the entire winter with the

Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 16 .6. The ban on accepting money for a journey likewise seems out of step with the previous covered notion of propempo support.

The confusion arises from the fact that the Didache speaks to an established Christian people, yet appears to prohibit them from co -laboring.

However, clarity arises from recognizing that this paragraph addresses a prophet of questionable veracity.

Didache 11 .13. Others are to recognize him as a true prophet, in part, by the ethic he exhibits in managing his own support among an unknown people.

Prior to such a demonstration, the people should treat him with a healthy caution. Regarding one firmly identified as a true prophet, the

Didache readily acknowledges that he is worthy of his food. Didache 13 .1. And deserves the first fruit of money, possessions, etc.

Didache 13 .7. Since we have seen these instructions most clearly pronounced in the epistles of Paul, I find it especially fascinating that the author of the

Didache apparently arise at these conclusions apart from a clear knowledge of the apostles' writings.

In other words, the Didache indicates that Jesus established the Dorian principle, and that it may be understood in the

Gospel of Matthew without appealing to any later developments. Prior to Paul's rejection of hospitality when arriving in Corinth, Thessalonica, and Ephesus, the

Church understood that it is unbecoming for a minister of Christ to support himself by receiving direct payment from his converts.

The Shepherd of Hermas A similar, albeit more specific, concern arises in the

Shepherd of Hermas. As with the Didache, the Shepherd is a Christian writing that was widely respected by the early

Church. Once again, this indicates that its judgments are largely representative of those held by the early

Church, reflecting the counsel of Scripture. The Shepherd of Hermas warns against greedy prophets who willingly say anything for the

Shepherd 43 .2 -3, 8. As a precautionary measure against such things, it decries private prophecy, demanding that teachers teach plainly and openly in a

Christian assembly, Shepherd 43 .13 -14. However, perhaps its most direct rebuke of false prophets comes in the form of a condemnation of ministerial reciprocity.

In the first place, that man who seemeth to have a spirit exalteth himself, and desireth to have a chief place, and straightway he is impudent, and shameless, and talkative, and conversant, in many luxuries, and in many other deceits, and receiveth money for his prophesying.

And if he receiveth not, he prophesieth not. Now can a divine spirit receive money and prophesy?

It is not possible for a prophet of God to do this, but the spirit of such prophets is earthly,

Shepherd 43 .12. And forbidding the requirement of remuneration, the

Shepherd does not clearly prohibit the acceptance of remuneration. However, it goes on to say that a divine spirit cannot receive money and prophesy.

Here, the Shepherd offers an unqualified rejection of ministerial reciprocity. It rejects as insincere any who would receive in direct exchange for teaching.

Apollonius Not much is known of Apollonius of Ephesus, but his writings warrant mention for their status as early

Christian witnesses to the practices of the Church. These writings no longer exist in a complete form, but the early

Church historian Eusebius recorded his contentions with the heretic Montanus. Of Montanus, Apollonius reports,

This is he who appointed collectors of money, who contrived the receiving of gifts under the name of offerings, who provided salaries for those who preached his doctrine, that its teaching might prevail through gluttony.

Clearly, Apollonius opposes greedy accumulation of wealth, although it is less clear why he objects to salaries in particular.

It seems likely that he protests the nature of the commission, pay offered in return for preaching.

Regardless, it is plain that Apollonius opposes prophets accepting gifts in the context of their ministry.

Does not all Scripture seem to you to forbid a prophet to receive gifts and money? When, therefore,

I see the prophetess Prisca receiving gold and silver in costly garments, how can

I avoid reproving her? If they deny that their prophets have received gifts, let them acknowledge this, that if they are convicted of receiving them, they are not prophets.

Notably, Apollonius appeals to Christ as he promotes his ethic, For although the

Lord said to provide neither gold nor silver, neither two coats, these men, in complete opposition, transgress in respect to the possession of the forbidden things.

For we will show that those whom they call prophets and martyrs gather their gain not only from rich men, but also from the poor and orphans and widows.

Depending on how we understand Apollonius, one could argue that he strays from the Dorian principle, rejecting all financial support from ministers rather than merely rejecting ministerial reciprocity.

However, congregational support has always been a common feature in churches, even in the first and second century.

For Apollonius to take particular issue with Montanus, the false prophet's practice must have deviated beyond the typical practice, possessing a more commercial character.

Regardless, Apollonius appeals to the common understanding of the church and points to some divergent practice in the sect of Montanus.

Whether Apollonius's biblical understanding is accurate or not, it represents a second -century

Christian mindset which was formed and influenced by first -century Christian practices. In other words, even apart from perfect agreement, these objections to payment confirm the second -century church affirmed something akin to the

Dorian principle. Those familiar with church history might know that in the course of his contending against Montanus, Apollonius incurred the rebuke of Tertullian, one of the most important second -century theologians.

But on this point, the two were agreed. As Tertullian writes, there is no buying and selling of any sort in the things of God.

Martin Luther Flash forward to the Protestant Reformation. In the first three centuries of the church, we see the ripples and echoes of the

Dorian principle in play. But the 16th century concerns us for an altogether different reason.

The eventual corruption of the church had led to a degradation in fundraising practices.

Rather than having the opportunity to maintain the apostolic practice, the reformers found themselves saddled with the task of restoring a biblical view of money.

In fact, while the Reformation centered around the doctrines of scripture and salvation, the relationship between money and ministry was arguably the primary catalyst of the

Reformation. In the early 16th century, the sale of indulgences, reductions on time spent in purgatory, financed the construction of St.

Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. In Germany, this effort was led by Johann Tetzel, a friar whose marketing skills have been immortalized in the following couplet, as soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory to heaven springs.

German priest Martin Luther, 1483 -1546, objected to this commercial treatment of salvation and on October 31st, 1517, he nailed his 95 theses against the sale of indulgences to the door of All Saints Church in Wittenberg.

This act of defiance sparked the Protestant Reformation, the largest religious and cultural revolution the

Western world has ever experienced. Luther believed a minister was obligated to be selfless in his office and saw the calling of a pastor to be one of the imitation of Christ in his sacrifice.

Concerning the Pope, he writes, He goes as far as to say that a ministry endeavor that seeks to raise money lacks the marks of divine approval.

As we see, every project of men bears money, the word of God bears nothing but the cross.

Of course, Luther also believes ministers should receive regular support in order to sustain the proclamation of the gospel.

On one hand, it seems clear that Luther roughly affirmed the Dorian principle, denying that the message of salvation should be sold after affirming that congregants should support their ministers.

However, his writings never ventured much farther than a rebuke of extremes. Other figures in the

Protestant Reformation voiced similar concerns, but in my estimation, none ever made it quite as far as to articulate a robust ethic distinguishing the wrongful and rightful receipt of money in ministry.

Conclusion Looking back on the pages of history, we see that the 2nd century church maintained the apostolic practice of the

Dorian principle. Moreover, they understood this ethic to be a scriptural precept, defending it largely from the gospel of Matthew.

Unlike Bigfoot, the teaching of the Dorian principle in the 1st century church left traces in the following century that corroborates its prevalence among the churches founded by the apostles.

Later, after centuries of increased disregard in the church at large, the Reformers recognized the need to restore a biblical ethic of ministry fundraising.

By and large, they determined that scripture forbids the sale of ministry, and yet commands the support of ministers.

However, these Reformers were largely satisfied to counter the extremes of greed and neglect.

The work begun at the time of the Reformation remains in need of completion. For those who wish to take up that mantle,

I believe that the Dorian principle holds the keys to properly articulating the biblical ethic and putting it into practice.