Chapter 3 - The Triangle of Obligation

The Dorian Principle. A Biblical Response to the Commercialization of Christianity.

By Conley Owens. Chapter 3. The Triangle of Obligation. Immediacy vs.

Indirection. I was 23 years old and had never met my Lolo.

That's the Tagalog word for grandfather. Several factors, including the untimely death of my mother, his daughter, as well as his roots in the

Philippines, left us distant and without common ties. Driving a stereo -less

Honda Accord and armed with the return address on a letter I had received 12 years prior, I set off on a 2 ,400 mile road trip with the hope of connecting with him.

The overall journey had a larger purpose. I was moving from Virginia to California, but this was an essential side quest.

As I investigated the neighborhood, I discovered the house had belonged to a sister. Some of the neighbors were still in touch with her, and she was able to get me in touch with him.

He only visited the United States a few weeks a year, and by God's providence it just so happened that he would be arriving shortly.

When the time came, I was equipped with a new address and headed off to meet my

Lolo. It was a sweet reunion, if first -time meetings between relatives may be called reunions.

I not only had the privilege of meeting him, but several other relatives, including his oldest son, my uncle,

Tito G. Tito G's hospitality was fantastic. He housed me for several days, and hardly a moment passed where food was not being prepared or offered to me.

In part, this is par for the course in Filipino homes, but as I spoke with him,

I learned that he felt the need to treat me well in order to honor my mother, the sister he had never met.

Needless to say, that weekend remains one of the most memorable in my life. Tito G.

considered himself obligated to me, but only indirectly so. Rather than an immediate or direct indebtedness, his felt obligation toward me was mediated through my late mother.

Visually, we might picture this as a triangle. In the first two chapters, we saw that both

Jesus and Paul forbid receiving ministerial support out of a direct obligation, reciprocity, but encouraged support that arises out of a mediated obligation, co -labor.

This ethic, the Dorian principle, fits into the same sort of triangle. I would like to use that notion of mediated obligation as a lens by which we will examine a broader collection of examples.

Specifically, in 1 Corinthians 9, Paul reinforces this principle of co -labor through several analogies to ministry fundraising.

Let's take a look at these and see how this pattern takes shape. The priesthood.

The last analogy that Paul employs is in many ways the most direct of the lot. According to the apostle, the general principles of ministerial maintenance in Old Testament Israel must carry over into the

New Testament Church. Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings?

In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

1 Corinthians 9, 13 -14 Paul appeals to the pattern established by the

Levitical priesthood. While we have started our investigation of ministers and money with the words of Christ and the acts of Paul, this will take us back to the earliest pages of the

Bible to see how God provided for his laborers. The Law of Moses specifies that the

Levites received the food from the Lord's food offering. Numbers 18, 8 -20

Deuteronomy 18, 1 -5 Everything contributed but not burned becomes the possession of the sons of Aaron.

Leviticus 2, 1 -3 7, 33 -35

Similarly to the contributions of the food offerings, this same book of law records the right of the

Levites to the tithes, composed of the produce of the land and other valuable materials.

Numbers 18, 21 -24 While the tribe as a whole only nominally inherits the food offerings, the tithes are in fact shared this broadly.

On one hand, it appears that this transaction between the citizens at large and the priestly tribe constitutes an expression of obligation of the people of Israel to the

Levites. It is repeatedly termed a perpetual due from the former party to the latter.

Numbers 18, 8 -11 -19 And in practical terms, this due is given directly to the priests.

Deuteronomy 18, 3 However, the transaction is not primarily horizontal as may be easily recognized from its designation as an offering to the

Lord. In the passages cited above, the sacrifices are called the contributions made to me, the

Lord. Numbers 18, 8 And the Lord's food offerings. Deuteronomy 18, 1

The Lord likewise labels the tithes a contribution to the Lord. Numbers 18, 24

While the tithes and offerings are given to the Lord, the book of Numbers also says they are given by the

Lord. Numbers 18, 8 -12 -19 -21 -24

These two primary directions of flow must control our understanding of the secondary direction of flow.

The Israelites give to the Levites, but more importantly, the Israelites give to God, who in turn gives to the

Levites. After all, we would not imagine the people of Israel making their sacrifices to mere men.

To speak of resources passing from man to man simply abbreviates the larger transaction.

As the Lord says to the Levites in Numbers 18, 12 The firstfruits of what they give to the

Lord I give to you. Note that the expressed significance of the phrase the

Lord is their inheritance resides in this arrangement between the Levites and their Israelite brothers.

Numbers 18, 20 CF Deuteronomy 18, 1 -2 On one hand, this simply acknowledges what we have already identified.

The Lord provides for the Levites. On another hand, it shows the exclusivity of this mode of support.

It is not merely that the Levites are to have the Lord as an inheritance, receiving from the contributions, but they are to have no other inheritance.

The Law of Moses permits the priests to receive colabor, that which is offered to the

Lord, but forbids reciprocity. Consequently, in Israel's times of faithlessness, i .e.,

when they do not colabor, the Levites languish. CF Deuteronomy 14, 27

Nehemiah 13, 10 Perhaps the Levites may find other means of sustaining themselves, but in the context of their ministry the

Levites forfeit the typical modes of sustenance enjoyed by other tribes. For the sake of the divine blessing, they do not engage in property accrual, and they do not exchange their services for payment.

When this model is violated, and a priest accepts offerings directly, he essentially puts himself in the place of God.

As a divinely appointed broker, he disseminates the Lord's blessings through the work of ministry, but then robs from the

Lord what is owed in return. Such was the sin of Hophni and Phinehas, the corrupt sons of Samuel, who took raw meat before it had been offered to the

Lord. 1 Samuel 2, 12 -17 This model keenly foreshadows the tensions and resolutions we have seen in the

Gospels. Jesus forbids payment for ministry, reciprocity, but insists that workers are to receive from other members of the kingdom as wages from God, colabor.

Paul's Metaphors In addition to his reference to the

Levitical priesthood, Paul makes several other analogies that exhibit the same pattern of mediated obligation.

Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit?

Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? Do I say these things on human authority?

Does not the law say the same? For it is written in the law of Moses, You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.

Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not certainly speak for our sake?

It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope, and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing the crop.

1 Corinthians 9, 7 -10 While an initial reading may lead one to imagine

Paul describing a direct obligation between man and minister, a brief contemplation of his various metaphors reveal that, in each case, the obligation is mediated.

In each, the one who gives is not the employer who contractually pays, but simply the source of material provision used to supply the laborer.

In each, the one who gives is not primarily obligated to the laborer, but to the laborer's employer.

The vine does not supply out of obligation to the vinedresser, and the citizen does not supply out of obligation to the soldier.

The former supplies out of obligation to the owner, and the latter out of obligation to the king.

Representing the Lord, the owner and the king ultimately reward the laborer by assorted means of provision.

Likewise, the laborer commissioned by God does not ultimately receive his pay from those to whom he ministers, even if he receives it at their hands.

His just reward is granted by God through human means. His just reward is granted through co -labor, not reciprocity.

This passage leads us to another parallel, the Church's provision for widows.

The connection may not be immediately obvious, but in 1 Timothy 5, Paul once again cites the ox and the law of Moses along with the words of Christ in order to illustrate the nature of the

Church's obligation to ministers. In the

New Testament, the term honor, timē in Greek, frequently denotes price or value.

C .F. Matthew 27, 6 -9, Acts 4, 34. 5.

2 -3 As in English, where we speak of the honorarium paid to a speaker, some take this injunction of double honor to mean that those elders who preach and teach should receive double the pay received by other elders.

However, notice that the verse says no such thing. Rather, it says all elders who rule well should be counted worthy of double honor.

Those who preach and teach are simply exemplars among the single group. So if the term double does not imply a comparison between teaching and non -teaching elders, what does it compare?

The key to this is found earlier in the chapter where Paul commands that another demographic in the

Church receive honor. Having been the wife of one husband and having a reputation for good works, if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work.

1 Timothy 5, 3, 9 -10. Paul instructs

Timothy to honor, to maō in Greek, the widows. That is, he should enroll them in some program where they will receive regular financial support in correlation with their service to the

Church. However, one would not imagine that the widows are being paid in direct exchange for their works.

If this were the case, the exclusion of widows with families would be unjust, 1

Timothy 4, 5. Rather, in their need, they are to be honored as servants of God by less needy servants of God.

That is, the Church does not find itself directly obligated to widows for their service.

Otherwise, they would pay all widows, but finds itself obligated to God who commands its neediest servants be spared the shame of destitution.

Given that Paul relates the honoring of widows to the honoring of elders, this triangle of obligation must shape our understanding of how

Church leaders are to be compensated. The notion of kolēper, present in the support of widows, must be present in the support of elders.

Back in 1 Corinthians 9, between the Levitical priesthood and the other six analogies,

Paul makes the following comment. If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?

1 Corinthians 9, 11. This bears remarkable similarity to something the apostle says regarding the

Jerusalem collection, a financial collection among Gentile churches for the poor in Jerusalem.

For the Gentile churches were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to the Church in Jerusalem.

For if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they also ought to be of service to them in material blessings.

Romans 15, 27. By using the same language to discuss these issues,

Paul frames the Jerusalem collection as a matter of ministerial support. This leaves us with one more analogous triangle to examine.

Paul regards the Gentiles as debtors who owe the Jews, yet he treats the collection as an act of worship, demonstrating a mediated obligation owed primarily to God.

For example, he orders that people gather for this offering on the Christian day of worship, the first day of the week.

1 Corinthians 16, 12. 1 Corinthians 16, 2. Furthermore, he describes the offering with vocabulary,

Greek liturgia, that indicates a religious service. 2

Corinthians 9, 12. Romans 15, 27. In fact, in 2

Corinthians, offering a primary motivation for participation in the collection, Paul points to the

Father's gift of the Son and the Son's willing sacrifice of His life. 2 Corinthians 8, 9.

C .F. 9, 13. 15. In other words, the Gentiles owe this gift to the

Lord and are to offer it by sharing it with His needy servants. It is a religious sacrifice rendered to God rather than to the

Jews, just as it generates thanks to God rather than to the Gentiles. 2

Corinthians 9, 11 -12. There exists a real obligation here between Gentile and Jew, but the

Lord mediates that obligation. The Gentiles do not give a payment to the

Jews for services performed, but offer co -labor, a mutual facilitation of kingdom sustenance.

Conclusion In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul confirms the pattern of mediated obligation that we saw in the first two chapters.

Through various analogies of nature and society, he unmistakably replicates this triangle.

Additionally, he draws the analogy more directly when he illustrates the nature of this obligation with the

Levitical priesthood and the church in Jerusalem. In the next chapter, we will see how

Paul addresses the importance of this mediated obligation with his use of the term burden.

However, if at this point you are eager to learn more about practical application of the Dorian Principle, feel free to look through chapters 11 -14 before continuing.