Chapter 5 - The Preogative of Servanthood

The Dorian Principle, A Biblical Response to the Commercialization of Christianity, by Conley Owens.

Chapter 5, The Prerogative of Servanthood, Freedom vs.

Duty During my senior year in high school, my parents went away on a week -long trip.

They hired a babysitter—we'll call her Anne—for my eight -year -old sister, but truth be told, my sophomore brother and I probably needed one as well.

Anne came highly recommended, so my parents paid her generously and left her well -supplied with additional cash in case of emergencies.

However, Anne was far from responsible. She took all the extra money and purchased junk food—primarily jelly beans.

Yes, jelly beans. You can imagine how many jelly beans a decent supply of emergency cash would buy.

Beyond her initial transgression, she gave my brother and me permission to go out at intervals and hours beyond the guidelines my parents had set.

While I was not always the best -behaved teenager, my nefarious use of this freedom only extended to joining some study groups

I wouldn't otherwise have joined. If you want to know how my brother took advantage of the opportunity, you'll have to ask him.

When my parents returned, they were less than thrilled. Anne did not receive additional employment in the

Owens household. Did Anne have a right to do as she did? In a sense, yes.

When my parents hired her, they essentially gave her permission to perform all the tasks of a caretaker in their absence.

This includes spending money allotted for food or deciding how to keep the kids in line.

That being said, my parents expected Anne to use this authority in line with their priorities rather than with her own.

In his epistles, Paul frequently speaks of his right to financial support. However, he speaks of this right in the context of his servanthood.

Just as parents grant a babysitter jurisdiction over a home to uphold their priorities, a servant wields a delegated authority in order to accomplish his master's priorities.

In chapter 3, we examine the triangle of obligation in 1 Corinthians 9, 7 -14, skipping verse 12.

In this chapter, I would like us to return to that verse in order to explore how servanthood shapes

Paul's use of his authority, his apostolic prerogative. Afterward, we'll continue our consideration of servanthood in 1

Corinthians 9, 15 -22, picking up where we left off. The Right of Servanthood Paul's most intense defense of his refusal to accept payment appears in 1

Corinthians 9. He presents his decision in the context of Christian liberty, 1

Corinthians 9 .19, and his right to receive support. If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?

Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ, 1

Corinthians 9 .12. This has led some interpreters to decide that Paul arbitrates his policy as a matter of personal choice.

In other words, it appears as though he has a permissive license to accept payment in return for his preaching.

But for noble reasons, rejects it. At least two considerations should lead us to dismiss this claim.

First, to say that Paul goes beyond what is required of him is to identify a good course and a better course, and to declare that both are sufficiently pleasing to God.

This idea is known as supererogation, and runs contrary to the teaching of the Bible.

The Lord does not require a minimum bar, but perfection, Matthew 5 .48.

While God may require different things of different people given their strengths and circumstances, each person must serve the

Lord as best as he is able. Moreover, Jesus summarily dismisses this notion of supererogation when he points out that no servant of God will be able to say he has done more than was required.

So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, We are unworthy servants.

We have only done what was our duty. Luke 17 .10. If one cannot do more than their duty, we could rule out the idea that it would be acceptable for Paul to accept payment, but better for him to reject it.

Second, the surrounding context indicates that Paul could still be held guilty for improperly taking support, even if he has a right to that support.

Paul's mention of his financial policy in 1 Corinthians 9 does not stand on its own, but serves as an illustration to correct the

Corinthians' disposition toward idolatry, addressed more directly in chapters 8 and 10. In these chapters, the apostle acknowledges the

Corinthians' right, 1 Corinthians 8 .9, to food, but instructs them to flee idolatry, 1

Corinthians 10 .4, and cease to eat food sacrificed to idols. To paraphrase, he describes their actions as lawful but not helpful, 1

Corinthians 10 .23, meaning that though they have a right to eat, they abuse that right by eating food sacrificed to idols, committing idolatry.

Notice that elsewhere, Paul uses the same distinction between lawful and helpful to describe sexual immorality, 1

Corinthians 6 .12 -15. Christians have a right to use their bodies for sex, but they abuse that right if they sleep with a prostitute.

In other words, when Paul uses the word right, he does not indicate a permissive license or a legal carte blanche that justifies any course of action.

Rather, he denotes an authority of servanthood that grants the actor freedom to serve the

Lord as the Lord requires. In other words, he speaks of a stewardship.

A steward has authority over an estate to do as he determines, but incurs moral guilt when this authority is abused to act contrary to the will of the owner.

Remember Ann, the babysitter? She had the right to spend the emergency fund as she chose, but was still guilty when she chose poorly.

To further illustrate, Adam had stewardship over the whole Garden of Eden, including the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but this authority did not permit him to eat of that tree without penalty,

Genesis 2 .15 -17. Likewise, the Corinthians have stewardship over their own bodies to eat food, but would abuse that stewardship by eating food offered to demons, 1

Corinthians 10, 20 -21. As a servant of God, Paul has stewardship over his converts to receive money from them, but would abuse that stewardship by receiving payment for a gospel that is not his to sell.

With these considerations in mind, we must conclude that Paul's financial policy does not merely represent his own preferences, a personal quirk, but an absolute ethical code.

His pattern establishes a prescription that binds all who minister in the name of Christ, the boast of servanthood.

In 1 Corinthians 9 .15 -19, Paul lists several reasons for rejecting

Corinthian funds, beginning with his desire to maintain grounds for boasting. But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am

I writing these things to secure any such provision, for I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of my ground for boasting, 1

Corinthians 9 .15. Of course, boasting in himself would contradict the message of Paul's epistle, 1

Corinthians 1 .29, 3 .21, 4 .7. As he writes,

If Paul's boasting rests in the Lord independent of himself, then it resides there unthreatened, secure in an unchanging

God. Yet all the same, he declares that an acceptance of money would jeopardize his boasting, a fact he confirms in 2

Corinthians 11 .7 -10. In this same context, he repeats the aphorism to boast in the

Lord, explaining that he boasts in the ministry God has assigned to him, 2

Corinthians 10 .13 -17. In other words, his boast in the

Lord is not independent of himself. It has some relation to his ministry. Thus, an alteration to his fundraising practices potentially alters his boast.

If Paul receives direct payments from the Corinthians in exchange for his ministry, he receives honor over God as the source of the gospel.

This would make his own work his grounds for boasting rather than the Lord's work. If instead he rejects payment in return for the gospel, the apostle acknowledges that its source lies outside of himself.

Reciprocity compromises Paul's earnest boast in the Lord by placing his boast in himself.

The Obligation of Servanthood Paul additionally explains that he does not accept funding from the

Corinthians because he is bound to minister to them. For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting, for necessity is laid upon me.

Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel. 1 Corinthians 9 .16

Paul is a steward of the mysteries of God and a servant of Christ. Because of his status as a servant steward, he receives no special accolades for preaching the gospel.

However, if he operates as an independent agent, doing his own will rather than the will of God, it would make sense that he receives a reward, direct payment from others.

In the same way, it is improper for a royal soldier to accept money from the citizens he protects.

C .F. 1 Corinthians 9 .7 His commission from the king delegitimizes all other compensatory transactions.

If he demands funding from the common man, as though their taxes are owed to him rather than the throne, he may be found guilty of extortion.

Even if he only accepts voluntary offerings of support, he engages in bribery.

Ultimately, the soldier who accepts any form of direct payment from the citizens ceases to operate on behalf of the king as one who is obligated, but begins acting in his own interest as one who does his work freely.

Similarly, if Paul were to accept money from the Corinthians as direct, i .e.

unmediated, payment for his ministry there, he would invalidate his status as a servant of Christ.

As one commissioned by God, Paul cannot rightly accept third -party compensation in direct exchange for his ministry.

C .F. 2 Corinthians 2 .17 Such reciprocity denotes an insincere stewardship.

However, through the Dorian principle, he may accept funds that are not designated to displace his true employer.

Co -labor in no way invalidates Paul's status as a servant. Rather, we should anticipate that servants of the same master assist each other, pooling their resources as would be profitable in service of their mutual

Lord. The Reward of Servanthood In the next two verses,

Paul explains that he conducts his ministry as he does in order to receive a reward. For if I do this of my own will,

I have a reward. But if not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship.

What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.

1 Corinthians 9 .17 -18 Surprisingly, Paul's activity and reward are identical.

To preach the gospel free of charge. The idea is not that the apostle, by refusing money, accrues merit with which he will receive a reward.

Instead, by refusing money, he enjoys the reward itself, the stewardship he executes.

Christ Working Through Him Given the preceding context of boasting, 1

Corinthians 9 .15 -16, we should not distinguish Paul's boasting from his reward.

In the words of one commentator, they refer to the same reality. In either the framework of boasting or that of reward,

Paul stands to gain from preaching free of charge because then Christ may be seen working through him.

In contrast, if Paul were to receive payment, his reward would be the payment itself.

He would operate as a voluntary laborer, setting his own fees, so he would no longer function as a servant bound by his master.

C .F. John 7 .18 Thus, accepting financial reward would forfeit the greater reward, godly stewardship.

This recalls the teaching of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 6 .2

.16 Using this construct, we may paraphrase

Paul. When you minister, do not be like the hypocrites who do so for payment.

Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. Perhaps the term hypocrite seems too charged for the context of 1

Corinthians 9. But is not this precisely what he communicates? The one who receives reciprocity does not operate as a sincere servant of Christ, but as a free agent after his own reward.

On the other hand, the one who receives co -labor enjoys financial benefits within the auspices of stewardship, a greater reward than mere money.

In perhaps the most defining passage in 1 Corinthians 9, Paul proclaims that he has become all things to all people.

Not being outside the law of God, but under the law of Christ, that I might win those outside the law.

To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means

I might save some. 1 Corinthians 9 .19 -22 Paul does not speak of making the gospel more attractive.

He has already admitted that the gospel itself is a stumbling block, unappealing to the world. 1

Corinthians 1 .23 And that he has eschewed typical means of attraction and persuasion.

1 Corinthians 2 .1 -5 Furthermore, rather than stirring up goodwill through offering the gospel free of charge, we learn in 2

Corinthians that Paul only stirred up tension as those with more financially glorious ministries turned the people away to different teaching.

2 Corinthians 11 .7 Between a free gospel and one offered at a price, the

Corinthians, who so valued wealth and status in their leaders, found the latter more enticing.

While many have read 1 Corinthians 9 to speak of Paul's contextualizing of the gospel, something more specific is at play.

Each of these phrases of accommodation represents some act of humility. Though already a

Jew, the apostle voluntarily became a Jew under the judgment of the law by receiving 39 lashes.

2 Corinthians 11 .24 He became as one without the law, renouncing all of his own merit based on law -keeping.

Galatians 4 .12 He became weak by enduring the hardships and humiliations of ministry.

2 Corinthians 12 .9 These accommodations impress no one, yet are necessary for the gospel to go forward.

The key to all of this may be found in verse 19. Paul does not imitate all, but rather humbles himself in order to serve all.

As a servant of Christ, Paul must also be a servant to those to whom he is sent.

2 Corinthians 4 .5 C .F. 1 .24 He does not generally act like a

Jew for Jews, or a Gentile for Gentiles, or a weak person for the weak, but he is a servant to all in every circumstance by humbling himself so that the truth of the gospel may be properly acknowledged.

We should not be misguided by the apostle's clever rhetorical device so as to imagine that he would become popular for the popular, strong for the strong, or rich for the rich.

The same applies to Paul's rejection of money. First century Corinth bustles with economic prosperity, and certainly some of the wealthy filled the ranks in the church.

C .F. 1 Corinthians 4 .8 So Paul does not reject financial support out of a desire to blend in.

He does not make himself attractive to the people of Corinth. As we have seen, accepting their money would have made him more attractive.

Rather, he humbles himself so that he might fulfill the role of a servant.

Here, sincerity and rejection of reciprocity go hand in hand. If Paul were to accept payment from the

Corinthians, he would not be their servant, but a service provider, and they his clients.

Whether or not he requests money, his ministry would be understood to impose an obligation that requires a settling of accounts.

However, the apostle may freely accept material support from co -laborers without compromising his position.

Conclusion The duty of servanthood demands the Dorian principle.

As a servant, Paul must reject ministerial reciprocity, and he must accept ministerial co -labor.

In the next chapter, we will look at Paul's motivations through an additional lens, his sincerity.