100percent with you about selfish Christians. Also about paying ministers. Did Jesus charge? Did Paul require a salary? Did anyone in the NT demand offerings or donations? Nope! The church draws 1Tim.5:17 like a gun to support the 'double wage' misconception. The Greek for honor here is time which the bulk of the definition means respect, honor, value.
The closer to the mark Greek for wages is opsonion meaning wage, compensation, salary, money but this word is not used in 1Tim. 5:17. Why? Because it does not mean a double salary or offering.
What about the selfish christian deal? I believe the biggest problem for this condition is because of lack of spiritual growth due to just sitting in a pew and paying one man or a team to perform for us. 1Cor12 and 14 is in total contrast to this Sunday morning paradigm. The body of Christ has been taught that just going to church and doing nothing but listening is their required duty by God. This is a travesty. Pew sitting students that never ever graduate. They remain babes, impotent, and powerless, not to mention broke, a lot of the low end earners.
The ekklesia cannot grow up unto the fullness of Christ and His stature by just sucking on a bottle of milk week after week. They must be allowed to use the gifts and functions that God has deposited in them.
as the Pharisees ruled and reigned and the people were subservients to them, so is the same today in Christendom with its ruling class of clerics and the check writing audience.
Thus the body has no fullness of His Spirit in their lives. Like the Dead Sea, nothing coming in, nothing going out. Selfishness abides in some. In others, pain.
Jesus desires to express Himself through every body part. To each other and to the whole in our gatherings.
Some keep complaining that I keep repeating the same ole stuff. It's because to many are just not getting it yet. Paul repeated these truths over and over again. Does not the word say that some are dull of hearing? This is all way to important to just let it drop and forget about trying to shine the light here. I know I'm gonna get hammered hard again even if I say that I've been the dumbest sheep of all. Took me decades to figure out these things. They are now as clear as the pimple on the end of my nose. Yet I still have not arrived. But I am now free from religion and enjoying my God and hearing Him clearly like I never had before.
The Bible doesn't support ministers being paid to minister. If there's any support for that, the ministers are not paid by those to whom they minister but by their own independent work (independent work meaning jobs they hold outside of ministry to the people). It is a real pain that the mindsets we've grown up with have to rule our lives until our minds are renewed (myself included). We think that you have to give to get and that there must be give and take which prevents understanding. Ministers are never to be
paid for ministering, because that is an oxymoron. If Jesus is the main example and He wasn't paid nor did He receive payment for ministry, then are ministers greater than He is. Ministers can accept gifts for ministering (unfortunately, many deceiving ministers have attached this word 'gift' to everything in order to deceive people into thinking they aren't rewarding the minister but giving
freewill gifts of their
free will when it is really under manipulation and compulsion); but they should not be
paid by a board or commission and especially not by the people. Payment for a ministry is an oxymoron.
Anyone who requires that someone else or their children pay them for parenting their children can lawfully believe that ministers should be paid by either some board or by their children. Anyone who thinks that this notion is ridiculous should apply it directly to ministry and ministers who expect or receive payment for ministry. It is an oxymoron and, when it comes down to it, an abomination. Paul said this regarding this whole 'give and take' curse that we have come to believe:
"Now for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be burdensome to you; for I do not seek yours, but you. For the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children. And I will very gladly spend and be spent for your souls; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I am loved" (2Cor. 12:14-15). Let me dissect some of what he said:
1.
"I am ready to come to you." Paul was looking forward to going to the Corinthians so he could build them up or help them along... for free.
Today, ministers want you to beg and pay them before they come to you, but Paul was of his own free will ready to go to the Corinthians.
2.
"I will not be burdensome to you." Today, people are so burdened by ministers that they are accustomed to it and don't see it as burdensome anymore. It's like living so long with say a back pain that you no longer find it bothersome
though it continues to be so. Paul would not make the people uncomfortable or feel obligated to do anything.
3.
"I do not seek yours but you." This is practically 100% unheard of today-- a minister who isn't wanting to (and won't) take anything from his congregation but actually seeking (looking for ways) to bless the people for their own sakes, building them up selflessly like parents do their children.
4.
"The children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children". There are many people who bend and twist like snakes around the Word in order not to 'do it'; but it's hard to scrutinize what Paul says there and claim that it doesn't apply to
every minister: the minister, like the parent, is the one who blesses or has the primary responsibility to bless. Like a parent puts away money for a child (for college, gifts, etc.), so a minister (
every minister) is to have the mindset <of a parent> to have more to give to the children (since the parent always has more than the children) and not look for the children to give to the parents. In our hybrid abomination of a ministry model, the children are expected to give to the parents or pay the parents for 'taking care of them'.
Who has ever heard of such a thing in a family.
Some of the only kinds of payment that the Bible accepts:
a.)
The minister has his own job or source of income outside of the religious system which he uses to support himself. That frees him to do God's work without deception (i.e. desiring from the work and people the things he doesn't have from his own daily life,
money being one of the primary things). If a husband denies his wife the necessary things she needs (and vice versa), they will go seeking it somewhere (even if their feet don't walk out to seek it (if they aren't consciously looking for it), their heart will (they'll subconsciously be desiring/seeking it)). In the same way, if a minister doesn't get what he needs
outside of the ministry (things like attention, love,
money, and
a whole list of things that many ministers seek in ministry and from the people), he will
inevitably seek them inside the ministry. (Many wives and spouses and kids and everything else but the minister are neglected because of this.)
b.) The minister receives money from another ministry or other Christians who are not part of those he ministers to but does not receive money from those to whom he presently ministers to. This keeps motives and consciences from being defiled and suspicious and uncomfortable and leaves the doors of accusation and suspicion of the minister closed to the enemy.
c.) The minister receives money and other material things from those he ministers to
but never ever asks for them (EVER). Paul said that because his church ministered to
his need, God would supply
their need. This exchange doesn't happen when ministers beg, because God has to take a backseat then. People gave gifts to Jesus in different ways; some women followed and supplied His needs. He didn't refuse their gifts though He directly ministered to them; but He certainly wasn't asking for their gifts either. Jesus' model gives us the secret to the fourth acceptable form of payment:
d.)
If a minister ministers well or as he's supposed to, the people will have no choice but to reciprocate with gifts. We see this in the life of Jesus and Paul. Moreover, when the Bible says to not deny those who rule well, it is not saying to give to those who just minister. (Paul throughout 2Cor. blasted false ministers; he certainly wouldn't advocate giving to anyone who was after money and fame.)
It is saying to give to those who actually administer Grace. If you went to a restaurant and ordered lobster but got fish bones, how eager would you be to leave a tip (after you shared some of your mind with the manager). You pay for what you ordered, not what the waiter wants to feed you. Ministers who
administer the Grace of God are worthy of pay.
No other minister in the Bible is worthy of pay nor are we told to pay them. We have mixed up our give-take culture with the Bible and believe we are required to give when given to or that 'a workman is worthy of his pay'. Most people don't pay a plumber who makes things worse or doesn't fix anything; is God less intelligent on what minister to pay. (Unfortunately, many want to hear and receive the empty things ministers offer, so they lose nothing by paying.)
5.
"I will gladly spend and be spent for your souls." If the last premise (parent giving to child and not vice versa) could be twisted to mean other than it means, this one can't be. To spend "for you" is much less serious than to spend "for your souls". 'Souls' means
all-around well-being; it implies a total and complete covering: Paul was willing to minister to the people
in every part. Sounds like 24/7 ministry to me. Today, we clock in and clock out; the real model of ministry has no place in our time at present. Paul is willing to both spend (give) and be spent (be used) so that the Corinthians can have the fullness of Life Jesus promised in Jn. 10:10. Who has even heard those words used together (in any context) in the last fifty years. We know he is willing to not only give but be used because he follows...
6.
"though the more abundantly I love you, the less I am loved." Paul has a parent's heart. Some ministers who are half-smart would say that only apostles are to feel that way toward their flock... but not so fast. That heart is God's heart toward His Church, therefore, it is to be in every single minister even if with different expressions. Paul is saying, "Even if you don't love me and take my love for granted, I will still love you." This kind of heart can only come from God, because it's counter-intuitive to (and even unwise for) human nature (there is no self-preservation about it).
The Bible says not to muzzle an ox while it treads out grain, but it says to
"know those who labor among you". We are already paying all the wrong people and building the empires of people who are not even Christians. If we know who we are supposed to pay (and if we aren't okay with paying God off, by paying just any minister, so He can leave us alone), then what the Bible says begins to make sense or line up. Pay and give to those who actually are
laborers (Jesus told the disciples to pray for Him to send out
laborers after which He sent
them out
and they had effect) and not to those who are not.
