First appeared in the Gospel Anchor, July 1983.

       A study of "Churches’ Support of Preachers," as appeared in the past issue of the Gospel Anchor, had been in mind for several years, even as now we have several other subjects to which we plan to address ourselves in time to come. Interest in this subject was heightened some months before, creating an urgency to address the subject now, by recent activities in foreign evangelism. The problems of unauthorized practices in churches’ support of preachers is not hypothetical, but are actual. Churches are now actively engaged in centralizing their funds under one man, the preacher. Whereas we had hoped that by publishing this study from a purely academic standpoint, those whom we consider to be in error in the practice would reconsider and correct the situation. Instead, we find, at least with some, a disposition to justify the status quo. And so we feel that this attempt should be addressed, which also necessitates reference to a specific case. Even so, we will avoid names in our effort to avoid personalities while focusing upon problems and Scriptural understanding.

       Last November, an elder of a very active church, asked my evaluation of a project they had recently undertaken and about which he was beginning to have some doubts. "We are sending $500.00 a month to a preacher over seas in order that he might translate and publish Guardian of Truth publications for free distribution among the churches throughout his country." The foreign preacher is receiving $17,400.00 a year for his "printing work and travels," in addition to receiving $16,500.00 in "personal support." In a report to the contributing churches, be rejoiced in the fact that he was printing Bible class material to be used by the churches throughout the land: "In this way all our children all over the nation will study the same things and therefore will have the same mind."

       I responded with the observation that the Scriptures do not authorize the centralization of churches’ funds under one man any more than under a group of men, whether a missionary society or elders of a single church. The preacher is authorized to receive wages, that he might live of the gospel (2 Cor. 11:8, 1 Cor. 9:6-12), but nowhere do we find authority for him to become an agent for the churches to convert their funds into service, whether in printing literature, conducting a radio or television program, or in support of other preachers.

       The church, whose elder raised the question, was already questioning their participation, and I waited four or five months, while they worked out their own problem, without addressing the issue. But since others are involved in this project, as well perhaps in other unauthorized arrangements, I felt that some attention and study needed to be focused on the question – hence the article of the last issue. As a preface to these further remarks, let it be understood that there is no questioning of the motives of the churches sending or of the men receiving such funds. No doubt, a great desire to see good accomplished has prompted the arrangement. But we question, does the end justify the means?

       Now that we have raised the objection to what I perceive to be a "one-man missionary society," reactions have set in. We have received, not a formal article, but specific arguments in an attempt to justify the centralization of funds under a preacher. We want to share the arguments and examine them.

       It is reasoned that the arrangement of churches sending funds to a preacher to enable him to engage in any work he desires is authorized because:

       1. Churches have been doing this for years. Several are cited as having established a "work fund" out of which the preacher publishes literature, conducts a radio or television program, etc.

       2. Whatever a preacher’s needs are, churches may supply it as "wages."

a. "Wages" may include:

(1) Supporting others who work with the "wage" earner: Acts 20:34-35.

(2) Renting a house: Acts 28:30-31.

(3) Paying another’s debts: Phile. 18-19.

(4) Purchasing travel means: Acts 20:13, 38; 21:2, 6.

(5) Purchasing paper and ink (this could be in volumes for books): 2 Tim. 4:13.

(6) Providing other services, whatever; there is no limit as to what this includes: 2 Cor. 11:8.

(7) Sending preachers to various places to preach: 1 Cor. 4:17, 2 Cor. 8:16-24, Tit. 1:5, 2 Tim. 4:12.

b. When a preacher undertakes any or all of these things, they become his "needs," which churches may supply: Acts 20:34, 1 Cor. 9:16, 2 Cor. 6:4, 12:10.

       3. It promotes unity: by one man publishing literature for all the churches, all will be of one mind.

Let us now examine the "defense."

       1. Churches have been doing this for years. For argument’s sake, let’s grant that this is so. What does it prove? If it proves anything, it proves that an unauthorized practice has been engaged in for some time. Time does not make a wrong thing right. If so, then the practices of our religious neighbors would be right because many of their innovations go back a thousand years or more! This argument is an appeal to tradition and is no more valid today than when Jesus repudiated it. (Matt. 15:9) It is surprising that a Christian would make such an appeal.

       The argument also appeals to prejudice. It appeals to an accepted practice and assumes that no amount of reason can turn one from it. Therefore by showing damage to the already accepted practice, if one accepts the argument, it is hoped that the argument will be rejected without investigation. We often see this tactic. (For example, challenge a foundation or society, functioning in the role of a local congregation, and its advocates will suggest, "That will make the college wrong," which the foundation operates, whether this is the truth or not. It is an appeal to prejudice. The idea is, the college cannot possibly be wrong – we simply will not entertain any such idea – and therefore any argument perceived to threaten its existence must be wrong. It is rejected on the basis of prejudice and not whether it is valid or not.)

       If a project is Scriptural, then it can be justified by Scripture without appeal to tradition or prejudice. Appeals to tradition and prejudice are admissions that there is no Scriptural justification.

       II. Whatever a preacher’s needs are, churches may supply as "wages." This argument is a little more subtle, but no less fallacious. It involves the fallacy of equivocation: terms are redefined, removing the inherent denotations and connotations and replacing them with "meanings" of one’s own liking. Allow one the liberty to so pervert language and he can "prove" anything. But words do not mean just whatever one wants them to mean.

       Because one may use his wages as he sees fit ("and no one has the right to make a law regarding what a preacher can do with his wages, what he may buy, who he can give money [or gifts] to"), it does not follow that whatever he decides to do with his wages thereby becomes his "needs" and that churches may satisfy such "needs." It is one thing for one to spend his wages in purchase of an automobile (or travel-van, airplane, etc.), or a house (his own dwelling or rental property), or to pay a friend’s debt, or to purchase printing equipment (including a printing plant) or radio or television equipment, or to purchase a bus ticket (train or airplane) for another etc., as he is financially able, but quite another for him to decide what he wants to do and then claim them as his "needs," for which the churches are to give him "wages"! It is patently absurd to reason that because one may use his wages to purchase an automobile (or even an airplane) to use in traveling to preach the gospel, and may rent or buy a house, and may purchase a printing plant in order to publish religious literature, he therefore may now obligate himself (in purchasing that airplane, house, printing plant, etc.) and turn to the churches to take care of his "needs" with "wages" commensurate! It is absurd to argue that a preacher "needs" an airplane, a printing plant, or anything else he may desire, in order to preach the gospel.

       This argument is reminiscent of the "needy sponsoring church" argument made by our liberal brethren in the 50’s. They reasoned that since a church may produce and broadcast a radio program, then Highland Boulevard in Abilene had the right to assume a national radio program. Highland needed funds to do this work: it was Highland’s "need." And since churches may help a "needy church," churches across the country could send funds to Highland. We noted then, and we note now, that the so-called "need" was created and hardly fits the Scriptural description. The argument was (is) an equivocal sophistry to justify churches centralizing their funds under one eldership (or one man).

       When Paul speaks of "needs," he does not include whatever one may desire to employ in teaching. When he speaks of "wages," he does not include everything someone may want to claim as a "need." It would do well for us to look at the words themselves before scrutinizing the list of "needs" for which the reasoner assumes Paul received "wages" to meet.

       The word, "wages," is an interesting word in the New Testament, translated from two original terms, misthos and opsonion. There is a technical distinction between the two original terms. Misthos "can be traced from Homer onwards in the sense of reward for work. But as well as workers, soldiers (Thuc.) orators, doctors or actors (Xen., Plato) may also receive misthos. The word occurs mainly in industrial or commercial contexts" (1). The idea of "wages" is pay received for service, the pay commensurate to the service rendered. The word is used 29 times in the New Testament and is principally translated "reward."

       Opsonion has a military background, and "is a minimum subsistence wage rather than an appropriate reward for work carried out" (2). It is a more appropriate word for service in the gospel; for who can set a market-value on preaching that results in the eternal salvation of souls? Men who labor in the gospel find their "reward," not in financial compensation, but in the blessings of God hereafter. Their motivation, unless they are "hirelings," is not prosperity in this life; they view not their work as a profession among professions. The service to be rendered is the primary concern and not the remuneration received for it. As soldiers, theirs is a wage of sustenance.

       The word opsonion entered the Greek language with Menander and is very common in later papyri and inscriptions. Its various uses may be noted:

       1. At first it signified provisions (from opon, cooked meat or relish with bread, and oneomai to buy)(3). A father writes to a son (in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, III.531): "until however Anoubas arrives, you must pay for the provisions of yourself and your household out of your own money, until I send you some" (4).

       2. It then came to signify pay, which might consist of provisions, hence "‘what is appointed for buying food,’ then ‘money,’ then mostly a military (term) for ‘pay,’ originally including the maintenance allowance..." (5). In the Griechiche Urkunden (Berlin) papyri (1.69), a soldier writes promising the repayment of a loan of 140 drachmae "with my next pay" (6).

       3. From this military use, it came to be used of salaries in general. From a letter (P. Oxy., IV.744), written 1 B.C., we read: "as soon as we receive wages I will send them to you..." (7).

       The etymology of opsonion and its development demonstrates that at the time of writing the New Testament the word meant wages for one’s personal needs. Misthos is pay based on the worth of the service rendered; opsonion is pay given to meet one’s personal needs and obligations while a service is rendered. Opsonion by no stretch of the imagination includes an abundance of funds beyond one’s own personal needs and use.

       Paul received "wages" (opsonion) from other churches in order to subsist while teaching the gospel in Corinth. (2 Cor. 11:8) When the word is considered in the context of the Corinthian letter, as he deals with the charges against him and the problem within the body, it becomes all the more apparent that he refers not to a super-abundance supplied him as "wages." To use Paul’s reference to justify churches in the arrangement previously described is a gross misuse! No one could accuse Paul of profiting by the gospel. No funds were entrusted to him which he could have misused. He was not liable to the sending churches for funds not his own. What they sent was his and constituted his personal income.

       When others ministered to Paul’s "wants" (Phil. 2:25), they did not give him what he may have wanted (desired); there is a difference in terms. When the Philippians relieved his "necessity" (4:16), they relieved his "wants." The terms are translations of the same word: chreia.

       Throughout Grecian usage, the word chreia has meant necessity, need, or the occasion of need (8). It describes "the condition of one deprived of those things which he is scarcely able to do without … one’s necessities"(9), and refers to "personal need, necessity, want" (10).

       Another word translated "want" is the Greek husterema (2 Cor. 11:9). It means "need, want, poverty (11)," "destitution" (12).

       Neither word signifies a "need" of funds to accomplish a work beyond one’s personal income. And yet centralization of churches’ funds under a preacher is being called that preacher’s "need." After being paid "wages" in the amount of $16,500.00 (a reasonable income among the preachers of his country), how can an additional $17,400.00 be considered a "necessity," or something he is scarcely able to do without, in the case cited at the first of this article? To redefine the word is a perversion of the language and an abuse of what Paul relates: "he … ministered to my wants." (Phil. 2:25) To equate what Paul received with a reasonable income plus an additional $17,400 is absurd!

       Also, it is dishonest to call what is a centralization of funds, for a designated work by the contributing churches, the preacher’s "wages." To call the centralized funds "wages" does not make them wages. It reminds me of the quiz: "You have five sheep and one goat; if you call the goat a sheep, how many sheep do you have?" Answer: You still have five sheep; calling a goat a "sheep" doesn’t make him one! And I dare say that the entire amount ($33,900.00) is not counted as personal income on income tax declarations. Yes, one may deceive himself, in justifying himself receiving more than wages, by calling all that he receives "wages." And others who send funds may deceive themselves by calling them "wages." But, and mark it down, we will not deceive God. And, I dare say, no one will try to deceive the government into believing that all the funds are "wages"; I’m persuaded that a correct division is made between the wages and the funds of the churches which he superintends!

       The argument is that what a preacher may spend his "wages" on becomes his "need," which in turn determines his "wages." We have shown the absurdity of the argument. Even so, look at the implications in the list the reasoner puts forth.

       In the first place, it is a tremendous assumption that all of Paul’s income, enabling him to do all that the reasoner lists, came from churches. In fact, it just isn’t so. Much of Paul’s financial needs he provided for himself

       "I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me." (Acts 20:33-34)

       Even in Corinth, where churches sent him wages on occasion (2 Cor. 11:8), they did not supply all his needs all the time. When he first arrived in Corinth, he joined trade with Aquila and Priscilla: "and because he was one of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers." (Acts 18:3) In his first epistle, he claimed to have worked: "even to this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place; and labour, working with our own hands …" (1 Cor. 4:11-12) Not only in Corinth, but throughout his ministry, Paul was accustomed to providing his own way, not that he had not the right to be supported of the gospel (1 Cor. 9:6-14):

       "For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God." (1 Thess. 2:9; see also 2 Thess. 3:8.)

       In the second place, when Paul did receive wages from churches, it was not to superintend the funds of the giving churches under a guise of "wages." We recognize the fact that Paul’s "wages," indeed, were his own and could be spent at his discretion. This could include his supporting others with him, renting a house, paying a friend’s debt, etc. But the question is, could he ask for double his wages, or triple, in order to take on the needs of others or to do a work of the contributing churches? With this question in mind, look at the list.

       1. Could Paul set up an arrangement with other preachers, and be the source of their "wages"? This is the thing assumed by the reasoner and we deny it. If it were so, then one could solicit funds equal to double, triple, or many-fold his normal income in order to send out preachers:

CHART 1

       He would be a "one-man missionary society," or more accurately a "one-man agency" for the churches and would stand in the same relationship between churches and preachers as the missionary society. The difference would be that instead of a board superintending the funds, one man does so. We emphatically deny that Paul assumed any such role!

       2. Paul out of his own funds, whether "wages" received from churches or from working with his hands, could pay the debt of a friend. But could Paul assume the role of debt-payer and solicit funds from churches in order to pay off the debts of all his friends, debts that would call upon a doubling of his "wages"? We deny that he did, or could.

       3. Paul could use his own money to purchase paper and ink to write letters. This is a far cry from purchasing a printing plant, paper and ink in order to print books for the churches, requiring funds beyond his wages. All additional funds for the printing, and obviously not for his personal use, are not wages. And it would be dishonest to call them "wages." Of course, Paul did no such thing, nor does his purchasing of writing materials constitute authority for any such scheme.

       In the case mentioned earlier, the foreign preacher was receiving $16,500 a year as wages ("personal support"), and additional $17,400.00 to print and distribute literature. When objection was made to centralizing funds under the preacher, the entire $33,900.00 was called "wages." Really! Just let him spend it upon himself, to take a vacation or buy a new house or save it for retirement, and not spend it on printing, and see if the sending churches consider it "wages" indeed!

       If a preacher can have thousands of dollars placed under his oversight in converting the money into teaching by the printed page, he can also convert it into teaching by radio or television, etc. This was the solution posed by Guy N. Woods, in the Cogdill-Woods Debate: put the budget of the Herald of Truth under a preacher (and we could call it his "wages"). The institutional problem would be resolved. But can you "buy" it? I cannot. Centralization of funds of churches under one man is no more authorized than under the elders of one church! We have no problems with a preacher taking his wages and spending them in any honorable, honest way he pleases. He may buy an airplane, a printing plant, rental property, or take a vacation. But when he obligates himself thusly, we deny that he has a "need" which churches are to finance!

       III. It promotes unity: by one man publishing study literature for all the churches, all will be of one mind.

       When another preaching brother heard this "argument," he remarked, "Why don’t they just write a creed?" Indeed.

       If it were true, this would not justify (authorize) churches centralizing their funds under a preacher in order that uniform Bible lessons may be distributed among the churches. However, if the pilot program can be sold the churches for this project in a foreign land, it would open the way for a similar project in the United States. (Or is a work scriptural when done overseas, but unscriptural at home?) How long will it be until someone suggests that the churches send funds to a preacher here in the States so that he can publish and distribute uniform Bible lessons among all the churches?

       Not only is such a proposal unscriptural in arrangement, it is unscriptural with respect to the autonomous nature of the churches. There is danger, which the Lord avoided in His divine arrangement, when churches come under a common influence. What if all our children were indeed taught out of the same workbook? Yes, they would be of the same mind. May I suggest what that mind could be?

       Suppose all of our 4 and 5-year olds, for example, were guided by the same work-book, published by the Cogdill Foundation? According to the teacher’s manuals, the children would be encouraged to bring canned goods for the orphans’ homes and homes for the aged which many of the churches support (13). The class would take up a collection and would thus have its own treasury" (14). They would be taught that the church engages in general benevolence (15). Girls would be taught to lead public prayers and pass the collection plate (16). They would grow up with a perverted concept of the work of the church and of the woman’s role. Of the "same mind," yes, but a misinformed one. This is the danger of locking churches in on one source of teaching, other than the Scriptures themselves wherein we should be of the same mind.

       Brethren, we are not only drifting, but apparently some are consciously moving away from authority. Desire to promote human projects has run ahead of understanding of Bible authority, and once embraced too many are determined to justify human wisdom, even if Scripture must be shamefully perverted in the process.

       The ship of Zion is sailing through rough waters and we must continue to warn and be warned of the dangers that would make ship-wreck of our faith.

FOOT NOTES:

(1) P.C. Bottger, Dictionary of N.T. Theology, vol. 3, page 138.

(2) O. Becker, Dictionary of N. T Theology, vol. 3, page 144.

(3) A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the N.T., vol. IV, page 143.

(4) Moulton (James H.) and Milligan (George), The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, page 471.

(5) Rudolf Meyer, Theological Dictionary of the N. T. (Kittel and Friedrich, eds.), vol. V, page 591.

(6) Moulton and Milligan, op. cit., page 471.

(7) Moulton and Milligan, op. cit., page 472.

(8) Moulton and Milligan, op. cit., page 691.

(9) Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, page 671.

(10) Henry Robinson, Greek-English ^Lexicon, page 785.

(11) W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of the N. T., vol. II, page 304.

(12) Thayer, op. cit., page 646.

(13) In The Beginning - God, Fall Quarter (Teacher’s Book), book 1, page 11.

(14) Ibid., book I, page 19.

(15) Ibid., book II, page 57.

(16) Ibid., book II, page 67; book III, page 24.