|
Morning Thoughts |
|
This morning, as
the subject line indicates, my
thoughts have turned to the
subject matter at hand
about how to handle finances in
regards to the
ministry. This issue,
unfortunately, has plagued the
church in the past, and will,
unfortunately, probably
plague her again in the future.
The problem with this
issue (as with any) is that
there are extremes on both
sides. There are views that
probably are lacking in
the application of support, and
others are perhaps too
broad and over extended.
However, the Lord has not
left us in the dark on this
matter. Also, notice how Peter paid taxes for himself and Christ. (Matthew 17:24-27) Did the Lord tell him to go preach a sermon on giving him some money to pay his taxes? Rather, the Lord instructed him to get out in his worldly occupation, catch a fish, and use the money in the fish's mouth. To me, that is the same as if Peter had sold the fish in the market to pay his taxes. In either case, his natural occupation paid some of his expenses. Now that we have proven Scripturally that even the very apostles themselves still used their natural trade from time to time we know that there are definitely cases and times where the church cannot give the ministers everything they need in the way of natural finances. However, if a church can, that is completely all right. Most of our congregations cannot, but a few can. It is like this analogy: is it wrong to sing for 30 minutes? Is it right to sing for 30 minutes? The answer is not a simple yes or no. Some churches sing for 30 minutes, some longer, some shorter. What changes from church to church is what they have decided based on their situation. However, if one church sings for 45 minutes, and another sings for 20 minutes, it would be wrong for either one of them to try to change the other. Both are acceptable, but neither should be enforced. One church may have 150 members and be able to give their pastor everything he needs in the way of natural things. Another church may only have 20 and be able to merely help out in his natural needs. In both cases, I believe the churches are doing their duty so long as they are giving SOMETHING. However, the larger should not enforce the other to give more, and the smaller should not require the larger to give less (so that they can have an unsalaried minister). There are folks probably in both ditches, but my experience among the portion of Primitive Baptists that I have been around indicates that I am around the most giving folks in the world. They may not have a lot, but they are willing to give you what they have. They may not be able to give money, but they want to put you up in their home, and feed you their finest food, and drive you to the meeting (to save gas). To me, that is support. If, after all of that, they can only give $10 or $20, then I am not going to say they are not doing their duty. They are doing what they could.
However, if a
certain wealthy man gives only the
minimum (whether someone calls
that 5%, 10%, or
whatever), does it grudgingly,
does it out of duty,
etc. his contribution may be $50
or $100, but he has
failed in his duty. The main
difference between the Old
and New Testament in the Bible is that the old dealt with
things that can be seen. The new
deals with things
not seen or only seen by the eye
of faith. Therefore,
the amount given (seen with the
eyes) is not the
point. That was the point of the
Old Testament. Material things
were very relative to their
service. The important
thing in the New Testament is
the state of the heart. Is the
person a cheerful giver? If so,
that IS the point.
If they are truly cheerful, then
they are giving more
than their "fair share." May we
ever try to seek the
higher ground, setting our
affection on things ABOVE,
and not look at the material
things that are seen.
"The love of
money is the root of all evil." (I Timothy 6:10) |