# Begging ministers



## MW (Jun 30, 2016)

The Second Book of Discipline says, "The ecclesiastical goods ought to be collected and distributed by the deacons, as the word of God appoints, that they who bear office in the kirk be provided for without care or solicitude." That seems to me to be the Christian and honest way of supporting ministers of the gospel. But more and more ministers/ministries have independently taken to asking people for money to support them (especially through the internet). This is a form of solicitude, and it is a virtual admission that the ministers of the gospel are not being provided for through the instituted form of church government. In some ways it reminds me of the monks going door to door on the pretence that the people were supporting "Christian work." Buying and selling is the action of commerce. Giving is the action of charity. I think the two should be distinguished in the same way we distinguish between State and Church government. What do you think?


----------



## Taylor (Jun 30, 2016)

Do you think this is broad enough or intended to include all who do Christian ministry, regardless of whether they are ordained? Take, for example, the apologetics ministries of James White (Alpha and Omega) or Matt Slick (CARM).


----------



## MW (Jun 30, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Do you think this is broad enough or intended to include all who do Christian ministry, regardless of whether they are ordained? Take, for example, the apologetics ministries of James White (Alpha and Omega) or Matt Slick (CARM).



Yes, all, meaning every one who ministers in the name of Christ. What is he ministering? Is it the gospel of Christ? Freely he has received, freely he should give. His financial support should come from the body to which he is accountable for his ministry, and the only body Christ has ordained to send forth ministers is His church.


----------



## Afterthought (Jun 30, 2016)

Giving to some good cause is viewed as charity. It could be viewed as a good cause to support such ministers/ministries. So giving to these could be viewed as an act of charity rather than commerce?


----------



## MW (Jun 30, 2016)

Afterthought said:


> Giving to some good cause is viewed as charity. It could be viewed as a good cause to support such ministers/ministries. So giving to these could be viewed as an act of charity rather than commerce?



Whatever these "ministries" are "ministering," it comes with a pecuniary appeal. There is solicitude. It assumes the place and function of the church to receive and distribute in support of the ministry.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 30, 2016)

I just got a call from Ligonier Ministries asking for money. It seemed like a telemarketing call, but only nicer. It was still unwelcome. 

But....for independents and baptists, ALL the funds supporting a missionary does not usually come from one single congregation and most missionaries/evangelists are supported by 12-15 churches. All funds do not come from one single "Body" since that 'body" is one single church and not a denominational body or board. I do not think that missionaries/evangelist ought to be sent out by boards or denominational headquarters, but by their own sending home churches...but those home churches often need help.

I believe this manner of support allows more churches to hear of evangelistic news as missionaries visit them. Though it does make for a busy missionary speaking at various churches. Some newsletters sound like begging, that is true. But we do see a NT example of charity and hospitality giving toward itinerant ministers. 



> Beloved, you do faithfully whatever you do for the brethren and for strangers, who have borne witness of your love before the church. If you send them forward on their journey in a manner worthy of God, you will do well, because they went forth for His name’s sake, taking nothing from the Gentiles. We therefore ought to receive such, that we may become fellow workers for the truth. (3 John 1:1-8).


----------



## Gforce9 (Jun 30, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> I just got a call from Ligonier Ministries asking for money. It seemed like a telemarketing call, but only nicer. It was still unwelcome.
> 
> But....for independents and baptists, ALL the funds supporting a missionary does not usually come from one single congregation and most missionaries/evangelists are supported by 12-15 churches. All funds do not come from one single "Body" since that 'body" is one single church and not a denominational body or board.
> 
> ...



For the record, our denomination sends our foreign (and those ministers in the home mission arena) missionaries and we hear of and from them (as do other congregations across the presbytery and across the denomination) regularly. It is a joy to pray for them....


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 30, 2016)

MW said:


> Buying and selling is the action of commerce. Giving is the action of charity. I think the two should be distinguished in the same way we distinguish between State and Church government. What do you think?



I think this sums up the issue nicely and I agree with it.

I've always thought that a ministry ought to come from and be supported by (and accountable to) a local church, or at least an association of local churches--that's the method followed in confessional Baptist world I live in. I can see a similar structure in Presbyterianism. In any event, I am always nervous about independent "ministries" because they have to rely on the very thing you describe: salesmanship and persuasive pleas.


----------



## MW (Jun 30, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> But....for independents and baptists,



If there is no asking for financial support it is not really relevant to the topic. I am genuinely interested to know the thoughts of others with regard to seeing ministers/ministries solicit financial support for their work.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 30, 2016)

Gforce9 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > I just got a call from Ligonier Ministries asking for money. It seemed like a telemarketing call, but only nicer. It was still unwelcome.
> ...



Yes, you are Presbyterian and therefore a denominational body rather than a local church may send out the missionary. For independents and baptists, the process of sending/supporting is different. Praise God for the OPC missionaries.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 30, 2016)

MW said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > But....for independents and baptists,
> ...



Missionaries sent by most independent/baptist churches ask for financial support from other churches and individuals. Though sometimes the sending church itself brokers such relationships. 

This is the normal means of missionary support raising in the majority of cases in Protestant missions. 

While gimmicky ways of asking for support are often frowned upon, few argue that a missionary or evangelist may not do so at all (solicit financial support or tell of financial needs). And fewer still would call such things "begging."


----------



## MW (Jul 1, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> Missionaries sent by most independent/baptist churches ask for financial support from other churches and individuals. Though sometimes the sending church itself brokers such relationships.
> 
> This is the normal means of missionary support raising in the majority of cases in Protestant missions.
> 
> While gimmicky ways of asking for support are often frowned upon, few argue that a missionary or evangelist may not do so at all (solicit financial support or tell of financial needs). And fewer still would call such things "begging."



I hadn't considered missionaries sent out by independent boards when I posted the topic. It was in light of finding yet another site that was asking for money to be able to support some literary undertaking, and calling itself a "ministry." So, genuine missionary work aside for the moment, let's just look at the question objectively in the light of people asking for money to fulfil their "ministry." Is it right to solicit money in this way in the name of Christ for the purposes of fulfilling a "ministry?"


----------



## Cymro (Jul 1, 2016)

I believe that that the biblical principle to uphold Ministers is the obligation of the church body. A spiritual congregation will by unsolicited gifts give over and above the stipulated salary. Generally salaries do not take into account the unexpected or even small luxuries that members take for granted. If the congregation is small and struggles with finances, the denomination contributes to its upkeep, which is the practice in Presbyterianism. Missionary support is another area depending on your view of denominational functioning. Deputation work to inform various groups about the work should not be undertaken as a means of increasing finances, but the interest and sympathy of the hearers if genuine, will provoke their kindness. The Lord knows what we have need of.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 1, 2016)

MW said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Missionaries sent by most independent/baptist churches ask for financial support from other churches and individuals. Though sometimes the sending church itself brokers such relationships.
> ...



Sorry, didn't mean to hijack your thread. If we except missionaries sent out with the full endorsement of their local churches, then... 

I would fully agree with your concern of someone's private "ministry" (separate from a local church or a denominational body) soliciting funds for themselves. I think you are right. 

If they acted as a fully endorsed arm of the church, yes, but as a private ministry disconnected from the larger body of Christ, no. All ministry must be connected to the church (not merely connected to an invisible mystical body, but real live congregations or ecclesiastical bodies). This would put the minister at the service of the congregation instead of vice versa, allowing the frequent (and mostly American) propensity for star pastors to use the congregation as the port to launch their own private vessel). This would also limit or eliminate many of the parachurch orgs that claim to serve churches but have no real accountability to churches.


----------



## earl40 (Jul 1, 2016)

MW said:


> Taylor Sexton said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think this is broad enough or intended to include all who do Christian ministry, regardless of whether they are ordained? Take, for example, the apologetics ministries of James White (Alpha and Omega) or Matt Slick (CARM).
> ...



This also brings up my thoughts that James who is a RE ought to be "ruling" over his particular church instead of supposing he is a RE who is "teaching" as his Pastor is tasked with. I understand that he is probably overseen by his local church which is another subject in of itself that even within our reformed denominations is in my opinion severely askew.


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 1, 2016)

> Yes, all, meaning every one who ministers in the name of Christ. What is he ministering? Is it the gospel of Christ? Freely he has received, freely he should give. His financial support should come from the body to which he is accountable for his ministry, and the only body Christ has ordained to send forth ministers is His church.


This is a growing concern of mine -- evangelism radically changed in the 19th century, radically separating the gospel from the church. One might even argue this goes back further in time to preachers such as George Whitefield preaching here and about, where ever he could draw a crowd. Jesus carefully placed the keys of the kingdom in his church where young believers could be nourished by the full means of grace, families encouraged in their responsibilities, and officers held accountable to like-minded brethren. As this perspective progressed, I wonder is a poor Eschatology accelerated the idea -- if we're all going to get scooped out of here, then all orderliness can be jettisoned. Women leading missions? Why not, as long as their heart is in the right place. (Besides, anyone can baptise, right?) Sorry for the poyential dogleg here -- it's just something I've been considering lately.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jul 1, 2016)

jwithnell said:


> > Yes, all, meaning every one who ministers in the name of Christ. What is he ministering? Is it the gospel of Christ? Freely he has received, freely he should give. His financial support should come from the body to which he is accountable for his ministry, and the only body Christ has ordained to send forth ministers is His church.
> 
> 
> This is a growing concern of mine -- evangelism radically changed in the 19th century, radically separating the gospel from the church. One might even argue this goes back further in time to preachers such as George Whitefield preaching here and about, where ever he could draw a crowd. Jesus carefully placed the keys of the kingdom in his church where young believers could be nourished by the full means of grace, families encouraged in their responsibilities, and officers held accountable to like-minded brethren. As this perspective progressed, I wonder is a poor Eschatology accelerated the idea -- if we're all going to get scooped out of here, then all orderliness can be jettisoned. Women leading missions? Why not, as long as their heart is in the right place. (Besides, anyone can baptise, right?) Sorry for the poyential dogleg here -- it's just something I've been considering lately.



Excellent!


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Jul 1, 2016)

While it "ought" to be deacons that deal with the finances, it most not of neccesity be so. But it would be far better.

If a Minister asks for money - and preaches a sermon on Tithing - it is difficult not to see the two as the same thing.


----------



## yeutter (Jul 1, 2016)

The question would seem to hinge on what are the proper functions of the institutional Church. Can we properly delineate the sphere of the institutional Church? Theological education would seem to be an ecclesiastical function. Therefore the Seminaries and the stipend to support the student studying in the seminary should come from the Church. Publishing enterprises are a different matter. Where is the command in the Bible to publish or to reprint books or to have a denominational magazine? If literary efforts should not be undertaken by a parish, then their is a need for the establishment of either commercial publishing houses or publishing associations; and fund raising appeals by them would seem to be appropriate.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 1, 2016)

The Apostle Paul engaged in fundraising efforts for the relief of the saints in Jerusalem. It would seem, then, that _appeals for contributions_ are not intrinsically wrong, even if they come from a minister of the gospel. But the closest instance I can think of with Paul indicating the acceptability of support being given to himself is Romans 15:24. 

Of course, Paul was not offering a year's free subscription to his magazine in exchange for a donation of a specified amount.


----------



## earl40 (Jul 1, 2016)

py3ak said:


> Of course, Paul was not offering a year's free subscription to his magazine in exchange for a donation of a specified amount.



Just be careful when you call such a business instead of a ministry.


----------



## lynnie (Jul 1, 2016)

I read George Muellers' writings about his orphans and they way they prayed for God to provide, without ever begging/asking people. The stories are astonishing. I am not saying it is wrong to make needs known in a way that doesn't pressure or manipulate, but I suspect we know very little of prevailing prayer when that is our first or most common avenue for fund raising.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 1, 2016)

The distinction between "commerce" and giving is one of the reasons why I am 4361 exempt from self-employment taxes in the United States. 

I am not paid as a minister for services rendered, but am given funds that allow me to set aside the need for earthly employment to engage in the spiritual work of Word and Prayer.


----------



## MW (Jul 1, 2016)

These replies are very helpful for bringing different factors to the fore.

Paul's "collection for the saints," 1 Cor. 16, appears to have been a congregational activity which avoided solicitation; and in 2 Cor. 8-9 the ministry functions according to diaconal principles, involving men who were chosen to be put in trust and held accountable to principles of honesty in the exercise of the ministry. When it comes to the ministry of the gospel Paul laboured with his own hands so as to be able to preach the gospel free of charge. We read of the churches sending support to him, but there is nothing to suggest he asked for it.

Things like literature should probably fall under a commercial interest and be sustained on the basis of economic principles of supply and demand. If it cannot sustain itself in this way, as good as the literature might be, it may just have to wait a more opportune time.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 1, 2016)

I dislike the regular solicitations that come to the church, even from the religious functions and services supported by this congregation, as if we were not giving enough (though, to some extent it is probably kinder to see 12months of mailings as much as an effort to keep informing of current activities). Pretty much everything mailed ends up in the trash without a second glance from me, or a twinge of guilt.

I dislike "ministries" that have "outgrown" the church/congregation that spawned them. They beg for the donations that will support their (expensive) presence in this or that place (and many places), or various media outlets. The subtle message is: WE are too important to allow this opportunity to lapse (you must agree); so send us money. Often, the "need" overall is for a million or multi-millions of dollars. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the "shortfall" needed to be covered by these donations in the next month is usually the equivalent of 15-20 years or more of a tiny congregation's budget. Honestly, desperate appeals for millions of dollars utterly bewilders me.

Time to cut back. If a congregation can afford to get itself on a local radio station for a half-hour or an hour a week, great! Starting early with the discovery of radio's "reach," and the popularity of "celebrity" preachers, support for a wider audience was achieved--first through additional giving by the home congregation; later by periodic (or weekly) appeals to listeners to give. Today, in addition to bought radio time and appeals to those who appreciate to support, $500,000 (or maybe much much more) is paid annually to a PR firm who sends out thousands of mailers quarterly or each month to a list of reputed supporters.

The important thing for us is to keep the palpable ministry of Word and Sacrament from falling to the ground and disappearing. A Bible-based theme-park is not a priority. Lobbying Congress is not a priority. Not even a non-ecclesiastical Bible-distribution service is a priority above the church's mission. If we agree with ourselves to regularly send one offering a year (annually reviewed) to a handful of outside-the-congregation ministries and services, because we have some affinity for them, that's a choice, not an obligation. There's way too much trading by many such agencies on fear, fashion, and guilt, mediated through marketer's string-pulling.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 1, 2016)

Matthew, I wonder if you are distinguishing between _solicitation_ and _information_? Clearly Paul was not averse to encouraging people to donate money for a particular cause, which included letting them know when and where funds could be given. He did this by reporting on progress, pointing to the example of others in the same cause, reminding them of the promise of reaping bountifully, and explaining the aboveboard details of how the collection would be transported. All of this means that he was neither passive nor uncommunicative in seeking provision for the needs of the saints. By what principles are we guided in drawing the line between this kind of activity and objectionable solicitation?


----------



## MW (Jul 1, 2016)

py3ak said:


> Matthew, I wonder if you are distinguishing between _solicitation_ and _information_?



Probably not; but is there a material difference when the information is given for the purpose of asking others to give?

The OP is concerned with ministers/ministries asking for their own support. Asking people to give in support of others is another matter. That is not the kind of "care or solicitude" to which the second book of discipline was speaking.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 1, 2016)

MW said:


> The OP is concerned with ministers/ministries asking for their own support. Asking people to give in support of others is another matter. That is not the kind of "care or solicitude" to which the second book of discipline was speaking.



Thanks, Matthew. That must surely be one of the essential principles in distinguishing between what is and what isn't suitable.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 2, 2016)

The supposition of the SBD, as in many others of our church orders, is that those ministers laboring "in the kirk" should be provided for in a way that, as the OPC order puts it, renders him "free from worldly care." 

It is, btw, not the case for the SBD, as it also not the case with any church order for an established church, that the gifts are all assumed to be voluntary, as some in this discussion may suppose. Established church ministers may be supported by state stipend in addition to the gifts of the gathered in the local church. That situation prevails nowhere in practice in the USA, of course (though it does exist in principle among some here). 

It should also be noted that this is not the way that Paul received his support. He claimed the right to receive support exclusively from the saints but forwent such of his own accord. Our Reformed and Presbyterian church orders pick up that claim of right to support and thus make clear that the minister should receive such and thus be "without care or solicitude."

Much of what has otherwise been spoken to in this thread makes, at least arguably, a different point from that addressed by the SBD. I take the SBD to be addressing the ministry of word and sacrament within the institutional church. Even if the SBD sees the institutional church as exhausting distinctly Christian labors, and, as I said, this is arguable, more recent church orders have not. The OPC, for instance, does not regard all extra-ecclesiastical agencies, whether for the distribution of Christian literature, training of ministers, etc. as impermissible. I suspect that some here may, but I believe that we as Christians have freedom to form societies to publish and distribute Christian literature, to train ministers and other Christian workers, and the like.

Such societies are not the institutional church or an agency of said church, but are "non-profits" (thus not businesses seeking to make money). I perfectly understand Bruce and all others not wanting to be contacted for money by so many organizations claiming to do Christian work. But we must not mistake irritations to our flesh, and perhaps they are in every way genuinely and properly irritations, as permitting us to lay down a rule that God's Word has not laid down. 

Whatever the intention of the OP--I take no issue with but fully support the SBD in its contentions--I do not think that we can from the SBD draw a rule, as some have or seem to have, that it is illegitimate for a Christian society or agency (be it Ligonier, a seminary, or whatever) to make its needs known and to ask for contributions over and above what one would and should give to the institutional church. One must tread lightly here, but if one wishes to maintain that extra-ecclesiastical Christian organizations are simply invalid, then we really should not be having the conversation on an online board that is not the church, that seeks contributions for its support and continuance, and that seeks to do certain things (foster fellowship, teach, etc.) that do not replace the church as an institution but that parallel it and that permit people of different communions and places to dialog with each other. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## MW (Jul 3, 2016)

I am thankful for the opportunity to consider this subject in the light of biblical and reformed principles, and hope it can remain a discussion of principle without being taken personally.

Arguing from the status quo of "more recent church orders" functioning side by side with voluntary agencies begs the question as to whether the status quo is right. The power of government is not to be exercised by ministers alone, but is to be exercised in assembly with other office-bearers of the church. That in itself should determine the boundaries of ministerial government so far as extra-ecclesiastical agencies are concerned. But even if voluntary societies could legitimately claim to be exercising a lawful power of spiritual government over the consciences of men, this fact alone does not justify the actions of the society. The legitimacy of the society is one thing and the lawfulness of its actions is another. Moreover, even if the voluntary society acted justly in soliciting independent support for its spiritual labours, it would still require a specific examination of ethical norms in order to determine whether a minister may solicit such support.

The first chapter of the Second Book of Discipline strenuously asserts the doctrine that the power of spiritual government in the church is derived immediately and only through Christ as Mediator, and that this is fundamentally different in nature to the exercise of civil power. The second chapter maintains that the whole policy of the kirk consists in doctrine, discipline, and distribution. "Distribution" is thus an act of spiritual government derived through the Mediator. This power of distribution is not a matter of voluntary arrangement, but by divine right.

Appealing to the principle of Paul is a blow at the root of ministers asking for voluntary support for their ministerial functions. The arguments and illustrations employed by the apostle serve to demonstrate that the ecclesiastical support of ministers is an act of "justice," i.e., a "right" to be claimed. This places a moral duty on the church to provide for the minister. As Francis Turretin observed, "not to pay ministers their salaries is numbered among the most grievous sins of injustice towards a neighbor and of impiety towards God, upon which God threatens punishment and promises his blessing to those doing the opposite (Mal. 3:8, 10, 12; Neh. 13:10, 11; Gal. 6:6, 7)." (Inst., 3:270.)

As for reformed church order, it has indeed acted on the principle of "right" which the apostle has laid down, which makes the action of ministers in asking for their own support even more questionable. To quote again from Turretin, where ministers are denied ecclesiastical support they "would be supposed to live by alms ... and their condition would be rendered contemptible. Hence it was wisely provided in the system of the Reformed churches of France that a salary should be assigned to each pastor and that no one should be put in office without it (cf. “The Discipline of the Reformed Churches of France,” Canon 42 in Quick, Synodicon [1692], Lxxiv)." (Ibid., 271.)


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 3, 2016)

I made it clear in my reply above that I do not disagree with the original post in what it cites from the SBD. That is a commonplace of other Reformed and Presbyterian church orders both before and after the SBD. The ministry of any minister laboring in the church is to be supported by the church (assuming now that we are ignoring the question of the establishment principle, to which I believe the original poster holds). 

Thus I am in perfect agreement with sentences 1 and 2 of said post. Perhaps I fail to understand precisely what the poster is getting at in the sentences that follow the first two. Is he getting at a kind of "hawking" of the faith, some sort of merchandising that is unbecoming to those called to freely offer the gospel "without money and without price?" I think that we can all quickly agree to that.

But the post goes on in such a way as possibly to suggest the illegitimacy of any Christian organization that is not directly an agency of the church. I am not clear that such is being averred, though other posts that follow seem to go in that direction. 

The immediately previous post seems to verify such a reading, though there remains an opaqueness to this discussion and many things that seem not to follow that leaves me rather baffled. It is noted that "more recent church orders" on the allowance of (at least some) extra-ecclesiastical agencies begs the question (I suppose the writer means "raises the question," as I don't believe that _petitio principii_ is at issue here) of their rightness. I never assumed or asserted otherwise. 

I realize that one can take a position (as some do) that would assert that no agency outside the institutional church (no seminary, no Christian publisher or historical agency, no Christian literature distributor) should ask for funds and thus should not exist. I am quite well aware that there are those who would argue quite ecclesio-centrically that only the church and its agencies should perform any of these tasks. 

It seems to me that if one wishes to argue that all extra-ecclesiastical agencies are verboten that it would be most clear and most helpful simply to argue that in a straightforward manner. Much of the rest of the post immediately above, I agree with, but could wish for clearer, more straightforward argumentation here. Ministers ought to be duly supported by the church. Whether extra-ecclesiastical societies ought to exist may be a related matter but it is a distinct one. 

Perhaps the reason for this sort of argumentation is because one contention (ministers should be properly supported by the church) would garner little opposition, while the other (opposing extra-ecclesiastical societies or agencies) might receive more opposition. 

Again, and this was not touched, if extra-ecclesiastical organizations ought not exist, then the PB, which is clearly such in some sense, should not exist and we should not be having this conversation here. I believe that the burden of proof that such extra-ecclesiastical organizations should not exist rests properly on the one making the claim (WCF 20.2).

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Wayne (Jul 4, 2016)

The PCA has a related, though slightly different policy in place :



> General Assembly Actions and Position Papers
> of the Presbyterian Church in America
> 
> Fund Raising Policy
> ...



http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/1-079.html


----------



## MW (Jul 4, 2016)

I am sorry that the general observation of the OP has come to be regarded as opaque. That observation was, "But more and more ministers/ministries have independently taken to asking people for money to support them (especially through the internet)." Some of the posts have given particular examples but my aim has only been to make a general application of the principle of ministerial support as taught in the Second Book of Discipline, and to do so without partiality. That seems like a fairly straightforward exercise to me.

The appeal to particular precedents, as if everybody already grants that the principle of ministerial support admits of compromise, begs the question. The status quo is the very thing which is being brought forward for examination.

The trend towards merchandising is obviously an issue; but rather than take it for granted that some particular ministry is exempt from the charge of merchandising because it just happens to be a "favourite" (which in ethics is called "favouritism," respect of persons, or partiality), it would be beneficial to come back to basic principles and ask what makes a specific activity an action of merchandising, and then apply the criteria to the particular cases in order to discern whether or not one's "favourite" might have something which needs to be addressed in this regard.

But over and above the fact that "ministries" may or may not be "merchandising," they are also asking for support, and by mixing the categories of commerce and charity are creating a sui generis which confuses things. People cannot be sure if they are engaged in an act of selfless giving to a charity or of commercial interest in the value of goods; and the OP suggested it would be best to keep them distinct. That also seems like a fairly straightforward topic of discussion.

PB is a place of discussion. A private person in a private capacity opens up his virtual space and allows us to participate in discussion, and we participate with courtesy and respect to the individual who has opened up his virtual space to us just as we would if we were in a real space that belonged to him. There is nothing in this action which can possibly serve as a precedent for loosening the principles of ministerial support as taught in the Second Book of Discipline.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 4, 2016)

Thanks, Wayne. I agree entirely and without reserve with the policy adopted at the 4th GA of the PCA. One might think from the original citation of the SBD that such was the direction of this discussion, with which I would be in complete agreement. The very title of the post suggests mendicancy, to which we would all presumably be opposed.

However, it is clear from subsequent developments that the purpose was not only to affirm that ministerial support should be from the diaconate, but that the institutional church is the sole agency for Christian work in the world. I have great respect for that position and hold to it without reserve with respect to the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God. I don't think that this exhausts, necessarily, everything that Christians may seek to do in combination, however.

That having been said, I still do not claim that I've ever addressed, in these posts, the question of the rightness or permissibility of such (something, for instance, addressed in the OPC Form of Government, chapter 30). That has been well done elsewhere. Arguments have been fully set forth for some time arguing that all religious work is and must be under the church (including all schooling that seeks to be regarded as "Christian"). Arguments have also been set forth that have a high view of the Church and its calling, while believing that such does not exhaust the notion of kingdom work and that such may be done in other institutions not directly under the church, but whose members are part of and are fully answerable to the church: organizations like Christian schools, colleges, and seminaries. 

Again, I have no problem if someone wishes to argue that all should be directly under the church, as an agency of the church. I could wish for more in this way, though it is not happening (churches not having such schools, for instance). I may pragmatically wish that the church had direct oversight over many such things that it declines to take oversight of. I do not believe, however, that if the church fails to do so (and I do not believe that it must do so), Christians may not themselves do so (again, I do not refer to the ministry of Word and Sacrament). 

It may be presumed, since it is mentioned, that I have some "favourites" in mind here. That is gratuitous, as I do not, even though I do work at a theological seminary that is, like most seminaries in North America, not directly an agency of any one church. 

What then is my concern here? That if one believes that giving for religious or Christian purposes should be only to the institutional church, then that's what one should say clearly and forthrightly. To put it in the way it was put invites us all to agree at first ("yes, ministers should be supported by the church") and then before we know it, the argument has become the sole and exclusive place of the institutional church in all such distinctly Christian activity. Why not "show one's colours" and start out this way? Perhaps because it is not likely to garner as much support. 

Again, I don't seek to make the substantive arguments here made well elsewhere about the lawfulness of extra-ecclesiastical agencies (which I will be the first to agree that they are often and widely abused; their abuse and misuse, however, is an entirely different question from their impermissibility).

Peace,
Alan


----------



## earl40 (Jul 4, 2016)

Alan D. Strange said:


> What then is my concern here? That if one believes that giving for religious or Christian purposes should be only to the institutional church, then that's what one should say clearly and forthrightly. To put it in the way it was put invites us all to agree at first ("yes, ministers should be supported by the church") and then before we know it, the argument has become the sole and exclusive place of the institutional church in all such distinctly Christian activity. Why not "show one's colours" and start out this way? Perhaps because it is not likely to garner as much support.


 
I do believe Rev. Winzer has shown his colours here and in the past on the PB not only on this particular subject but also on the varied subjects that are involved in what is proper or improper for individual activity outside the institution of the church and how one labels such activity.

Now one of my favorite businesses is RC Sproul's "ministry" and the hard part is wondering if He is working within the boundary of the independent church he is a pastor of and thus his ministry would be a true ministry of the that particular church. Or does he work for the denomination he is an ordained member of? Or is his "ministry" accountable to none other than those who financially support his teaching or business?

Rev. Strange I would love to know your opinion on the above questions and be persuaded that RC's "ministry" is not a business which I now currently believe.


----------



## Philip (Jul 4, 2016)

yeutter said:


> Theological education would seem to be an ecclesiastical function. Therefore the Seminaries and the stipend to support the student studying in the seminary should come from the Church.



Certainly it should, but I know of few congregations with the resources to do this without asking for a special collection for the purpose. Maybe presbyteries could take charge of it, but I know that many in Conservative American Presbyterianism are suspicious of having the central administration necessary to manage such funds.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jul 4, 2016)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Thanks, Wayne. I agree entirely and without reserve with the policy adopted at the 4th GA of the PCA. One might think from the original citation of the SBD that such was the direction of this discussion, with which I would be in complete agreement. The very title of the post suggests mendicancy, to which we would all presumably be opposed.
> 
> However, it is clear from subsequent developments that the purpose was not only to affirm that ministerial support should be from the diaconate, but that the institutional church is the sole agency for Christian work in the world. I have great respect for that position and hold to it without reserve with respect to the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God. I don't think that this exhausts, necessarily, everything that Christians may seek to do in combination, however.
> 
> ...



I believe the link between the two considerations is this: if we believe that ministers ought to receive their financial support by right and thus ecclesiastically and that it is thus improper to directly solicit the people for funding, is there a proper way for ministries (and thus ministers) who function outside of the church to legitimately fund themselves? If there is no way to legitimately fund themselves, does that not call the legitimacy of the ministry itself into question? 

Rev. Winzer is trying to tease out the implications of the SBD clause. Assuming the legitimacy of ministries--or church orders permitting the--that fund themselves by solicitation (or commercialization) and using their existance as an argument against the SBD clause or at least the proposed interpretation of it is a begging the question since that assumption (viz. their legitimacy) entails the denial of the proposition in question. 

Perhaps you would propose a means of ecclesiastically funding an extra-ecclesiastical ministry but I believe that is part of the discussion Rev. Winzer wanted to have. He can correct me if I've misconstrued things, of course.


----------



## MW (Jul 4, 2016)

I don't think the issue of ministers soliciting support can be addressed by critiquing parachurch organisations per se. It seems to me that the acceptance of certain parachurch organisations would encourage this type of activity, and would undermine certain principles which are necessary to correct it; but we really need to go back and look at ecclesiastical principles so as to clarify what is and is not acceptable. Then we would be better situated to examine the different activities and organisations.

The issue of parachurch activity has been addressed on other threads. I don't hold that all religious activity is confined to the church, and I can see the validity of organisations operating on a voluntary principle within the civil sphere without assuming ecclesiastical functions. Prayer is the duty of all men. Reading the Scriptures is the duty of all men, etc. Maintaining the establishment principle means that I regard the State as religious and that there are genuine religious activities which should be a part of civil and social life. The issue with activity of a voluntary nature is, naturally, that the activity will come to be "organised," and then it can come in competition with the jus divinum organisation of the church. So one needs to be very clear on what constitutes an ecclesiastical action as being distinct from a civil action.

The OP raised a principle by which a certain kind of activity could be discussed. It wasn't intended as a synopsis of an essay to cover the issues. It was merely a thought to provoke discussion of a principle.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 5, 2016)

I very much appreciate the last reply. The second paragraph especially clarifies things for me. 

This is where I suspected things lay but I was not sure. The trick is indeed what precisely and narrowly constitutes ecclesiastical functions. I am quite critical of much that goes on under the rubric of extra-ecclesiastical organizations, specifically with respect to this question. Many such organizations plainly usurp the role and authority of the institutional church.

The question is, however--does one oppose any and all extra-ecclesiastical agencies in principle? If such organizations are wrong, they are wrong in all cases. That they are often abused, however, would not make them wrong in all cases: _abusus non tollit usum_. Having said that, I quite agree that much of the solicitation that goes on respecting this is not only distasteful but quite dubious. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## tangleword (Jul 5, 2016)

I grew up at an ARP church and my memories of the annual meetings were primarily debates about a rule in the church about not allowing fundraisers. Normally the desire was to allow the youth to fund-raise for a mission trip, or do a fundraiser for a pro-life pregnancy center. It seemed like it came up every year and changing the rule to allow fundraising was always narrowly voted down. I remember asking the youth pastor about it one time thinking he would be disappointed since it meant less activities could be done, and he said that he really appreciated the rule since it meant the church as a whole had to support the ministries that were being done, and it freed him to be a pastor and not a fund-raiser. 
I too echo the op's concerns and have always been against fund-raising or soliciting funds for different activities believing they should come from the general giving of the church, or at least should not be solicited from the pulpit; I even cringe a little at the thank offering every year though I understand the reason for it. I appreciate the OPC not requiring missionaries and church planters to fund-raise and really do think that it should not be happening in church. I know that for those ministries outside the church it is a little different but it does create a tension with the para-church ministries fund-raising and the congregation not knowing what to give to (I remember when one para-church leader sending a letter out telling people that a way to support his ministry was to choose one week and instead of giving their tithe to the church, give it to his ministry; he was of course rebuked and recanted that suggestion). 
The situations that I really question are those where it is a pastor who also leads a para-church ministry and they seem to be asking for funds, or making their ministry available through a pay-wall (I think of apologia as one of those). Seems like what is their business and what is tehir role as a pastor can get mixed up or even their pastoral role is under their business/para-church role. Seems to be a great conflict and really not something that should be done.


----------

