Begging ministers

[Alan D. Strange]

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]

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
[Minutes of the Fourth General Assembly (1976), 4-74, Item 5, page 80.]

Whereas, some of our churches have begun to conduct bazaars, rummage sales, suppers, and other benefits for the purpose of raising money for the Lord's work, and,

Whereas, in the light of these events it is best to set these benefit programs in their proper perspective based on principles of Scripture, and

Whereas, Jesus cast the money changers out of the Temple, saying, "Make not my Father's house an house of merchandise" (John 2:16),

Now, therefore, be it resolved: That the Fourth General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America advise its members and churches as follows:

a. The Lord has ordained that giving should be an act of worship and thus a means of grace.

b. God has revealed in His Word that His kingdom on earth is to be supported by the cheerful, willing and loving tithes and sacrificial offerings of His children.

c. Commercial activities such as suppers, bazaars, rummage sales, etc., held primarily to raise money are improper activities for the Church.

d. Commercial activities designed primarily to provide a ministry such as a bookstore, are proper Church activities.

e. Neither the Church, nor any organization of the Church should sponsor such benefit promotions which have as a primary purpose raising money for the support of the Lord's work.

[Editor's note: The above fund raising policy was first presented in a Report before the Third General Assembly (1975) by the Committee on Administration, as Item 15, which was then recommitted to the Permanent Committee on Administration for further perfecting of the recommendation. [M3GA, 3-65, Item 15, p. 78].
Note too that in the above policy, the PCA has followed earlier resolutions found in the PCUS, namely:
1888, p. 402.
Whereas it appears to have become quite common for our people to secure money for church purposes by concerts, suppers, etc, be it--
Resolved, That the General Assembly advise against all such means for securing money to be used in the Master's work. This advice is given because we believe that the Lord has ordained that giving should be an act of worship, and thus a means of grace.
1891, p. 260; 1916, p. 19 [similar actions.]
1953, p. 60. [Previous actions cited.] Pastors and Sessions are urged to follow consistently the policy which has been approved by the General Assembly and which is set forth in our Book of Church Order [see §208-1 especially] concerning the motive, means and methods by which money is secured for the Lord's work, and teach the same to their congregations.
[Source: A Digest of the Acts and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, 1861-1965. Atlanta, GA: Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, 1966. p. 274.]

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

 

[MW]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.