Here’s a tract I distribute with the book. (The pdf is large because I have the cover image sized for printing, but at some point I should probably resize it for distribution on the web)
1 Like
Reciprocity should not be rejected, outright. Otherwise, what are we to make of the Apostle Paul’s command, “The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him” (Galatians 6:6). Love,
3 Likes
I like the idea of religious work being free of copyright. It seems some larger churches could supply programmers to contribute to those open source projects.
If the church universal began to shun commercial entities like logos and instead supported programmers at larger churches working on similar software and giving it away, I think that would be a win for the world. Thanks for the book!
I’m still working through the question if it’s ever wrong to charge for ministry aid tools.
2 Likes
I think the idea is that a church financially supporting her pastors would be in the “co-laborer” category and not the reciprocity category.
2 Likes
I knew this would be good fodder… just had to wait a couple of days.
3 Likes
One who gives as Galatians 6:6 commands “sows to the Spirit” (Galatians 6:8). As @hhtuck says, I would call the giving of Galatians 6:6 “colabor” since it assists the minister in a common service to God. What I label “reciprocity” is a giving that is not a sacrifice to God, but something offered directly to the minister as though he is the source of the gospel.
In the book (esp. chapter 3), I offer enough nuance to explain how those taught are obligated to a minister even though they are not directly obligated, since that obligation to the minister is mediated by their obligation to the Lord. Thus, their gifts may have some shape of reciprocity, but when examined more closely, right giving is to the Lord. The question is not whether there should be no giving in a context where one has received, but if it should ever be done in a way that bypasses one’s direct obligation to the Lord.
If we don’t have categories to describe what that unmediated giving/obligation looks like (and reciprocity is the best word I’ve found), we end up in a place where we are not able to adequately reconcile the polar ends of the Lord’s command to “give without pay” (Matthew 10:8) and his assurance that “the worker is worthy of his food” (Matthew 10:9-10).
Thanks for your responses, men. I’ve learned from Ben Sulser that the modern habit of throwing shade on everything that is less than disinterested worship of God denies the teaching of Scripture on innumerable levels, and I fear throwing shade on reciprocity is of that same perfectionism. I haven’t read the book. First, that is said.
Moving away from giving, though, it might be helpful to recognize how thoroughly Evangelicals of both reformed and non-reformed orientations think dismissively about any motivation other than “pure God,” and this despite (for instance) Jesus’ perpetual preaching of self-interest in repentance, turning to God, faith, eternity, and so on. So I’m suspicious of all talk of motivations needing to be pure God.
After all, we haven’t seen Him, but we do see our brother. Too, the man who doesn’t provide for his own is worse than a pagan, and if that isn’t abt reciprocity, don’t know what it is abt.
This is not to say the profit motive in the Western church today is not obscene. I’ve often said I don’t think the church will be reformed once more until pastors stop getting paid for caring for God’s sheep, so there’s that. Love,
5 Likes
I understand the hesitancy; what I’m promoting in the book is enough of a paradigm shift that I would expect anyone to approach it cautiously (though I hope no one would dismiss it out of hand).
In that vein, I would once again assert that the category of ministerial reciprocity is something that requires more of a technical definition than the imagination might initially provide. While I develop these much more fully in the book, the quick definitions are:
Ministerial reciprocity: Support (material or otherwise) given to a minister out of a sense of direct obligation for his ministry of the gospel.
Ministerial colabor: Support (material or otherwise) given by man to a minister out of a sense of obligation to God, to honor or aid in the proclamation of the gospel.
You could call this ideal of colabor purist, but some distinction needs to be made or else Paul’s financial policy will make no sense, and if we are to follow him and Jesus, this category must also be followed/enforced.
the man who doesn’t provide for his own is worse than a pagan, and if that isn’t abt reciprocity, don’t know what it is abt.
I’m not sure what you are saying here. How is that reciprocity?
I’ve often said I don’t think the church will be reformed once more until pastors stop getting paid for caring for God’s sheep,
Oh, fascinating. As a Reformed Baptist, I strongly affirm that pastors should be paid to care for God’s sheep…the worker is, after all, worthy of his wages. The question I’m trying to answer is not whether funds are acceptable to receive for this purpose, but what funds are acceptable to receive for this purpose?
2LBCF 16.10:
The work of pastors being constantly to attend the service of Christ, in his churches, in the ministry of the word and prayer, with watching for their souls, as they that must give an account to Him; it is incumbent on the churches to whom they minister, not only to give them all due respect, but also to communicate to them of all their good things according to their ability, so as they may have a comfortable supply, without being themselves entangled in secular affairs; and may also be capable of exercising hospitality towards others; and this is required by the law of nature, and by the express order of our Lord Jesus, who has ordained that they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.
Sure, but Samuel Johnson was right even centuries ago when he said “it might as well be ‘he who drives fat oxen should himself be fat.’”