He Stayed and Worked with Them
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this...
In contemporary Church language, a "missionary" is someone sent with full (or significant) financial support to spread the Gospel in a foreign place.
I am wondering...Where did this model come from? How did we come to the conclusion that some people who share the gospel should draw their livelihood from donations of others?
First of all, pastors (as I know many of you are) deserve to gain their living from their work:
Paul appeals to the idea that those who proclaim the Gospel deserve to reap from those among whom they work.
However, what I am not sure about, is the concept of "raising support" to be a missionary free from the demands of paid labor.
What is potentially wrong with giving money to someone for the sake of making disciples in a foreign place? Here are some reasons:
1. It Sets a Poor Example
Imagine the typical missionary who has full financial support and can devote 100% of their time to proclaiming the Gospel. Who can follow their example?
Now, consider someone who goes to a foreign country, works to provide for their needs, AND brings witness of Christ. This person could go to any fellow believer and truly say, "You can do exactly what I do."
Since we "pay" people to share the Gospel, I can see how non-paid missionaries can be unclear about their own role as disciple-makers. The follower of Christ who is waiting tables, doing construction, or working in an office could likely resent their job as meaningless and "in the way" of being a true disciple.
2. Everyone Must Work
Labor is part of life. All disciples of Christ are responsible for sharing the Good News.
If anyone could have claimed that labor would get in the way of ministry work, Paul would have been justified. Yet, he adamantly required everyone to work, and he made himself no exception. (1 Thes 2:9)
3. Efficiency
People must be dependent on raising support before they can go. A missionary that could work to provide for their needs would be more stable in the long run.
A self-supporting missionary could also set their own schedule and would probably travel much lighter.
Paul both worked for a living and shared the Gospel to the exclusion of neither:
If Paul wasn't exempted from working (laboring and toiling) for a living, is anyone else? Are missionaries the same as pastors?
Any Thoughts? Read more
In contemporary Church language, a "missionary" is someone sent with full (or significant) financial support to spread the Gospel in a foreign place.
I am wondering...Where did this model come from? How did we come to the conclusion that some people who share the gospel should draw their livelihood from donations of others?
First of all, pastors (as I know many of you are) deserve to gain their living from their work:
11If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?...14In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. - 1 Cor 9
Paul appeals to the idea that those who proclaim the Gospel deserve to reap from those among whom they work.
However, what I am not sure about, is the concept of "raising support" to be a missionary free from the demands of paid labor.
What is potentially wrong with giving money to someone for the sake of making disciples in a foreign place? Here are some reasons:
1. It Sets a Poor Example
Imagine the typical missionary who has full financial support and can devote 100% of their time to proclaiming the Gospel. Who can follow their example?
Now, consider someone who goes to a foreign country, works to provide for their needs, AND brings witness of Christ. This person could go to any fellow believer and truly say, "You can do exactly what I do."
Since we "pay" people to share the Gospel, I can see how non-paid missionaries can be unclear about their own role as disciple-makers. The follower of Christ who is waiting tables, doing construction, or working in an office could likely resent their job as meaningless and "in the way" of being a true disciple.
2. Everyone Must Work
We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat. - 2 Thes. 3
Labor is part of life. All disciples of Christ are responsible for sharing the Good News.
If anyone could have claimed that labor would get in the way of ministry work, Paul would have been justified. Yet, he adamantly required everyone to work, and he made himself no exception. (1 Thes 2:9)
3. Efficiency
People must be dependent on raising support before they can go. A missionary that could work to provide for their needs would be more stable in the long run.
A self-supporting missionary could also set their own schedule and would probably travel much lighter.
Paul both worked for a living and shared the Gospel to the exclusion of neither:
and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them. 4Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks - Acts 18
If Paul wasn't exempted from working (laboring and toiling) for a living, is anyone else? Are missionaries the same as pastors?
Any Thoughts? Read more
