"Capitalism is killing the small church"

[Smeadly]

Why Paul Refused to Be Paid — and Why It Still Matters

Paul had the right to be supported for preaching (1 Cor 9:4–6), but he refused it so the gospel would remain free and without suspicion.

“We did not use this right… so as not to hinder the gospel of Christ.”
—1 Cor 9:12

“To give you an example to imitate.”
—2 Thess 3:9

He wasn’t just being noble—he expected others to follow his lead (1 Cor 11:1, Phil 3:17).

It's like people today who have a legal right to do something (like abortion) but choose not to—because they believe it's wrong.

True maturity is giving up your rights for the good of others.

Paul's message?
Ministry isn’t a career.
The gospel should be free.
Leaders should lead by example.

 

[Paidiske]

Paul had the right to be supported for preaching (1 Cor 9:4–6), but he refused it

And that's a valid choice. It's not the only valid choice.

True maturity is giving up your rights for the good of others.

Perhaps so. But there's more than one way to look at this. Another way might be to say, that paid clergy give up the right to earn their own income, in order to devote themselves fully to ministry. (Heaven knows I could make bucketloads more money in secular work than I will ever make in the church).

The gospel should be free.

We do not charge for the gospel. But there's also nothing wrong with a community supporting people within it, who devote themselves to ministry.

Leaders should lead by example.

Indeed. And if the argument is that clergy shouldn't extort, shouldn't live lavish lifestyles, shouldn't be greedy or covetous, I completely agree. If the argument is that churches should never support those who minister among them, I think that goes far beyond what's supportable with reference to the New Testament.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

To return to the OT, I'll have to suggest that capitalism in time of tribulation, does not kill any faithful gathering, but it does help humble the churches, which is a very good thing.

 

[o_mlly]

Melissa Florer-Bixler: Capitalism is killing the small church

Small churches struggle to attract and keep congregants, but the issue is not a lack of programs or a younger generation’s disinterest in faith. The problem is that people are exhausted by our economy, writes a pastor.

faithandleadership.com

A very interesting read. Does it resonate for you? How might we, as church leaders, best respond?

Capitalism is not the problem. Capitalism, the abstaining form present consumption, ie. saving, to increase the future supply of goods and services for everyone, is virtuous. The problem is "materialism". A dysfunctional demand for more and more goods that is vicious.

 

[The Liturgist]

To be celibate is fine and uncondemned but not a qualification for church leadership

Well then apparently St. Paul was unqualified, since he was unmarried and celibate, as were most of the Apostles. Now, the Orthodox episcopate consists primarily of celibate monks; but this is not the case in the Anglican or Catholic church, where monastics are seldom considered for the episcopate (friars don’t count); a celibate Roman Rite priest is not a monastic. In both Anglicanism and Orthodoxy most of our priests are married, although in the Orthodox church we rely on unpaid monastic clergy to provide service to mission parishes, parishes which cannot afford to pay a priest, parishes whose priest has reposed in the Lord, or is in hospital or who are otherwise without a presbyter*.


*I use priest interchangeably with presbyter to demonstrate its original meaning, as an Anglicization of the Latinized form of the Greek word presbuteros, which means elder; the early English bibles caused a lot of confusion by using the word “priest” to refer to Kohanim, Sacerdos and Hieros (that is to say, to the Jewish “priesthood”, and to the leaders of Pagan religions, as well as to the hieratic prophetic monarchy of all Christian faithful; it would be more correct if instead of referring to a royal priesthood of all believers, we spoke of all believers as being hieratic, since this word is not derived from a word that in Anglicanism and Orthodoxy is used to refer to Presbyters; John Wesley when he adapted the Book of Common Prayer for use by the Methodists in North America tried to avoid further confusion by replacing the word “priest” with “elder” and “bishop” with “superintendent” which is technically correct, but I don’t see why we Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox should be constrained in our errors by the misinterpretation of poorly translated 16th and 17th century Bibles, which for various reasons of comprehensibility, the bad choices made by the first English translations of the Bible had to be preserved by the KJV and by most newer translations for the sake of clarity, but people should be aware that the word priest used in the context of the priesthood of all believers does not mean the same thing as presbyter.

 

[The Liturgist]

Capitalism is not the problem. Capitalism, the abstaining form present consumption, ie. saving, to increase the future supply of goods and services for everyone, is virtuous. The problem is "materialism". A dysfunctional demand for more and more goods that is vicious.

Having studied economics, I agree that capitalism is more efficient than planned economics. And I agree with you the real issue is materialism, and also Nihilism. The blessed Orthodox monastic Fr. Seraphim Rose, in addition to writing a splendid and eerily prophetic work in the 1970s about certain religious trends called Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, wrote a detailed analysis of Nihilism and its contribution to materialist doctrines such as Communism, and also to Fascism and other dangerous doctrinal systems. We should therefore reject Nihilism and Materialism; Ayn Rand was as misguided as Karl Marx.

 

[Smeadly]

Well then apparently St. Paul was unqualified, since he was unmarried and celibate, as were most of the Apostles.

No matter how much word-smithing a person does to negate the plain text it cant be gotten around that the "husband of one wife" "Faithful children" are prerequisites for church leadership. Paul and the apostles were not Overseers (Episkomos) and ministers (deakonos) Were they not foundational reformers? Was not the church was built on them? But it is ran by the overseers and the deakonos are subject to them and the presbertary (

Meaning of “Elders”​

• Not an Office: Refers to older men or heads of households—those naturally bearing authority through family responsibility.
• All Fathers Are Elders: Anyone leading a family has elder status in Scripture; not limited to appointed leaders.)

after they were gone.

 

[The Liturgist]

No matter how much word-smithing a person does to negate the plain text it cant be gotten around that the "husband of one wife" "Faithful children" are prerequisites for church leadership.

The problem with that argument is that the CF Statement of Faith includes the Nicene Creed, and everyone agrees on the 27-book New Testament canon, and both of these were the result of celibate bishops (the 318 Holy Fathers at Nicaea, and St. Athanasius the Pope of Alexander, the title pope was historically only used in reference to the bishop of Alexandria until the Roman bishops started using it in the early 6th century, but even then, they did not claim papal supremacy, indeed Pope St. Gregory the Great opposed his colleague of Constantinople St. John the Faster using the title “Ecumenical Patriarch” because St. Gregory feared it implied universal jurisdiction which in his mind no bishop should claim).

 

[Smeadly]

The problem with that argument is that the CF Statement of Faith includes the Nicene Creed, and everyone agrees on the 27-book New Testament canon, and both of these were the result of celibate bishops (the 318 Holy Fathers at Nicaea, and St. Athanasius the Pope of Alexander, the title pope was historically only used in reference to the bishop of Alexandria until the Roman bishops started using it in the early 6th century, but even then, they did not claim papal supremacy, indeed Pope St. Gregory the Great opposed his colleague of Constantinople St. John the Faster using the title “Ecumenical Patriarch” because St. Gregory feared it implied universal jurisdiction which in his mind no bishop should claim).

The New Testament qualifications for bishops (overseers), as outlined in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, include being "the husband of one wife" and having "faithful children." However, by the time of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, the practice and expectations for bishops had evolved, especially in the Eastern Church.
At Nicaea, the council promulgated canons (church laws) addressing clergy conduct. Notably, Canon 3 specifically forbade clergy from having unrelated women living with them but did not require bishops to be married or to have children5. In fact, by the 4th century, many bishops were celibate, and some had even taken vows of chastity. The council also prohibited self-castration for clergy, indicating concern for ascetic extremes but not mandating marriage15.
Therefore, while the original biblical qualifications mention being the husband of one wife and having faithful children, the bishops at Nicaea were not required to be married or to have children, and many were likely celibate by that period5. The Council's canons reflect a shift toward clerical celibacy and do not enforce the marital and familial requirements found in the New Testament.

Don't misunderstand that creed is almost poetically perfect in its doctrine, but by this time the scripture took back seat to the animals running the churches. Certainly making a bishop out of a childless unmarried man is not Pauls doctrine.

 

[Paidiske]

No matter how much word-smithing a person does to negate the plain text it cant be gotten around that the "husband of one wife" "Faithful children" are prerequisites for church leadership.

Faithfulness in marriage, and responsible parenting of any children, are prerequisites. Or to put that another way, an unfaithful spouse or bad parent would be disqualified. But that does not exclude an unmarried person, or one who has no children.

Meaning of “Elders”​

• Not an Office: Refers to older men or heads of households—those naturally bearing authority through family responsibility.

Not true. Being an elder in the church is an office. That is why church elders are appointed; and why there can be qualifications. If all it took was to be an older man or a head of the household, it would not be possible to exclude adulterers, for example.

• All Fathers Are Elders: Anyone leading a family has elder status in Scripture; not limited to appointed leaders.)

Also not true. The responsibilities of church elders only apply to those whom the church authorises to that role.

 

[Smeadly]

church elders are heads of households in the church according to scripture.

one of the biggest lies of the enemy of the church is to teach that elders are not elders but "laymen" and the people that falsely want the title given to the heads of households are the elders meant.

As Paul told Titus, “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city to be bishops,” this was not to create a new class of men, but to recognize proven and otherwise qualified elders or heads of households to —elders who had already shown themselves capable in their homes to be ordained as bishops. This is especially true for those who labor in the word and doctrine, for such men are especially worthy of double honor. The use of “especially” suggests that not all worthy elders are ordained, but certainly those who are devoted to the word and the apostles' doctrine are the natural ones to be set apart for that work.

It is easy to see that a man's rule begins in his own household. If he leads his family well, that is its own honor—recognition is not required, for an honorable household is a reward in itself. But double honor comes when the church acknowledges his example, and the other bishops invite him to help oversee the church by ordaining him a bishop out of the pool of elders or heads of households. As Paul told Titus, “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city to be bishops,” this was not to create a new class of men, but to recognize proven ones—elders who had already shown themselves capable in their homes. This is especially true for those who labor in the word and doctrine, for such men are especially worthy of double honor. The use of “especially” suggests that not all worthy elders are ordained, but certainly those who are devoted to the word and the apostles' doctrine are the natural ones to be set apart for that work. The first honor is that honor given to them by their children that honor their father and mother. The second or double honor is the church recognizing their rule of their home and invititg them to oversee the church.

 

[The Liturgist]

Don't misunderstand that creed is almost poetically perfect in its doctrine, but by this time the scripture took back seat to the animals running the churches. Certainly making a bishop out of a childless unmarried man is not Pauls doctrine.

The problem with that argument is the scripture you are using to make it was compiled by St. Athanasius of Alexandria, a celibate man, and you ignore what St. Paul says about the value of celibacy, and you also ignore the unanimous historical interpretation of 1 Timothy - that the passage in question prohibited polygamists from being ordained. Had it not been for St. Athanasius, your Bible would either have more books, like the Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Alexandrinus, or have fewer books, like the Vetus Syra or the Peshitta.

By the way, if you are under the impression that the Western church had married bishops by the time of Nicaea; that is not the case - indeed, the two Roman legates at the council proposed a canon which would have made the Roman custom of having only celibate presbyters mandatory churchwide, but this was rejected by the Eastern bishops.

Lastly, there were no animals in the leadership of the early church. One could call some of the heretics who tried to corrupt it and were thwarted by the ecumenical synods at Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus wolves in sheep’s clothing, but only metaphorically, and only because our Lord did so.

 

[The Liturgist]

church elders are heads of households in the church according to scripture.

That’s simply incorrect. We can say that with some certainty since no Early Church Fathers, no Orthodox fathers, no Roman Catholic theologians, and none of the traditional Protestants such as Calvin, Cranmer, Luther or Wesley, or even any of the Restorationist leaders I can think of who had curious ideas about what constitutes an Elder (for example, the Churches of Christ, the more conservative part of the Stone/Campbell movement).

Your argument essentially rests on your own interpretation of 1 Timothy vs. that of everyone else, and this in turn represents the danger of the Nuda Scriptura concept, that is to say, this misinterpretation of Martin Luther’s Sola Scriptura idea to ignore the history or the opinion of the early church (which Anglicans refer to using the Anglican triad of Scripture interpreted using Tradition and Reason) and Wesleyans via the Wesleyan quadrilateral which adds “experience”).

Now, I myself am a member of a denomination which predates Sola Scriptura, and instead takes the approach of primacy or centrality of scripture, which avoids even inviting the kind of speculative exegesis we find behind, for instance, the more problematic Restorationist churches.

 

[Smeadly]

The problem with that argument is the scripture you are using to make it was compiled by St. Athanasius of Alexandria, a celibate man, and you ignore what St. Paul says about the value of celibacy, and you also ignore the unanimous historical interpretation of 1 Timothy - that the passage in question prohibited polygamists from being ordained. Had it not been for St. Athanasius, your Bible would either have more books, like the Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Alexandrinus, or have fewer books, like the Vetus Syra or the Peshitta.

By the way, if you are under the impression that the Western church had married bishops by the time of Nicaea; that is not the case - indeed, the two Roman legates at the council proposed a canon which would have made the Roman custom of having only celibate presbyters mandatory churchwide, but this was rejected by the Eastern bishops.

Lastly, there were no animals in the leadership of the early church. One could call some of the heretics who tried to corrupt it and were thwarted by the ecumenical synods at Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus wolves in sheep’s clothing, but only metaphorically, and only because our Lord did so.

So you think they had faithful children and not accused children in celibacy or it just does not mean that? Or does the bible you read not say that?

The whole demeanor of the bible is to turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers........a celibate has no place in the oversight of the local church how could he if he never had kids? perhaps a place for a celibate is in the ministry of evangelism or prayer but certainly not leading the rank and file of the "comunion of the saints"

 

[Smeadly]

the problem you are having is the word "Presbyters", the word means elders, as in obey your elders' a semantic shift has arisen to steal its meaning, and replace it with laymen and clergy, and thereby take control of the saints by deception. There is no laymen and there is no clergy in scripture' it was built as devise to hide the identity of elders so the animals (wolves in sheep clothing) running the "church" could deceive the people into submission and paying them.

 

[The Liturgist]

So you think they had faithful children and not accused children in celibacy or it just does not mean that? Or does the bible you read not say that?

Who are you talking about?

a celibate has no place in the oversight of the local church how could he if he never had kids? perhaps a place for a celibate is in the ministry of evangelism or prayer but certainly not leading the rank and file of the "comunion of the saints"

That’s your opinion, but it’s based on a peculiar exegesis of scripture that ignores the importance St. Paul placed upon celibacy, the fact that St. Paul was an unmarried celibate (as were most of the Apostles), and the fact that having children does not enable one to be an effective leader of a local church, nor does it disable one, which is why we have both celibate and married clergy, but not adulterous clergy and not sexually perverted clergy and not polygamous clergy (although the early church did receive polygamists and their families, but they were disqualified from ordination).

The problem is that you’re interpreting Scripture not based on what the early church thought it meant, but based on your own views of the importance of the nuclear family (the early church stressed the importance of both the nuclear family and the extended family, and also the importance of the Church.

There is no laymen and there is no clergy in scripture'

Not true; we see ordinations taking place in the Book of Acts of the seven deacons (deacons being a form of clergy), and you yourself are using Timothy as a source of qualifications for clergy.

Note that both @Paidiske and I are opposed to clericalism. That is to say, we reject the idea of clergy as superior to laity is opposed to the idea of clergy as the carefully vetted servants of the church. If we deny the church vetted servants, whether paid or volunteer, we instead create a situation that invites of abuse.

it was built as devise to hide the identity of elders so the animals (wolves in sheep clothing) running the "church" could deceive the people into submission and paying them.

The same people who you trust to provide your Creed and your Biblical canon are wolves in sheep’s clothing? This is obviously contradictory.