Supporting Preachers

Mutual edification churches don't believe in supporting preachers and teachers in the local churches, they believe all men who are able should teach. This removes the profession of teachers and the financial burden on churches, so there are fewer full time church workers and way more people who share teaching duties. This practice could violate several verses.  It also has negative side effects such as lowering quality and it keeps men from devoting themselves full time. Though mutual edification has some good points from human wisdom, it can have many drawbacks and may violate passages in different ways, passages like

James 3:1 - be not many teachers/masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation...

II Timothy 4:3  - They shall heap for themselves teachers, this doesn't say not to have teachers, but not to heap them up for nefarious purposes.

Hebrews 5:12 - by now ye ought to be teachers...Not all were mature enough to be complete teachers. They should work towards this goal; some perhaps need more dedication as fulltime workers. 

Acts 13:1-2 - the Holy Spirit sent two teachers, not a large number for that work. Too many teachers may interfere with each other's work and destroy continuity.

II Tim.2:6

"The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits"

"don't muzzle the Ox while he treads out the grain"

"sheep and goats" It is a salvation issue, those who support with shelter, food, water, pay for others to hear, these are the sheep. Matt 25:35 (food, Water, shelter, clothing, care)

It is a salvation issue. Supporting the least of these my brethren.

These verses show some principles given by God. They reveal that the number of teachers used can be excessive, this can be accomplished by letting too many local men teach publicly, or by training an extreme number to go out and persuade for one group, heaping up teachers to effect doctrinal positions. The point is that not all the church should be teachers, the church isn't designed that way. It is more beneficial to have a smaller number teaching in some works. Large numbers don't always facilitate the best outcomes. This can be true of local or traveling teachers.

The church in Rome was able to edify itself with teachers, not by letting most men teach. This is one of the books in question. The role of teacher is one of the offices/works mentioned in the Roman letter, ch12:7. It doesn't mean all churches were able to edify themselves like Rome, there were smaller less gifted churches that likely didn't edify themselves very well. Revelations actually shows churches digressing. The Roman letter wasn't meant to say every local congregation could edify itself equally just by following some set rules. Plus, local churches don't have spiritual gifts like prophecy anymore. The Roman church had high level teachers who knew the apostles and were in Christ before Paul. Paul's family including his mother was there. See Romans 16. It was as much the people as the process. 

We shouldn't equate the Roman church with a tiny church in Kansas or Missouri. They had spiritually gifted teachers that worked full time and were connected to apostles. Small churches that have no fulltime workers wouldn't fit the example. Even churches with elders but no fulltime workers wouldn't match the pattern.

One overlooked example of supporting preachers was John 4 and the woman at the well. Jesus supplied spiritual living water while the woman supplied physical water. Both were exchanging what they had in compassion and love. Supporting God's work even if in a physical way is spiritual. We don't have to be the teacher if we support the teaching. The way we characterize what we do is important, we are supporting the work and not necessarily the man. We support the work vs paying the man. It is a different way of looking at it. 

Phil 1:27  striving together for the faith of the Gospel

Some would categorize the woman as simply giving personally, but acts 2 and acts 5 show people giving to the church for distribution for needs. This was entrusted to the leaders to use as needed.

Mutual edification theory destroys trust so that less is given to the church, they don't trust leaders with it. Same with supporting workers, people must trust people. Consider this situation, look at how the other side created mistrust of me.

Phil. 1:21 makes the work the focus. We do not have to support all men who teach, but it would violate the Gospel pattern to support no local teachers. 

So even if we ourselves are not teaching formally, we can impact the success of teachers by giving or not. Preaching salvation by Christ was from love. Supporting preaching by giving water was an act of love toward those being reached. Compassion for a thirsty preacher was an act of love toward the person. The woman at the well gave water to Christ and used her time, energy, and influence to lead others to see Christ.

This made all three meet the guidelines of worshipping in spirit, according to Galations 5:22, the fruit of the spirit is love...Those who would freely give the gospel are sharing in love. Those supplying food and water freely are giving in love. Both acts can be given freely. See also Matthew 25 where giving water to a teacher might be required to go to heaven. Those who give a cup of cold water in support of the gospel are preferred by Christ over those who refuse. It can be a salvation issue.

Many think the word freely means you don't require payment, and that all payment is future in the spiritual realm, but that is not true, blessings from God come in both worlds. See I Corinthians 3:22 "all are yours" and Mark 10, "shall receive 100 fold in this life". We don't require payment to teach people, but where we go is based upon whether we can survive, so support may dictate where we go and how many we can reach. 

Mutual edification teaching violates many Christian principles and examples.

"No one goes to war at his own expense"

" no one entangles himself with the affairs of this life"

"striving for mastery"

"those who preach the Gospel should live from the Gospel"

"shall receive 100 fold"

"if they received spiritual things, that they give physical"

God doesn't care if preachers are enriched if they leave secular activities to minister and help others, he planned for them to be enriched. Christ does not require workers to bear the expense, though that is the theology of some. It isn't Christian.  Local churches can support local work by allowing local men to receive support. That is Christian. They can move someone in to help if needed.

Mutual Edification became satanic when they said you can't do what Christ wanted you to do. He wants you to give support so men can serve without worrying and suffering continuously. Of course there are times we refuse support. Yet, that shouldn't minimize our willingness to offer it.

I Cor. 9:12 - lest we hinder the Gospel of Christ...This gives the choice to the receiver of support, not creating a rule denying support from givers.

Notice Matthew 25 and giving water to the thirsty applies to church workers as well. If you see a naked preacher and refuse to clothe him because of a man-made dogma, don't expect eternal life. In general faith would require we support the work and love supports the man.

Many Christians believe people must police preachers minds and hearts, to make sure we don't preach for money, so they make rules to make it impossible, but Christ allowed the apostles to take money purses and let them police themselves and their motives, he promised openly they would receive 100 times more than they gave up, mutual edification destroys the promise. Christ allowed the Gospel to be carried in earthen vessels, trusting they would be spiritual. Men simply judge and make rules. 

Trusting spiritual men is better than making rules God didn't make. We lose more people long-term if we have half serving teachers than we get if we have fulltime teachers. Half serving teachers may not have the time to develop themselves to fend off wolves.

There are practical examples of support, in Acts 28 Paul was under house arrest, he stayed in his own rented house, either paid with support or from the govt. If from support he was given a place to stay and work while he couldn't travel. He taught from the house and people came to him. 

Karl Ketchersides teaching that we always go to them is silly really, the example of Paul clearly shows people coming to him vs Paul going to them. Ketcherside's argument was that we are commanded to "go into the world" vs establishing a set place for people to come to us. This wasn't a good argument in the light of Paul teaching from a school or from a rented house. It also violates the role of men like Timothy who were always sent to churches already in existence.

The Roman letter itself disproves Ketchersides theory, Romans 16 reveals the Gospel had reached to the Roman world. There was no where left to go really.

Romans 16:25-26

Made known to all nations

The Gospel was made known to all nations, the apostles were drug in front of rulers in provinces according to Matthew 10, this was accomplished.

Matt 10:18 -and ye shall be brought before Governors and Kings

Ketcherside's argument, since he was technically just a baptist in many respects, uses the same misguided argument that the great commission and Matthew 10 were not accomplished, baptist's spin this to say christ will come when it is accomplished in premillennialism, but it was accomplished when Paul was taken to Rome.

Since there is no government that hasn't heard, we have nowhere to go. We set up shop and teach from where we are. This is the pattern delivered to us. We can still go and establish local congregation, or do church plantings, but the Gospel was preached to all nations.

"go therefore and teach all nations"

The great commission includes all phases of church work, both going and teaching and then setting up locally to teach after introducing the Gospel in a region. The local church, teaching in public places, teaching in houses,  teaching from schools, all are in the pattern.

In practice, churches can support anyone they need to. It can be one or many, according to need and ability.

Also keep in mind that prophets introduced the songs of the Old Testament in David's reign. Prophets could teach history or song. This matches I Cor.14, where two or three prophets spoke. Not all speaking was sermon oriented.

I Cor.14:26

"How is it then brethren, when ye come together each of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation

Not all speakers in this context were giving a sermon. Some taught songs, some had revelations, if a tongue and interpreter you would require two speakers. There were five gifted works in the verse but only three max were to speak. Not all would be allowed in each service. So, the number of speakers today would not require two sermon speakers, unless in a foreign country where an interpreter is required. Having two or three speakers would not be used where a song is not being introduced or an interpreter is not being used, The two or three just accommodates any necessities, without forcing a set number.

We can still use two or three speakers where required, since revelation has ceased that can be replaced with past revelations recorded in scripture. Doctrine is still necessary. Songs are still taught. Tongues ceased. Interpretation may be necessary in mixed congregations.

Timothy was to give attendance to reading, exhortation, doctrine...The written word was already replacing the temporary system in Corinth. Timothy's work was shifting from tongues and revelation to reading and doctrine. He was to prepare the church to function in a post gifted world.

This did not require three speakers, it was to be accomplished by one speaker, Timothy. You could use three speakers for reading, exhortation, doctrine, but the pattern here was all three were vested into one speaker, Timothy.

The pattern shows one person completing all three. It doesn't violate scripture to have a single man doing all three. It isn't necessary to break it down into multiple speakers. It is allowed.