What was the nature of money collection and distribution in the early church, outside of what we can glean from the New Testament? Do extra-biblical sources suggest that congregations paid living expenses for their local leaders, and if they did do we have any idea of how they set up their "salary model"? Please direct me to where I can find the answer from the apostolic or post-apostolic church. -- Karl Wick

Although you can find the answer to your question by skimming the index to the Ante-Nicene Fathers (writings from around 96 to 325 AD), I'm not sure you will find what you are looking for. Conditions and times have changed so much since the 100s-300s; you'll surely find nothing about medical insurance, retirement funds, overtime or salary models! And even if you did, the sources would have no authority for our times. Only the Bible has authority.

I would focus rather on the apostolic church. Most of the post-apostolic writings you would be interested in come from at least a century after Jesus, well into the church's process of drifting away. Even in the New Testament, there was no salary model, though Jesus commanded that those who preach should be financially supported. Local churches apparently had liberty to implement this as they saw fit. Paul used his right of support as often as he wanted to. Only the doctrines of the apostolic church have authority, and what is to be found can only be found in the book of Acts and the New Testament documents following.

One principle that may help you and your friends in the ongoing discussions is the scripture, "The worker is worth his wages." What makes a worker worth paying? What is the congregation getting in return for their financial support of a minister? Six factors to consider:

* Socioeconomic conditions in the area of his actual ministry. Each nation will exhibit different conditions, and each city (and even sections of cities) will vary significantly in cost of housing, transport, and so forth. It would be grossly unfair, for example, to pay a Third World wage to someone asked to live in the First World.
* The minister's experience. Is he prepared for what he is being asked to do? Experience counts. In the working world, experience is rewarded --because it saves time and money for "the company" -- with a higher salary. * The minister's education. Has he graduated from university? In most of the world, a university degree is a plus. Two or more degrees would normally command an even higher salary.
* The minister's theological training. Is he equipped to read theology? Is he well conversant with such areas as church history, interpretation, biblical history, and ethics? How many years has he studied the biblical languages? Though many church groups play down education -- and their reasons for doing so can well be appreciated -- to be knowledgeable is to be better equipped to preach the word.
* Certain intangible elements of character and personality, such as emotional stamina (always in high demand), trustworthiness, social skills, ability to inspire confidence in God and his Word, and lack of egotism. Will this person care about the lost, the sick, and the weak? Is he likely to be the good shepherd of Ezekiel 34 and John 10, or the mercenary?

* The economic make-up of the congregation he serves. It would be odd indeed if the preacher made more than anyone else in the congregation. On the other hand, I also think something is wrong if he is the poorest paid member of the church. He mustn't lead for the money; consider Peter's words to paid elders in 1 Peter 5. But then those words would not have been needed if the position paid little or nothing, or he could have done a lot better working "in the world"!

No congregation is obligated to pay a minister more than it is willing to. On the other hand, no minister is obliged to accept a salary lower than he is willing to receive. Working together, church and paid leadership can arrive at a happy medium. We all have choices.

This article is copyrighted and is for private use and study only.