The Origin and History of the Modern Gospel Sermon

Frank Viola writes,

"The same person...giving an oration to the same group of people week after week, month after month, and year after year is not only un-biblical, it is counterproductive."1

"Is preaching and teaching the Word of God scriptural? Yes, absolutely. But the contemporary pulpit sermon is not the equivalent of the preaching and teaching that is found in the Scriptures...."2

For example, notice how the following translations of Acts 20:7 properly translate the biblical concept of "preaching" as a dialogue--not a monologue.

"On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them..." (ESV).

"Now on the first day of the week, the disciples being assembled to break bread, Paul was discussing with them..." (English Majority Text Version, EMTV).

Notice also from the larger contexts of Acts 8 and Acts 2 how "preaching" is conducted by more than one Christian and dialogue is also found to be the "preaching" style of Philip and Peter:

"But Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house, and dragging men and women committed them to prison. They therefore that were scattered abroad, went about preaching the word..." (Acts 8:3-4).

Note further from Acts 8 how one of the "they" (Philip) of the "men and women" who preached actually dialogued--or talked with--the people just like Paul did in Acts 20:7 above and did not preach "at" or "to" them as is done in a pulpit sermon.

"And Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and proclaimed to them the Christ..."

An angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." This is a desert place. And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go over and join this chariot.

So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this: "Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.

And the eunuch said to Philip, "About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?" Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?" And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he preached the gospel to all the towns until he came to Caesarea (Acts 8:5, 26-40).

Even the supposed "first gospel sermon given by a gospel preacher" in Acts 2 is a dialogue. Those who listened to Peter in Acts 2 dialogued, or "spoke" with him:

Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "What does this mean?" But others mocking said, "They are filled with new wine. But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words" (Acts 2:5-8).

Why, then, do we have the kind of preaching we have today--a monologue--and not dialogue like we find in the Bible? 

ORIGIN OF THE MODERN GOSPEL SERMON
(It is not Acts 2, 8, or 20:7)

Historian Will Durant said, "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it."

Frank Viola writes:

"Remove the sermon and you have eliminated the most important source of spiritual nourishment for countless numbers of believers, so it is thought. Yet the stunning reality is that today's sermon has no root in Scripture. Rather, it was borrowed from pagan culture, nursed and adopted into the Christian faith. That's a startling statement, is it not? But there is more...."

"Doubtlessly, someone reading the previous paragraph will retort: "People preached all throughout the Bible. Of course the sermon is scriptural!"

However,

"There is a world of difference between...the preaching and teaching described in the Bible and the contemporary sermon. This difference is virtually always overlooked because we have been unwittingly conditioned to read our modern-day practices back into the Scripture. So we mistakenly embrace today's pulpiteerism as being biblical.

Let's unfold that a bit.

The present-day Christian sermon has the following features:

It is a regular occurrence-delivered faithfully from the pulpit at least once a week.

It is delivered by the same person-most typically the pastor or an ordained guest speaker.

It is delivered to a passive audience-essentially it is a monologue.

It is a cultivated form of speech-possessing a specific structure. It typically contains an introduction, three to five points, and a conclusion."

"Contrast this with the kind of preaching mentioned in the Bible. In the Old Testament, men of God preached and taught. But their speaking did not map to the contemporary sermon. Here are the features of Old Testament preaching and teaching:

Active participation and interruptions by the audience were common.

Prophets and priests spoke extemporaneously and out of a present burden, rather than from a set script.

There is no indication that Old Testament prophets or priests gave regular speeches to God's people. Instead, the nature of Old Testament preaching was sporadic, fluid, and open for audience participation. Preaching in the ancient synagogue followed a similar pattern."

"Come now to the New Testament. The Lord Jesus did not preach a regular sermon to the same audience. His preaching and teaching took many different forms. And He delivered His messages to many different audiences. Of course, He concentrated most of His teaching on His disciples. Yet the messages He brought to them were consistently spontaneous and informal."

"Following the same pattern, the apostolic preaching recorded in Acts possessed the following features:

It was sporadic.

It was delivered on special occasions in order to deal with specific problems.

It was extemporaneous and without rhetorical structure.

It was most often dialogical meaning it included feedback and interruptions from the audience rather than, monological, a one-way discourse."

"In like manner, the New Testament letters show that the ministry of God's Word came from the entire church in their regular gatherings. From Romans 12:6-8, 15:14, 1 Corinthians 14:26, and Colossians 3:16, we see that it included teaching, exhortation, prophecy, singing, and admonishment. This 'every-member' functioning was also conversational (1 Corinthians 14:29) and marked by interruptions (1 Corinthians 14:30). Equally so, the exhortations of the local elders were normally impromptu" (bold emph. mine, sp).

"In short, the contemporary sermon delivered for Christian consumption is foreign to both Old and New Testaments. There is nothing in Scripture to indicate its existence in the early Christian gatherings."

WHERE DID THE CHRISTIAN SERMON COME FROM?

Viola continues:

"The earliest recorded Christian source for regular sermonizing is found during the late second century. Clement of Alexandria lamented the fact that sermons did so little to change Christians. Yet despite its recognized failure, the sermon became a standard practice among believers by the fourth century."

"This raises a thorny question. If the first-century Christians were not noted for their sermonizing, from whom did the postapostolic Christians pick it up? The answer is telling: The Christian sermon was borrowed from the pagan pool of Greek culture!"

"To find the headwaters of the sermon, we must go back to the fifth century BC and a group of wandering teachers called sophists. The sophists are credited for inventing rhetoric (the art of persuasive speaking). They recruited disciples and demanded payment for delivering their orations."

"The sophists were expert debaters. They were masters at using emotional appeals, physical appearance, and clever language to 'sell' their arguments. In time, the style, form, and oratorical skill of the sophists became more prized than their accuracy. This spawned a class of men who became masters of fine phrases, 'cultivating style for style's sake.' The truths they preached were abstract rather than truths that were practiced in their own lives. They were experts at imitating form rather than substance."

"The sophists identified themselves by the special clothing they wore. Some of them had a fixed residence where they gave regular sermons to the same audience. Others traveled to deliver their polished orations. They made a good deal of money when they did. Sometimes the Greek orator would enter his speaking forum "already robed in his pulpit-gown." He would then mount the steps to his professional chair to sit before he brought his sermon."

"To make his points, he would quote Homer's verses. Some orators studied Homer so well that they could repeat him by heart. So spellbinding was the sophist that he would often incite his audience to clap their hands during his discourse. If his speaking was very well received, some would call his sermon "inspired."

"The sophists were the most distinguished men of their time. Some even lived at public expense. Others had public statues erected in their honor. About a century later, the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) gave to rhetoric the three-point speech. "A whole," said Aristotle, "must have a beginning, a middle, and an end."" In time, Greek orators implemented Aristotle's three-point principle into their discourses."

"The Greeks were intoxicated with rhetoric. So the sophists fared well. When the Romans took over Greece, they too became obsessed with rhetoric. Consequently, Greco-Roman culture developed an insatiable appetite for hearing someone give an eloquent oration. This was so fashionable that a "sermonette" from a professional philosopher after dinner was a regular form of entertainment.''

This is Paul's context in 1 Corinthians 2:1--3:21:

And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power...Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness” and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” So then, no more boasting about human leaders! (1 Cor. 2:1-5; 3:18-21)

"The ancient Greeks and Romans viewed rhetoric as one of the greatest forms of art. Accordingly, the orators in the Roman Empire were lauded with the same glamorous status that Americans assign to movie stars and professional athletes. They were the shining stars of their day."

"Orators could bring a crowd to a frenzy simply by their powerful speaking skills. Teachers of rhetoric, the leading science of the era, were the pride of every major city. The orators they produced were given celebrity status. In short, the Greeks and Romans were addicted to the pagan sermon-just as many contemporary Christians are addicted to the 'Christian' sermon."

THE ARRIVAL OF A POLLUTED STREAM

Viola continues:

"How did the Greek sermon find its way into the Christian church? Around the third century a vacuum was created when mutual ministry faded from the body of Christ. At this time the last of the traveling Christian workers who spoke out of a prophetic burden and spontaneous conviction left the pages of church history. To fill their absence, the clergy began to emerge. Open meetings began to die out, and church gatherings became more and more liturgical. The "church meeting" was devolving into a "service."

"As a hierarchical structure began to take root, the idea of a "religious specialist" emerged. In the face of these changes, the functioning Christians had trouble fitting into this evolving ecclesiastical structure...By the fourth century, the church had become fully institutionalized."

"As this was happening, many pagan orators and philosophers were becoming Christians. As a result, pagan philosophical ideas unwittingly made their way into the Christian community. Many of these men became the theologians and leaders of the early Christian church. They are known as the "church fathers," and some of their writings are still with us."

"Thus the pagan notion of a trained professional speaker who delivers orations for a fee moved straight into the Christian bloodstream. Note that the concept of the "paid teaching specialist" came from Greece, not Judaism. It was the custom of Jewish rabbis to take up a trade so as to not charge a fee for their teaching" (all bold emphasis mine, sp).

"The upshot of the story is that these former pagan orators (now turned Christian) began to use their Greco-Roman oratorical skills for Christian purposes. They would sit in their official chair and expound the sacred text of Scripture, just as the sophist would supply an exegesis of the near-sacred text of Homer. If you compare a third-century pagan sermon with a sermon given by one of the church fathers, you will find both the structure and the phraseology to be quite similar."

"So a new style of communication was being birthed in the Christian church--a style that emphasized polished rhetoric, sophisticated grammar, flowery eloquence, and monologue. It was a style that was designed to entertain and show off the speaker's oratorical skills. It was Greco-Roman rhetoric. And only those who were trained in it were allowed to address the assembly!" Does any of this sound familiar?"

"One scholar put it this way: "The original proclamation of the Christian message was a two-way conversation...but when the oratorical schools of the Western world laid hold of the Christian message, they made Christian preaching something vastly different. Oratory tended to take the place of conversation. The greatness of the orator took the place of the astounding event of Jesus Christ. And the dialogue between speaker and listener faded into a monologue" (emph. mine, sp).

"In a word, the Greco-Roman sermon replaced prophesying, open sharing, and Spirit-inspired teaching. The sermon became the elitist privilege of church officials, particularly the bishops. Such people had to be educated in the schools of rhetoric to learn how to speak. Without this education, a Christian was not permitted to address God's people."

"As early as the third century, Christians called their sermons homilies, the same term Greek orators used for their discourses. Today, one can take a seminary course called homiletics to learn how to preach. Homiletics is considered a "science, applying rules of rhetoric, which go back to Greece and Rome."

"Put another way, neither homilies (sermons) nor homiletics (the art of sermonizing) have a Christian origin. They were stolen from the pagans. A polluted stream made its entrance into the Christian faith and muddied its waters. And that stream flows just as strongly today as it did in the fourth century."

CHRYSOSTOM AND AUGUSTINE

Viola continues:

"John Chrysostom was one of the greatest Christian orators of his day. (Chrysostorn means "golden-mouthed"). Never had Constantinople heard "sermons so powerful, brilliant, and frank" as those preached by Chrysostom. Chrysostom's preaching was so compelling that people would sometimes shove their way toward the front to hear him better."

"Naturally endowed with the orator's gift of gab, Chrysostom learned how to speak under the leading sophist of the fourth century, Libanius. Chrysostom's pulpit eloquence was unsurpassed. So powerful were his orations that his sermons would often get interrupted by congregational applause. Chrysostom once gave a sermon condemning the applause as unfitting in God's house. But the congregation loved the sermon so much that after he finished preaching, they applauded anyway. This story illustrates the untamable power of Greek rhetoric."

"We can credit both Chrysostom and Augustine (354-430), a former professor of rhetoric, for making pulpit oratory part and parcel of the Christian faith. In Chrysostom, the Greek sermon reached its zenith. The Greek sermon style indulged in rhetorical brilliance, the quoting of poems, and focused on impressing the audience. Chrysostom emphasized that "the preacher must toil long on his sermons in order to gain the power of eloquence."

"In Augustine, the Latin sermon reached its heights. The Latin sermon style was more down to earth than the Greek style. It focused on the "common man" and was directed to a simpler moral point. Zwingli took John Chrysostom as his model in preaching, while Luther took Augustine as his model. Both Latin and Greek styles included a verse-by-verse commentary form as well as a paraphrasing form. Even so, Chrysostom and Augustine stood in the lineage of the Greek sophists. They gave us polished Christian rhetoric. They gave us the "Christian" sermon: biblical in content, but Greek in style."

THE REFORMERS, THE PURITANS, AND THE GREAT AWAKENING

"During medieval times, the Eucharist dominated the Roman Catholic Mass, and preaching took a backseat. But with the coming of Martin Luther, the sermon was again given prominence in the worship service. Luther viewed the church as the gathering of those who listen to the Word of God being spoken to them. For this reason, he once called the church building a Mundhaus (mouth-house or speech-house)."

"Taking his cue from Luther, John Calvin argued that the preacher is the "mouth of God." (Ironically, both men vehemently railed against the idea that the pope was the vicar of Christ.)

[ NOTE: This is what is strange to me about churches of Christ. They don't realize their own hierarchical/oligarchical behaviors while they condemn Catholics for the same thing (Rom. 2:1). I have asked my Catholic friends about their view of the pope, and they say that he is a sinner like everyone else, but that he is the spokesman for the church like Peter was the spokesman for the apostles. Catholics maintain their unity around what the pope says. This is the same behavior in churches of Christ with the gospel preacher and/or elders. Often you hear, "The elders have allowed us to...." And obviously, the 'gospel preacher' is the spokesman for the congregation. Churches of Christ will not admit their own inherited Catholic/Protestant behaviors which they have modified based on their interpretation of certain Scriptures like Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5. The power structures of hierarchy and oligarchy are the problems hindering Christian growth--not whose organization is more righteous, sp ].

"It is not surprising that many of the Reformers had studied rhetoric and were deeply influenced by the Greco-Roman sermons of Augustine, Chrysostom, Origen, and Gregory the Great. Thus the flaws of the church fathers were duplicated by the Reformers and the Protestant subcultures that were created by them. This was especially true of the Puritans. In fact, the contemporary evangelical preaching tradition finds its most recent roots in the Puritan movement of the seventeenth century and the Great Awakening of the eighteenth century."

"The Puritans borrowed their preaching method from Calvin. What was that method? It was the systematic exposition of Scripture week after week. It was a method taken from the early church fathers that became popular during the Renaissance. Renaissance scholars would provide a sentence-by-sentence commentary on a writing from classical antiquity. Calvin was a master at this form. Before his conversion, he employed this style while writing a commentary on a work by the pagan author Seneca. When he was converted and turned to sermonizing, he applied the same analytical style to the Bible."

"Following the path of John Calvin, the Puritans centered all their church services around a systematic teaching of the Bible. As they sought to Protestantize England (purifying it from the flaws of Anglicanism), the Puritans centered all of their church services around highly structured, methodical, logical, verse-by-verse expositions of Scripture. They stressed that Protestantism was a religion of "the Book." Ironically, "the Book" knows nothing of this type of sermon."

"The Puritans also invented a form of preaching called "plain-style." This style was rooted in the memorization of sermon notes. Their dividing, subdividing, and analyzing of a biblical text raised the sermon to a fine science. This form is still used today by countless pastors. In addition, the Puritans gave us the one-hour sermon though some Puritan sermons lasted ninety minutes, the practice of congregants taking notes on the sermon, the tidy four-part sermon outline, and the pastor's use of crib notes while delivering his oration."

"Another influence, the Great Awakening, is responsible for the kind of preaching that was common in early Methodist churches and is still used in contemporary Pentecostal churches. Strong outbursts of emotion, which include screaming and running up and down the platform, are all carryovers from this tradition."

"Summing up the origin of the contemporary sermon, we can say the following: Christianity had taken Greco-Roman rhetoric and adapted it for its own purposes, baptized it, and wrapped it in swaddling clothes. The Greek homily made its way into the Christian church around the second century. It reached its height in the pulpit orators of the fourth century-namely Chrysostom and Augustine. The Christian sermon lost its prominence from the fifth century until the Reformation, when it became encased and enshrined as the central focus of the Protestant worship service. Yet for the last five centuries, most Christians have never questioned its origin or its effectiveness."

Speaking of the modern pulpit sermon, Frank Viola concludes:

"It cannot be found in the Judaism of the Old Testament, the ministry of Jesus, or the life of the primitive church. What is more, Paul told his Greek converts that he refused to be influenced by the communication patterns of his pagan contemporaries (1 Corinthians 1:17, 22; 2:1-5)...The sermon was conceived in the womb of Greek rhetoric. It was born into the Christian community when pagans-turned-Christians began to bring their oratorical styles of speaking into the church. By the third century, it became common for Christian leaders to deliver a sermon. By the fourth century it became the norm. Christianity has absorbed its surrounding culture."

"When your pastor [gospel preacher, sp] mounts his pulpit...to deliver his sacred sermon, he is unknowingly playing out the role of the ancient Greek orator. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the contemporary sermon does not have a shred of biblical merit to support its existence, it continues to be uncritically admired in the eyes of most present-day Christians. It has become so entrenched in the Christian mind that most...fail to see that they are affirming and perpetuating an unscriptural practice out of sheer tradition. The sermon has become permanently embedded in a complex organizational structure that is far removed from New Testament church life."3

HOW IS PULPIT SERMONIZING HARMFUL?

Viola continues:

"First, the sermon makes the preacher the virtuoso performer of the regular church gathering. As a result, congregational participation is hampered at best and precluded at worst. The sermon turns the church into a preaching station. The congregation degenerates into a group of muted spectators who watch a performance. There is no room for interrupting or questioning the preacher while he is delivering his discourse. The sermon freezes and imprisons the functioning of the body of Christ. It fosters a docile priesthood by allowing pulpiteers to dominate the church gathering week after week."

"Second, the sermon often stalemates spiritual growth. Because it is a one-way affair, it encourages passivity. The sermon prevents the church from functioning as intended. It suffocates mutual ministry. It smothers open participation. This causes the spiritual growth of God's people to take a nosedive. As Christians, we must function if we are to mature. We do not grow by passive listening week after week. In fact, one of the goals of New Testament-styled preaching and teaching is to get each of us to function (Ephesians 4:11-16). It is to encourage us to open our mouths in the church meeting (1 Corinthians 12-14). The conventional sermon hinders this very process."

"Third, the sermon preserves the unbiblical clergy mentality. It creates an excessive and pathological dependence on the clergy. The sermon makes the preacher the religious specialist-the only one having anything worthy to say. Everyone else is treated as a second-class Christian-a silent pew warmer. (While this is not usually voiced, it is the unspoken reality.) How can the pastor learn from the other members of the body of Christ when they are muted? How can the church learn fully from the pastor when its members cannot ask him questions during his oration? How can the brothers and sisters learn from one another if they are prevented from speaking in the meetings? The sermon makes "church" both distant and impersonal. It deprives the pastor of receiving spiritual sustenance from the church. And it deprives the church of receiving spiritual nourishment from one another. For these reasons, the sermon is one of the biggest roadblocks to a functioning priesthood."

"Fourth, rather than equipping the saints, the sermon de-skills them. It matters not how loudly ministers drone on about "equipping the saints for the work of the ministry," the truth is that the contemporary sermon preached every week has little power to equip God's people for spiritual service and functioning. Unfortunately, however, many of God's people are just as addicted to hearing sermons as many preachers are addicted to preaching them (emphasis mine, sp). By contrast, New Testament-styled preaching and teaching [as above in Acts 20:7; Acts 8:5, 26-40; cf. Acts 2, sp] equips the church and teaching equips the church so that it can function without the presence of a clergyman."

"Fifth, today's sermon is often impractical. Countless preachers speak as experts on that which they have never experienced. Whether it be abstract/theoretical, devotional/inspirational, demanding/compelling, or entertaining/amusing, the sermon fails to put the hearers into a direct, practical experience of what has been preached. Thus the typical sermon is a swimming lesson on dry land! It lacks any practical value. Much is preached, but little ever lands. Most of it is aimed at the frontal lobe. Contemporary pulpiteerism generally fails to get beyond disseminating information and on to equipping believers to experience and use that which they have heard. In this regard, the sermon mirrors its true father-Greco-Roman rhetoric. Greco-Roman rhetoric was bathed in abstraction."

"It involved forms designed to entertain and display genius rather than instruct or develop talents in others. The contemporary polished sermon can warm the heart, inspire the will, and stimulate the mind. But it rarely if ever shows the team how to leave the huddle. In all of these ways, the contemporary sermon fails to meet its billing at promoting the kind of spiritual growth it promises. In the end, it actually intensifies the impoverishment of the church. The sermon acts like a momentary stimulant. Its effects are often short-lived."

"Let's be honest. There are scores of Christians who have been sermonized for decades, and they are still babes in Christ. We Christians are not transformed simply by hearing sermons week after week. We are transformed by regular encounters with the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who minister, therefore, are called to preach Christ and not information about Him. They are also called to make their ministry intensely practical. They are called not only to reveal Christ by the spoken word, but to show their hearers how to experience, know, follow, and serve Him. The contemporary sermon too often lacks these all-important elements. If a preacher cannot bring his hearers into a living spiritual experience of that which he is ministering, the results of his message will be short-lived. Therefore, the church needs fewer pulpiteers and more spiritual facilitators."3

WHAT ABOUT "THEY THAT PREACH THE GOSPEL SHOULD LIVE OF THE GOSPEL?"

In 1 Corinthians 9:1-18, Paul writes:

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don’t we have the right to food and drink? Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?

Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?

But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.

Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast. For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel.

In 1 Cor. 9:1-18, Paul's integrity as an apostle is under attack—not his salary as a professional Christian. Regardless, some will read that into the text without considering what I am saying, but for those who are willing to acknowledge the context of the passage, Paul even states specifically in verse 15 that his motive is not about getting paid money. Paul is making arguments in the context of somehow personally differing from others who had these rights. Again, he is not debating the abstract issue of whether it's "right or wrong to pay a preacher."

In the (con)text, Paul is referring to himself who as an apostle (one sent temporarily) had the "right of support" (as others evidently did). He is also referring to his apostolic traveling companions like Timothy and Titus he deposed to Crete and Ephesus (Acts 20:2-5). He is not referring to anyone's right to an indefinite salary subtracted from a local treasury. Those, like Paul, who are traveling are naturally in need of "support" temporarily, and Paul is no different from others in this regard. Not seeing this context causes us to make the above passage into a proof text for any "principle." Remember, the "they" of Acts 3-4 is men and women, and the "preaching" done involved dialogue. It was not what we have today.

Also, Paul went to great pains to make sure that the collection for poor saints in Jerusalem ( 1 Cor. 16:1-4; cf. 2 Cor. 8-9; Romans 15:25-26) was delivered by locals, stating that he may not even go. This, too, is not what we do today. Today a church treasury (religious tax) is mandated on threat of unfaithfulness as a supposed ‘act of worship’ where the professional Christians typically get the largest percentage. Even if a group's building is paid for, and the church's "contribution" is extremely large, and "missions" require the largest percentage, this is still to propagate the institutional system throughout the world which begins with securing a professional Christian (gospel preacher) and a building.

One difference from what we do today that shows that Timothy and Titus were “apostolic workers” and not “gospel preachers” is that these men were “sent” to instruct others who were already doing the local teaching. Paul writes to Timothy:

As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies (1 Tim. 1:3-4).

Ask yourself when you read this text, "Who was doing the teaching in Ephesus?" Today, we pay a professional Christian to ‘repeat the signals’ of 19th and 20th century interpretations of a handful of men who are considered "great, sound brethren" (of course, these were all 'gospel preachers'). We try to avoid this biblical reality by the "elders allowing" others to teach in a divided assembly setting, or "Bible class." The New Testament speaks of assemblies of Christians, not divided Bible classes that are used in an attempt to skirt the truth.

Another glaring difference between Timothy and Titus and today’s gospel preacher in churches of Christ is that Timothy and Titus, as apostolic representatives of Paul, had delegated, apostolic authority to appoint elders in multiple cities. Paul wrote to Titus:

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you...(1:5).

Titus and Timothy were not 'gospel preachers' or individual 'pastors' as we understand them today--a delegated position of monologue speaker, professional Bible studier, and hospital visitor. (I do not mean this as an attack on anyone personally. And I think that if we stopped attaching personal identity to 'what we do' instead of 'who we are' this would not be so offensive in our culture.)

Some have tried to say that preachers should appoint elders, but this misses the point that Paul's traveling companions were temporarily deposed to instruct others who were doing the public teaching. They were not gospel preachers as we understand the term which is basically paid models of the 1950s 'Father Knows Best—Leave It To Beaver' family who all are supposed to imitate. Employees of the institutional business paid from a mandated church treasury on threat of unfaithfulness, etc. Timothy and Titus were not sent to take up residence and be the only ones allowed to interpret and speak in the public assembly. I am not saying that there is no place for teaching the word. I am contending with a sociological construct (office) that hinders the God-commanded growth of other Christians, and forbids our God-given right to speak in the assembly (1 Cor. 14:26-33).

Are we equating our modern 'salaried employee position of monologue speaker' with the position of a traveling apostle who has the right to demand support for himself and his traveling companions who were sent to instruct locals? Again, Paul did not say, "I expect compensation for my time, etc...." He was not working for a church as an employee. He said he had the "right" to support as an apostle sent by Christ Himself--and his context was that he was being separated out as not worthy of this support of which others evidently were (v.12). He was being personally separated and attacked.

Again, when I talk about 'gospel preachers,' I am talking about a sociological construct, or position—not anyone personally. Taking "they that preach the gospel" (v.18) out of its context and saying that it is speaking of our modern gospel preacher is not the context of Paul's argument. Doing so simply makes it a proof text for anything we want it to mean.

Finally, those who got their "living from the Temple" (vv. 13-14) were there temporarily (2 weeks) serving their "course" that David had instituted (like Zechariah, John the Baptist's father--Luke 1:8). For the rest of the year, they were to farm/shepherd their own land, not "make a living" off of everyone else, much less claim the "right" to demand it. They were also to appear when everyone else was to appear during the 3 festivals of Unleavened Bread, Weeks, and Tabernacles:

The priests and the Levites were divided into 24 courses within their assigned class. The length of each course was 7 days (1 Chr. 9:25). The week of service began and ended on the Sabbath (2 Chr. 23:8). In addition, all the priests served for 3 extra weeks during the year (Deu. 16:16). Each course of priests and Levites came on duty for a week, from one Sabbath to another. The Jewish calendar has only 51 weeks in a year. Each of the 24 courses therefore served twice a year, plus 3 weeks they all served, for a total of 5 weeks during the year.4

In modern terms, that’s 45 weeks of “no salary” or mandated “support.” Temporary traveling companions of Paul = temporary course/division sharing in the sacrifices (food) at the Temple. That was Paul's first century/Old Testament understanding in 1 Cor. 9:1-18--not what we do today. Are we saying that Paul is demanding "luxurious living" and "upward mobility" as a right? Are we saying that 'Gospel preachers' have a "right" to demand this kind of "living?" I don't think so. If someone wants to give them their money to live that way, it's "your money" (Acts 5:4), but I will not be intimidated by a system that has conditioned the masses with this mythological and ungodly clerical separation of some Christians from others. I will not be intimidated by the false doctrine of, "This is an act of worship (putting money into a dish) and if you don't do it, then you're unfaithful"--and then some Christians take a large percentage and then tell other Christians we are to be doing what they do for no money!

The "collection" of 1 Cor. 16:1-4 was private collections in the homes of the Christians, not a church treasury to be controlled by an oligarchy of elders who paid some Christians for the work all Christians are commanded to do. The elders of the Bible distributed the collections to the poor. It was not a spiritual tax on the people of God that created an elite class of Christians. Our position of 'gospel preacher' is a semantic term for the Protestant Pastor, like "gospel meeting" is our semantic term for the Protestant 'revival,' and our 'prayer for babies' is the denominational concept of dedicating babies, etc. This is why people want the preacher to pray for them in hospitals and other occasions, and why the church has the preacher do the prayer for the babies, etc.

We need to start looking beyond the words we use and see the real, historical meaning behind what we are doing and why we do it, not live in denial and condemn everybody who disagrees with us. We fool ourselves with these proof text semantics, and it seems that we are the only ones unable to see it.

Rather than continue to fool ourselves by only listening to ourselves, let us be wise like Paul who said:

“We do not dare to classify or compare ourselves with some who commend themselves. When they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are not wise” (2 Cor. 10:12).

_______________________________

1 Frank Viola;George Barna. Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices. Kindle Edition.

2 Ibid. 

3 Ibid.
 
4"The Service of the Priests and the Levites" from http://www3.telus.net/public/kstam/en/temple/details/priest_service.htm

All bold emphasis mine, sp.