Does a healthy man's consistent use of welfare dollars violate I Timothy 5:8 or fulfill it?
Forum category
I am aware of a situation that a ministry leadership group is trying to work through, and this question is at the crux of the decision making process. If a man (I’ll even be more specific—someone in a full-time itinerate ministry, no health issues that keep him from working) regularly uses welfare because his “ministry” is not providing for his family, is he in violation of the warning in I Timothy 5:8? If so, what should be his church family’s response? Is this a Matthew 18 situation? Is everyone who could work, but instead takes welfare, in violation of this principle in I Timothy 5:8? Thank you in advance for your help.
I think you have to start by analyzing 1 Timothy 5 and trying to determine who Paul is referring to in the passage. It would seem, from just reading the one verse, that it is anyone who does not provide for his family.
But I think that there are some contextual implications in the passage. The text is referring to caring for widows. Go back to vs. 4 and consider the instruction that Paul gives to Timothy. He is to determine who really is a widow in need of help. In other words, there were some women who had lost their husbands but were not fit to receive any financial help from the church. In vs. 5-6 he differentiates between widows who are godly and those who are not. The godless widows should not be helped. The other principle that determines fitness for help is in vs. 4. He says that instead of the church caring for these widows, their own families should be taking on the responsibility. I think probably this is the best understanding of the fifth command to honor fathers and mothers. Then with that in mind Paul adds in vs. 8 that those children and grandchildren who refuse to provide for these widows who are their responsibility are behaving in direct opposition to their faith and, in reality, are behaving worse then unbelievers behave.
Now going back to your situation, it seems that 1 Timothy 5 isn’t really dealing with this scenario at all. The man whose ministry is not thriving (and therefore feels compelled to take government welfare) does not really fit the argument that Paul is making in 1 Timothy 5. (1) He’s not guilty in anyone’s mind, it seems, of failing to provide for a widow who should be in his care. Rather, it seems that the argument against him is that he’s not providing for his wife and children. (2) The situation doesn’t seem to be that the church is having to care for his family. In 1 Timothy 5 the church was facing the burden of caring for these widows when the children/grandchildren wouldn’t do it. (3) 1 Timothy 5 doesn’t really take into account government welfare at all.
Now think this through. What would you do with a Christian school teacher who works 60 + hours a week but is also taking some government aid. Is he wrong to do that? If 1 Timothy 5 applies to this other man, does it apply to him?
The only text I could see applying here may be 2 Thessalonians 3. The question isn’t, “is he making enough money” but “is he working hard to provide for his family?” If he’s not working really, and using “ministry” as a cover for it, then maybe the church leaders should approach him about his work ethic. However, IMHO, I don’t think 1 Tim. 5 is the text that supports that confrontation.
Matt
One last thought…has the church helped this man? Have church members really sacrificed to help him through this difficult time?
But I think that there are some contextual implications in the passage. The text is referring to caring for widows. Go back to vs. 4 and consider the instruction that Paul gives to Timothy. He is to determine who really is a widow in need of help. In other words, there were some women who had lost their husbands but were not fit to receive any financial help from the church. In vs. 5-6 he differentiates between widows who are godly and those who are not. The godless widows should not be helped. The other principle that determines fitness for help is in vs. 4. He says that instead of the church caring for these widows, their own families should be taking on the responsibility. I think probably this is the best understanding of the fifth command to honor fathers and mothers. Then with that in mind Paul adds in vs. 8 that those children and grandchildren who refuse to provide for these widows who are their responsibility are behaving in direct opposition to their faith and, in reality, are behaving worse then unbelievers behave.
Now going back to your situation, it seems that 1 Timothy 5 isn’t really dealing with this scenario at all. The man whose ministry is not thriving (and therefore feels compelled to take government welfare) does not really fit the argument that Paul is making in 1 Timothy 5. (1) He’s not guilty in anyone’s mind, it seems, of failing to provide for a widow who should be in his care. Rather, it seems that the argument against him is that he’s not providing for his wife and children. (2) The situation doesn’t seem to be that the church is having to care for his family. In 1 Timothy 5 the church was facing the burden of caring for these widows when the children/grandchildren wouldn’t do it. (3) 1 Timothy 5 doesn’t really take into account government welfare at all.
Now think this through. What would you do with a Christian school teacher who works 60 + hours a week but is also taking some government aid. Is he wrong to do that? If 1 Timothy 5 applies to this other man, does it apply to him?
The only text I could see applying here may be 2 Thessalonians 3. The question isn’t, “is he making enough money” but “is he working hard to provide for his family?” If he’s not working really, and using “ministry” as a cover for it, then maybe the church leaders should approach him about his work ethic. However, IMHO, I don’t think 1 Tim. 5 is the text that supports that confrontation.
Matt
One last thought…has the church helped this man? Have church members really sacrificed to help him through this difficult time?
What do you mean by ‘full time itinerant ministry’? How long has he been on welfare? Has he tried looking for other work?
We must be careful to judge. After all, any Pastor that receives a salary from the Church, is actually receiving a type of financial assistance/contribution. So does it really matter whether one receives it from the Church or from the State?
And if a member of the church, who is a single parent, receives welfare, does the church condemn it also? There cannot be any partiality. If you say it is bad for this one man to receive welfare, then you must say that about any person in the congregation who receives it.
The only reason how this could be bad, is if he was a lay minister, who wasn’t fully active in the church.
We must be careful to judge. After all, any Pastor that receives a salary from the Church, is actually receiving a type of financial assistance/contribution. So does it really matter whether one receives it from the Church or from the State?
And if a member of the church, who is a single parent, receives welfare, does the church condemn it also? There cannot be any partiality. If you say it is bad for this one man to receive welfare, then you must say that about any person in the congregation who receives it.
The only reason how this could be bad, is if he was a lay minister, who wasn’t fully active in the church.
[christian cerna] We must be careful to judge. After all, any Pastor that receives a salary from the Church, is actually receiving a type of financial assistance/contribution. So does it really matter whether one receives it from the Church or from the State?Bold Added
Huh? You state he’s receiving a salary. This is an earned income, not financial assistance, just like the paycheck you presumably receive - remuneration for services rendered.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik]True. I stand corrected. But the my first point still stands. If the Church condemns one man’s use of welfare, it must also condemn any member’s use of welfare. There cannot be partiality. I am sure both would claim to be using welfare to help feed their families.[christian cerna] We must be careful to judge. After all, any Pastor that receives a salary from the Church, is actually receiving a type of financial assistance/contribution. So does it really matter whether one receives it from the Church or from the State?Bold Added
Huh? You state he’s receiving a salary. This is an earned income, not financial assistance, just like the paycheck you presumably receive - remuneration for services rendered.
Maybe the best thing to do would be to either, move that minister from a full-time position to a part-time position, so that he can look for other means to supplement his income; or if he is doing a good job and is necessary for the work of the Church, to request that a raise be given to him, so that he doesn’t need to depend on Welfare.
Either way, it is a tricky situation, since it requires getting into someone personal affairs. And where does it stop? What about free health care? Free school lunches? Tax credits for low income families? Free meals at the Salvation Army?
Discussion