This is an article that I wrote for publication, but it wasn't accepted. I'm not posting things that have been published because that would make it too easy to identify me. This should give you more of an idea of my position on these kinds of things - working in "closed countries." Although it is specifically about "tentmaking" some aspects of it might apply outside of that narrow issue.
***
Written 1995
DEFINING BIBLICAL TENTMAKING:
POTENTIALS, LIMITATIONS AND MODERN APPLICATIONS
ABSTRACT
The term tentmaking, as taken from the Apostle Paul's and
Priscilla's and Aquila's
experience of partially or fully supporting themselves in
ministry, has come to be identified
with several modern applications. This paper attempts to draw out the basic
biblical
concept of this term, describe the common current
applications, analyze these in light of
Scripture, and discuss briefly some key concerns of the
practice of tentmaking. Special
attention is given to the use of the term tentmaking in
reference to work in limited access
countries.
INTRODUCTION
In Apostolic
times it was expected that church authorities in certain key positions
should receive full church support. Despite this expectation, however, we have at
least
three examples in the New Testament of people who either
partially or fully supported
themselves in a profession while also carrying out a
significant ministry.
In recent years
the concept of tentmaking has gained attention in the church,
especially in the area of missions. The growing institutionalization of the
church in the
Middle Ages seemed to do all but away with the concept
represented by the more recently
coined term "tentmaking". But as the church has become somewhat less
institutionalized
and centralized in some of its forms and the priesthood of
the individual believer is
rediscovered, we find lay people and church leaders alike
supporting themselves more in
ministry. These
people are eager to reach the lost or serve the church and are willing to
sacrifice full church support in order to do their part in
ministry.
THREE TENTMAKING SCENARIOS
Let's start with
our current frame of reference as to what is today considered
"tentmaking."
Then we will backtrack to Scripture to see how these modern conceptions
of this term line up with Scripture. I have identified three broad scenarios,
which are
today thought of in terms of tentmaking.
1. Many times home
ministries, such as church planting, start out with those in
ministry supporting themselves financially while the
ministry gets off the ground. Often
such Christian workers eventually become fully supported by
their ministry, but not always
either. The main
reason for secular employment of such church workers is that they want
to establish their ministry but have no other source of
income, and so are willing to earn
their own living through secular employment while carrying
on their ministry (cf. Larson
and Galli 1992, Baer 1991).
2. In recent
centuries, as Wilson, Jr. (1979) brings out in chapter 4 of his book, it
has become more common for missionaries to go abroad in a
self-supporting capacity.
There are many reasons for doing this, such as lack of other
means of support or as a
means of entry into the target culture. Along the same lines, D. A. Moody (1995),
uses
Aquila and Priscilla as examples of mobile church
members. Today it is common to have
church members spread out even around the world and bring
the gospel intentionally with
them everywhere they go.
In such cases, the primary focus may be either Christians
traveling where the work is or working professionally to
compensate for (partial or full)
lack of other means of support. The differences between the two foci is whether
the lure
abroad is primarily employment or ministry and the reasons
for being gainfully employed.
3. In recent decades
a new trend has developed whereby missionaries try to get
into limited access countries by means of a profession. The emphasis in such cases is
generally not on whether or not they have other financial
support available, nor the unique
contact with the target people that secular work might
bring, nor whether they are eligible
for such support, but rather on finding a way into the country.
I contend that the first two of these applications of
tentmaking are closer to the
biblical norm and example than is the third. The rest of this paper will develop this
thesis.
PAUL, PRISCILLA AND AQUILA
The classic
Scriptural example of tentmaking is Paul.
It was he along with Priscilla
and Aquila who were employed in this trade while also
ministering, and it is from these
biblical characters that the term tentmaking is drawn. Therefore, it would be of benefit to
consider tentmaking as it is employed and discussed by and
used in reference to these
people in Scripture.
The Expositor's
Bible Commentary (1981) tells us that "Jewish law directed that
young theological students be taught a trade" (vol. 9:
480-481) and that "[p]art of a
Jewish child's upbringing was learning a trade" (vol.
11: 254). Paul was trained in both a
profession as well as theologically. We don't have evidence that Priscilla and
Aquila had
such theological training, but they were undoubtedly bona
fide professionals in their field
of tentmaking as was Paul.
So it would seem that if we are to use the biblical example of
tentmaking, we must assume that the profession we choose to
use to support ourselves is
one that we are appropriately qualified for and skilled
in. Our biblical examples didn't put
on a front with their professional work, but were employed
in what they truly had training
and skill in.
Also, Henry
(1925: vol. 6: 233), states that "though we may suppose he was
master of his trade, yet he did not disdain to work at
journey-work... so that he got no
more than day-wages, a bare subsistence. Poor tradesmen must be thankful if their
callings bring them in a maintenance for themselves and
their families, though they cannot
do as the rich merchants that raise estates by their
callings" (cf. Acts 18:2-3). It seems,
then, that Paul did not work to get rich, but just enough to
support himself, although this
employment income was also supplemented by occasional
gifts. Aquila and Priscilla, on
the other hand, had a home large enough to house church
meetings (I Corinthians 16:19,
Romans 16:3, 5), so they must have been better off, and
probably did not work for just
day-wages, as did Paul.
So there is a
difference in the calling of Paul and that of Aquila and Priscilla: Paul
had professional theological training under Gamaliel, just
worked enough to support
himself but received gifts from believers, and carried on
the work (ministry) of an apostle.
Aquila and Priscilla did not have professional theological
training, apparently earned a
more substantial living, and were involved instead in
hospitality and ministry in their home,
perhaps church planting.
Judging from these examples, then, there seems to be somewhat
of a range of possibilities of callings and applications of
tentmaking ministry.
We can really
only speculate on the reason Aquila and Priscilla supported
themselves in their ministry. But they were probably not in a ministry
position to be
entitled to receive church support, perhaps because of the
type of ministry they were
involved in or their calling. This couple would undoubtedly fit our modern
day appellation
of "lay ministers." In addition, it seems like their calling to
move around with their work
may have been due especially to their desire to minister,
since ministry was such a
significant part of their lives.
Paul, on the
other hand, described his reasoning for working to support himself in
some depth. In Acts
20:33-35 and I Thessalonians 2:9 Paul stated that he labored with his
hands in order to not be a hindrance to the gospel. He didn't want others to think that he
was just in the ministry for the money and he also did not
want to be burdensome to his
charges. In this way
he used his employment as an example of his love for the people he
ministered to.
However, Paul
also acknowledged that he was deserving of receiving financial
support from those he ministered to (I Corinthians 9) and he
did not preclude this
possibility. As it
turns out, the Corinthians had looked down on him for being gainfully
employed, which caused Paul to have to point out that he
only did this for their benefit, in
contrast to others who were receiving full support from
churches (II Corinthians 11).
In light of
Paul's and Aquila's and Priscilla's examples, we can try to formulate
some general principles for why people support themselves in
ministry: In the case of
those whose ministries do not qualify them to receive
financial support for their ministry,
there is really no other option; they have to work. In the case of those who are qualified
to receive such support, they may opt not to so as not to be
a stumbling block to the
furtherance of the gospel, either by being a burden to
others or by giving cause for
possible accusations of taking financial advantage of
others.
Going back to the
three modern applications of tentmaking in ministry, we see that
the first commonly accepted application of ministers on the
home field fits the example of
Paul in that the modern Christian worker in home ministries
tries to avoid being a burden
to their charges.
The second
scenario where Christians take overseas jobs may fit either Paul's or
Priscilla's and Aquila's example from scripture. If the tentmaker is not a professional
minister by training like Aquila and Priscilla, then she or
he really may have no choice but
to be self-supporting, even though in modern missions, such
people are often supported by
churches anyway, such as with church secretaries or
janitors. Or it may be, as with Paul,
that there is not sufficient church support for a
professional minister to carry on his or her
ministry without being a burden to his or her charges, thus
requiring secular employment.
In either case,
ministry is a significant focus for the tentmaker.
However, the third modern application of the term
tentmaking, seems to be
brought into question, when these biblical examples are
viewed alone. In using
tentmaking to get into limited access countries, the purpose
of being self-supporting is
much different than for the other two examples of modern
tentmaking. In this scenario,
the goal is more how to get into a difficult area, rather than
whether church funds are
available or whether or not working will be a stumbling
block to those being ministered to
or whether one is qualified or not to receive church
funding. I don't believe there is
Scriptural precedence for using tentmaking in this way.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES THAT HELP US DEFINE TENTMAKING
PROFESSIONALISM IN THE WORKPLACE - Before we move on in
discussing
some other issues regarding tentmaking specifically in
limited access countries, I'd like to
make an aside here related to the general definition of
tentmaking. First of all, I'd like to
elaborate on what was already briefly noted, that Paul,
Aquila and Priscilla were all skilled
artisans at their trade .
It seems that today, there is a tendency to use some fields of work
for the sake of tentmaking without being qualified or
trained. When Paul came to Corinth
he found people, Aquila and Priscilla, of his same trade
(Acts 18:2-3). It is doubtful that
they would have invited him to work alongside of them if he
wasn't a professional in his
field and already had skill in it. In addition, working in a field he really
wasn't skilled in
would probably have adversely affected his testimony and
ability to make a livelihood.
Medical
missionaries and missionary linguists around the world are often renowned in
their fields for the quality of their work. However, such fields as teaching English
frequently vary significantly in the quality of missionary
workers overseas. The testimony
of such tentmakers to professionals in the field of
employment may be compromised. To
maintain personal integrity and witness, tentmaking should
involve a legitimate area of
expertise and skill.
The principle of being all things to all people (I Corinthians 9:22) may
apply here. We need
to be all things to our colleagues and clients and we don't want to be
a stumbling block by the quality of our self-supporting
work, any more than we want to be
that by our taking money for our support from those for whom
it would be a stumbling
block or a burden..
When missionaries
take on jobs just to have contact with the nationals, this also
introduces a reason for work that is not necessarily
intended by the term tentmaking, just
as does using employment for the purpose of getting into a
limited access country by any
means possible. We
need to do all to the glory of God, which includes our secular labors,
but we also need to think through why we want to work. If we follow a different form of
reasoning than that presented in Scripture, it might be
worth re-thinking whether we have
the right to call what we're doing
"tentmaking."
PROFESSIONAL VS. LAY
CHURCH WORKERS - In the missions literature on
topics such as tentmaking, there is some discussion as to
what is a professional church
worker and what is lay ministry (e.g., Kane 1986: 384-399,
Neill, Anderson and Goodwin
1971: 339). The lines
often become blurred and the distinctions sometimes trifling.
However, it seems that there are a few basic issues involved
in this question, such as
ministry calling, ministry preparation, and source of
income.
Using the example
of Paul, we see that he by his own admission was deserving of
receiving full church support, but he chose to forego that
privilege for the sake of those he
was ministering to.
His calling was as an apostle and his training was under Gamaliel and
also by God Himself, as in his 3 year desert
experience. If we use the definition of
a
professional church worker as one who is fully supported by
church monies, we exclude
people like the apostle Paul. This is similar to the issue Paul addressed
with the
Corinthians (I Corinthians 9; II Corinthians 11), where he
discusses whether he was any
less of an apostle because he was employed, and seems to
thus be in error.
If we use the
defining factor of training for ministry, we also may unnecessarily
exclude some.
Certainly Christ's disciples and later the apostles and others such as
Timothy, many of whom were relatively uneducated, were
eventually considered
"professional" in ministry, if we can apply that
modern term to them. Undoubtedly a
training and internship program such as the disciples had
with Christ, served as a suitable
substitute to more formal forms of education.
Calling is
certainly the most crucial factor in considering whether a church worker
is professional or not.
However, a person must fit the biblical standard for various
callings, as well. And although we are all called to
different positions within the Church,
some positions would be more likely to be identified as
"professional" than would others.
For the purpose of this paper, then, we will refer primarily
to this issue in identifying those
deserving of church financial support.
Tentmakers may be
either lay workers who are not entitled to receive church
support or "professionals" who have opted to
forego at least some of the church support
they deserve for the sake of the ministry. But in either case they are skilled in their
secular
wage-earning profession.
So whereas their ministry qualifications may vary, their
employment skills less so.
SACRED-SECULAR DICHOTOMY
- Generally those we most often think of today
as being tentmakers are either missionaries going overseas
but being at least partially
self-supporting, or else those who are self-supporting
professional church workers in
home ministries, such as church planting. However, it appears that the biblical example
would also include lay people who are mobile and use their
gifts for ministry wherever
they go, as in the case of Priscilla and Aquila. With the advent of professional clergy, has
come a kind of sacred-secular dichotomy in our thinking
regarding vocation (Roemmele
1993). Tentmaking
blurs the distinctions between these two; for in fact, all Christians are
called to use their gifts for ministry and whether or not
they receive monetary
remuneration for this should perhaps not be a significant
dividing factor between what we
consider sacred (ministry) and secular (employment). The issues are rather how we use
our gifts and maintaining a Christian witness in all that we
do, as with our roving lay
ministers, Priscilla and Aquila.
All Christians
are endowed with gifts for ministry and distinctions that may exist
between different gifts, seem to all but disappear when they
are properly used in the Body.
I Corinthians 12 tells us that those with the more noble gifts
should give honor to those
with less honorable gifts.
The more noble gifts (e.g., teaching, preaching, evangelism) are
those which we most often consider for paid
"professional" ministry positions.
When we
separate the sacred and secular we generally place the
sacred (e.g., ministry) on a higher
plane, forget that our whole life is to be permeated by the
sacred and that those with
seemingly more noble gifts (e.g., professional ministers)
should really be servants to those
with less noble gifts (e.g., lay workers in the church) and
bestow greater honor on them,
which thereby in essence minimizes the differences between
those we might think of as
"professional" church workers and the
"laity". Therefore, where the
"professional"/lay
issue may be of interest in whether or not to give church
support to a church worker,
Christians using lesser gifts should still be considered as
co-laborers in the Lord. Paul
speaks of such people in his letters as well (e.g., Romans
16:3, 6, 9, 12).
Furthermore, we
see in Scripture just how much the sacred aspects of life should
permeate the secular when we think of the Old Testament
injunction (e.g. Deuteronomy 6)
to speak of Scripture constantly in our families. Also, our business dealings should be
carried out with integrity and with concern for our neighbor
(e.g. Proverbs 13:11; 19:1;
20:10). The sacred is
not just something we do on Sunday or in our time alone with God.
The point, therefore, is not so much where we receive our
income, but the manner
in which we use our gifts and how we relate to others,
whether hierarchically or as equals.
The Holy Spirit has given each of us gifts for the building
up of the Church. We see then
that we are really all tentmakers in a sense if we are
Christians using our gifts for the work
of the ministry and earn at least some of our own support
through employment. And even
those who are worthy of receiving church support may forego
this right for the sake of the
gospel and others in the church and thus join the laity in
intentional tentmaking.
In identifying what is and isn't tentmaking, we should be
careful, then, not to
disregard those who might not have the gifts most likely to
be considered for "professional"
ministry, and we should also keep in mind that our work in
ministry and in a profession are
not really as clearly demarcated as we might think.
SCENARIO THREE:
LIMITED ACCESS COUNTRIES
ISSUES AND TROUBLE
SPOTS - Going back again to our three modern day
applications of tentmaking, we find that our third scenario
of the tentmaking paradigm,
that is, in limited access countries, is somewhat
problematic in comparison with the
scriptural examples.
There are also still other issues that haven't been touched on that
raise questions of the viability of this application of the term, besides those already taken
from the examples of Paul and Priscilla and Aquila. Some of these additional issues refer
primarily to the context of work in limited access countries,
rather than necessarily
uniquely to the biblical concept of tentmaking.
1. It has already
been mentioned that the purpose of work in relation to ministry in
these contexts does not fit the biblical examples regarding
purpose for employment.
Tentmaking in closed countries tends to use secular
employment as a front for church
work, rather than simply as a means of financial support or
avoidance of causing others to
stumble.
2. In this form of
"tentmaking" there is also usually a significant amount of
secrecy. In the New
Testament, Christ and later also the apostles were all open about
what they were there for.
Everyone knew who they were and why they were there. In
John 18:20 (New King James) Jesus says, "I spoke openly
to the world. I always taught in
synagogues, and in the temple, where the Jews always meet;
and in secret I have said
nothing." And
while instructing His followers, Jesus said in Luke 11:33 (New King
James), "No one, when he has lit a lamp, puts it in a
secret place or under a basket, but on
a lampstand, that those who come in may see the
light." With secrecy, which so
pervades
ministry in limited access countries, we attempt to hide
something.
3. Related to the
secrecy issue is that of deception, or presenting something as if it
were something else.
In tentmaking in limited access countries, the impression is generally
given that such workers are in the country for their secular
work. So not only do they
hide their true primary purpose, which is spiritual, but
they also may present a false image
of their secular work.
As Tallman says (1989: 243),
"Anything other than open
communication of one's purposes in missionary activity is
not acceptable to biblical
principles."
Deception is really a kind of dishonesty, which the Bible has speaks
quite a bit
about (e.g., Colossians 3:9).
4. In the great
missionary zeal to reach the world for Christ, I believe that the
means of attaining this lofty goal sometimes get
compromised. There is a pragmatic
influence in evangelical ministry today that opens the door
to the possibility of
compromising scriptural principles. It is not uncommon to read in the literature
on this
subject of acknowledgments regarding the ethical dilemmas of
tentmaking ventures, which
generally are carefully rationalized and explained away (cf.
Norrish 1990, Roemmele
1993). Both Norrish
and Roemmele speak of the tentmaker developing a credible
personal identity, image or profile. This is a key issue for tentmakers in
difficult countries
especially, because in fact many try to pretend to be
something they aren't or put on some
kind of a front. Why
is this ethical dilemma so pronounced in limited access countries and
not in other places?
Because of the issues of honesty and secrecy. And there is no clear
scriptural precedent for such dishonest, secretive approach
to ministry, which is something
the missionary also has to deal with. But pragmatism calls us to ignore these
warning
signals and the red flags raised by our conscience, and try
to get around these things in
order to plug ahead in attaining our (truly) noble goal of
reaching the lost. We'll come
back to this issue later in a discussion on excerpts of
recent articles on tentmaking.
PERSISTENCE - One of the reasons, I believe, that we use
tentmaking in limited
access countries, where there are ethical dilemmas to such
work, is that we value
persistence in the face of difficult obstacles. This follows along the lines of the pragmatic
reasoning mentioned earlier, and contrasts with the apparent
biblical use of tentmaking.
When we think of persistence in Scripture we think
immediately of the parable of
the woman who received what she asked for from the judge
only after persevering some
time with her request.
The direct teaching of this parable (Luke 18:1-8), however, relates
to the issue of prayer and our hearing before the Lord.
But when it comes
specifically to ministry, Christ told the disciples that when they
go into a city, if they are not well received, they should
move on and shake off the dust
from their feet (Luke 10:10-11). In light of this, I must question Pat Cate's
statement
(1992) that, "We always ought to be pushing on doors to
see what will happen.
Sometimes, after years of pushing they open." It's one thing to pray for doors to open and
another to sneak our way into closed doors. I even worked for an East European mission
where workers forced their way into certain positions! And that's just in relationships
within the mission;
just imagine, then, how that could permeate out into external dealings,
as well.
In America,
especially, we have the belief that we can have a goal and go for it, as
in the American dream, for example. But we must also consider how we go about
reaching our goals (whether the means to reach them are
biblical), and whether they are
indeed God's goals and timing.
We know that it
is indeed God's desire to reach the lost and that none would perish
(2 Peter 3:9). In
similar manner, we also know that it was His will to give Israel the
promised land: But He
did that in His timing and in His way.
When Israel tried to make
moves that were out of God's will, they were not blessed
with success, although success,
as we may define it, is also not always a reliable
barometer, either.
We want to force doors open, but God, for example, does not
force Himself on
anyone, and when He does use forceful intervention in human
affairs, it's generally in
judgment (which sometimes works for the benefit of those He
wants to bless). God gives
us a free will to choose life or death. The people of Jesus' day rejected Him, but He
did
not force Himself on the people nor try to force His way
into situations. Those who
followed Him did so of their own free will.
The New Testament
apostles are also an example to us. When
they entered cities
where they were persecuted they didn't sneak around and try
to find some way to stay in
the city. Rather they
were open with their ministry and willing to suffer persecution for it.
If need be, they left a difficult city, rather than "go
underground."
When we consider
going into a limited access land for ministry, then, we need to
keep in mind that we should not force our way into places
where we are not well received
and neither should we hide what we are about.
J. C. Wilson, Jr.
(1979, chaps. 6-9) describes his experiences preparing for work in
Afghanistan (beginning in 1946) and leading up to his work
there. In light of what has
already been discussed, his account is admirable in the
honesty with which he and his
cohorts deal with the various officials with whom they had
dealings. However, I question
the very nature of their ministry as being tentmaking in the
biblical framework, since the
primary reason for being gainfully employed was to get into
the country, and not because
of either lack of funding nor eligibility for
church-sponsored funding. There is no
Scriptural example of people going into difficult places and
carrying on an underground or
subdued ministry.
Rather Christ and all of the apostles were very open about who they
were and what they represented.
Contrary to
Christ's and the apostles' scriptural examples, I find more similarity of
modern "tentmaking" in closed countries with Old
Testament examples of spying, than
with Scriptural tentmaking.
When Moses sent the 12 spies into Canaan to check out the
land, they went in clandestinely, with secret motives of
physically taking over the land
(Numbers 13). So it
is with modern day missions: we go into
closed countries with secret
motives of spiritually taking over the land. Using secrecy and hidden motives contributes
to an atmosphere of mistrust, which runs contrary to the
very foundational Christian
principle of salvation through faith.
PROS AND CONS OF TENTMAKING - Several writers have described
some of the
pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages of tentmaking,
especially within the context
of overseas mission work (Anonymous 1992, Norrish 1990, Kane
1986). I would like to
review some of these again from the perspective of what has
already been discussed in this
article, plus add some new observations based on the
above-mentioned articles.
Advantages
1. Tentmaking allows
the Christian worker to avoid being a cause for stumbling to
others and being a hindrance to the furtherance of the
gospel in specific situations where
church support is an issue.
2. Tentmaking allows
the Christian worker to carry on a ministry which might not
be otherwise possible, where other funds are simply not
available.
3. Tentmaking
minimizes the secular-sacred dichotomy of the Christian life.
4. Tentmaking makes
ministry potentially accessible to all believers.
Disadvantages
1. Tentmaking is
time-consuming. Those who are worthy of
receiving church
funds and have such available to them are free to give of
their time more fully to the work
of the ministry.
2. Tentmaking, when
it involves cross-cultural work, often results in poor cultural
or biblical preparation on the part of the Christian lay
worker. This does not have to be,
but in fact happens all too often.
3. Tentmaking, if
done in limited access countries, involves ethical issues which
require a lot of fancy footwork to rationalize and work
around.
4. Tentmaking, if
lacking in some kind of cooperation with other believers,
involves special risks.
In such cases there is no accountability for personal life and
ministry. Ministry
goals may also become lop-sided or ill-guided as well. There is no easy
answer to this issue because each situation is so
different. However, we should remember
that we are a part of the Body and are meant to operate
spiritually as part of the corporate
group. Effort should
be made by the tentmaker to link up with other believers in some
way. Certainly Paul
and his cohorts all worked in tandem, both in outreach to others and
to each other.
There seems to be
only one disadvantage, the first one listed here, that is by
definition a part of tentmaking. Although even that one, if the sacred indeed
permeates
the secular, may not be so problematic as we often
think. But the others are more clearly
avoidable. It is good
to be conscious of these in order to try to minimize them or avoid
them altogether. Our
New Testament examples, Paul, Priscilla & Aquila, managed to
overcome the second disadvantage by working within cultures
they were familiar with and
also having a proper working knowledge of Scripture. They, furthermore, worked in
cooperation with other believers. Even Paul, in his frontier work, didn't
minister alone,
but with a partner.
And even though they sometimes worked in hostile environments,
perhaps somewhat analogous to our concept of a limited
access country, they were able to
avoid ethical compromises.
Thus, they capitalized on the strengths of tentmaking while
escaping the potential pitfalls of it. They set a standard and example for us to
follow
today in ministry.
RESPONSES TO RECENT WRITINGS ON TENTMAKING - Since this
paper does
not exist in a vacuum and others have already written on
tentmaking, it's appropriate to
comment on some statements by recent writers regarding this
topic, especially as related
to the specific concerns presented in this paper.
Roemmele (1993:
165-166) makes this comment in his article:
Biblical and cross-cultural studies will help the tentmaker
develop a
truly biblical understanding of integrity. We easily accept the norms of
integrity from our own society, and react against practices
differing from
these, in another culture.
The tentmaker needs to learn to live with such
differences or ambiguities without them disturbing his or
her own (biblical)
world view. Examples
are how a person responds to personal,
investigative questions; how one views "secrecy"
and "openness." The
worst thing the tentmaker can do in the adopted culture is
to take his or her
stand on such things based on the home cultural norms.
This paragraph is somewhat ambiguous in my
understanding. Here Roemmele
refers to both the missionary's home cultural norms and also
to a biblical world view.
However, to me he doesn't adequately differentiate between
the two in his wording. He
seems to begin in support for biblical norms, but then moves
to rejection of home cultural
norms and acceptance of target culture norms. At that point it becomes unclear what
place Scripture has in relation to the two folk
cultures.
We can not deny
the fact that we are all affected by our home culture and it seems
true that we shouldn't expect our own society's views to
apply in another culture.
However, that does not mean that it is always right to take
on the target culture norms
either. In areas of
ethics we should always seek to follow the scriptural norm, in contrast
to either the home culture or target culture standards. In my experience of living in
Russia, I have seen things in both the Russian national
church and also in Western
missionary activities that I believe are unbiblical. We should not try to take on the worldly
ethics of either our home culture or the target culture, but
rather look to Scripture for our
guidance. This is
true in the area of secrecy being addressed by Roemmele in this quote,
as well (cf. Menconi, in press).
Howard Norrish
(1990: 8) makes this statement:
"Receiving money from a
mission agency may be fraught with danger. It's no good receiving a regular check from
the Middle East Missionary Society and cashing it in a local
bank, if you hope to keep a
low profile."
Again, we have
the issue of ethics and maintaining the (deceptive) "profile" of
being only a secular worker in the host country. If such tentmaking missionaries had been
open about who they were and what their objectives were in
the first place, they wouldn't
have the ethical dilemma of how to deal with such
issues. I do not believe this is just a
Western perspective on this issue, either. I believe it is scriptural. Living in Russia since
the days of Communist rule, I do not relate everything I do
and say to the local
authorities, but neither do I hide anything. I have a clear conscience and do not have to
try to rationalize what I do or why I am here. I have never tried to form a "credible
profile". The
more we hide our purposes and who we are the more we have to rationalize
our actions.
Tebbe's article
(1989) deals specifically with the issue of integrity in tentmaking in
closed countries.
This does not seem to be an issue in all ministry situations for some
reason, but comes up repeatedly related to work in limited
access countries. Tebbe says
this in his article (p. 50):
When the scribes
and Pharisees tried to trap Jesus with tough
questions, he often changed the agenda instead of answering
them directly.
Nor did he tell them everything (cf. John 2:23, 24). Missionaries need not
tell everything about themselves, either. God does not lie, but he does
keep secrets.
Of course, there
is some truth in what Tebbe says here.
However, the Scriptural
context bring into question his application of these verses
to the tentmaking situation. If
Christ answered testing questions in such a manner, which
seems indisputable, the
situation surrounding the questioning was much different
than that of the modern day
missionary Tebbe has in mind. That is, it was evident to all that Christ
was there to
minister to the people.
He had also publicly stated clearly Who He was as well as
demonstrated the same by His actions. How He answered individual questions in
specific
situations was situated within the context of a general
openness and honesty of purpose
and self-identification.
Those who tested Him often knew the answers already because He
had been teaching openly.
They didn't usually want information from Him, but to trap
Him, especially publicly.
However, if a
government official, for example, asks a question seeking
information and not trying to necessarily publicly trap the
missionary, this is a different
matter. When Christ
had to answer the questions of authorities, such as at His trials, He
did so honestly. Even
in His silence He did not deny their accusations or try to cover up.
Therefore, I think Tebbe's application of how Christ
answered the Pharisees and
scribes doesn't really fit the tentmaking context. He continues, however, along these lines:
Missionaries are not used to living under oppression and
they are
not trained to live in restricted environments. We have little idea of what it
means to live "like sheep among wolves." A colleague of mine has noted
that when it comes to answering in difficult situations,
European young
people are better than British, and the British are better
than Americans,
but East European Christians are best of all because they
have lived under
oppression. (1989:
50)
This fits under
what was already said about what standards to apply in ministry. It
sounds like Tebbe is here advocating taking on the norms of
the target culture, whereas in
actuality Scriptural norms should be the standard. In addition, I think he advocates a kind
of pragmatism in order to avoid suffering and persecution.
TWO PARADIGMS - As we have seen, there appear to be some
discrepancies
between the scriptural example and norm for tentmaking and
what happens in tentmaking
ministry in limited access countries today. These discrepancies could be summed up by
two paradigms, as follows:
Current Practice Biblical Norms
1. Ends justifies the
means 1.
Ends and means both important
2. Trust
organizations for security 2.
Trust in God for security
3. Secrecy
3. Openness
4. Target culture as
norm 4.
Bible as norm
Tentmaking in closed countries tends to focus on the goal of
world evangelism and
making the means to that end secondary and adjustable. This is the relativism of
pragmatism. But to
God the ends and means are both important.
It was important to God
how the priestly functions were carried out and when foreign
fire was offered up, He
killed the guilty (Leviticus 10). There is only one way to the Father, through
the Son.
The means is important to God as well as the ends.
In closed
countries, by not trusting God to get things done His way, we show that
we are trusting something other than Him. Scripture, for example, proscribes trusting
in
wealth, other nations, or military might. When we don't do things God's way, we trust
in
something other than Him.
Perhaps it is our own wisdom, perhaps it is the ability of an
organization to guide and protect us instead of God and His
word. If we truly trusted in
Him for our security, we would be bold about our faith and
our intentions, because we
would be trusting in God to save us as evidenced by our
obedience and submission to His
Word. Those who
desire to live godly lives will be persecuted, and the way to get out of
that is not by our own machinations, but by trusting in God
to take us through when we
are faithful. Can we
say with Daniel and his friends, "If that is the case, our God, whom
we serve, is able to deliver us from the burning fiery
furnace, and He will deliver us from
your hand, O king.
But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your
gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set
up." (Daniel 3:17-18, New
King James). I'm not
advocating a foolhardy recklessness, but I am saying we may need
to sometimes re-examine where our faith really is.
The scriptural
example and mandate is openness and honesty.
We are not to hide
our light under a bushel, but let it shine on a hill. And it doesn't say only when things are
going well and there is no risk of suffering. Rather, the scriptural injunction in the face
of
persecution is to persevere (e.g., Hebrews 12:12-13), not to
pretend to be something
we're not or develop a "credible profile."
Finally, when we
compromise, it is often because we don't take Scripture as the
norm, but the target culture. Sometimes believers in the target cultures
need to be
reprimanded for unscriptural attitudes and actions just as
do those in our home country
likewise need it.
Many of the Pentecostals in Russia that I know are largely very
materialistic in their outlook and quite corrupted by
this. Can we rationalize this and
justify it any more than we can regarding believers back
home? If it's wrong in one place
then it's wrong elsewhere too, as long as it's an issue that
Scripture clearly speaks on. To
say otherwise is to be guilty of cultural relativism, which
is, again, pragmatic. So it is with
issues of integrity and honesty. If a principle is truly scriptural it applies
everywhere.
SUMMARY AND DEFINITION OF TENTMAKING
Having said all that, a basic definition for tentmaking,
based on Scripture, might be
stated as follows:
The gainful employment of individuals involved in some form
of intentional
church work or ministry, where the reason for employment is
because
1) the believer is not eligible for church support, or
2) the believer is eligible for such support, but
a) opts
out of receiving it so as not to be a burden on his or her charges,
and/or
b)
sufficient church funds are unavailable for full church support.
We might compare this definition with some other prior
definitions and
descriptions of tentmaking, which tend to be less precise in
stating the reason for being
self-supporting, which I think is important, tend to add
cultural expectations to the basic
biblical definition, and also speak only of specific
situations where tentmaking is
applicable.
"Aquila and
Priscilla. They were lay people,
self-employed, mobile, committed to
Jesus Christ and his followers. Throughout the Mediterranean world, they
earned a
reputation for assisting in the Lord's work wherever their
travels took them." (Moody
1995: 100).
"A
nonprofessional is any dedicated Christian who lives and works overseas under
nonreligious auspices, and who uses his secular calling as
an opportunity to give his
personal witness to Jesus Christ." (Kane 1986: 385).
"A
'tentmaker' is a Christian who works in a cross-cultural situation, is
recognized
by members of the host culture as something other than a
'religious professional,' and yet,
in terms of his or her commitment, calling, motivation, and
training, is a 'missionary' in
every way." (Hamilton 1993: 1-2).
As long as we
have a murky understanding of what biblical tentmaking entails, we
will continue to misuse the concept, including applying it
to some pseudo-practices of
tentmaking. We need
to understand what is included in the core of the term, what is not
intended by the practice of tentmaking and what is possible
within its scriptural
framework. If we
desire to do something other than what this term means we need to find
another descriptor for that practice.
Going back to our
three scenarios, I propose that the first two fully and
legitimately fall within the bounds of my proposed
definition. However, the third does
not, if the primary reason for gainful employment is other
than that stated here.
Additionally, the third scenario may at times, as
applicable, be brought into question
regarding issues of secrecy, deception, head-strong
persistence, and pragmatic
compromise of biblical principles.
Other issues that
relate to the definition of tentmaking are the identification of
"eligibility" to receive church funding, skill of
professional labor, and the meshing of
sacred and secular both in the holistic life of an
individual believer, as well as in the Body
as a whole, where all are seen as potential or actual
ministers, without distinction.
References Cited
Anonymous 1992
"Tentmaking: the Road to People's Hearts." Evangelical Missions Quarterly,
28(1): 26-29.
Araujo, A. 1993
"Retooling for the Future: A Look at U.S. World Missions in the
21st Century."
Evangelical Missions Quarterly, 29(4):362-370.
Baer, M. R. 1991
"Working to Support my Ministry Habit." Leadership, 12( 2): 112-113.
Cate, P. 1992
"What Will it Take to Win Muslims?" Evangelical Missions Quarterly, 28(3):
230-234.
Danker, W. 1971
Profit for the Lord. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
DeHainaut, R. K. 1995
"Anachronism and Adventurism: Recent Missions Trends." Christian Century,
112(7): 239-242.
Dorr, L. 1988 The
Bivocational Pastor. Nashville: Broadman Press.
Expositor's Bible Commentary, The. 1981
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Hamilton, D. 1987
Tentmakers Speak. Duarte,
CA: TMQ Research.
1993 "Planning
for Success." In Working Your Way
to the Nations: A Guide to
Effective Tentmaking.
J. Lewis, ed. Pp. 1-1 -
1-13. William Carey Library:
Pasadena, CA.
Henry, M. 1925 An Exposition of the Old and New
Testament. Old Tappan, NJ: Revell.
Kane, J. H. 1986
Understanding Christian Missions.
Grand Rapids: Baker.
Lewis, J., ed. 1993
Working Your Way to the Nations:
A Guide to Effective Tentmaking.
Pasadena,
CA: World Evangelical
Fellowship and William Carey Library.
Moody, D. A. 1995
"On the Road Again."
Review and Expositor, 92(1): 95-101.
Neill, S., Anderson, G., & Goodwin, J., eds. 1971 Concise Dictionary of the Christian World
Mission. Nashville & New York:
Abingdon.
Norrish, H. 1990
"Lone Ranger: Yes or No?" Evangelical Missions Quarterly, 26(2): 6-12.
Reapsome, J. 1984
"Editor's Analysis."
Evangelical Missions Quarterly, 20(2): 184-185.
Roemmele, M. 1993
"Cloak-and-Dagger Tentmakers Need not Apply." Evangelical Missions
Quarterly, 29(2): 164-169.
Snyder, D. K. 1984
"Tentmaking's No Picnic."
Evangelical Missions Quarterly, 20(2): 156-159.
Tallman, J. R. 1989
An Introduction to World Missions.
Chicago: Moody.
Tebbe, J. A. 1989
"For Tentmakers: a Matter of
Integrity." Evangelical Missions Quarterly,
25(4): 48-51.
Larson, B. and Galli, M. 1992 "Time & Money: Spending the Family Fortune." Leadership, 13(4): 134-139.
Wilson, J. C., Jr. 1979
Today's Tentmakers. Wheaton,
IL: Tyndale House.
1993 "Witness
While you Work." In Working Your
Way to the Nations: A Guide to
Effective Tentmaking.
J. Lewis, ed. Pp. 2-1 -
2-12. William Carey Library:
Pasadena, CA.
Winter, R. D. 1990
"Missions in the 1990s: Two Views". International Bulletin of Missionary
Research, 14(3): 98-102.
