I saw this right before I was heading to bed and decided to drop one last line.
what if you attend a semanar with over 300 people, are you all asking questions at once of the teacher? If so, how do any teaching get done? I love questions and answers in teaching sessions but there are some situations where questions are best held till a more appropriate time. Always without question, study and pray yourself to see if the teacher is right.
Multiple pastors answer this problem as they would be over smaller groups. You may feel there should be a set time for questions but that isn't all the way across the board.
if what you are saying is so clean and simple, why have a collection at all, why tithe? There is no purpose to tithing if there are no "bills"... so why then did God instruct us to tithe? What is the purpose of the money collected? Especially if everyone is ministering on thier own, their tithe would be directly given to the needy as they serve and minister to them.
The instruction to tithe was given to the Israelites in the OT to provide a living to the Levitical Priesthood that had no inheirintance or land. Tithing was the nation's tax system. Tithing in the NT is not commanded in the same sense. We are told to give as we are able. Which is what the first century church did. If a church meets in a house where the bills are paid anyway there is no overhead giving the congregation more leeway with the funds to help out whoever needs it.
now didn't you previously say that he should not have excessive power??? What is esteem and respect if not power? From what you describe, the pastors have more power in a house church than in a larger church, why is that if pay makes one more powerful?
Quote me on that. What I said is that the power of ruling a church should never be delegated to one person. Not that he shouldn't recieve respect or honor. I never said pay makes one more powerful. I said it poses the threat of swaying his message, allowing the congregation sway over him, or establishing in everyones mind he is in a position not to be challenged.
How many God chooses is His is it not? Who am I or you for that matter to tell God how many "teachers" to call up? To place in our midst? Isn't that God's alone in a church led by the Spirit? Why must it be many...went to a church once with an average attendance of 15, 7 of those our own family...how many pators does your wisdom think God needed to put in the midst of that group? I'm not saying a board is not a good choice, only that it is not the only choice God makes...when we stop trying to justify what God chooses and start living in the choices He makes for us and our body, we begin to find victories where there didn't use to be, and growth we didn't fathom we could have. But it isn't about being legalistic about the structure of our bodies, it's about living in the Spirit and allowing that Spirit to structure our body as He desires, as He wills. That has been my point throughout this entire thread and still is the point today.
I never dictated how many pastors there should be. I made the point that a single pastor leader is a much larger threat and is harder to deal with within the general church body. In a small body of believers the pastors fill the role as the body grows. I have seen it. In a small body like that it may go for a while without any formal structure. It is also my belief that God should be allowed the freedom within a body to function which is why a more organic setting is preferable. If that doesn't work for you I understand why you defend the structure that works for you, but it does little to nothing for me.
not sure what this question means, but yes, we all learn and teach each other but that doesn't make us all teachers.
That question was asking if someone stands up and corrects someone on the missapplication of information does that not make them a teacher. You said that just because someone teaches it doesn't make them a teacher. Surely you see the contradictory nature of this statement. Perhaps it is a poor choice of words. If you mean it doesn't mean we are all gifted with teaching then yes I agree. But this is how we begin to see this gift made manifest.
what is it you think I don't understand??????????
That the job of overseer is meant for more than one. As the responsibilities are shared the need for compensation lessens. Which is why we are instructed to give as needed.
notice verse 20, where he went house to house, how many pastors would be expect to find in say 6 house churches? One?
Depends on the size of the congregation. You can't assume that only one was present. And since the verses describing church leadership is always plural we can see that plurality is the key to the leadership of the church. A group of elders of like mind and one accord headed only singularly by Jesus.
But some bodies are so small that more than one pastor is more than necessary.
Already said it depends on the size of the congregation. If a body is that small it may be a while before more teachers or pastors emerge. But at some point it should happen as the body grows. As a body grows so does its' needs. Its' needs are better served by the responsibilities being shared so as not to burden one person.
no problem, but that seems like a discussion about proper teaching methods not about paying a pastor and it also seems to me that the man gifted to be a teacher (gifted by God) would also be gifted in the best method of teaching would he not?
The reason sermonizing was brought up is because that is the method of instruction in institutional churches. Not open dialogue. Open dialogue fosters learning much better. And yes a God gifted teacher would. Again t is through this method that we see that gift made manifest.
no pay can answer our families plight as you put it, only God and more and more of Him can answer our plight. Being totally and completly emersed in His love and power and will is the only answer to and for the wellbeing of our family.
Amen. I only said what I did because you linked the position to your families need as an answer to your problem. Surely God could use this to be your answer.
My only issue is that we stop trying to take power from God and instead, return the power of our lives and our churches back to the Lord of Lords to do with as He wills. But I guess that is too much to ask from many in this world. When scripture tells us something is wrong, I believe it to be wrong, period. When scripture tells us it isn't wrong or right, then I believe that as well and in those situations, demand that I personally return the power back to God to do with as He desires, rather than telling Him what He should do or not do. I guess that is what gets me into trouble...I love the Lord to such a degree that I have lost sight of my own desires most of the time, and desire only His will and His purpose in everything I am, and all that I hope to be. (Bad me!)
I haven't seen anyone making an attempt here to usurp power from God. Granted I only read the first few pages of this post as it is extremly long but all that I read was a sharing of views. It is in those views people feel they are best serving God. If they are wrong He will correct them. As He has me, many times. I hope you have gained something from our exchange. I know I have. You are still in my prayers.
I saw this right before I was heading to bed and decided to drop one last line.
Multiple pastors answer this problem as they would be over smaller groups. You may feel there should be a set time for questions but that isn't all the way across the board.
this sounds like you are advocating that the entire board teach at one time...what does scripture say about order in worship??? It is related to tongues, but the same applies, if everyone is trying to talk at once, there is no order and therein is no teaching....the question was in relation to a large group situation in which everyone wanted to talk (ask questions and get answers) at the same time....
The instruction to tithe was given to the Israelites in the OT to provide a living to the Levitical Priesthood that had no inheirintance or land. Tithing was the nation's tax system. Tithing in the NT is not commanded in the same sense. We are told to give as we are able. Which is what the first century church did. If a church meets in a house where the bills are paid anyway there is no overhead giving the congregation more leeway with the funds to help out whoever needs it.
amen, at least we agree on this teaching...but that doesn't change the question...if there is nothing owed, why collect at all, why give anything if everyone is to do the same job? Look one of the problems throughout this discussion is the idea that everyone is to do the work that the pastor or board of pastors does...even you have talked about this, how everyone's job is the same. If everyone is doing the same job we have two major problems the first from scripture, being that scripture tells us there are different duties and different gifts so that the body can function as one...note here the biblical idea of everyone in the body functioning according to the gifts they are given....the second is more practical in nature rather than biblical, doesn't mean it isn't biblically sound, just more practical than biblical...If everyone is doing the edifying, the caring for the poor, meeting needs of the body, etc. then there is no need for a collective pot of money, a pot we know the early church held. If I have no overhead, no salary, everyone is doing the ministry according to what God has laid on their hearts, the need for a collective money disappears altogether. Now we have to ask the question here, if there is no need for a collective money, why did the people have one? What purpose does God have for the command if there is no purpose? Point being the issue isn't as simple as everyone does the job.
Quote me on that. What I said is that the power of ruling a church should never be delegated to one person.
I remember you saying this and asked what chuch exists where one person rules the church...in a church where a person is hired to pastor, the pastor holds a lot less power than most people think. So did you miss my reply the reason we aren't communicating well here?
Not that he shouldn't recieve respect or honor. I never said pay makes one more powerful. I said it poses the threat of swaying his message, allowing the congregation sway over him, or establishing in everyones mind he is in a position not to be challenged.
the same can be said for commities the collective might be on, the title of elder, etc. All kinds of things sway people into sin, some of the most common are money, title, power, prestigue, etc. all of which are possible independently of all the others. The problem with the notion that pastors shouldn't be paid or that there should be a board of elders is that neither of those fixes the sin problem that has infiltrated our churches, only the Holy Spirit within and the yeilding to HIm is going to stop the sin that is being discussed here, and that is the only answer consistant with scripture.
I never dictated how many pastors there should be. I made the point that a single pastor leader is a much larger threat and is harder to deal with within the general church body.
I disagree, case in point, my husband is the son of a pastor who was also a missionary. When he came home from the mission field and became "just" pastor, it was the board that held all the power and it was a sinful, destructive power that still holds power in that body. It was the board that was corrupt and sinful, not the pastor...and that body is still having the same strongholds power struggles they always did...
In a small body of believers the pastors fill the role as the body grows. I have seen it. In a small body like that it may go for a while without any formal structure. It is also my belief that God should be allowed the freedom within a body to function which is why a more organic setting is preferable.
well what got me into trouble on this thread is that I advocated God's work within the church was the answer, not pay or lack thereof, so I'm not sure whether to applaud you or warn you, but, moving on, I'm not sure what you mean by organic setting here.
If that doesn't work for you I understand why you defend the structure that works for you, but it does little to nothing for me.
I don't understand this, I defend both a board of elders and a paid pastor...in fact the only thing I don't support that has been presented in this discussion is to take the power away from God and put it on man. My point is that scripture doesn't tell us it is wrong to pay a pastor or that it is wrong not to. It tells us that the man who leads the church as pastor needs to be called by God and living in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Please take time to tell me this....I have boldly and clearly proclaimed that both board of elders and paid pastor is okay biblically and with me as well. I have equally boldly and clearly proclaimed that whatever model God ordains for the body is good by me, as long as it is God's model for that body and not our manipulated and justified model....so if I proclaim this boldly and clearly, why do you and others still act like I am only claiming one to be right? Thanks in advance for telling me what isn't being heard....
That question was asking if someone stands up and corrects someone on the missapplication of information does that not make them a teacher. You said that just because someone teaches it doesn't make them a teacher. Surely you see the contradictory nature of this statement. Perhaps it is a poor choice of words. If you mean it doesn't mean we are all gifted with teaching then yes I agree. But this is how we begin to see this gift made manifest.
I think I agree, there is a difference between teaching and being a teacher, if you want to clarify that with the words gifted to be a teacher, or called to be a teacher, that is okay with me, it's symantics, no problem...the point however is that just because my son teaches me how to love, doesn't mean he is my teacher, in fact, it is my job as his parent to teach him. As to identifying the gifts of the Spirit there are lots of ways, one is to observe teaching and learning sessions.
That the job of overseer is meant for more than one. As the responsibilities are shared the need for compensation lessens. Which is why we are instructed to give as needed.
cool, now show me this clearly in scripture....I showed you how the use of plural was not exclusive of a board in one local body (because that isn't the point Paul is trying to make) so show me how according to the passage it is exclusively saying that a board of elders is the only way to govern a local body.
Depends on the size of the congregation. You can't assume that only one was present. And since the verses describing church leadership is always plural we can see that plurality is the key to the leadership of the church.
you do realize I assume that the structure of the early church was small groups that met collectively as one large group don't you...? Thus the plural is not exclusive of a small local group. Your burden of proof is to show that it does.
A group of elders of like mind and one accord headed only singularly by Jesus.
right, leadership, not necessarily pastor....are you confusing the governing body of the church with pastor/shephard/teacher of the church?
Already said it depends on the size of the congregation. If a body is that small it may be a while before more teachers or pastors emerge.
but it has been proclaimed that a group has to have a board of elders/pastors not just one, so which is it? Is the opportunity for corruption any different in a small group verses a larger group? How?
But at some point it should happen as the body grows. As a body grows so does its' needs. Its' needs are better served by the responsibilities being shared so as not to burden one person.
even in a paid pastor situation the responsibilites can and often are shared by many...this isn't exclusive to multiple pastors...
The reason sermonizing was brought up is because that is the method of instruction in institutional churches. Not open dialogue. Open dialogue fosters learning much better. And yes a God gifted teacher would. Again t is through this method that we see that gift made manifest.
Question....what is the definition of institutional church in your discussion here?
Amen. I only said what I did because you linked the position to your families need as an answer to your problem. Surely God could use this to be your answer.
The answer I am looking for on this forum is something in scripture that I might have missed. The rest is totally God's. The point of my talking about my family is that even with a paid position, a man can and many are above reproach...it's isn't about pay or not pay, but rather about the yeilding of the man to the HS within. As my husband has demonstrated many times over now....
I haven't seen anyone making an attempt here to usurp power from God. Granted I only read the first few pages of this post as it is extremly long but all that I read was a sharing of views. It is in those views people feel they are best serving God. If they are wrong He will correct them. As He has me, many times. I hope you have gained something from our exchange. I know I have. You are still in my prayers.
God bless
usurping God's power occurs when we try to force scripture to say what it doesn't and then try to force that opinion on everyone....something that has happened on this thread and resulted in me being, well, that is old news....
I am enjoying our discussion and though I'm not sure how much I am learning from it, I am finding new ways to think and explain things, so I guess, yes, I am learning from you on this topic....wish for more scripture but that's cool as well....
Rather than go through your post I am just going to start over from the beginning of my view so as to avoid confusion. If you have further questions I will welcome them, one at the time, at brotherpete, which is where I spend the majority of my time.
The question as posted by the OP is "Should pastors be paid?" The answer ultimately lies within the congregation. If a congregation wants to and the pastor does not feel convicted I see no problem with it so long as it stays pure. I have never suggested it is wrong to do that. If you somehow got that impression I apologize. However the broader point that I was making is this.
1. The word pastor occurs only one time in the NT. Eph. 4:11
2. The word is used plurally.
3. The word describes a specific function in the church not a specific office.
4. The role of pastor was filled by presbyters, the greek word for elders.
5. Compensation was given as needed to those who traveled or were in special need.
Phl 4:15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.
Phl 4:16 For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity.
6. When the duties of pastor are shared among the elders the need for compensation lessens if it is even needed.
My argument has never been against paying pastors. Just that the payment being mandatory by the pastor is wrong. That payment should be voluntary of the congregation. The compensation should fill a specific need so as to keep the pastor in question above reproach as Paul was.
Act 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
We see here that a body of elders were appointed to lead the church or oversee. Not one man.
Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Act 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
We see that their were multiple teachers. And it is true that even false teaching can enter this way. That is where the elders step in. We see here that disputes were settled by a group of elders. The dispute in question was whether a gentile needed to be circumcised in the flesh. The matter was settled by the body of elders. This is a perfect example of false teaching being handled. As I said this is only possible if a body of elders is present to decide on the matter. Here also the role of teaching and pastor do not necessarily interchange. Because those that were teaching were not pastoring, but the elders were.
Act 15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and [of] the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
Act 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Act 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Again all these verses use elderS. Not a single person.
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
This verse outlines the various roles within the church that were given to the assembly by God. If you want to make a case for a pastor salary then prophets, apostles, evangelists, and teachers also should recieve salaries. If that many people are being paid would it not make more sense for them to try to make their own way if possible. If not are they expected to pay one another as well? Would that not then be supporting one another as needed? Which is what I have said from the start.
2Cr 11:7 Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?
2Cr 11:8 I robbed other churches, taking wages [of them], to do you service.
2Cr 11:9 And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all [things] I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and [so] will I keep [myself].
These verses show that Paul only recieved as he needed. Often he would make his own means so as not to be a burden. And wanted others to follow his example.
Act 20:33 I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.
Act 20:34 Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.
Act 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.
Act 20:36 And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all.
I understand your view that if a pastor is lead by the Holy Spirit these issues should not arise. I understand that a pastor needs as everyone else does. I have never disputed that. I simply said that the first century model makes such compensation a non-issue. I also realize that what works for me may not work for you. And if the model you worship under works then don't allow anyone to dissuade you from your course. I will keep you in my prayers.
God bless you
Rather than go through your post I am just going to start over from the beginning of my view so as to avoid confusion. If you have further questions I will welcome them, one at the time, at brotherpete, which is where I spend the majority of my time.
The question as posted by the OP is "Should pastors be paid?" The answer ultimately lies within the congregation. If a congregation wants to and the pastor does not feel convicted I see no problem with it so long as it stays pure. I have never suggested it is wrong to do that. If you somehow got that impression I apologize. However the broader point that I was making is this.
So far, this is what I have been saying as well....
1. The word pastor occurs only one time in the NT. Eph. 4:11
2. The word is used plurally.
3. The word describes a specific function in the church not a specific office.
4. The role of pastor was filled by presbyters, the greek word for elders.
5. Compensation was given as needed to those who traveled or were in special need.
My only real disagreement here, with some tweeking on a few things is that when I read the passages referred to me, and those I can find on my own, there is no clear understanding of whether the plural is referring to individual house churches or the collective group where all the house churches met. Literarily speaking, both are plausable. Which takes us right back to the Original point...both models are acceptable according to scripture, because if the point was for one to be correct and the other incorrect, these things would have been clarified. If I'm missing something, I would love to know what, but I will no longer tolerate (at least on this thread) repeats of the same passages without reason why it cannot be both, just repeating the passage over and over, a passage everyone here seems to accept but disagree with the details of, does nothing to evidence once point.
Phl 4:15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.
Phl 4:16 For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity.
6. When the duties of pastor are shared among the elders the need for compensation lessens if it is even needed.
again, we agree on this, which is one of the huge reasons a board of pastors is a very doable thing, something I have also said from the beginning.
My argument has never been against paying pastors. Just that the payment being mandatory by the pastor is wrong.
Personally, I think that depends on the job the church wants done, for example, if the church wants to add to the pastors duties that of administration, etc. then those things should be compensated being they are above and beyond. But if the duties are limited to the biblical model, then no it has no place. Just like with my husbands current coaching job...if they also ask him to fundraise, and coach another sport, etc. he has the right to renegotiate the pay. A pastor who has duties added that are not part of his calling as pastor has a right to expect compensation for those duties.
That payment should be voluntary of the congregation.
yep
The compensation should fill a specific need so as to keep the pastor in question above reproach as Paul was.
not sure what you mean here.
Act 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
We see here that a body of elders were appointed to lead the church or oversee. Not one man.
again, church here is plural, therefore we would expect the subject elder to be plural as well...it's grammatical.
Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Act 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
We see that their were multiple teachers. And it is true that even false teaching can enter this way. That is where the elders step in. We see here that disputes were settled by a group of elders. The dispute in question was whether a gentile needed to be circumcised in the flesh. The matter was settled by the body of elders. This is a perfect example of false teaching being handled. As I said this is only possible if a body of elders is present to decide on the matter. Here also the role of teaching and pastor do not necessarily interchange. Because those that were teaching were not pastoring, but the elders were.
Oh how I wish I could enter scripture....two problems 1. We keep ignoring the teaching of Paul about pay, and focusing only on the parts we want to....big problem when it comes to finding truth...and 2. On the case of circumcision, and some other issues, Paul alone settled the dispute. Notice one man settled the dispute of the elders....much different picture than you are painting here.
Act 15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and [of] the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
Act 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Act 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Again all these verses use elderS. Not a single person.
notice the last verse...with the whole church....the early church model was many house churches and then one large collective. If the whole church is participating, that would indicate the collective, many small house churches. If each of these house churches only had one pastor, that would still leave us with a plural here. Notice down a bit further...send chosen men of their own company ...of thier own company, more confirmation that our interpretation of plural here needs to be above reproach according to scripture. chief men among the brethren, brethren here again being the collective house churches....
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
This verse outlines the various roles within the church that were given to the assembly by God. If you want to make a case for a pastor salary then prophets, apostles, evangelists, and teachers also should recieve salaries. If that many people are being paid would it not make more sense for them to try to make their own way if possible. If not are they expected to pay one another as well? Would that not then be supporting one another as needed? Which is what I have said from the start.
Which of these others are said to be due double honors? Which of these others does Paul teach that God instructed them to be paid but in order to be above reproach, in order to keep his mind straight he personally refuses? If only one answer can be found, then only one answer is given in scripture for us to hold.
2Cr 11:7 Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?
2Cr 11:8 I robbed other churches, taking wages [of them], to do you service.
2Cr 11:9 And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all [things] I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and [so] will I keep [myself].
These verses show that Paul only recieved as he needed. Often he would make his own means so as not to be a burden. And wanted others to follow his example.
no problem, I have agreed with this and spoken of it freely, but that teaching of Paul is not a command by God, in fact, Paul speaks openly about his reasoning and why he chooses this way...in the same discussion of the whys, he tells the men that it is true that God allows them to be paid and even instructs their pay, but that he refuses that pay because....so the question we must ask is whose teaching is higher, Pauls or Gods?
Act 20:33 I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.
Act 20:34 Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.
Act 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.
Act 20:36 And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all.
I understand your view that if a pastor is lead by the Holy Spirit these issues should not arise. I understand that a pastor needs as everyone else does. I have never disputed that. I simply said that the first century model makes such compensation a non-issue. I also realize that what works for me may not work for you. And if the model you worship under works then don't allow anyone to dissuade you from your course. I will keep you in my prayers.
God bless you
My only contention with your view is this, even under pay, compensation is a non issue for the man living in the Spirit and is demonstrated by my husbands behavior when asked as well as in previous churches where the congregation tried to use pay to control the word of God. The point of contention I have with you is that it isn't about the pay at all, but rather about whether or not the man/men/congregation is living in the spirit. When they are, pay is a non issue, whether it is given or not...only sin is an issue for the church living in Christ.
I look forward to seeing how the Lord blesses your ministry....prayers and thank yous for you time and kindness.
I hope you have benefited by our conversation. We may not see eye to eye on all issues but we are still brother and sister in Christ. God bless you. If you wish to discuss anything further with me hit me up on brotherpete.com. If you wish to see the view in more depth from my view check out Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola. That book helped answer a lot of problems I had about institutional churches.
I hope you have benefited by our conversation. We may not see eye to eye on all issues but we are still brother and sister in Christ. God bless you. If you wish to discuss anything further with me hit me up on brotherpete.com. If you wish to see the view in more depth from my view check out Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola. That book helped answer a lot of problems I had about institutional churches.
God bless
I'll try to get over to brotherpete...in the meantime, there is always benefit to fellowshiping in the Lord...may we in prayer and fasting, find that in the Holy Spirit, there is only one answer, only one solution and may we both continue to live in that Spirit, knowing unity and Love where the world says there should be none.
There is plenty of good Biblical evidence for itinerant preachers like Paul living of the Gospel. There is also a passage about elders receiving 'double honor' for preaching and teaching, right near a passage about 'honoring' widows.
One thing I learned in college, studying the Illiad, is that the Greek word for honor, time (pronounced loosely similar to the words tea May, without the aspiration and dipthongs I suppose), is that it can refer to compensation. The loot Achilles got for fighting, including a slave girl he kept in his bed in the story were part of his 'honor', which the commanding officer took away from him.
I don't see a salary per se as the ideal Biblical way of doing it. Apparently elders were supported in proportion to their labors. I wouldn't condemn someone who received a salary who did ministry as sinning. I just don't see a solid case for a set salary every month independent of ministry performance. I think gifts makes more sense. It may be hard practically in this day and age to ensure the money is enough that way. Salaries may be a form of stewardship.
Beresford Job has been 'full-time' for quite a long time. He is a teacher and elder in a HC in England. Chigwell Christian Fellowship, if I recall correctly. He follows a living on faith kind of model for support and he says that God has provided for him and his family throughout the years.
Christ along with his disciple preached what proved to be a life saving message. They did not take advantage of the people like the religion leaders of that time. There was no cost to hear the mesasge, just as there was no cost for healing, feeding, and resurrecting the dead. What was required was action upon hearing the good news. Monetary support was through their personal trade, generosity of people, and Jehovah’s loving kindness.
If you are teaching what the Bible teaches in harmony with Jehovah God’s will, just as the Christ and his Followers, food, covering, shelter and sustenance will be provided (Matt 6:19-33).
Christ along with his disciple preached what proved to be a life saving message. They did not take advantage of the people like the religion leaders of that time. There was no cost to hear the mesasge, just as there was no cost for healing, feeding, and resurrecting the dead. What was required was action upon hearing the good news. Monetary support was through their personal trade, generosity of people, and Jehovah’s loving kindness.
If you are teaching what the Bible teaches in harmony with Jehovah God’s will, just as the Christ and his Followers, food, covering, shelter and sustenance will be provided (Matt 6:19-33).
You need to sit in on one of our board or congregational meetings if your don't think that the salary of our pastor is 1. the generosity of our people and 2. not a requirement issued by our pastor for him to preach the gospel, and yet, he is paid....where is the sin in that? How is this biblically wrong?
I don't understand this, I defend both a board of elders and a paid pastor...in fact the only thing I don't support that has been presented in this discussion is to take the power away from God and put it on man. My point is that scripture doesn't tell us it is wrong to pay a pastor or that it is wrong not to. It tells us that the man who leads the church as pastor needs to be called by God and living in the power of the Holy Spirit. 
Linear Mode
