First, modern day pastors usually function as overseers, deacons, and a a host of other things, see I Tim for discussions of these roles.
I think you will find that modern day pastors function as CEOs and are expected to be the apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher.
We also need to understand that the overseers in I Tim. had the role of studying and praying, the deacons were to minister to the needs of the people.
What we need to understand is that 1 Timothy is referring to Elders, not pastors. These elders were chosen from among the congregation not brought in from 200 miles away and they were not paid to be elders.
That means that for the modern day pastor, there is no one early church equivalent, but many.
There is no early church equivilent to the modern day pastor. The NT church functioned with the ministry (not position) of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers who all worked alongside the Elders and Deacons.
The pastor, or overseer as it were is suppose to be responsible for studying, praying, and "preaching".
No one preached in the NT church except the apostles. Learning was in the context of homes and the teaching and learning was done by conversation.
If we look at I Tim. that means in some cases double pay, that isn't poverty wages, people.
It doesn't say double pay, it says double honour which means esteem and respect. The greek word for pay or money is not used here.
1. a pastor should be compensated for the work he does
If that is the case so should the apostle, prophet, evangelist and teacher. Apart from the fact no one was paid a salary in the NT church, the church is out of line unless it apoints all five ministries as God did not say appoint a pastor but you can forget about the other four becuase you can get the pastor to do all of them so it will be cheaper.
If you want to know what the NT teaches about church leadership, go to my website http://churchalive66.googlepages.com there I have set out everything that it says without reference to denominational tradition which is not supported by scripture.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist - or theologen in this case - to conclude that 'the church' of our time has been adulterated by worldly agendas - namely 'mammon'.
"What is the churches actually doing for the Kingdom of God?"
"Do they teach/preach the truth of God's word, or someone's personal agenda?"
These are questions I ask myself about today's 'church'.
'The church' in Acts, is in no way like it is today. If you don't agree with that, if you have a problem with that statement, ...
I think you will find that modern day pastors function as CEOs and are expected to be the apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher.
depends on the church, but yes, many churches do this, which was at least part of the point.
What we need to understand is that 1 Timothy is referring to Elders, not pastors. These elders were chosen from among the congregation not brought in from 200 miles away and they were not paid to be elders.
actually, there are parts of I Tim. that deal with the pay of an overseer and the word used is overseer. Like I said, we have been studying it in Sun. school, so it is still fresh in my mind.
There is no early church equivilent to the modern day pastor. The NT church functioned with the ministry (not position) of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers who all worked alongside the Elders and Deacons.
and yet I Tim. tells us that certain ministers are worth twice the pay. Seems odd to say that someone is worth twice the pay if there is no pay being made, is that like twice of nothing is still nothing? Also remember that the Priests in the OT were cared for by the church (paid) it is not a new concept and in fact, the OT church used the tithe to "Pay" the priests for their service. Now where the modern pastor functions differently, the purpose is quite the same and therefore would be one of similar compensation I would think. And one more thing while we are talking about it. If you remember, I told you that the pastor should consider himself employed by God and therefore payed by God. The church then should consider themselves the stewards of that payment to the worker who is according to God worth the living wage he earns.
No one preached in the NT church except the apostles. Learning was in the context of homes and the teaching and learning was done by conversation.
Paul preached, so did Timothy and many others. In fact, there is suggestion that Paul taught many to preach and be overseers in the church. As to teaching, you got me there, I am used to the preachers who teach, my husband is one, the pastor I grew up under was one. Our current pastor isn't as much a teaching pastor but still is more so than the norm, so for me the norm is the teaching pastor not the preacher who hopefully teaches as well. But also note here that some are given the gift of preaching and others the gift of teaching, two separate gifts. Just a side note.
It doesn't say double pay, it says double honour which means esteem and respect. The greek word for pay or money is not used here.
1) a valuing by which the price is fixed a) of the price itself b) of the price paid or received for a person or thing bought or sold 2) honour which belongs or is shown to one a) of the honour which one has by reason of rank and state of office which he holds b) deference, reverence
so apparently, the honor talked about in I Tim. according to word study says that the person is paid. Interesting isn't it?
If that is the case so should the apostle, prophet, evangelist and teacher. Apart from the fact no one was paid a salary in the NT church, the church is out of line unless it apoints all five ministries as God did not say appoint a pastor but you can forget about the other four becuase you can get the pastor to do all of them so it will be cheaper.
well you bring up some other issues here that I would like to ask you if you are interested in talking about before I actually address them, or are you just making a point and don't really want to talk about them at all?
If you want to know what the NT teaches about church leadership, go to my website http://churchalive66.googlepages.com there I have set out everything that it says without reference to denominational tradition which is not supported by scripture.
Actually, I have no use for traditions in the church as far as my beliefs in God go. In fact, when I began attending church with my husband, the traditions of the church I grew up in, were challenged in some very interesting ways. I had no problem. I will tell you however, that study is about scripture, cross references, word study, etc. and the case of biblically paid leadership in the church, commonly refered to today as pastors, is a very strong case to make. Now I appreciate your website and will explore it in more depth as my time permits today, but just as our word study in I Tim. shows pay for the overseer, we cannot simply hand wave it away because we don't want to pay a pastor, or because we want to show how spiritual we are, or maybe because we can't find a man of God to fill the position, or for some other reason. (not attribuiting any of these to you, only listing some that people use)
It doesn't take a rocket scientist - or theologen in this case - to conclude that 'the church' of our time has been adulterated by worldly agendas - namely 'mammon'.
"What is the churches actually doing for the Kingdom of God?"
"Do they teach/preach the truth of God's word, or someone's personal agenda?"
These are questions I ask myself about today's 'church'.
'The church' in Acts, is in no way like it is today. If you don't agree with that, if you have a problem with that statement, ...
in general I agree, I would add however, that there are bodies that are trying to return to some of the basics of the early church and we should give them credit for doing so.
One thing that I don't see your post as grasping, is that the pastor is the visible person in the church that you go to with your problems especially with over 200 new people who are still getting to know you and the body in general, it is the pastor that people go to first. He is the one they look to for guidance. Now as time goes on, the people find others they can talk to, share with, and that is a two way street, but it is the visible person that is first called upon and that guy, like it or not is the pastor and at least in our situation, is overworked and over burdened by that position. In other churches it is because people aren't doing their jobs.
I grasp that that is what the pastor usually is. It isn't necessarily biblical. The elders of the NT were most likely the "pastors" of the body. They were the most mature and Christlike of the body and therefore would be the ones doing the most care and teaching.
The is no singular head of a church ever mentioned in the NT. There is no one "go to guy". The one go to shepherd is our Lord himself.
It is a unique place to have the explosive growth that you have experienced. It's time to raise other shepherds. Yes it takes time. In amy church of any size it should already be happening. But it rarely does.
If they are not new members they should already know to whom they could go. Un fortunately with the way churches operate, they probably do not know each other well enough to do so, or have been trained there is only one person withinthe church to handle all their needs.
It is unfortunate that many pastors are overworked and heavily burdened. The system in many ways causes this. It requires more of them than it should and it prohibits other people from functioning in their proper places with their gifts.
It sounds as if your church is trying to take care of the new influx of believers by offering your husband a pastoral role there. That sounds great.
I was poking a little fun at the term "associate pastor". An associate is a partner, yet in christendom associate usualy means junior. There are no biblical examples of identified rank within co-workers, elders, pastors. Although it may well be that people were aware of those who were older or more matured, it wasn't rank and file. It was informal, family like and not military or business like in organization.
God himself is Triune, yet man wants a singular man to be head.
Notes from a deeper look at your website...
One is that my husbands background and the current church we go to is brethren, which as you note uses the multiple eldership as it's historical basis. I personally grew up nondenominational where this was talked about but never materialized. So I think that the main difference in what we are saying is one of perspective (of course some other stuff thrown in here and there) .
Note on prayer, but before I do, let me say that I have been involved in as many abusive churches as non abusive and so anything I say must show this balance. The church we are currently attending has a huge focus on prayer. In fact, there have been several people and I who have talked about prayer and listening to God not just doing all the talking. One Sun. morning, the pastor (this one sticks out in my mind), during community prayer time, had probably 10 to 15 minutes of silence, allowing God to talk to us, His people, not just us talking. contrast that to other churches where I have been involved, where it was like pulling teeth to get anyone to even study what prayer is.
In fact, according to I Tim. the main job of the overseer is to study, teach, and pray, not necessarily in that order. Which is why the Overseer/pastor is so vital to the body.
As to biblical teaching, that is often overlooked, which is why finding a true man of God, one that is truly living as a man guided by the Holy spirit is vital to the church.
Question about elders? Do you see the elder as an older man or a more mature in the faith man? Now I am not sure where you are going from elder to overseer is the same thing. I'm not disagreeing with you, just not following your train of thought. Can't agree or disagree unless I understand.
YOu mention no pay for elders. Our current church structure is a paid pastor, and a board of elders that are not paid. This so far fits the passages you have presented. Our history shows a "board of pastors" as well, but the current structure is other. Now again I become confused, Peter calls himself a fellow elder but clearly Peter was set apart in his duties or it would not have been necessary to speak of how he views himself. Also of confusion as I read your site, is the idea of what the elder does, an elder serves, that is his job in the church. The overseer however, has the job of study, prayer and teaching. two different jobs... so if there are two different jobs, how can it be the same position?
As to age of the elders, there are two problems, one is what is old is relavent, in other words, culture, historical context, etc all affect the term elder. Secondly, it would be counter to God's will, his purpose, and in fact, lead to false teachers to think that chronalogical age was the factor and not the maturity and spiritual yeilding to the Holy Spirit that was important in looking at elders. I won't comment about children at this point or marriage.
I would also like to add that a "pastor" who is properly fulfilling the role of overseer and not administrator, is one of much prayer and study of the word. A role that is not only to be taken seriously, but one that is vital and worthy of pay. It is also a role of great responsibility the like of which few people grasp.
As I read your site, something else struck me, where are the apostles in the church today? How many apostles by title are there in your body?
now what of the shephard. Not only are shephard paid, but so is the hired hand. so if we are comparing the pastor to the shephard, we see that pay is not counter to the whole idea of shepharding. Especially if we accept that God is the shephard and the pastor/elder is the hired hand. Now this brings up yet another issue, that of full time service. Take for example the "shephards" of our flock. If their time could be used to meet needs not make a living, then more people could be reached, the body would be healthier, and the church would be reaching even more people. So what then would be the evil in making a person who is acting in the role of pastor paid to do it? If the man is truely sent by God, then paying him would enhance his job, not hender it.
I aplaud your pointing out about service leadership, which I have seen several times now and is spot on.
Your statistics show a need to remap the role, not cease to pay the person doing the job. I might also argue that what is missing from the equasion isn't a certain model of leadership but God in general. Take the first church my husband pastored (typical church) to make a long story short, his first sermon was love, loving even your neighbor in the love of our Lord. The church became so irrate that they tried to control him from the pulpit, when that didn't work they started with threats, threats went from him to me and then from me to the children before they actually fired him. The point is this, pastors can abuse their "power" but so can the church bodies. The problem isn't so much leadership or structure, but rather lack of the Holy Spirit living in and through those who call themselves Christ's. This does not mean structure is not important, but rather that we need to attack the heart of the problem, not the symptom.
In short, you fail to show evidence that the shephard is not to be paid by the church. You show questions of structure, and problems existing in the church, but you fail to show evidence that paying a leader is non biblical.
It sounds as if your church is trying to take care of the new influx of believers by offering your husband a pastoral role there. That sounds great.
I was poking a little fun at the term "associate pastor". An associate is a partner, yet in christendom associate usualy means junior. There are no biblical examples of identified rank within co-workers, elders, pastors. Although it may well be that people were aware of those who were older or more matured, it wasn't rank and file. It was informal, family like and not military or business like in organization.
God himself is Triune, yet man wants a singular man to be head.
Just a note, my husband (if he gets offered Officially the job and takes it) would be both senior in age and experience and the current pastor loves that and longs to make use of it, which is why he approached my husband in the first place.
actually, there are parts of I Tim. that deal with the pay of an overseer and the word used is overseer. Like I said, we have been studying it in Sun. school, so it is still fresh in my mind.
It may be fresh in your mind but the fact is the Greek word for money or pay is not used in respect of Elders in Timothy. Why do people have such a hard time grasping this fact. I can only assume that tradition informs them not the word of God.
and yet I Tim. tells us that certain ministers are worth twice the pay.
No, it says double honour which means esteem. As I have said before many times, the Greek word for pay or money is not in this passage. In actual fact, Paul made it quite clear that doing anything for money was not acceptable.
Also remember that the Priests in the OT were cared for by the church (paid) it is not a new concept and in fact,
We don't live under the old covenant, we live under the new and Jesus did away with the priesthood at the cross.
the purpose is quite the same and therefore would be one of similar compensation I would think.
this is pure speculation and not in line with scripture. Under the new covenant in Jesus blood everything changed, it was not the same. Under the old it was a priesthood of Levites. Under the new it is the priesthood of all believers. Only the Livite High Priest could go into the holy of holies. Under the new, every believer can go into the holy of holies. That is why God tore the curtain.
I told you that the pastor should consider himself employed by God and therefore payed by God.
Precisely, that is why the church does not have to pay him anything. If a man is called by God to a ministry, then God will supply all his needs as he said he would. He didn't say that the church would supply all his needs.
Paul preached, so did Timothy and many others.
I am beginning to wonder if you actually read anything I say. I said the apostles preached, others discussed. The only preaching done by others was outside the church to preach the gospel to unbelievers. They didn't meet every Sunday morning to hear someone speak from a platform.
I am used to the preachers who teach, my husband is one, the pastor I grew up under was one.
A good example of the traditions of man, not the word of God.
so apparently, the honor talked about in I Tim. according to word study says that the person is paid. Interesting isn't it?
As I have said, the Greek word for money or pay is not used. If there is a word for money or pay, why was it not used? To not use it is not logical.
well you bring up some other issues here
As all five ministries are in the same sentence, it is all part of the same issue but most people would rather avoid the obvious because it does not suit their tradition.
and the case of biblically paid leadership in the church, commonly refered to today as pastors,
You won't find anyone in the NT that was paid to be a pastor. That is tradition started by Constantine when he apointed paid priests and which the reformers turned into a protestant pastor.
we cannot simply hand wave it away because we don't want to pay a pastor, or because we want to show how spiritual we are, or maybe because we can't find a man of God to fill the position, or for some other reason.
but we can if there is not support for it in scripture which there isn't.
One is that my husbands background and the current church we go to is brethren,
It may brethren in name but not in nature or practice. I am schooled in Brethren teaching having been to a bible college started by the Brethren in the UK. True brethren do not have paid pastors.
Do you see the elder as an older man or a more mature in the faith man?
There are 17 verses in the NT that say an elder is an older, senior man chronologically. Paul gave Timothy the standards by which these men should be appointed.
As to biblical teaching, that is often overlooked, which is why finding a true man of God, one that is truly living as a man guided by the Holy spirit is vital to the church.
Scripture does not support this idea. Elders is always plural, not singular, so the NT church never chose "a man" they chose men.
This so far fits the passages you have presented.
It doesn't. I have said consistently that no one was paid to be a pastor in the NT church. Pay was introduced by Constantine, who said the priests had to be paid. If they were already paid, why did he say that they had to be paid? The scriptures nowhere refer to a "board of elders" and there is no such word for laity in the Greek.
The overseer however, has the job of study, prayer and teaching.
And he serves as that is the pattern that Jesus laid out in the gospels. The word "diakonos" apart from referring to those that wait on tables, which is what deacon means, is a generic term for all ministries. If you have a ministry, you serve. You don't have authority over and just becuase you have a ministry, you are no better than the next person.
That is the problem with current tradition. The pastor is seen as superior to everyone else because he is a paid to be good and has degrees which the laity doesn't, so they have to submit to him because he hears from God and they don't and he has the knowledge and they don't.
It is instructive that research shows that 80% of the ministry is done by 20% of the people. You won't find any support for that in the NT because it teaches the priesthood of all believers, not just a select few with the rest acting as their cheer squad.
A role that is not only to be taken seriously, but one that is vital and worthy of pay.
Not according to scripture.
As I read your site, something else struck me, where are the apostles in the church today? How many apostles by title are there in your body?
You obviously only read part of it as there is a section that deals with the five fold ministry.
Take for example the "shephards" of our flock. If their time could be used to meet needs not make a living, then more people could be reached, the body would be healthier, and the church would be reaching even more people. So what then would be the evil in making a person who is acting in the role of pastor paid to do it? If the man is truely sent by God, then paying him would enhance his job, not hender it.
Or we can do it the NT way and utilise the priesthood of all believers so "a paid pastor' is not needed. If everyone is functioning in their ministry, no one person is needed to do everything. More people have been reached through the priesthood of all believers than will ever be reached through a 'paid pastor' bearing in mind most pastors do not talk to an unbeliever from one week to the next. I bet your "pastor" has not brought one person to the lord in the last 12 months and you bringing a friend to a meeting and hearing your pastor preach does not count because the pastor would have no one to preach to unless you brought your friend.
I might also argue that what is missing from the equasion isn't a certain model of leadership but God in general.
I believe that God is always missing if you deliberately ignore the scriptures and to appoint a paid pastors not a plurality of elders is to ignore the scriptures and there is evidence to support this. In the USA only 1% of churches with paid leadership are growing. The NT church without paid leadership grew daily. Every month approx 1,600 paid pastors are fired or resign. In the NT, no one was becuase they were not paid they were annointed by God. In my country, there are 10,000 ex pastors who resigned because of unreal expectations and burnout. Sounds like God is not doing a very good job.
This does not mean structure is not important, but rather that we need to attack the heart of the problem, not the symptom.
The heart of the problem is that we cherry pick the scripture and choose those bits that support their tradition and reject those bits that do not. When I was writing my thesis on church leadership, I wrote to several denominational leaders and questioned their leadership structure. In every case, none of them refuted what I said with scripture, they all used tradition and culture to support their non biblical structures. When I pointed this out they all said, "go away, we don't want to talk about it."
If they agreed with what I said, it would mean that they would lose their position of power and control.
In short, you fail to show evidence that the shephard is not to be paid by the church. You show questions of structure, and problems existing in the church, but you fail to show evidence that paying a leader is non biblical.
I have written about 75 pages to show the elders were not paid. Your comment would suggest to me that you are arguing from tradition, not scripture and want to protect your position, which doesn't suprise me as I have found most people in this situation will not accept what the scripture says.
I have been in paid ministry, but have decided that it will never happen again. I am being considered at the moment for leadership, and althought the church has offered a salary, I have told them that if I am appointed I will not accept any salary. I will let God supply all my needs as he said he would. I will provide my own income and if I need more, I will let God supply it without me telling anyone I have a need. That is the way it happened in scripture and to argue otherwise is to insist that tradition has greater authority than scripture.
Linear Mode
