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.
then you would be wrong as I have shown you evidence that is contrary to your claims here.
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.
but that isn't what the word nor your references to Paul say, what Paul says is that the love of money, the seeking out of monetary gain. Of which I happen to agree whole heartedly, so much so that my life demonstrates it to the extreme by most peoples minds. But when we are talking about the bible, we can't base it of personal bias or traditions but only on the text and it's consistency throughout scripture. Where most of what I read today I applaud, there are a few points that you fail to prove in scripture and this is one of them.
We don't live under the old covenant, we live under the new and Jesus did away with the priesthood at the cross.
that isn't the point, the point is that it is historically part of the Jewish church and history that the leadership of the church was paid. Your site made it out to be a modern historical movement, of which a simple look at the OT priest tells us otherwise. As I said, much of what is written is spot on and wonderful. But there are a couple of points that you have off, and this is one of them. Traditionally and historically, the leaders of the church were paid.
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.
that has nothing at all to do with the point I am making to you. My point is that the pay for leaders of the church is as old as the OT. It's not a modern day movement in which it is totally foreign to God and the church, it is traditional and historical in nature, which is the point I am making to you.
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.
No, and yet historically and traditionally, God used the church to meet the needs. Is He required to use the church? No, God uses who He will. Is it normal and with president that He uses the church? without doubt or question. In fact, all believers are instructed to pay a worker his wage (that referring to a living wage, not a servant wage) don't see that in many believers today, in fact, most believers pay servant wages and call it Godly.
One of the things I read over and over in your site is the lack of responsiblity of the church body. The body of Christ consists of both the lay people and the leadership roles. All working together as the Spirit guides. It isn't a problem only with the leadership, it is a problem with the entire body of believers. None are following the Spirit. Downhere has a song that says, "the problem with the world is me..." wonderful song, I encourage you to look it up. Point being when we blame others for the condition of the church, we are missing the biggest problem, our own selves that get in the way of God's work all the time.
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.
and....
A good example of the traditions of man, not the word of God.
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.
study it including but not limiting yourself to the reference I made and see what comes up.
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.
think again. I have said many times now that much of what you are saying is more honest than I have heard in a long time. The problem is that you are missing some rather obvious things because you are too focused on proving yourself to be right.
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.
and yet we see paid leaders of the Jewish church in the OT. So what makes you think this is from Constantine and not from Jewish tradition. The point is very simple, the historical records show that paid leadership is not a new thing to the church of God. Yet you make it out to be only a modern day tradition. It is a tradition that extends to the OT.
but we can if there is not support for it in scripture which there isn't.
and yet I have shown your support throughout the scriptures, from the OT to the new and you reject it, the question I must ask it why? I read your words carefully, considering everything you said. Haven't finished it yet, but I have considered everything carefully and as I was taught to do, researched it for myself as well. If what you say is truth from the bible, then it will reveal itself through anyone who seeks truth in the scriptures, through the Holy Spirit. Now I am willing to continue to seek God and ask Him to reveal Himself on this issue, I am not willing to just take your word for it. I have presented some things that question your conclusions, how will you answer? Just dismiss them as me not reading your posts, or consider them in light of the gospel of our Lord? It's your call. for the moment I am off to bed (4:00 comes early in the morning) I'll address the other post tomorrow Lord willing. In the meantime, may our Lord reveal Himself to all who seek Him and the truth that He alone holds.
It is quite obvious that payment was made to some people in the NT. Paul testifies to this. But there was no 'salary structure' but rather voluntary giving.
The OT priests profited from the tithes, but that was due to their having no other means of income, as they had no allotted territory.
The issue for me is the 'professionalism' and therefore dominance of career ministry, which becomes the focus for congregational life, whereas in NT times Christians were much more corporate and community based, and ministry was more related to gifting than professional training, although it is very obvious that many church leaders were highly educated people.
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.
not only is the history of our denomination one of a deacon board, our current pastor was called out of a deacon board and functioned for some time on just such a board.
In other words, my tradition nor the traditions of our church is challenged by the idea of a non paid pastorite, so that cannot be the reason why I am saying to you the things that I am. There must be another reason for the disagreement between the two of us than one of traditional discomfort. That is the point.
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.
right, and if the only standard by which we use is chronological age then we are opening the door of the church to be filled with false teachings and false teachers. In fact, the criteria given is not one of chronological age, but rather of spiritual maturity. Read the criteria, it's all about spiritual maturity not the physical age of the person. In context then, we can only conclude that the age speaking of here is one of spiritual maturity not physical age. That is not to say that my 17 year old son qualifies, but rather that spiritual maturity comes not only from the indwelling spirit but from experience in this world as well.
Scripture does not support this idea. Elders is always plural, not singular, so the NT church never chose "a man" they chose men.
what of deacons and overseers? Are they always plural as well? Be careful how you read passages. You first need to know what you are speaking of and then whether it is talking about the collective or the local only.
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.
Why you have consistently said is understood, you don't think that pastors should be paid. What scripture says is not necessarily the same thing though I am willing to explore it further with you to see if I have it wrong.
In the OT, the church, a church which by the way is the historical counterpart to the NT church, had paid priests. The historical significance is important here. The history of paid leadership goes not only back to constantine, but also back to the OT. It is not a new or modern idea for the church or for God.
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.
no one is arguing (at least that I know of) that the pastor is not also a servant nor that he is above anyone else. In fact, the part of that that you are speaking of seems right no the money so to speak. Where we are finding disagreement is in the pay nature of any position in the church. Pay doesn't automatically mean someone is above or more important than anyone else. It that was the case, every single income household throughout history would be doomed.
Now I applaud you for seeing a problem and addressing it, that is awesome (no sarcasm, don't try to read it as such) the problem is that you seem to be making assumptions that are not in scripture. Consider I Tim. Paul sees the same problem in the church that you are seeing. So he addresses the problem. Not by attacking the way the church is structured, but rather by attacking the false teachings and lack of following the Holy Spirit that has crept into the church. Paul doesn't say don't pay leaders of the church, but rather he says that leaders are not only worth a living wage, but that they should not do it for that purpose, that they should not love money nor seek monetary gain through their service to the church.
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.
who says the pastor is seen a superior because of pay? Where is that the rule? In fact, most pastors I know, paid pastors do not see themselves as superior to anything. In addition, the people, do not see them as superior but rather more learned. There is a big difference. In fact, when we first started attending the church we are currently going to, both my husband and I heard regularly how knowledgable, learned, etc. we were of the word. Note that we are not paid by the church for any service. In fact, my husband gave a sermon to fill in for the pastor and was not paid for that act of service to the church. The things you are talking about are things that have been addressed by Paul, but are not stemming from the paid pastorite, but rather from a heart condition that is against God and what God wants to do in the church.
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.
Here is the problem, you are equating all that to the paid pastorite. Our current church has a paid pastorite and yet the body does more than any body I have ever seen. In fact, just this last week, one of the ladies was commenting how in her old church, no one did anything, everything was left to the pastor. In this church, everyone does what they can for everyone else. The concept was so new to her that at first she felt odd, now, however, she relishes in the riches of doing for others and in learning to accept what others want to do for her. The pay of the pastor has no affect on the willingness of the body to do the services necessary, in fact, when the body does the service, it leaves the paid pastor open to do the things they can't like in Ohio, preforming marriages, doing funerals, visiting in hospital wards not open to the public, etc. Including but not limited to counceling, in depth study of the word, the overseer duties.
The problem you are reacting to is not created by paying the pastor, but rather by the heart conditions of both pastors and congregations. Where it is a very real problem and one which should be addressed, removing pay will not fix the problem, only seeking the Lord and living in the power of the Holy Spirit will solve the problem.
Not according to scripture.
You obviously only read part of it as there is a section that deals with the five fold ministry.
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.
well, you would loose that bet. Let's take this paragraph step by step though. First off, there are duties that the overseer is responsible for that the other members of the congregation are not responsible for. See above for more depth. Secondly, our pastor is very much in the community, witnessing to people just as I would, my husband would, the guy next door would. In fact, our pastor has an incredible ministry as Jr. High football coach and he will probably be coaching another sport this year as well. In fact, many of the people in our "new" congregation are there because of the witness of our pastor into the community and it becomes a constant concern as to whether they are there because of him, or because of the Lord. Though the behavior of the congregation would suggest they are there because of the Lord, it is a constant concern. Our pastor is very much so focused on reaching the community that doesn't walk into the church everyday and a congregation that serves, opens his time to do more community outreach as does the pay he recieves from the church. [quote]
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.
[/quote] Wow, I am not sure where to begin with this paragraph. You are right, the statistics are alarming, but it isn't about pay or not, in fact, the church that our pastor came out of (with an unpaid board of elders) is floundering and collapsing, where as our current church with paid pastor is flourishing. The difference isn't in the paid position but rather in the heart conditions of all the people involved. You are putting too much emphasis on the money just as Paul warned Timothy not to do. It isn't about money at all, but rather about the work of the Holy spirit within a man, woman, child. And that is from Gen. to Rev. in the bible. If you want to talk about a biblical concept, there it is, there is no concept as well addressed in scripture as the one of God's power upon a man who seeks God. That is the solution that Paul gave, the solution that Jesus gave, the solution our church found, the solution God gave. It isn't about whether or not a man is paid for his service to the church, but rather whether or not the man, woman, child is living in the power, love and strength of the Holy Spirit. Under Holy Spirit power, there is no wrong, because all comes directly from God.
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.
now before we go any further here, keep in mind that our tradition is one of unpaid board of elders, so you are suggesting what then? I don't think you are suggesting what you think you are.
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."
I have no problem with the structure you are suggesting. I think that you are missing the point. In fact, I would be equally content in a board of elders as I am in a paid pastor. The key is not the structure, if it was, then the NT church would have an identical structure to the OT church. Both were given by God remember. The difference is in the heart conditions of the people.
Look at it this way, we can out of some very difficult situations with the church, I won't go into all of it. Anyway, we prayed for years that God would show us, lead us, to a church that at least tried to act like the church. Now personally, I expect God to honor that prayer as it is consistent with His will and in time, He did lead us to that church. But the behavior of the church isn't governed by the pay or non pay of the leaders, it is governed by people whose hearts desire is to serve the Lord in word and deed. When you find that church, you begin to realize, that it isn't about money at all, but about God's command to Love one another and in this, demonstrating His very heart to the world.
The bottom line is this, I don't personally give two hoots if the pastorite is paid or a board of elders, as long as they are listening to and serving God, it's "all good". I could not say this if paid pastors were against the bible. If God's will, His command, His purpose was non paid only, I could not be comfortable in a church that was sinning by going against God's Word. However, I see nothing in scripture that testifies to the fact that a paid pastor is wrong and since that is the case, and since so far you have failed to show that it is wrong, I have no choice but to accept whichever the church feels led as long as their lives demonstrate the Love of our Lord.
If they agreed with what I said, it would mean that they would lose their position of power and control.
I would expect that if they were truly men of God and saw it as a sin, they would indeed leave the position. But there are two problems here, the 1. is that I see nothing that makes a paid pastor sinful and 2. a huge number of pastors today are not truly men of God but rather men who are seeking self and self interests.
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.
again, you would be wrong, my traditional comfort would be of a board of elders. What your 75 pages (of which I am not yet done reading) have failed to do is show in scripture where there were no paid church positions nor that it is a sin to pay a pastor. Either of these would make your case, but so far, you have not provided us with either. In fact, in order for your case to be made, I saw you twist scripture a couple of times to say what it did not. In addition, I saw you ignore the Strong's lexicon entry that provided the word study for us which as you know, looks at the word, it's common usage, it's contextual usage, etc. An in depth look at the intent of the author so to speak, of which you didn't comment on at all and which counters your claims.
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.
Your additude is not unlike we should have in everyday life, but for one thing, I would love to see you go to your current place of employment and say to them, no thanks, I won't accept your paycheck because I am going to let God meet my needs. If you did that, you would put an unnecessary strain on the church and the people who God would choose to meet your needs. In the church, there are paid positions. For example, we pay someone to clean the church. Would be have to? No, in fact, for months now, the church was cleaned without pay. However, paying someone to do the cleaning is an act of service for the community that calls themselves the church. It provides for the person cleaning in a way that benefits everyone, it is an act of love, just as the people who cleaned without pay was an act of love on their part. Love comes in many forms which is why anything that is coming from the Holy Spirit is good. Whether that be pay or lack of pay, doesn't really matter, it is the love of the Holy Spirit flowing through us that makes it good or bad. Now if the bible told us to not accept pay for this or that, then you would have a case, but unless or until that is found in scripture, denying that money is a case of self righteousness and is no more biblical or living in the Holy Spirit then the men who seek money for the position. Both are living equally in sin. It is only the man who is living in the Spirit who is without sin.
It is quite obvious that payment was made to some people in the NT. Paul testifies to this. But there was no 'salary structure' but rather voluntary giving.
The OT priests profited from the tithes, but that was due to their having no other means of income, as they had no allotted territory.
The issue for me is the 'professionalism' and therefore dominance of career ministry, which becomes the focus for congregational life, whereas in NT times Christians were much more corporate and community based, and ministry was more related to gifting than professional training, although it is very obvious that many church leaders were highly educated people.
John
NZ
It wasn't until Jesus came to this earth, that the leadership was not the educated men of the day. Even then, there was education, that is what the disciples were doing, as were the apostles, they were learning about God from (in the case of the disciples) God Himself. Just a side note for you. Paul was very educated in the ways of God, that is why the overseers are important to the church, they are the ones who have studied and prayed in earnest for the voice of God to be heard over the voice of men, including but not limited to their own voice. That is why the condition of the church that we are addressing in this discussion is one of heart and not pay.
Paul and pay
Paul did not take pay because it may burden others
II Thes. 3
8 nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you;
He also stated in that chapter that he worked (besides in ministry) so as to be an example to the people. That they all should work and not have idle hands. He could have used his ministry as an example. Isn't that work? But he didn't. He provided a different standard.
I Cor 9 Paul states over and over that he could take pay but does not, why?
To take material gain for offering spiritual gain would hinder the Gospel (vs 11-12)
He states that his reward (pay) is to offer the Gospel without charge, so that he may win more to Christ (vs 19). Evidently the taking of money sometimes inhibits that, and Paul wanted no part of it.
It is clear in scripture that those who need support should be supported. It is ok to give to a pastor.
But there are drawbacks to it mentioned in scritpure. It is not always the best.
We often have it backwards. A church looks to get a a pastor to a fultime position. They look to hiring a 2nd part-time and then have them go fulltime and so on and so on. They often lookt to "hire" from the outside to bring someone in to work "for" them.
What we should look to do is ... if someone is already doing the work of the pastor and doing it well, with no pay, we may consider giving to them to free more time for more ministry. This comes after they are proven in their local, not proven with degrees. It is after they show their love and care without pay, that their reward is from God, that they may be given material gifts to help them.
But in Christendom the professional ministry is nearly synonimous with the existence of a "church". It is a job. It isn't that most pastors don't have a heart for God or the people. But is it wholley with the people that God has placed them. If they are not compensated, will they look for another church? Is the pay essential for them to be in that type of ministry? Or will they stay and minister with the people in the body without pay.
I've been in the church 47 years. Sadly to say nearly all pastors will leave and go where the money is. It isn't a horrible thing, but it isn't right.
The OT example
Using the Levitical preisthood as an example of paying pastors doesn't make sense. The OT priest were forbidden from owning land. In those days their as little way of making money without land. They had no inheritence in the land.
Besides we are a royal priesthood. The temple veil was torn in two and all who believe may enter the holy place through Jesus. All believers are priests and tend to the temple duties.
If we follow the Levitical example, none of us should work outside the ministry for pay, for we are all priests.
The good part of all being priests is that our inheritence is in God and not of the earth, and we ALL are supported by HIM and EACH OTHER.
The earliest church writings stated an overseer (pastor) should not be salaried but may recieve gifts from the people. To place them on salary was thought to compromize the Gospel and possibly the integrity of the one receiveing pay.
Cyperian (circa 250 AD) Began to argue for the salary pay of overseers. He is the first to use the levite and the tithe as examples. It took 200 years for this argument to be presented. His letters show that it was not already the common practice.
It is true that it was the time of Constatine that overseers were first salaried on a large scale. They were paid by the state, Constatine's state. It was the first time that monies were available.
As the state pay faded away and the church grew in power a new way of finding pay for salaried priests (pastors) was sought. Hence the teaching of tithing to the church was introduced and slowly gained influence to maintain and enlarge the professional priesthood.
Paul and pay
Paul did not take pay because it may burden others
II Thes. 3
8 nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you;
note here that we are talking about the difference between being idle (not working) and working. It is not saying, I refuse to be compensated for my labor it is saying that a workman is worth his wage. If you don't work you don't deserve the reward, note this verse in II Thes. 3
9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
It is imparative when studying the scriptures, to put everything in context. Paul here is very clearly comparing idle gain to working gain. It's not hard to see, all you have to do is read the text.
He also stated in that chapter that he worked (besides in ministry) so as to be an example to the people. That they all should work and not have idle hands. He could have used his ministry as an example. Isn't that work? But he didn't. He provided a different standard.
I Cor 9 Paul states over and over that he could take pay but does not, why?
this is a fascinating scripture for you to bring up because the first thing we notice is that not only does the church "pay" it's leadership, but that it is the law. Yet Paul refuses the pay, why? Well, he declares that it is so that he can boast. You see, he wants people to understand that spiritual seeds, spiritual work, should not be used to expect physical reward. In fact, a friend and us were just talking about this with the youth. If we remain loyal to God, not man, then we should not expect physical reward from man, this includes but is not limited to the work place. In the case of my recent discussion we were talking about how being Godly often means we are overlooked in the workplace for promotions and raises, etc. But when we are sharing Christ, the spiritual, we should expect our reward to also be one of spirit. This is not to say that it is sinful or evil or wrong to be compensated, as Paul says is the law, but rather that it should not be our reason for doing the job. See these highlighted words from your own reference.
But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. 13Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
15But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me. I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of this boast. 16Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. 18What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.
We should add to these passages Philipians 4
10I rejoice greatly in the Lord that at last you have renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. 11I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. 12I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. 13I can do everything through him who gives me strength. 14Yet it was good of you to share in my troubles. 15Moreover, as you Philippians know, in the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel, when I set out from Macedonia, not one church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you only; 16for even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me aid again and again when I was in need. 17Not that I am looking for a gift, but I am looking for what may be credited to your account. 18I have received full payment and even more; I am amply supplied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. (note here that Paul is amply supplied because of the gifts/payments)They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God. 19And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.
20To our God and Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
The church did "pay" Paul for his service. and like it or not, he, Paul accepted the gift. As all three references show, payment is part of the natural order of the church. The question is not one of pay, but one of heart condition.
To take material gain for offering spiritual gain would hinder the Gospel (vs 11-12)
right, the paid pastor dare not serve in the church for the purpose of monetary gain, but rather for the joy and honor of serving the Lord. We just this evening heard that the congregation just voted a raise to our pastor. He being the man of God that he is, objected. (has happened more than once) it was a deacon that reminded him that it is not our place to argue with the things God places on the hearts of His people. If this is something that God directs the people, His people to do, our pastor has no say, as Paul accepted the gifts that God laid on their hearts to give in Philipians, our pastor needs to accept the gifts that our church places on him by our same Lord and Savior. It's all right down the scriptural line.
He states that his reward (pay) is to offer the Gospel without charge, so that he may win more to Christ (vs 19). Evidently the taking of money sometimes inhibits that, and Paul wanted no part of it.
Actually, it goes right back to the heart condition. If Paul preached for the monetary gain, he would be hindering the gospel. Paul likes to guard himself against possible problem. In fact, this example is why I have no issue with a church structure that does not pay leadership. However, that doesn't mean it was evil or sinful or Paul would not have accepted the pay that he did nor would compensation be a command of God as in Cor. above.
It is clear in scripture that those who need support should be supported. It is ok to give to a pastor.
But there are drawbacks to it mentioned in scritpure. It is not always the best.
again, it goes right back to the heart condition, not the pay itself. A man who can keep his heart focused on the spiritual reward and not on the monetary reward has not conflict here.
We often have it backwards. A church looks to get a a pastor to a fultime position. They look to hiring a 2nd part-time and then have them go fulltime and so on and so on. They often lookt to "hire" from the outside to bring someone in to work "for" them.
often does not mean always nor does it mean it is a sin to pay a pastor. The issue we are discussing and looking to scripture to answer is whether or not it is wrong to pay a pastor. Unfortunately so far, every passage you have presented shows us it is not wrong to pay a pastor.
What we should look to do is ... if someone is already doing the work of the pastor and doing it well, with no pay, we may consider giving to them to free more time for more ministry. This comes after they are proven in their local, not proven with degrees. It is after they show their love and care without pay, that their reward is from God, that they may be given material gifts to help them.
a man that is living in the Spirit will demonstrate that in his life even before the job is up for consideration. In fact, this is a good...argument for calling people from within rather than without because in doing so you can evaluate the character of the man as we are instructed to do in Tim.
But in Christendom the professional ministry is nearly synonimous with the existence of a "church". It is a job. It isn't that most pastors don't have a heart for God or the people. But is it wholley with the people that God has placed them. If they are not compensated, will they look for another church? Is the pay essential for them to be in that type of ministry? Or will they stay and minister with the people in the body without pay.
again you are talking about what often happens not what the bible tells us about pay. The discussion is one of the biblical commands not what can or does happen in to many churches.
I've been in the church 47 years. Sadly to say nearly all pastors will leave and go where the money is. It isn't a horrible thing, but it isn't right.
it is a very horrible thing, because it means that they are not led by the spirit, which is the heart of the guidelines for who is worthy of the position and who is not. The real problem biblically speaking is that we don't measure the pastor according to the guidelines in scripture then wonder why they fall and blame it on all kinds of things as you are doing here with pay.
The OT example
Using the Levitical preisthood as an example of paying pastors doesn't make sense. The OT priest were forbidden from owning land. In those days their as little way of making money without land. They had no inheritence in the land.
doesn't matter to the point being made. The point being made is that the tradition goes back to the OT not constantine.
Besides we are a royal priesthood. The temple veil was torn in two and all who believe may enter the holy place through Jesus. All believers are priests and tend to the temple duties.
that is irrelavent to the point being made. The point is one of tradition, not one of how things have changed. If you can't even understand that the traditions of paying the leadership goes back to the OT, how can you fathom what the bible really says about pay?
If we follow the Levitical example, none of us should work outside the ministry for pay, for we are all priests.
The good part of all being priests is that our inheritence is in God and not of the earth, and we ALL are supported by HIM and EACH OTHER.
Not a problem for my point. BTW, did you tell your employer that you would work without pay so that you can live a Godly life at work? Why or why not?
If it is all a matter of heart then don't take the money. It shouldn't matter one iota. A lot can be done in 5-10-15 or 20 hours a week in non-payed time. Some people may even have more time available.
It isn't a tradition of paying leadership coming from the OT concerning the levitical preisthood. It was a matter of command. It wasn't paying leadership. Not all Levites were leaders. Many had the most common and mundane tasks of everyday life. They were paid because they were a priesthood by birth and were to have no inheritance in the land. Today all believers are priests, there is no priestly class set aside from other believers.
This tradition, from the levites, that you mention is void from early church writings for it's first 200 years. That's a long long time if it was the norm or so important. And at it's first mention it was a plea to start doing it, not a mention of it as a norm. In fact it was another 200 years after that before it starts to be written about and seen as an acceptable teaching in the church.
I think we too often look at our traditions and try find scriptures in which to justify them instead of acknowledging how they actually came about historically.
Salaried pastors were not the NT norm, and weren't for some 200 years. (Our modern pastor wasn't even the norm)
Yes Paul accepted gifts. Gifts are gifts. There is no pressure to meet a budget. No threatening of having to loose staff etc .... and no expectation to recieve them.
It's ok to pay someone. It's ok to give to them.
But Paul also warned that it can inhibit the Gospel to those whom he ministered. It still can today. That was a biblical position. It has contemporary applications.
He also said it can place a burden upon people. That is a biblical position and has modern equivalents as well.
Paul didn't talk about his heart being the the matter of point here. So it isn't just a matter of the pastor's heart. Paul's heart was probably in much better alignment with God than ours. There were totally different reasons. There was a better way.
It is all pertinent to the subject.
btw,
I've worked for many people and given much time without pay while expecting no future compenstaion from those individuals ... and it had to do with trying to live a Godly life. I'm not quite sure why you brought that up. We all still have to work for a living. Even Paul, a sent one, mended tents and got paid.
If it is all a matter of heart then don't take the money. It shouldn't matter one iota. A lot can be done in 5-10-15 or 20 hours a week in non-payed time. Some people may even have more time available.
if you have a problem with self righteousness and self pride as Paul did, then refusing the money is an awesome exercise in self control and contentment. Bravo. and if you only need to put part time in, awesome as well. But if you are needed to work full time or overtime, then you are looking at problems again. Now, that being said, it is more important to have your heart in the right place than to even eat, according to God. But you present two different things here so we had to deal with both.
It isn't a tradition of paying leadership coming from the OT concerning the levitical preisthood. It was a matter of command. It wasn't paying leadership. Not all Levites were leaders. Many had the most common and mundane tasks of everyday life. They were paid because they were a priesthood by birth and were to have no inheritance in the land. Today all believers are priests, there is no priestly class set aside from other believers.
Paul talked about this as well. In fact, he was talking about recieving pay for doing nothing in exchange for receiving pay for working in the passages in the previous post. There is a difference in Paul's eyes, as there is in God's as the rest of scripture defines for us.
This tradition, from the levites, that you mention is void from early church writings for it's first 200 years. That's a long long time if it was the norm or so important. And at it's first mention it was a plea to start doing it, not a mention of it as a norm. In fact it was another 200 years after that before it starts to be written about and seen as an acceptable teaching in the church.
actually, Paul speaks about it being a command. Now the point I was making is that from the standpoint of tradition, paid leadership goes back to OT times and not back to constatine. In fact, it was so much a part of Jewish culture that Paul goes into quite a bit of detail in in with the early church. You see, the early church flows from the Jewish culture and religion. We take more traditions, presidents, history, etc. from the OT church than from constantine for the most part. That is the point. To say that we pay pastors because of our constatine traditions, is ignoring the very roots and basic traditions that not only led the early church in Paul's day but defined it.
I think we too often look at our traditions and try find scriptures in which to justify them instead of acknowledging how they actually came about historically.
which is my point exactly. Even the early church dealt with the traditions of the OT church, they fought the same fights. Take the early church leaders who allowed false teaching to infiltrate the church because they ignored the new laws of leadership. It's the same core problem that we are talking about here. The traditions of the OT church came into the church and caused corruption of the leaders. They became compelled to teach the bible and Christ because of money not because of Love for the Christ. They were men not led by the spirit but rather by greed and lust for money. so Paul spoke out against this evil, but he did so not by condeming the traditions, or the pay of pastors, but rather by demonstrating to the people the importance of hearts and minds that were self controled by the Spirit. By demonstrating the love of a man for His God. A love that motavated him to give all that he was, is, and hoped to be for that God and His message of love.
that being said, I find nothing in scripture that says a pastor must accept pay, that a pastor must be paid. Nor do I see anything in scripture to suggest that a paid pastor is evil, sinful, or wrong. What I see over and over and over again is that the heart, the motive, of the pastor need be for the Lord and not for the money he earns. Now if that is the message that is trying to be sent here, I'm all good with it. But if the message is that it is wrong to pay pastors, then I will take the scriptural side of the issue and say you are wrong. I would also suggest that any man who has a problem separating money from the job of pastor, might at least for a season, exercise a not taking the money or at least giving it all to meet the needs of others, just as Paul did.
Salaried pastors were not the NT norm, and weren't for some 200 years. (Our modern pastor wasn't even the norm)
yet, Paul in the passages we looked at showed us that it not only was the norm in the early church but considered a command to pay them for their service.
Yes Paul accepted gifts. Gifts are gifts. There is no pressure to meet a budget. No threatening of having to loose staff etc .... and no expectation to recieve them.
Now we are talking about more than a salary. Now we are talking bout the politics of the church. Totally different topic. We can talk about politics of the church but first we need to find a Spirit led concensis about the pay issue.
It's ok to pay someone. It's ok to give to them.
But Paul also warned that it can inhibit the Gospel to those whom he ministered. It still can today. That was a biblical position. It has contemporary applications.
Actually if you read the text, the issue was not with those listening but with Paul himself. He knew that he could be drawn astray by the money and so he disciplines himself to avoid that temptation. Any man who is tempted by that money, should without question refuse it. That is the point, Paul knew he was easily swayed and because of that to measures to prevent this from happening. Bravo to Paul. An example for us all, which by the way is what he said, he said that he was being an example.
He also said it can place a burden upon people. That is a biblical position and has modern equivalents as well.
Note the word can there. Many in the early church we poor. This put a strain on meeting needs in the church. In fact, without looking up which church, I can't tell you which one, but one of the churches was known for it's poverty. In fact, it was an issue that they needed to overcome. They needed to learn as Paul did to learn to be content. So what does that tell us...it tells us that even the poor churches, even the churches too poor to pay for a pastor are still worthy of the message of Christ and a true man of God will not let that stop him from sharing the gospel message with them. Not a problem.
Paul didn't talk about his heart being the the matter of point here. So it isn't just a matter of the pastor's heart. Paul's heart was probably in much better alignment with God than ours. There were totally different reasons. There was a better way.
have you read Paul? He often talks about his pride, he had a problem with pride. Pride leads to all kinds of evil. In fact, in the passages we recently talked about, Paul again mentions his pride. Paul was guarding himself against being led astray, into the temptations of preaching because of money not because of the Christ. Not an issue, not all men are subject to this problem.
It is all pertinent to the subject.
btw,
I've worked for many people and given much time without pay while expecting no future compenstaion from those individuals ... and it had to do with trying to live a Godly life. I'm not quite sure why you brought that up. We all still have to work for a living. Even Paul, a sent one, mended tents and got paid.
That is the point I am making to you. We are to work for our Lord without thought of pay. But for the man who is working full time for the Lord, God expects that he be paid for that service. If he doesn't need that pay, awesome...but if he does, his service is worthy. Consider this, if you are working part time for the church, it is nothing to have a business or job that supplies your needs. But if your service is full time, where does God expect your substance to come from? If all our time is spent on the ministry, there is not time left to make tents now is there? Have you tried it? Last year, it was not uncommon for me to work 96 hours a week, home school, be mother, wife, and councilor to people. Bottom line, I got burnt out because it was too much. In fact the stress was so bad that it led me to sin. God commands us to rest, to take a sabbath. If a pastor is putting in lets say 40-60 hour weeks (which is often a light scedule btw) plus raising a family being a husband, and then has to add to that schedule a full time job for sustanence for him and his family, what do you think is going to happen?
Now while we are talking about it, the requirements for overseer is one of the husband of one wife, yet Paul had no wife, what does that suggest about the requirements? I know that is a different subject, but it comes up here. Paul was not only a single man, he had no family commitments, all he had was the church calling and the tents he was making. In fact, otherwise he would have been sinning as I was, by not taking time for a sabbath.
Linear Mode
