If you're so strong in your beliefs, why all the acrimony with the church?
Perhaps clarifying certain terms is in order here. What you call "...the church," is not the same thing as THE Church.
THE Church is completely off limits to unbelievers and pseudo-believers (the religious). What you call "...the church," is open to unbelievers and pseudo-believers alike.
I don't blame you for the historic, traditional nonsense of referring to man-made, religious church institutions as "...the church."
THE Church populates some of the pews and chairs in religiuos church organizations, but not all. Dr. D. James Kennedy and many others throughout history have declared this very truth.
Look at how you are addressing your brothers in Christ - parts of the very same body you are in.
While there are hirlings, few and far between, here you do a disservice and ill respect to hundreds who are called to the ministry and lay doen their lives for what they believe God is calling them to.
Indeed? You choose to believe that most institutional "pastors" are not hirelings, even though their job description, or function if you prefer, as organizational heads is nowhere found in scripture. I find that wanting.
You see, rising above emotional thought tends to shed a more jaundiced revelation upon that which is man-made, and that which is not. When the distinction becomes more clear, we begin to see the actual intermixing of wheat with chaff where historic doctrine in concerned.
Please don't cast desparity upon my stated vantagepoint simply because of a presumption of infallibility of historic teachings on the basis of antiquity. Historic doctrines are not infallible simply because they are older than others. Antiquity proves nothing by itself. Roman catholicism originated, from paganism, the existence of a so-called clergy class of men, never minding (of course) the silence of scriptures. Nowhere does the NT protray to us a singular man, or group of men, hired to do what we ALL should be doing outwardly and inwardly toward one another.
If that comes across as being too radical to your sensibilities, then it may warrant further study on your part to see if what I've said aligns with what's actually written.....which will only work if you honestly set aside historic bias and the many, many extra-biblical teachings that fill all our thoughts and understanding.....at least until one finally gets to the point that he asks the Lord that He fill him with HIS thoughts and truths in the place of man's thoughts and truths. After all, it's written that we let every man be a liar, and God be true.
Good intentions tend to sway the majority, but not God.
You're right when pointing out there are many well-meaning men out there behind pulpits, but when they teach the Lord expects believers to hand over to them the primary, largest portion of their giving in support of their religious organizations, with only the leftover morsels utilized for the meeting of needs, then a truly biblical believer is left with calling such things into serious question.
The proof of proportions is in the statistics. When Christianity Today did their nationwide poll of church organizations back in the late 80's, 93% of 10,000 responded that they absorb, on average, 87% of what's handed over to them for institutional expenditures. I don't know if you're mathematically challenged, but to those of us who aren't, that's significant.
Given modern, economic difficulties, the percentage of absorption by religious church organizations is more than likely higher than 87%, as it was back in the late 80's.
Simply stated, pulpiteering is something we all can take or leave. In our fellowship, all the men share in the resposibility for shepherding new babes in Christ Jesus, raising them up to a mature level of understanding and spiritual life so that they can spread their wings and fly on their own to do the same for others.
To those of us in the fellowship where I meet together with other believers, perpetual sheepdom is a meaningless concept created by evil men whose function is realistically no better than that of Diotrephese, of whom John wrote about in 3 John, who himself wanted the preeminence among believers, with the perpetual sheep constantly reliant upon him for spiritual feeding and direction, as if none of the perpetual sheep could ever aspire to the same spiritual level as himself, and much less surpass him.
Nowhere does scripture speak of such men hired to do what we ALL should be doing, one toward another, especially the babes.
Ahh, but man has always considered himself smarter than deity. We've historically HIRED men (since about the fourth century) to that position, and commission them to function in a vicarious manner.
To me, that's a serious problem. It's therefore only natural that bleeting sheep, drinking milk for 70 years of their lives, will see that as arrogant and condescending. They look up and see the eagles soaring, and the resultant longing lowers them to an even lower level of thought and belief, like the monks who crawled around cities on their knees, thinking that doing so would make them more holy and acceptable before the Lord. Dare anyone shine the light of TRUTH upon their useless works, and their unspiritual followers naturally gravitate to accusations of arrogance and condescention on the part of those who dare stand upon scriptural truths.
I agree with you that there are many out there who desire greater spiritual growth for themselves and others, but the historic system has within its construct many flawed premisses upon which it's built, and few are willing to venture out and discover for themselves something better.
One last note: A hireling isn't necessarily a bad thing, and it certainly isn't mere name-calling. People have every right to possess a communal facility and hire a professional staff to fulfill what they want done in that organization. The problem is when they try and errect such things upon the foundation of scripture....as if such things are mandated by God through His written word. That clearly is not the case. Many don't see it that way because of their inability to see beyond the brainwashing of traditional thought. Group-think is a powerful force, of which I do not underestimate, as many are in the habbit of doing.
BTW