PAID CLERGY IN HOUSE CHURCHES? ============================== From: AB Subject: Justification for paid pastors I need some input on the justification for paying pastors for preaching the Gospel. I should say that my dad was a pastor who worked for the state prison system. The state of Texas paid his salary, not the congregation. But how can pastors justify getting thousands of dollars a year? For that matter how can a church justify paying a pastor? Is it based solely on tradition or is there solid Biblical grounds for it? AB -------------------- From: CD Subject: Re: Justification for paid pastors EF- Thanks for your observations concerning the scriptural grounds for paying or not paying pastors. I think you had some good balance with your remarks about those congregations that wanted to support pastors (elders?) for their work among them. There are so many things in our concepts of church life that we need to reconsider. Often we look at explicit scriptures (ie, "don't muzzle the ox...) while ignoring the living, practical examples. The need to do both comes clear in your comments. Oh, By the way, you write: >Sorry for the LLLONG POST You don't have to apologize. After all, those who have a length limit have probably deleted you before the apology and those that didn't, don't feel bad about it anyhow. Post away, brother and the let the reader decide! Shalom! CD -------------------- From: GH Subject: Re: Justification for paid pastors This is going to be an exceedingly short post. I feel that I'd rather keep it short and allow you to explore it on your own. I've heard it preached recently (you can call him an evangelist) about God's economy of gift. That's in opposition to the world's economy (call it as you see it: capitalism, socialism, oppressionism - sorry, couldn't resist). In looking throughout OT and NT, I see the economy of gift at work. I don't have any problems with my monies being used to support people being involved in the kingdom of God. What else can my money be used for? If it doesn't go towards the kingdom, where does it go. Mind you, here's the biggie. I don't want to send my tithes unprayerfully. It's sad enough that when I buy clothes or cars, I am supporting oppression on many levels. It'd be terrible to offer up my tithes to God without consideration of where he wants it; not to mention how much he wants. I find it a privilege to give to God, and am honored that I can support the kingdom. I certainly receive much more than I could ever hope to give. That thanks to God. I hope I haven't offered you food for flaming, but food for thought. God continue to bless you richly! GH -------------------- From: IJ Subject: Re: Justification for paid pastors Hello all, I am back and feel blessed to be so, AB asked this question so I'll attempt to give my slant. By the way, I don't believe that questions are immature. Just some of the answers that are given. And asking questions for the sake of input and accoutability is a very mature thing, indeed. Besides, sometimes God requires us to point out the errors of the man-inspired church, cults and systems. "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." Eph. 5- something. Most people who try to justify paid clergy usually use 1 Corinthians chapter 9 in a vain attempt at proof. They say, "don't muzzle an ox while he is treading out the grain". To this I answer, "how many of these pastors have you ever seen work like an ox?" Beyond that they quote all the rights of an apostle that Paul states in this passage. Which if you actually read the passage as written makes for an absurd defense. Because Paul goes on to state that, "We did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ." Meaning that accepting salary hinders the gospel. And what upright christian would ever want to do such a terrible thing. I think Paul makes his point very clear here. You have to close your eyes not to see it. Also the defense is made by an appeal to the Old testament, so while it may have been true that the levitical priests may have earned the right of pay; the new covenant opened the priesthood up to all and does not support paid ministry. Sure we see love offerings from time to time. But only when people are involved in extensive travel, are ill, or are in chains and unable to work. Also in Thessalonians Paul tells of how he was not a burden (financial or otherwise) to the people. Then goes on to warn the people not to be idle and says "if a man will not work, he shall not eat". And I surely believe that Paul practiced what he taught and was not a clergical hypocrite. There are many other references to Paul's self employment and denial of salary. Another cop out defense of paid ministry is the whole double honor thing found in one of the letters to Timothy. Anyone who cares to check out the true meaning of the greek here will find that the word used for honor here (Time' - tim-ay) is just that- honor and respect. Not money! It is the same exact word used for honoring our parents in the Lord, ever pay them a weekly check? It is true that the english word honorarium concerns money, but only because of translation innacuracies. It's good to be back. If I've stirred things up, I hope it is in a savory way. Love, IJ -------------------- From: KL Subject: Justification for paid pastors Just curious, but what in the world would a paid pastor *do* in a house church? The members take care of the teaching and the praying and the music and the scheduling and the ministering to the sick and so on and so forth. What's left for a pastor? I remember reading some article, somewhere, which said that since Christians are perfectly able to minister to one another, that full-time Christian workers should be engaged in ministering to the world. Such things as clinics, drug and alcohol treatment facilities, homes for the homeless, etc., leap to mind for me, though there are certainly lots of other ways to minister to the world. KL -------------------- To: hcdl@shore.net From: MN Subject: Re: (Long) Justification for paid pastors IJ, I read your post with interest. I hope you won't mind if I share a somewhat different perspective. I should say up front that, in the past, I have been a paid pastor. And I don't intend to be a paid pastor again, at least in the sense of receiving a regular salary and thinking it is my absolute right. With that being said, here's my response. >Most people who try to justify paid clergy usually use 1 Corinthians chapter >9 in a vain attempt at proof. They say, "don't muzzle an ox while he is >treading out the grain". To this I answer, "how many of these pastors have >you ever seen work like an ox?" Beyond that they quote all the rights of an >apostle that Paul states in this passage. Which if you actually read the >passage as written makes for an absurd defense. Because Paul goes on to >state that, "We did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with >anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ." Meaning that accepting >salary hinders the gospel. But Paul did accept a similar gift from the Philippians, and apparently on more than one occasion. "And you yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone; for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs. Not that I seek the gift itself (an important point), but I seek for the profit which increases to your account. But I have received everything in full, and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God." Phil. 4:15-18 (the preceding verses provide good insight as well into Paul's attitude re: these gifts). I can only assume that Paul felt that accepting _this_ gift from the Philippians would not hinder the gospel. Interesting -- in one case (the one you cited), Paul felt that receiving a gift would hinder the gospel; in another case (the one I cited), Paul did not feel that receiving a gift would hinder the gospel. Interesting flexibility. And I think "flexibility" is the key word. In addition, in reading 1 Corinthians 9 again, I noticed verse 6 which seems to suggest that the other apostles refrained from working (and apparently received financial support). >Also in Thessalonians Paul tells of how he was not a burden (financial or >otherwise) to the people. Then goes on to warn the people not to be idle and >says "if a man will not work, he shall not eat". And I surely believe that >Paul practiced what he taught and was not a clergical hypocrite. There are >many other references to Paul's self employment and denial of salary. Yes, I acknowledge that it seems (at least to my recollection) that Paul talks a lot more about denying salary/gifts than accepting gifts (I purposely left the word salary out in that last phrase because I don't think the NT recognizes anything like what we would think of when we hear the term "salary"). >Another cop out defense of paid ministry is the whole double honor thing >found in one of the letters to Timothy. Anyone who cares to check out the >true meaning of the Greek here will find that the word used for honor here >(Time' - tim-ay) is just that- honor and respect. Not money! It is the >same exact word used for honoring our parents in the Lord, ever pay them a >weekly check? It is true that the English word honorarium concerns money, >but only because of translation innacuracies. Yes, but the etymology of the greek word is only part of the equation when you're trying to arrive at the meaning. Another part is context (often the most important). The next verse contains our favorite saying again :-'). "Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,' and 'The laborer is worthy of his wages.'" 1 Timothy 5:17-18 Unfortunately, the only Bible I have right now is a Thompson Chain Reference (drat it, no cross-references!) -- everything else is in boxes as we are moving. But, in the absence of cross-references, I'm going to take a _guess_ and say that in at least the majority of times this sentence about the ox appears in the Scriptures, it has clear monetary connotations. Again, that's a _guess_. If that's true, then we probably need to understand it that way in 1 Timothy 5. And if we are to understand it to have monetary connotations in 1 Timothy 5:18, then the meaning of the greek word, _in context_ goes beyond honor and respect to include a monetary connotation. I also wanted to expand a bit and give you more of a positive "rendering" of my view of financial support of Christian workers. The easiest way to do this is to quote from a private e-mail I sent a friend a couple of weeks ago, so here goes: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ With regard to the pastor's salary, there is no biblical support for a salary in the sense we think of it now. I do not think it is unscriptural to support workers financially. But I do think it is unscriptural for those workers to expect that support as a continuous right, as in a salary system. Take a look at Acts 18. When Paul first arrived in Corinth, he worked as a tent-maker with Aquila and reasoned with the Jews in the synagogue every Sabbath. Read verse 5 -- when Silas and Timothy arrived in Corinth, Paul quit working as a tent-maker and devoted himself completely to the word. At first, he didn't receive any financial support. But when Silas and Timothy came, they presumably went to work to support the ministry, and Paul was able to devote himself completely to the declaration of the word. Notice the flexibility -- at times, Paul received financial support; at other times, he did not. Where do we see that flexibility today? Where do we see an _established_ pastor willing to forsake his "salary" for the sake of the gospel? Where do we see an _established_ pastor willing to return to the "secular" workplace when it is expedient for the furtherance of the gospel? The reason we pay pastors a salary (in the sense of a continuous right) is because the people of God won't do the work of the ministry themselves--they have to pay a professional to do it (you probably don't want to get me started here -- suffice it to say that I don't believe in the concept of "full-time ministry" as it is often taught today: as if God ever called anyone to part-time ministry). And the reason the people of God won't do the work of ministry themselves is because we have defined "ministry" to include an immense amount of paperwork, administration, logistics, running of programs, etc. Much of this administrative work, incidentally, revolves around the maintenance of buildings. If we would only return to the biblical concept of pastoral ministry (pastoring was always meant to be a gift to the body and a ministry, never a position) as shepherding the flock of God (interestingly, this is the work of all elders according to 1 Peter 5, not just the work of one man), we would see that pastoral ministry is not a job -- instead, it is an outflow of the life and compassion of Christ. As such, it shouldn't be considered a career. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anyway, food for thought. I'd be interested in any response anyone might have. In the grip of grace, Frank ____________________ Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 20:29:27 GMT To: hcdl@shore.net From: John Chiaromonte Subject: Re: paid pastors-full time ministry I believe that every baptized believer is called to "full-Time" ministry. Our lives by the grace of God should reflect the reality and truth that is Jesus Christ... but.... I still find it humorous that people get so up tight about someone being "paid" to function as a pastor...So I assume that anything about church life that is not explicitly stated in the NT is wrong....Am I correct in that assumption? If that is the case every pastor on planet earth who believes he/she has been called by God to function as a pastor and who receives a salary is in error. Help me on this....Every believer that attends an "established" church is in error......Those in home churches are the only ones that have it right.... Please help me to understand this.... "I am God's wheat and I am ground by the teeth of wild beasts that I may be found pure bread of Christ." Ignatius of Antioch "Humility must always be doing its work like a bee making its honey in the hive: without humility all will be lost." Teresa of Avila Your brother in Christ, John Chiaromonte ____________________ Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 15:39:36 -0700 From: Don Soegaard To: hcdl@shore.net Subject: Re: paid pastors-full time ministry John, I'll give a shot at addressing the concerns you pose: You wrote --- > > I believe that every baptized believer is called to "full-Time" ministry. > Our lives by the grace of God should reflect the reality and truth that is > Jesus Christ... True -- we are not called to be part-time Christians and part time worldly -- being a Christian is a full-time job. > I still find it humorous that people get so up tight about someone being > "paid" to function as a pastor.. I don't find it humorous -- especially the idea that we "always need a paid pastor as our spiritual umbrella/head" It is pretty hard in sound bites to express holistic thoughts -- thus I think a lot of what people express on the hcdl can be taken out of context. Though some of are so disgusted with what we have seen from professional clergy -- I believe that most of us are not so much in opposition to there being "any" paid "full-timers" as we are trying to defend ourselves against those who promote that the "paid guys" are the only legitimate voice within the body -- and the spirit guides to the rest of us. >.So I assume that anything about church life > that is not explicitly stated in the NT is wrong....Am I correct in that > assumption? If that is the case every pastor on planet earth who believes > he/she has been called by God to function as a pastor and who receives a > salary is in error. That's right -- no electricity or computers mentioned in the NT -- so the hcdl is a NO, NO! You know, these "pastors" have been taught the concept of clergy and laity. It wasn't invented yesterday, or by them. It may be that most of these "paid pros" are in error. But, that is between them and God. If God wants me to support someone in a ministry -- then God can so show me. I personally, am not against helping to provide support to people who are intensely involved in projects that demand their full or almost full attention. However, I think the general NT example is that we don't make a habit of using our ministry as an excuse to live off others. > Help me on this....Every believer that attends an "established" church is in > error......Those in home churches are the only ones that have it right.... I assume what you mean by "established" churches (sic) are those various religious clubs that you find in the Yellow Pages under "churches." From experience, I would say that as far as providing "church/ekklesia" for the body -- they are usually pretty far off the mark. And, again, just because people meet in the home does not mean that they are meeting under the headship of Christ or otherwise performing an activity that could be construed as ekklesia/church. Many "established churches" don't do much in the way of providing Christians with opportunities for ekklesia/church. Often, other than some rudimentary teaching -- which tends to keep people in perpetual immaturity and spiritual bondage -- these "churches" seem to be more oriented toward evangelical outreach than functioning in ekklesia. > Please help me to understand this.... If we look at an organization as being a "church", then I believe we will stay in perpetual frustration over what you are asking. However, if we view the body of Christians at large as being the "Church BODY" ------ and when two, three or more of the Christians from the "Church BODY" come together under the headship of Christ --- we have the beginning of the Church ACTIVITY -- then we can start making some sense out of what is otherwise confusing. For example, much, if not all of what takes place within institutional settings pertain to an agenda that does not provide for God to be in charge -- or for the individual people in attendance to participate in any meaningful way. It is often difficult, if not impossible to overcome the religious facade of many "established institutional churches (sic)" However, to grow, each of us needs to develop a first hand, and accountable relationship with our Lord. Too often, established religious clubs divert babes in Christ away from the growth toward freedom and purpose in the Lord -- by bringing them under a bondage to the religious institution and its leadership. Many people have found home fellowships and home bible studies to be the first (and often only) place where they could find and develop any meaningful relationships with other Christians, jointly share in God's Word, and otherwise experience and Christ within the body. However, just because these are the tendencies that many have experienced does not mean that anyone in an "established" church is in error -- or that everything that occurs in home fellowship is of God. I mean: Gee Whiz! I for one am not an anarchist who believes in the destruction of all "established" religious clubs. However, I am for a greater maturity in the body -- one that recognizes the "ever-present" corrupting influences that act upon any organization/institution (in or out of the home) -- such that we can use religious organizations for the purpose of serving the body of Christ, rather than being an instrument which crushes individual growth and quenches the Spirit of God. Anyway, just some thoughts..... In Christ, Don ____________________ From: OIKOSKIRK@aol.com Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 20:54:51 -0400 To: hcdl@shore.net Subject: Re: (Long) Justification for paid pastors Dear Frank and all, Frank, excellent post. You made some good points. However, I really don't think we are in much disagreement. You make the point that Paul accepted "gifts" from the Philipians and others. This is quite true. My post stated that we see such love offerings when people were involved in extensive travel, were ill or in chains and unable to work. The problem,as I see it, is when workers expect and depend on compensation and things go beyond temporary support and go onto a salary type employment. You are correct that "flexability" is a key word here. Flexability for the person in the field to stay gainfully employed and self supporting as much as possible, and flexability for others to bless the fieldworkers efforts when times are difficult,or they just need a blessing. Closed countrys come to mind. Where aliens are not allowed to work. Frank said, "Take a look at Acts 18....." You go on to say that when Silas and Timothy arrived in Corinth that Paul quit working as a tentmker and devoted himself exclusively to the declaration of the word. I suggest a different view of this passage than this traditional interpretation. What a very small view of Silas and Timothy, "that they presumably went to work to support the ministry.." so Paul could minister. "Presumably" is the right word here. But please consider this alternative take on the event taken from Acts 18: Paul was a tentmker staying and working with Aquilla and Priscilla in Corinth. Every Sabbath he REASONED in the synagogue, trying to PERSUADE Jews and Greeks. Silas and Tim show up from Macedonia. Paul begins to devote himself exclusively to PREACHING, TESTIFYING, that JESUS WAS THE CHRIST. The Jews oppose this and become abusive. Paul goes next door ministers to gentiles, many people believe in Jesus, and Paul stays there a year and a half....." Now, please consider this: Paul is there trying to reason and persuade, but nothing is happening. He is getting no response. Notice that when Si and Tim show up his methods change. He begins to preach and testify exclusively concerning Christ, instead of merely reasoning. Boom! He gets a response. Not the most favorable one of course, the Jews get abusive. But because of this he moves on to others and Boom, they get Jesus. It is clear to see that something changed greatly in Pauls approach after Si and Tim showed up. And it doesn't say it was his employment habits. I believe that "the exclusive" part was his testimony of Jesus, instead of intellectualizing with people who loved to intelectualize. Not that he stopped tentmaking to only preach. Si and Tim didn't show up as general laborers. They came as Pauls friends and peers. I believe they came for accountability. Paul, yes Paul the great superapostle, may have been in error here. He seemed to be relying greatly on his intellect and knowledge to transform people, rather than on the Spirit of Christ before the boys came to town. Then , all of a sudden, when they show up his message changes and there are results. Si and Tim may have rebuked Paul for his vainity, or maybe just by their just being there he was prompted to return to the most excellent way. Is this possible ? Or am I just an idealistic idiot seeing what he wants to see? Love, Chris ____________________ From: DLBeaty@aol.com Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 01:07:35 -0400 To: hcdl@shore.net Subject: Re: (Long) Justification for paid pastors Frank, I appreciated your comments on pastoring. I think you may have spoken for many of us. The idea of flexibility is much better than laying blanket statements for or against financially supporting any ministry. There are so many ways to express the need for a different paradigm in church and ministry thinking. Dan eof -- Last updated 1/23/99