backyardmissionary

Thanks for this article. I, too, have been wondering why churches have so many paid staff members. I’ve been on staff of large churches and small churches and, most recently, involved on staff in the church planting environment. I’ve come to the understanding that only the senior pastor should be paid staff; all others should be out in the field working “regular” jobs, as I do now. Working “in the world” allows me as a minister (and all Christ-followers are ministers) to hear and see what people need; therefore, we can plan our ministries accordingly.
Thanks for the thoughts.

Comment by Brenna — November 29, 2008 @ 10:48 pm

(Full disclosure before I start – I am a full-time Minister of Worship in a Lutheran church, making my living from my “professional” church work…)

I believe there are multiple strong arguments for a paid leadership in Scripture. For me the strongest ones come from 1 Corinthians 9 and 1 Timothy 5:17-18. The entire chapter of 1 Cor. 9 is Paul’s argument that he has the right to be supported, but is not making use of those rights. v.14 is perhaps the clearest argument. (To be honest, I haven’t read Re-Imagining Church, but I just don’t see how one can argue against this. It’s there. Especially v. 14 – “those who proclaim the Gospel should make their living from the Gospel”.)

1 Tim. 5:17-18 is also clear. It seems this argument turns on the word “honor”, but one can’t simply say “honor” means “respect” or something like it, without considering the next verse. The worker deserves his wages, no matter what the work is.

There are certainly arguments from the Old Testament, though they are less compelling to me because of the Old Covenant. It’s very clear that the priesthood was to live off the offerings of the people (they didn’t even get any inheritance or share of land like the other tribes – they were dependent upon the people!) However, the fact that Paul invokes the “ox” not being muzzled in both 1 Cor. 9 and 1 Tim. 5 is interesting, especially in 1 Cor. 9:9-10 – Paul makes it clear that even in the OT, the ultimate intent was speaking about NT church leaders.

At the same time, church leaders are free to refuse to accept payment if they wish, such as Paul did. But to say that no one has a right to be a paid church leader simply gos against the clear teaching of Scripture, IMO.

I know the argument as well that the NT doesn’t use the word “pastor” but once, and that is somehow seen as evidence for not having them. But to me that’s getting hung up on terminology. The important thing is function, not title. The NT uses many words for those who lead the churhes – elder, presbyter, shepherd, prophet, teacher, etc. Whether these all serve the exact same function is irrelevant. That they are all people who labor in ruling the churches, and especially in preaching and teaching, is VERY relevant.

As much as I respect the desire not to burden churches with financial support of leaders, I just can’t buy the argument that “professional” church work is unBiblical. It’s very Biblical. If someone chooses to be bi-vocational, great! If there are pastors who abuse their position of service and abuse their people, they should be disciplined and, if necessary, removed from office. But don’t throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. To me, at least, the arguments from Scripture for a paid clergy are very compelling.

Comment by Michael Schutz — November 30, 2008 @ 2:32 am

Hamo,
I think this is one of the most important questions we can ask in this current time. I think you already know that I would answer with a resounding “No.” I do not think there are any compelling arguments for paid ministry staff. While I might concede that there are some practical reasons that some continue this practice today I would argue that those reasons usually lack any theological reflection and that what we end up with will usually undermine our theology if we dig deep enough. No way that this can be fully articulated in a blog comment but I sure would love to dialogue about this with a thinker like you…
Peace.
JM

Comment by James — November 30, 2008 @ 2:39 am

I’d always thought the argument was from 1 Cor 9, where Paul says that he’s entitled to reap a material harvest from the Corinthians, but has chosen not to. (cf 1 Tim 5:17-18, which cites the same OT passage, but perhaps not with the same direct application).

Comment by cafedave — November 30, 2008 @ 3:41 am

This is an interesting thought. I know that Paul didn’t impose on churches even though he said he had a righ tto but rather he worked to support himself. I have had over 20 years experience in being a worker pastor or “tent maker?” and what I find is that the culture of modern churches is for a “fulltime pastor” so that they then believe thay are successful.

I think it is good for leaders to share the same working enviourment as their community as they then see the frustrations and tensions that exit rather than being to some extent cloistered by “fultime ministry”.

I know some leaders who may react to this style of ministry but it was mostly successful in the churches I have worked with.

Comment by David — November 30, 2008 @ 7:31 am

Thanks folks – keep the thoughts coming.

I am in the process of chewing thru this question myself in a fair bit of depth – as you can imagine – but then I am also off to Melbourne for the next few days so I might not get a chance to respond much in the immediate future.

i guess the old phrase ‘where you stand determines what you see’ has much to do with how we respond to this issue.

There is also that rather pointed Upton Sinclair via Al Gore quote…

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Al Gore: [quoting Upton Sinclair] …

I guess one of the issues we face in all of this is the challenge of living in a world that is broken and where ideals always fall short of realities.

I am wondering to what extent we pursue ideals and to what extent we ’suck it up’ to achieve something at least…

I sit in an interesting place where a very good bunch of people have invited me to go and lead them and work with them to connect with their community. I want to help them do this in the best way possible and perhaps one of my questions in the mix of all this is whether by actually signing up with them in a paid capacity I unintentionally subvert the very work we would hope to accomplish.

My jury is still out on that one and usually the way I learn best is from trial and error so we will be giving it a try and hopefully finding a way to make it work.

I neither want to disappoint them, nor work in a way that betrays my own integrity…

Comment by Hamo — November 30, 2008 @ 10:24 am

I think Michael Schutz makes some great points in his comments and while I suspect we would find some common ground I would still come to different conclusions. I think it is important to remember that we should not read those passages of the sacred texts in light of our present day organization of local churches. I suspect there if very little in common between the way most of us practice and embody church today and the communal way of life that the author(s) of the epistles were addressing. I know plenty of professionals in my corner of the world who make good money as “teaching pastors” and do a disservice to both titles. I think I could fully support paying teachers who actually teach. And I could probably get on board on paying someone who exercised pastoral stewardship in a community but would want to precisely define what that job really entailed. The ambiguous title of “pastor” leaves a lot of room for work and responsibilities that I believe fall on the shoulders of the entire congregation and when we pay one (or a few) to do the work so that the rest don’t have to, I think we have made a terrible error.

I think a related question here is what kind of ecclesial economics are sustainable? How much does a pastoral steward need to make in order to provide for his or her family? Then how many people need to make up the congregation in order to generate that kind of income? And then, can one person really do the work of pastoral stewardship in a congregation of that size? I think if we honestly go down this path we begin to see that the economics of church create situations where we want large congregations from whom (in the words of Miroslav Volf) “nothing more is required than a bit of loyalty and as much money as possible.”

I think when we read I Corinthians 9 and I Timothy in light of Genesis 1-2, Exodus, John 13-19, Acts 2-5, Philippians 3, I Peter 5, and the list could go on and on… we find that there is no “clear teaching of Scripture” on these issues and we have the difficult task of being faithful witnesses to our interpretations of these texts. This is hard work, no doubt, but it is hard work for all of us. Rather than taking up a collection to make someone else do it, I think when we gather together we should each of us should bring a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up the congregation. If we all shared our gifts and resources with each other we may find that no one in our communities had any needs and people might start calling us Christians. It happened once. I suspect it could happen again.

Thanks for your insights Michael. And thanks for hosting Hamo.

Peace!

Comment by James — November 30, 2008 @ 2:21 pm

I don’t find a compelling argument for any church structure in the Bible. I think they all have a level of interpretation determined by pragmatic need, theological bent, cultural context, and I think these are all valid. We can appeal to the 1st century Jerusalem or Greek churches, but none of us can really know what went on and even if we did, I’m not sure how directly we could or should apply it. I believe God has deliberately left us with some ambiguity so we don’t make a law out of what is grace.

Comment by Alex — November 30, 2008 @ 3:25 pm

Add me to the list of those who do not find a compelling Biblical argument for our current forms of “paid” ministry. In fact, paying people to do ministry is deeply problematic (well, to me at least).

Where I do see a compelling argument, call it practical or theological, is in releasing people from the burden/obligation of supporting their family to devote more time to ministry they-are-already-doing. I don’t mean someone who is already working as a conventional pastor. I mean someone is working a job and doing some ministry in the community that is bearing fruit and could bear more fruit with a greater investment of time.

It’s a different model to what most churches do when they call someone who is a professional pastor and is not working a conventional job – or maybe has never held a conventional job.

Comment by fernando — November 30, 2008 @ 5:17 pm

“Can anyone provide a compelling biblical argument for the existence of paid pastoral staff within a local congregation?”

Well, out of 8 responses, it seems to be 2-5 for paid pastors, with an additional Hamo-comment.

Clearly, the ‘nays’ have it!!

Or have I called it too soon?

Comment by Toddy — November 30, 2008 @ 9:15 pm

With respect, the way the question is asked makes it very hard to answer fairly. In biblical times, I don’t know that *anyone* was paid a regular income, as we tend to understand paid employment (as opposed to being self-employed) today. No-one had that security. (And I don’t hear anyone arguing that Christian doctors or schoolteachers shouldn’t be paid, because they wouldn’t have had a regular income as we know it in biblical cultures…)

That said, might we see Jesus himself as the biblical argument you are looking for?

Although the Gospels are silent concerning what Jesus did before his public ministry, most people who understand the culture in which he grew up accept that it is most likely that he would have been a carpenter, having been apprenticed to his father, and that he gave this means of supporting himself and his dependents at the time of his baptism. What we do see in the Gospels is Jesus engaging in a ministry, leading a group of people including the 12 and several women – and that women who were part of his local-but-mobile (or, gathered-and-sent) congregation financially supported his ministry.

So the question is, is Jesus a model for us to follow, or a unique case we cannot copy…?

Comment by Andrew Dowsett — December 1, 2008 @ 5:08 am

Hi Hamo,

I am in complete support of paid pastors. But i do need to emphasize the word “pastors”.

This world is falling apart, families are breaking down, depression, abortion, loneliness. We need pastors who will commit their lives to loving, teaching, and supporting these people. And those pastors deserve a salary so that they can commit their attention and time to those people, and provide for their own family.

There are two things that I think should be avoided – (1) pastors who cannot pay their own essential bills and provide for their own children, and (2) pastors owning two homes while their flocks struggle to own one.

And, from scripture –

“Elders who do their work well should be respected and paid well, especially those who work hard at both preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You must not muzzle an ox to keep it from eating as it treads out the grain.” And in another place, “Those who work deserve their pay!” (1 Timothy 5:17-18)

God bless you as you discern.

Comment by Daniel S — December 1, 2008 @ 8:41 am

From Wendell Berry:

“It seemed to me that one of the most important things in ministerial training would be to teach them to do something besides be a preacher. Because it’s a bad thing to be professionally trapped and I can’t think of a worse trap to fall into than total dependance on being a minister. They ought to be taught to garden, farm, carpenter, take care of themselves in some other way. And then they can tell the truth.”

So if I were going to be in charge of training ministers I’d try to see to it that they got a practical education. There’d be always something else they could do. Because churches are quarrelsome places. I know everybody knows it but I noticed it. And I think that a certain amount of thinking ought to start with that. A person ought to be able to say “Alright, ok. There’s this other thing I can do. So I’m gonna tell you what I think.”

Comment by Simon Moyle — December 1, 2008 @ 9:53 am

It seems like there are only two options. Secure your income from paid employment or from paying parishioners. Is there any room for simply trusting in God for provision ala Matthew 6 or am I just being naive?

Comment by Andrew — December 1, 2008 @ 11:39 am

Putting my cards on the table – i have worked previously as a garbo, steel-cap boot salesman and then most recently as a full-time church staff member (community pastor), now back studying a B of Theol full-time:

My argument is ‘for’ paid-staff in church on two counts:
1) As image-bearers we have been designed by God to evaluate/rationalise, act upon our evaluations, create, feel and relate to others.
2) 1 Cor 10:31 “Whatever you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God”

I am pretty sure most here would agree that any given way we spend our time can either honour God or dishonour God – and this includes vocations of any kind.
On this paid-clergy subject i would suggest, as God’s image-bearers, we have the freedom to evaluate in relation with others:
* what pastoral circumstances are worthy of being paid and what are not
* what are the most strategic ways to influence and love those in our communties (including church structure)

Will those who say “no” include chaplains (school, police, army…) in this as well? I would be curious to know…

While there have been a number of disparaging comments in the previous ‘Re-imagining’ post regarding the effect of having paid clergy, ther are pastors who are “pastoring” in a way that honours God and who are being financially supported to do that and, they won’t necessarily be pastoring in a way that makes “the body of Christ lame” but highly active and effective in seeing Gods Kingdom come on earth. I deeply hope and pray that as i time goes on and, should i return to a full-time paid church role, that i might be included in their number.

I wonder whether we run the risk of de-valuing the spiritual/relational/community significance of “clergy” the way the “church” has previously de-valued other vocations making them less spiritual than “pastoral positions”? Can they not all house a work that potently honours God?

Comment by travis — December 1, 2008 @ 8:03 pm

Hamo

I’ve been chewing this one over for the evening and I’m coming to the conclusion that sitting on the fence is the most appropriate place to be, in other words I don’t think that one argument is better than the other. However, I think that there are some things that need to be thought through before deciding on the paid bit, such as,
Can the job be done better if the pastor/minister is paid? Or even, would the pastor have a reduced burden if they were paid and able to serve the church full time?
Is the pastor in need, or are there others in the community in greater need?
Is the pastor happier, or gaining spiritual reward from using their skills in paid employment?

Comment by Phil — December 2, 2008 @ 6:30 am

While I obviously see divergent opinions here, I am so glad to see thoughtful and honest responses on this contentious issue. Too easily discussions like this de-volve into entrenched, unthinking mud-slinging, and that hasn’t happened here, for which I’m grateful!

James, thanks for your thoughts as well. I agree in terms of paying people to do the right job. And that’s why I made the comment about the baby and the bath water. Just because there are (many) poor examples of paid pastoring doesn’t mean there isn’t legitimate Biblical direction.

I would have to respectfully disagree that “it is important to remember that we should not read those passages of the sacred texts in light of our present day organization of local churches”. Should the Bible not inform and direct our situations rather than be re-examined in light of them? It’s my belief that we need to start with Scripture, not with our times and then try to apply Scripture to them. I believe we need to “be read’ by Scripture more than we read and apply it.

I would agree as well that we should not pay the pastor to “be the spiritual one” for us, as if it were some sort of representative democracy. I would argue, though, that if you look at the Biblical definition of pastor/elder, that’s not what it is. And I believe the best examples of “pro” pastoring throughout church history don’t hold the pastoral office to be this.

In my tribe, the pastoral office is meant to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments in a public, official way, on behalf of the congregation. I think we often get too narrow in our practical living this out, but that is the essence of it. Each member of the local congregation is a member of the priesthood of all believers, and as such, has the privilege and responsibility to be “little Christs” to one another and to the world around them. (This is all ideally speaking, of course.) But again, just because pastors or people don’t fulfill their roles properly doesn’t mean there isn’t Biblical instruction.

All that being said, I wonder if the payment issue isn’t secondary in this discussion. I think the true heart of this issue is one of authority. Whether paid or not, should there be “official” church leadership, or should churches be egalitarian? Again I think Scripture is clear that there should be official leaders in churches, who act not independently but on behalf of the congregation, who willingly submit to their teaching and authority so long as it is in accordance with Scripture. (1 Tim. 3, Heb. 13, all of Titus, etc.) I have to wonder how much of these discussions really centers on authority and spiritual headship. For me, the question of paid or not comes only after that decision.

Hamo, I’d be interested to know if that’s part of your discussion with this community you’re talking to. Is it a given that they would like you to be a spiritual head (under Jesus, of course)? Is it just a matter of payment, or is it more fundamental than that in terms of how the pastorla office is seen and lived out among the people?

Comment by Michael Schutz — December 2, 2008 @ 11:16 am

“In my tribe, the pastoral office is meant to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments in a public, official way, on behalf of the congregation”

Michael – Why do you need to do that on behalf of the congregation? Not a dig, a serious question that I’d like to hear your answer on.

Leadership? Sure.
Paid? Less sure.
Full time with no other vocation? I’m getting serious doubts. I mean, some of my best friends are FTP pastors ( ) but I’m just starting to wonder if it is the best way.

I agree that it seems to be the best way for a church that is growing in regards to it’s numbers and it’s programs, and it’s the best way for a church wanting to be like it’s been before… just wondering if it is what God would have intended in the current secular society.

Comment by Toddy — December 2, 2008 @ 3:43 pm

Here are my theses:
1. The Word of God grows the Church of God.
2. The core of being a pastor, is ministry of the Word and prayer for the sake of a local church/ congregation.
3. To enable those so gifted to devote their time to this, it makes sense to pay them so that they give themselves fully to this vital ministry.

Michael Schutz has already given all the Biblical texts and arguments that I would have cited, and then some! Thankyou Michael.

So that I must say that I struggle with Jame’s comment, that “I do not think there are any compelling arguments for paid ministry staff.” Further, in his next post James cancels out the Bible’s arguments by saying that “we should not read those passages of the sacred texts in light of our present day organization of local churches”.

But with respect, that is not what Michael Schutz has done! In fact, Michael has invited us to do the exact opposite: to “read” our present day practice in the light of the sacred text.

In Christ,
Mike.

Comment by Michael Fischer — December 2, 2008 @ 6:11 pm

Mike Fischer says:
So that I must say that I struggle with Jame’s comment, that “I do not think there are any compelling arguments for paid ministry staff.” Further, in his next post James cancels out the Bible’s arguments by saying that “we should not read those passages of the sacred texts in light of our present day organization of local churches”.

Thanks for this push back, Mike. As I am sure you have guessed, I completely disagree with your interpretation of my comment here. In no way does what I say “cancel out the Bible’s argument.” I am not saying these texts are not relevant to our day. I am simply saying that when we assume that the way we embody churches today (paid pastor, worship leaders, segregated child care, etc) is the way they did it then we run into problems of thinking the Bible supports our way when in fact it probably doesn’t. So, just like you (hopefully!!) do not require women to keep silent and their heads covered during worship, I would say there is room to read and apply these texts in a faithful way that allows me to come to a conviction that there are not any compelling arguments for “paid pastors” in our current cultural context.

I would also stand in favor of egalitarian church structure with a plurality of pastoral stewards. I (coming from a non-denominational tradition) have no problem with allowing all members to administer sacraments or preach the Word in a public way.

Travis, I thought you had some great thoughts as well. I think that you ask a great question about chaplains. I think I would couple that question with Hamo’s observation about need. My biggest concern from a theological standpoint is that we avoid structures that pay someone for doing what we are all called to do (proclaim Gospel, pray, etc) when there may be people in the community who have needs. I can say more about that later if anyone is interested.

I would also agree that this discussion has been helpful and for that I am thankful to all of you.

Peace.

James

Comment by James — December 2, 2008 @ 9:43 pm

Just out of interest, from the other point-of-view. As a member of a church is the primary responsibility for my giving to be to financially support the ‘pastor/minister’, or should I be giving to charities, other ministries, supporting my extended family? It would be possible for a home based church to give all their money to support a full-time leader, however, would this be the best way to use that money?

Comment by Phil — December 2, 2008 @ 9:52 pm

Wow, I’m amazed that no one is prepared to take seriously my suggestion that Jesus’ own ministry might provide a compelling biblical argument for full-time and financially supported ministry. And so, I throw it in the ring again:

With respect, the way the question is asked makes it very hard to answer fairly. In biblical times, I don’t know that *anyone* was paid a regular income, as we tend to understand paid employment (as opposed to being self-employed) today. No-one had that security. (And I don’t hear anyone arguing that Christian doctors or schoolteachers shouldn’t be paid, because they wouldn’t have had a regular income as we know it in biblical cultures…)

That said, might we see Jesus himself as the biblical argument you are looking for?

Although the Gospels are silent concerning what Jesus did before his public ministry, most people who understand the culture in which he grew up accept that it is most likely that he would have been a carpenter, having been apprenticed to his father, and that he gave up this means of supporting himself and his dependents at the time of his baptism. What we do see in the Gospels is Jesus engaging in a ministry, leading a group of people including the 12 and several women – and that women who were part of his local-but-mobile (or, gathered-and-sent) congregation financially supported his ministry.

So the question is, is Jesus a model for us to follow, or a unique case we cannot copy…?

Comment by Andrew Dowsett — December 3, 2008 @ 3:58 am

I feel that there is no compelling biblical precedent for professional, paid clergy in the church. However, I also see no biblical foundation for the way that the institutional church is structured and run in general. So, questioning the concept of paid clergy ultimately leads us to question the whole structure of the institutional church. In its current form, paid clergy is a necessity, because you simply cannot run such large and structured organisations without considerable time spent by people who are dedicated to keeping things going i.e. clergy.

I don’t have a problem with people being paid to be involved in ‘full time ministry’ (I don’t like the term, but I refer to those that have chosen not to engage in salary-paying occupations), but not for the purposes of running an institutional structure. I know many people who work for the needy and the downtrodden, who receive support from those around them, out of love and calling – this is the kind of paid ministry that I am happy to support.

Comment by Andrew Noble — December 3, 2008 @ 7:58 am

Hi Folks

I have been in Melbourne and have been fighting off (and losing the fight) with a gluggy head cold so my thinking hasn’t been too sharp. Today is the ‘morning after’ the flight home.

As i look at all of the above perhaps for me the most compelling reasons are the ones Travis posits – perhaps because they are in most aligned with my own, but I do find them helpful.

I know Viola takes some time to refute the more familiar ‘worker is worth his hire’ arguments – which are the ones I have always turned to.

I don’t have time at the moment to detail his refutations, but I will do in the next day or so in a separate post so that we can continue the discussions.

As someone else has noted the tone and robustness of the conversation has been excellent and personally this has been really helpful to me at this point in my own journey – so many thanks to all those who have commented.

I know some people question the value of blogs, but speaking personally I have found this aspect of blogging to be incredibly valuable.

Andrew D – have appreciated your thoughts as always mate and I don;t think the absence of comments in response means people haven’t heard you. I reckon its maybe that you have come from an angle that we haven’t considered before – and goodonya for that!

Comment by Hamo — December 3, 2008 @ 8:06 am

Andrew D. I agree wholeheartedly with you when you say “In biblical times, I don’t know that *anyone* was paid a regular income, as we tend to understand paid employment (as opposed to being self-employed) today. No-one had that security.” Spot on! And I think you bring up an interesting thought with looking at Jesus as an example of funding ministry but I just can’t follow the path as far as you do. I agree that the Scriptures are silent about what Jesus did and I think it is fair to imagine, based on the textual evidence, that he worked as a carpenter. However, I would argue that their is an equal silence about how his “public ministry” was funded. While I don’t doubt that it is entirely possible and maybe even probable that he gave that all up at his baptism I don’t know that this conclusion has any specific textual evidence. Could it be equally possible that he continues to ply his trade as a carpenter to make a living AND disciple a small group of others?

Phil, your approach of looking at this from the side of the non-pastor/member who’s task is to fund this whole idea is excellent and frames this in a much better theological context, imho. When I read it I immediately thought of the concept of Performance based Philanthropy. I think there is some potential in this idea to fund current ministry paradigms but begin moving towards a new model.

Hamo, Get well soon! Praying for your fruitful next step.

Peace,

James

Comment by James — December 3, 2008 @ 12:10 pm

Hamo,

I think that you can create a biblical arguement for paying pastoral staff (as has been done above)just as you can for supporting missionaries overseas or staff in seminaries but that is not the crux of the issue (and while I like much of Viola’s book where he is a bit overly perscriptive on this).

The issue should be around what is missionally effective and the answer to that is that it depends on the context and that in some settings paid staff are not the way to go while in others they are.

Andrew

Comment by Andrew — December 3, 2008 @ 1:35 pm

I’m wondering if Mike F has the role of Pastor and Elder a little confused???

Comment by Mark R — December 3, 2008 @ 2:10 pm

OT priests were paid by offerings

Jesus was supported by people (women actually) of means in Luke 8:2-3

Acts 6 implies some mechanism by which apostles are free to focus on preaching and prayer

Paul indicates pay was an option, even though at times he did not take it up

the Didache 13:3 pattern of early church to “pay prophets”

In summary, there seem to be a variety of patterns by which to do leadership and ministry, paid and unpaid, depending on the missional context.

steve
(I’ve been a bi-vocational pastor for last 14 years in 2 different church contexts. Currently our church has 8 bi-vocational paid staff cos missionally we are wanting to break the dependance on “Sunday gathering” as defining our life.)

Comment by steve — December 3, 2008 @ 2:12 pm

Toddy,

Michael – Why do you need to do that on behalf of the congregation? Not a dig, a serious question that I’d like to hear your answer on.

No worries – happy to answer! The smarmy answer is that I don’t need to, but someone does. (Though, I do believe I am one of those who can…)

The reasons are myriad. The primary one is that there are Biblical qualifications for the office of elder/pastor (btw, Mark R, I’m curious to hear what you hold to be the difference). James says not everyone should presume to teach; Timothy and Titus are full of specific qualifications for this office.

The second is that sheep need shepherds. Scripture uses the image of “under-shepherds”, with Jesus as chief shepherd.

At the same time, the authority and office of the elder/pastor/shepherd is not absolute. They are to be judged and tested by the church, and if they are judged to not be fit, or (especially) to be teaching something contrary to Paul’s “sound doctrine”, then someone else should lead in their place.

I don’t think my tribe does things perfectly. Far from it. Chief among the mis-steps is over-emphasis on academic credentials, IMO. But I believe that we are Scripturally sound when we value the pastoral office in preaching and teaching the Word in a public, official capacity. now whether those men are all paid and “full-time” is open to debate for me, but that there should be Biblically-qualified elders/pastors/shepherds is not. I don’t hold to an egalitarian view of church. We are all equal before God, but we do not all fulfill the same roles in life, including church (not everyone should be an eye in the body of Christ, and all that…)

Also, Andrew, I’m intrigued by the thought. Personally I would have to chew on that more, but my initial reaction is that his group was unique in that He was physically present with them and able to work in ways that we are not. At the same time, we are to proclaim the very same message He did, except that He was looking forward to his death and resurrection and we are pointing back to it. I would have to do more study on it (especially on the rabbinical structure that Jesus would have been a part of) to respond more intelligently.

Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion, everyone. I’m enjoying it!

Comment by Michael Schutz — December 3, 2008 @ 4:09 pm

James – I think Luke 8:1-3 indicates that Jesus’ ministry was at least partially funded out of the means of those he led. There may have been other means, such as gifts (we know that a gift of gold was provided for Jesus’ family at the point where they had to flee to Egypt as political refugees). So I don’t think we are faced with silence on the means of his support, even if we aren’t presented with three years worth of tax returns

Comment by Andrew Dowsett — December 3, 2008 @ 5:22 pm

Thanks for the response Michael. Good to know where others are coming from.

Comment by Toddy — December 3, 2008 @ 7:05 pm

Daniel S quotes 1 Tim 5:17 – Elders who do their work well should be respected and paid well, especially those who work hard at both preaching and teaching.

Paid well, is far better translated honor (most translations do this) – the word “honor” in this verse (time in the Greek) means just what it is translated as–honor, not pay (unless we want to conclude that we should give some elders “double pay”!).This same word (time) is used in 1 Timothy 6:1; are slaves to “pay” their masters?

If Paul had intended to teach that elders are to be paid, he could have used the Greek word misthos, which means “wages”

BTW – the poor Ephesian church would be paying wages to a plurality of Elders.

Comment by Mark R — December 4, 2008 @ 3:11 pm

Mark, regardless of the word in 17, you can’t ignore its connection to 18 (especially with “gar” as a connecting word – “because; for this reason”). Perhaps the concept of honor doesn’t absolutely have to include pay, but the word, and verse 18, certainly implies that it is deserved (we take care of that which (and those whom) we value highly). The pastor can (and maybe in some instances should) refuse it (or take less than is offered), but he certainly has the right to be paid. (Which again leads back to 1 Cor. 9.)

(Oh, and he does use misthos in v. 18. Taking single verses in isolation rarely gives the full picture.)

(Ok, that’s way too many parentheses for one post, so I’ll stop now. )

Comment by Michael Schutz — December 5, 2008 @ 3:35 pm

No, I’m sorry Michael it is not reguardless of the word in 17 – double honour in any language is way different than double pay – I’m sure it is, most would agree. As you rightly point out the connector – for this reason we don’t muzzle the Ox, for this reason we pay the worker …

I have no arguement with V 18 of course he uses misthos in v 18 this is why it is translated in most versions as wages/hire. “The laborer (ergatees) is worthy (axios) of his reward (misthos),” again, in its context, refers to double honor, and not double pay.

BTW, Of the 29 occurrences of misthos, only 5 could possibly be “wages,” or “salary,” while the remainder simply mean “reward.” Paul uses misthos twice in First Cor. 9:17-18 as “reward” in his refusal of a wage!

And I agree the double honour is certainly deserved – this is why we don’t muzzle an oxen while it is working – it deserves what it eats, this is why we pay a worker his wages it is deserved, this is indeed the right thing to do, this is why we double honour the elders who direct the affairs of the Church it is deserved.

Comment by Mark R — December 5, 2008 @ 8:29 pm

Was Paul really a pastor though? Couldn’t a case be made that most of the people getting paid in the NT were traveling, itinerant apostles, and not full time shepherds?

Comment by Chad P — December 6, 2008 @ 7:24 pm

I think you might be right Chad.

BTW – I’m not against monetary help for those chucking in – BUT it’s a big leap from that to a full time paid pastor which M Schultz suggests was the modus operandi in the early century but as he states he is a full time Minister of Worship (whatever the hell that is) and therefore may have a vested interest in preserving the status quo.

BTW.- I was NOT taking a single verse in isolation Michael I was correcting a mistranslation of a word, my intent was not to expound, it was to expose a mistake.

Comment by MarK R — December 7, 2008 @ 1:09 pm

And so this discussion has railed back and forth for a week or so… it may be because at the end of the day there might be several ‘unchangeables’…

- The ‘Pastorate’ is an industry (in the best sense of the word). To completely discredit the pastorate is to discredit a couple thousand years of history, schools, seminaries and the like which have existed to assist, at the end of the day, the industry of the ‘local church-pastor’.

- The majority of churches are not seeking to reduce in number (quite the opposite!) Therefore, these congregations, regardless of whether or not their structure is biblical, unbiblical or ‘abiblical’, require people to invest the majority of their week to strategically mobilise the organisation in the best way possible. The churches exist (and want to continue existing), so paid-pastors must also exist by default, if nothing else.

- Several pastors have (gasp!! horror!!) actually done a decent job, and made a positive impact in the community in which they serve. Some work better alongside Christians, others work better along side more marginalised groups, but when they eventually leave, the community notices and is sad for their absence.

So – I’m kinda figuring that while churches exist as they do, paid pastors must also exist.

Please understand… I’m not saying that these are the only reasons why pastors should exist… I’m just trying to look at whether there is currently an alternative that can be imposed upon Christianity across the world, given the broad church structure that operates within communities.

Today I don’t think there is.

Comment by Toddy — December 7, 2008 @ 3:50 pm

I am wondering if we can revisit Phil’s thought about the role of the “member” of the churches who pay a professional pastor. What expectations should there be on these members, who presumably have full time jobs, family obligations, social responsibilities, etc? What does it mean for a husband/father/full-time employee–like myself– to live his life as a Christian? What should we expect from mothers, students, bankers, bakers, social workers, construction workers who carry the name of Christ?

In our day of big churches that require paid pastors who have been set apart and given time to study, proclaim Gospel, pray, and what ever it else it is they are paid to do, what role do the members play in living the Christian life? Do they need to study, proclaim Gospel, and pray but only at a lesser amount? Are they simply to attend a weekend service, maybe a small group, and put money in the plate? Should they volunteer to work in the child care or music programs?

For me, I think that when we pay someone to be the professional using all the arguments in this thread, we also make living the Christian life a shallow, narrow experience for the whole congregation. It seems to me that the call of pastoral ministry is to build up the spiritual maturity of the whole church and our current mode of embodying church does just the opposite. We say that we expect our members to read the Bible, pray, do works of service and some of us complain that as our churches grow it is harder to get more people to “step up and volunteer” (in our context we often talk about the 80/20 rule where 20 % of the congregation does all the work/funding to make the weekly service take place and the other 80% are just consumers of the product). We seem to narrate numerically growing churches as God’s blessing but can we really celebrate creating contexts where there are no real expectations for spiritual growth for 80% of the people in our churches? I can’t help but think it is precisely at this point that we need to give some careful, theological (and not just pragmatic) reflection about why we pay some people and not others.

I wonder if we really think that we can help a whole community live the Christian life by funding a weekly one hour production that the large majority simply needs to participate in as passive paying observers? If I were to concede that we must pay the leaders, what should we members expect to receive for our financial contribution and what should be expected from us in addition to our funding the project?

Peace,
James

Comment by James — December 8, 2008 @ 2:42 am

Mark R, thanks for the clarification, and you’re quite right on the meaning of the word. I wasn’t suggesting the word honor meant wages, but that v18 makes it clear that wages can (not must) be a way in which honor is shown, along with showing respect and honoring their teaching and leadership.

In this context (especially considered along with the other passages I’d previously cited), I just don’t buy the argument that “honor” cannot and must not include pay.

Speaking of which, the tone of your last post was less than honorable. If you were to speak to anyone who knows me and my work best, you’d know the status quo is something I battle everyday to break, not to keep. My interest is not in keeping myself employed by the church. There are many other things I could do for a living, but I believe I’m using my gifts to the fullest in my work. And as long as the congregation is willing to honor my leadership by enabling me to do it full-time and make a decent living doing it, I will gladly receive it. I do so because I believe there is Biblical freedom to do so.

Also, I’m happy to share the focus of my work with you and anyone who asks in order to understand one another better. I must say I’m less inclined to dialogue with someone who doesn’t seem to want to do so respectfully.

To be clear, I have never suggested that full-time paid pastor is the MO in the NT. I suggest that paid leadership is an option, and a Godly one according to Scripture. That’s my only argument here – paid or not, full-time or part-time or “bi-vocational” (a term which I don’t think is accurate anyway, but that’s a discussion for another day ) – as long as it’s mutually agreeable between pastor(s) and people, great.

What I’m arguing against is that there is no Biblical argument for paying pastors. I believe there is clear support for it (but again, not as an absolute requirement – the only absolute requirement is that there needs to be leaders).

James,

I hear your concern, and I share it. At the same time, I believe there can be a valid role for both. I believe it is the pastor who needs to proclaim the Gospel to his people, who then in turn carry that Gospel to the world around them. Of course, that’s the general way it works. The pastor is called to study, teach, proclaim, and build up the flock under his care, so that they then will be able to better do that for one another (and to do the same for him). As they do that for each other, unbelievers see that and are drawn in, in a healthy “I want what they have” sort of way.

I wonder if we really think that we can help a whole community live the Christian life by funding a weekly one hour production that the large majority simply needs to participate in as passive paying observers? I wonder that too. And if that’s what a pastor and/or congregation thinks is “church”, I would call that a misunderstanding.

I guess my ideal pastor-people relationship is that where a pastor is seeking to be an Eph. 4 pastor, equipping the saints and walking alongside them in doing ministry. People love their pastor(s), submitting to their teaching (assuming it’s in accordance with the Word) and honoring their leadership. It’s a partnership. It’s one with clearly defined roles, but a partnership nonetheless. If all it is is a show that’s personality-centered, or if people abuse their leaders, then we’re off the mark.

FWIW,
Michael.

Comment by Michael Schutz — December 8, 2008 @ 2:24 pm

Thanks Michael – yeah my tone was way off – for which I apologise, the problem with posting and not conversing is that we can’t really bounce of each other.I responded like I had been hit in the nose – I’m sorry.
I’d like to listen to what you have to share – do you have a Blog/Email?

Comment by Mark R — December 9, 2008 @ 7:43 am

Michael, Let me push back on this:
“I guess my ideal pastor-people relationship is that where a pastor is seeking to be an Eph. 4 pastor, equipping the saints and walking alongside them in doing ministry. People love their pastor(s), submitting to their teaching (assuming it’s in accordance with the Word) and honoring their leadership. It’s a partnership. It’s one with clearly defined roles, but a partnership nonetheless.”

When you say walking alongside them in doing ministry what does that even mean? what is “doing ministry?” And in the “clearly defined roles” what exactly is that role in “doing ministry” for the church member? Surely there is more to this than
1. loving our pastor(s),
2. submitting to their teaching,
3. and honoring their leadership?

While I will gladly concede #1, I have my reservations about the other two. Who determines whether or not the teaching is “in accordance with the Word?”

I am very interested to hear your responses as in a little more than a month I will be co-facilitating a conversation that touches on these topics in an academic setting near where I live. On the surface I disagree with the picture of the ideal pastor-people relationship but maybe if there was more detail I would find a point of agreement. In any case your push backs to me have been very helpful as I clarify my own thoughts on these matters.

As a side note, I realize this thread is getting long in the tooth so if you want to continue this conversation offline feel free to email me at jmills @ knowtown . com

Peace,
James

Comment by James — December 9, 2008 @ 12:34 pm

Long in the tooth?

HAH!! Just getting started…

Comment by Toddy — December 9, 2008 @ 4:04 pm