A recent trend I have seen in churches lately involves pastors tailoring their message to keep their job. Instead of preaching the word with boldness and letting the Holy Spirit guide what they say they apologize for the message they are about to give. Or even change it because they are afraid of how the congregation may react, and may be fired.
My solution to this problem is to stop paying ministers. Whenever people put money towards something, they think they have a right to direct things. When it comes to ministers-- the sermon. One first remember that a tithe is not an investment but Gods money. Anyway, tithes can go to keep the church building in shape and for missions. The minister, elders, and deacons can be on a board that directs these funds. However, ministers should have another job, like the deacons and elders do. That way they won't fear losing their job and will be more interested in what God is having them preach then in what the congregation is wanting to hear.
you ignored what i had pointed out about timothy and paul. the point of appointing elders was to establish leadership once timothy left. You see the same practice with paul as he appoints elders before HE LEAVES.
yes they were under his authority but that was not to be a permanent situation. at some point timothy was to leave to plant other churches or assist in strengthing existing churches. Over time, as these elders grew in spiritual maturity, some would be sent out as missionaries in the same way Paul and Barnabas were and thus the cycle continued.
The concept of having a guy go to seminary and then apply for several already existing churches simply flies in the face of scripture. the real exception to that is if the church is struggling and is in need of some dicipline or some assistance and in that case i would say the "outsourced" leadership should only stay long enough to fix the situation.
However, as a general rule the leaders of an existing church should come out of the church itself, it should be continually training new leaders and missionaries as some go off to multilply the church elsewhere, if the teaching is not preparing the congregation for ministry, then what are you teaching and why are you teaching it?
We are blessed enough to have ready access to several versions of the Bible. Last i checked, that's all anyone really needs to be a good minister.
It's a two fold problem in that we have ministers who are trying to make a living taking care all the ministries in the church that should be delagated and dispersed among the congregation.
While at the same time we have congregations who are too scared and probably too unprepared and would rather pay someone else to serve the Lord for them and have them bottle feed them the spiritual milk.
Its a comfortable yet unscriptual relationship. The Bible does not make room for lay people/deadweight...ALL are called to serve. ALL are called to exercise the gifts they have been given. The "pastor" job should be to train his congregation to the point that he is no longer needed there. His purpose should be to make his own job obsolete and should be living on as little of the tithe as possible for as short a time as possible.
If a congregation would rise up and decide they don't need to hire a pastor but should let the elders (assuming they meet the scriptural qualification of elder) lead the church. It would break the cycle.
dear folks, i must say that as you will see below that the preacher is a laborer worthy of his wages. he dont have to accept it but it is ok for him to ask for maintanance for him and his family. and we shouldnt be speakin ill of the annointed and ordained.for this reason. as they were called to preach.. even though i have never took money to preach or sing.. and the good LORD willin i never will..
ole cattle
1 corinthians 9:3-14 3 Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, 4 Have we not power to eat and to drink? 5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife , as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? 7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? 8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? 12 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? 14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
from my bible study cd
Verses 3-14
Having asserted his apostolical authority, he proceeds to claim the rights belonging to his office, especially that of being maintained by it.
I. These he states, v. 3-6. "My answer to those that do examine me (that is, enquire into my authority, or the reasons of my conduct, if I am an apostle) is this: Have we not power to eat and drink (v. 4), or a right to maintenance? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas; and, not only to be maintained ourselves, but have them maintained also?'' Though Paul was at that time single, he had a right to take a wife when he pleased, and to lead her about with him, and expect a maintenance for her, as well as himself, from the churches. Perhaps Barnabas had a wife, as the other apostles certainly had, and led them about with them. For that a wife is here to be understood by the sister-woman-adelphen gynaika, is plain from this, that it would have been utterly unfit for the apostles to have carried about women with them unless they were wives. The word implies that they had power over them, and could require their attendance on them, which none could have over any but wives or servants. Now the apostles, who worked for their bread, do not seem to have been in a capacity to buy or have servants to carry with them. Not to observe that it would have raised suspicion to have carried about even women-servants, and much more other women to whom they were not married, for which the apostles would never give any occasion. The apostle therefore plainly asserts he had a right to marry as well as other apostles, and claim a maintenance for his wife, nay, and his children too, if he had any, from the churches, without labouring with his own hands to procure it. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to for bear working? v. 6. In short, the apostle here claims a maintenance from the churches, both for him and his. This was due from them, and what he might claim.
II. He proceeds, by several arguments, to prove his claim. 1. From the common practice and expectations of mankind. Those who addict and give themselves up to any way of business in the world expect to live out of it. Soldiers expect to be paid for their service. Husbandmen and shepherds expect to get a livelihood out of their labours. If they plant vineyards, and dress and cultivate them, it is with expectation of fruit; if they feed a flock, it is with the expectation of being fed and clothed by it! Who goeth a warfare at any time at his own charge? Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not the fruit thereof? Who feedeth a flock, and eateth not the milk thereof? v. 7-9. Note, It is very natural, and very reasonable, for ministers to expect a livelihood out of their labours. 2. He argues it out of the Jewish law: Say I these things as a man? Or saith not the law the same also? v. 8. Is this merely a dictate of common reason and according to common usage only? No, it is also consonant to the old law. God had therein ordered that the ox should not be muzzled while he was treading out the corn, nor hindered from eating while he was preparing the corn for man's use, and treading it out of the ear. But this law was not chiefly given out of God's regard to oxen, or concern for them, but to teach mankind that all due encouragement should be given to those who are employed by us, or labouring for our good-that the labourers should taste of the fruit of their labours. Those who plough should plough in hope; and those who thresh in hope should be partakers of their hope, v. 10. The law saith this about oxen for our sakes. Note, Those that lay themselves out to do our souls good should not have their mouths muzzled, but have food provided for them. 3. He argues from common equity: If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? What they had sown was much better than they expected to reap. They had taught them the way to eternal life, and laboured heartily to put them in possession of it. It was no great matter, surely, while they were giving themselves up to this work, to expect a support of their own temporal life. They had been instruments of conveying to them the greater spiritual blessings; and had they no claim to as great a share in their carnal things as was necessary to subsist them? Note, Those who enjoy spiritual benefits by the ministry of the word should not grudge a maintenance to such as are employed in this work. If they have received a real benefit, one would think they could not grudge them this. What, get so much good by them, and yet grudge to do so little good to them! Is this grateful or equitable? 4. He argues from the maintenance they afforded others: "If others are partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? You allow others this maintenance, and confess their claim just; but who has so just a claim as I from the church of Corinth? Who has given greater evidence of the apostolic mission? Who had laboured so much for your good, or done like service among you?'' Note, Ministers should be valued and provided for according to their worth. "Nevertheless,'' says the apostle, "we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. We have not insisted on our right, but have rather been in straits to serve the interests of the gospel, and promote the salvation of souls.'' He renounced his right, rather than by claiming it he would hinder his success. He denied himself, for fear of giving offence; but asserted his right lest his self-denial should prove prejudicial to the ministry. Note, He is likely to plead most effectually for the rights of others who shows a generous disregard to his own. It is plain, in this case, that justice, and not self-love, is the principle by which he is actuated. 5. He argues from the old Jewish establishment: "Do you not know that those who minister about holy things live of the things of the temple, and those who wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? v. 13. And, if the Jewish priesthood was maintained out of the holy things that were then offered, shall not Christ's ministers have a maintenance out of their ministry? Is there not as much reason that we should be maintained as they?'' He asserts it to be the institution of Christ: "Even so hath the Lord ordained that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel (v. 14), should have a right to a maintenance, though not bound to demand it, and insist upon it.'' It is the people's duty to maintain their minister, by Christ's appointment, though it be not a duty bound on every minister to call for or accept it. He may waive his right, as Paul did, without being a sinner; but those transgress an appointment of Christ who deny or withhold it. Those who preach the gospel have a right to live by it; and those who attend on their ministry, and yet take no thought about their subsistence, fail very much in their duty to Christ, and respect owing to them.
Verses 15-18
Here he tells them that he had, notwithstanding, waived his privilege, and lays down his reason for doing it.
I. He tells them that he had neglected to claim his right in times past: I have used none of these things, v. 15. He neither ate nor drank himself at their cost, nor led about a wife to be maintained by them, nor forbore working to maintain himself. From others he received a maintenance, but not from them, for some special reasons. Nor did he write this to make his claim now. Though he here asserts his right, yet he does not claim his due; but denies himself for their sakes, and the gospel.
II. We have the reason assigned of his exercising this self-denial. He would not have his glorying made void: It were better for his to die than that any man should make his glorying void, v. 15. This glorying did imply nothing in it of boasting, or self-conceit, or catching at applause, but a high degree of satisfaction and comfort. It was a singular pleasure to him to preach the gospel without making it burdensome; and he was resolved that among them he would not lose this satisfaction. His advantages for promoting the gospel were his glory, and he valued them above his rights, or his very life: Better were it for him to die than to have his glorying made void, than to have it justly said that he preferred his wages to his work. No, he was ready to deny himself for the sake of the gospel. Note, It is the glory of a minister to prefer the success of his ministry to his interest, and deny himself, that he may serve Christ, and save souls. Not that in so doing he does more than he ought; he is still acting within the bounds of the law of charity. But he acts upon truly noble principles, he brings much honour to God in so doing; and those that honour him he will honour. It is what God will approve and commend, what a man may value himself for and take comfort in, though he cannot make a merit of it before God.
III. He shows that this self-denial was more honourable in itself, and yielded him much more content and comfort, than his preaching did: "Though I preach the gospel, I have nothing whereof to glory; for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel, v. 16. It is my charge, my business; it is the work for which I am constituted an apostle, ch. 1:17. This is a duty expressly bound upon me. It is not in any degree a matter of liberty. Necessity is upon me. I am false and unfaithful to my trust, I break a plain and express command, and woe be to me, if I do not preach the gospel.'' Those who are set apart to the office of the ministry have it in charge to preach the gospel. Woe be to them if they do not. From this none is excepted. But it is not given in charge to all, nor any preacher of the gospel, to do his work gratis, to preach and have no maintenance out of it. It is not said, "Woe be to him if he do not preach the gospel, and yet maintain himself.'' In this point he is more at liberty. It may be his duty to preach at some seasons, and under some circumstances, without receiving a maintenance for it; but he has, in the general, a right to it, and may expect it from those among whom he labours. When he renounces this right for the sake of the gospel and the souls of men, though he does not supererogate, yet he denies himself, waives his privilege and right; he does more than his charge and office in general, and at all times, obliges him to. Woe be to him if he do not preach the gospel; but it may sometimes be his duty to insist on his maintenance for so doing, and whenever he forbears to claim it he parts with his right, though a man may sometimes be bound to do so by the general duties of love to God and charity to men. Note, It is a high attainment in religion to renounce our own rights for the good of others; this will entitle to a peculiar reward from God. For,
IV. The apostle here informs us that doing our duty with a willing mind will meet with a gracious recompence from God: If I do this thing, that is, either preach the gospel or take no maintenance, willingly, I have a reward. Indeed, it is willing service only that is capable of reward from God. It is not the bare doing of any duty, but the doing of it heartily (that is, willingly and cheerfully) that God has promised to reward. Leave the heart out of our duties, and God abhors them: they are but the carcasses, without the life and spirit, of religion. Those must preach willingly who would be accepted of God in this duty. They must make their business a pleasure, and not esteem it a drudgery. And those who, out of regard to the honour of God or good of souls, give up their claim to a maintenance, should do this duty willingly, if they would be accepted in it or rewarded for it. But whether the duty of the office be done willingly or with reluctance, whether the heart be in it or averse from it, all in office have a trust and charge from God, for which they must be accountable. Ministers have a dispensation of the gospel, or stewardship-oikonomia (Lu. 16:2), committed to them. Note, Christ's willing servants shall not fail of a recompence, and that proportioned to their fidelity, zeal, and diligence; and his slothful and unwilling servants shall all be called to an account. Taking his name, and professing to do his business, will make men accountable at his bar. And how sad an account have slothful servants to give!
V. The apostle sums up the argument, by laying before them the encouraging hope he had of a large recompence for his remarkable self-denial: What is my reward then? v. 18. What is it I expect a recompence from God for? That when I preach the gospel I may make it without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel. Or, "not so to claim my rights as to make them destroy the great intentions and ends of my office, but renounce them for the sake of these.'' It is an abuse of power to employ it against the very ends for which it is given. And the apostle would never use his power, or privilege of being maintained by his ministry, so as to frustrate the ends of it, but would willingly and cheerfully deny himself for the honour of Christ and the interest of souls. That ministers who follows his example may have cheerful expectations of a full recompence.
also we can see here that those sent out to preach the gospel to folks were told to recieve whatever they gave em to eat as the laborer was worthy of his wages.
luke 10:1-9 1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come. 2 Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest. 3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves. 4 Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way. 5 And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house. 6 And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again. 7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house. 8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you: 9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
matthew 10:10-14 10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves : for the workman is worthy of his meat. 11 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. 12 And when ye come into an house, salute it. 13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
1 timothy 5:17 17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
Fury, I think you are assuming facts not in evidence. No where in scripture are we told that Timothy was in Ephesus temporarily. While this might have been the case there is no evidence either way. In fact in scripture the only person who follows the model which you described was Paul, who was predominantly a missionary and church planter. We do not see any of the apostles following this model, nor do we see Timothy or Titus following this model.
While I agree that the idea of a single pastor running a church is not the scriptural model what you have suggested is even farther from being the scriptural model.
When we look at scripture we see; in the Jerusalem church in Acts, as well as in Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus; that the model for a church is that it is to be served by a board of Elders/Pastors/Bishops/Overseers (all of which are used to describe the same position) who are to be Godly men, elder Christians who have been educated in the word. They are not to be new Christians, nor are they to be backslidden or ungodly, nor are they to be men who simply picked up the bible and started teaching. They are also to be supported by the church. While they are not to be greedy or eager for unjust gain your idea that Pastors should be paupers begging from the tithe plate does injustice both to those who preach the word and the word that they preach.
There is no scriptural evidence to support the position of pastor as you have defined it in church today.
you guys have simply taken was is written in Ephesians 4:11 and twisted it to justify the position of pastor today.
im not saying that pastors should be beggars. Im saying they should not exist as we define them.
A pastor is a mentor or or someone who diciples others. That is simply a role that can be filled by either a sunday school teacher elder, counselor or small group leader. All could be called pastors.
The problem is not in paying people for the ministry... Scripture has already answered that. The problem comes from making an unscriptural position and trying to justfy a full-time position with duties that should be delagated and intended to be spead out among the leadership and the congregation. It is the simple concept of one body and many parts.
both you and cattle must read the scriptures without preconcevied notions about traditional church.
Timothy titus, paul, Barnabas, Silas, and many through Acts were missionaries and church planters never intended to be the permanant heads of any local body. Instead they were to appoint elders (plural) to be that permant leadership. You do not see anywhere in scripture where a permanant head was to be established nor one individual intended to be the one shepard leading the sheep (besides Christ being the spiritual head)
In new church plants, temporary heads were necessary but never to be the permanant system.
I believe you are reading the scriptures and focusing on the exception rather than the rule. For such an important role as single head of the church, there is little scripture to support it and that which is there is being pulled out of context.
