Should pastors be paid/vocational?

[andrew]

I did mention Revelation referencing music, but other than your reference of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, is there a mention of "how" it's to be done?

Music is obviously supposed to be a big part of our relationships with each other, and Revelation refers to musical instruments, but there's nothing in the NT that supersedes what the OT has to say about music, either.

Something about 'new songs':
Number of times scriptures say to sing to the lord a new song: 9
Number of times scriptures say to sing to the lord an old song: 0
So there's that….

I think we're speaking past each other trying to make the same point.

I'm not so sure. When it comes to the development of technology over the past 2000+ years, I'm pretty open minded. When it comes to the bible's description of human nature, God's gifts, and the ways He intends us to relate to each other (things that haven't really changed), I likes me my NT….

 

[rockfox]

I'm just wondering out loud (and haven't made up my mind) if the NT model of ecclesiology is the absolute model to be followed, exactly, without deviation, in each assembly. Do the times and the circumstances dictate the response?

This is a question I do not have the answer for, despite studying it for over a decade. Most Christians don't consider this aspect of ecclesiology and your Systematic Theologies don't do it justice. They simply follow tradition, even if they theoretically follow one of the following to sola scriptura methods.

For reference this was a major issue in the Reformation and two theological stances were the Normative Principle and the Regulative Principle from the Lutherans and Calvinists (reformed) respectively as they struggled to figure out how to theologically reason with how to do church without the pagan baggage of the RCC. The Scottish Reformed church especially delved into this. Those are sola scriptura approaches, the Catholics and I think Orthodox hold tradition as authoritative. All three approaches lead to different problems. If you come from a Restoration Movement church (Church of Christ, etc) you likely follow some form of the Regulative Principle, but call it a hermeneutic or CENI.

And while we're at it, where is the job of rock band worship and music come into play in the NT? I hardly hear any mention of it, except maybe Revelation, and thems mostly voices. Do you favor musicless worship?

Music is definitely part of the NT scriptures and early practice. I can't say for certain that instrumental accompaniment is verboten. However the early church did not use instruments, and it was not for lack of options.

Personally I do not care for modern worship music. It is theologically shallow, inhibits congregational participation in the singing, and puts the focus on the frontman/woman and performance. It leads one towards church being a professional production rather than a family participation. And too often your supposed worship leaders are chosen for their music ability and not their spiritual ones. Churches with instruments rarely have good congregational singing and you quickly get away from the whole point of the signing, which isn't the emotion or ambiance or performance but edification; i.e. learning from the words.

Music in all its forms is an aid to corporate speaking of text. It makes it easier, it carries farther, and aids in remembering. The process of verbalizing statements and ideas works on your mind psychologically to 'set' those beliefs in you. You come to believe what you speak, even if you are knowingly speaking falsehoods. And when you don't have an instrument to carry the song it forces the members, in general, to participate together to pull off the music.

Frankly, a capella singing for me has greater emotional resonance. I've thought that ever since I was a kid and the piano lady started sneezing, leaving us to sing a couple lines on our own. The congregation with their voices rising together to God was the most beautiful thing I heard all my time growing up in church.

Most a capella music in the US is some form of 4 part harmony dating back to English and Scottish practice and their Psalters. However amoung the Anabaptists in this country you'll find practiced the original primitive form that the 1st century church practiced; monophonal. Or something like it anyway.

 

[FollowingHim]

Music in all its forms is an aid to corporate speaking of text. It makes it easier, it carries farther, and aids in remembering.

This is a very important point that is often missed. The old hymns often include detailed descriptions of biblical events, explain the meaning of theological concepts, outline our response to God in detail - there's a lot to learn from them. I was asked to choose a hymn for our church last weekend, chose "I cannot tell why He whom angels worship", and started discussing the words with the children over a meal. It became one of the longest and most detailed theological discussions we have had yet, covering a whole spectrum of topics, but all tied together into a consistent whole. Because the hymn itself describes the core of the Gospel.

Also, I'm terrible at memorising bible verses - but many of the ones I do remember I do so through song, because they're still stuck in my mind from when I was a kid...

I must qualify this by pointing out that Andrew and his family do a great job of leading worship, and I have very strongly felt the presence of the Holy Spirit when worshiping with them. I'm not against modern instruments or music styles. But I am against the watering down of theology that occurs in songs that basically come down to different combinations of "God is cool, God loves you, I love God". There is a real power and depth in the old hymns that is lacking from most modern worship. I also get frustrated that the few times people do use the old hymns in modern services, they tend to take the words only, or even just a couple of verses (dropping theological depth), and then try to jazz it up by putting it to a new tune, which usually results in simply meaning that the congregation doesn't know how to sing it and despite the great words this too becomes a performance rather than a corporate event.

Even the old hymns can work great in a modern setting. I have very fond memories of "Easter Camp" here, 3000 young people in a tent with a modern band turned up unhealthily loud - singing "Will your anchor hold in the storms of life" at the top of their lungs and with great enthusiasm, to the original tune just played a bit faster than most organists would. So enthusiastic about it that every single meeting in camps for several years would include chants of "Anchor, anchor" as everyone tried to get the band to play "the anchor song" as it was known. It was a sad day when after years of playing that song the band chose to drop it in favour of an entirely modern lineup, and the chants of "anchor, anchor" the next year were fruitless and the kids were greatly disappointed. The quality of the music declined from that point and never recovered.

And I love singing hymns a capella, to the point that my kids get sick of it...

 

[Mojo]

Music is obviously supposed to be a big part of our relationships with each other, and Revelation refers to musical instruments, but there's nothing in the NT that supersedes what the OT has to say about music, either.

Something about 'new songs':
Number of times scriptures say to sing to the lord a new song: 9
Number of times scriptures say to sing to the lord an old song: 0
So there's that….


I'm not so sure. When it comes to the development of technology over the past 2000+ years, I'm pretty open minded. When it comes to the bible's description of human nature, God's gifts, and the ways He intends us to relate to each other (things that haven't really changed), I likes me my NT….

I'm probably not articulating my point well enough, but that's probably a cyberspace thing. I know what I mean, it's just not coming out well. I will give it one last try.

I mentioned the Revelation as the exception in descriptions of music because I don't think most folks refer to it for ecclesiological studies. It's a future ecclesia, not a contemporary one. Most folks don't study the Revelation when they are trying to figure out how to run their assembly.

I left out the references to OT music because, once again, people tend not to refer to the OT when trying to figure out how to run their assembly.

The OP was about paying a Pastor, which morphed into what is a Pastor, which morphed into other things. My main argument is that since the NT purists see very little support for the concept of paid clergy (Pastor), and therefore unscriptural.........I see many things that we now do that are not specifically in NT, yet there doesn't seem to be a problem participating in them. It's having the best of both worlds.

For the record, I'm not downing modern instruments or forms of music. I have my preferences, but won't call out someone as being unscriptural over it.

I think I'm done on this one.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Most a capella music in the US is some form of 4 part harmony dating back to English and Scottish practice and their Psalters. However amoung the Anabaptists in this country you'll find practiced the original primitive form that the 1st century church practiced; monophonal. Or something like it anyway.

Interesting! Sources?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I must qualify this by pointing out that Andrew and his family do a great job of leading worship, and I have very strongly felt the presence of the Holy Spirit when worshiping with them. I

Agreed 100% even though I’m more of an old hymns guy.

 

[mystic]

By God's grace, good happens in all sorts of arrangements. Recovery from my time in the Morg Collective (which denies grace and is emphatically against paid clergy) teaches me to allow for that.

This thread ran long enough that I started skimming rather than reading, but I think @Mojo was batting for a similar view and I've appreciated that.

 

[andrew]

Yeah, we're way off the OP....

To each his own; I used to sneer at modern music also. I find that most of us are as comfortable in our music traditions as we are in our doctrinal traditions, and that's that. We always resonate at a deep level with the cooking we grew up with in our mother's homes, and the music we listened to as teenagers.

Put another way, we like the old stuff to the extent we like the comfortable and the familiar, and we like the new stuff to the extent we like exploring and creating and to the extent we think "sing a new song" has anything to do with anything. Personally I enjoy and appreciate both, and consider all of it, from instrumental jams and extemporaneous prophetic singing to highly structured symphonic music (and yes, @rockfox, a cappella music fits in there, too) to be simply tools in a toolkit.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

Mojo, you and I still aren't connecting here, but I think we can move on. In fact, maybe this whole thread can move on. There seems to be consensus that paid pastors aren't necessary to be a 'church', but aren't categorically a sin, either. That answers the original question, and everything else is just a roundtable discussion.

Final thought re music:

I agree with every criticism I've heard (and I'm pretty sure I've heard them all) of modern, corporate "praise band" worship, and some of the stuff I've seen and heard in the past few years sickens me. Almost twenty years ago I wrote an essay titled: Tabernacle Worship, or Will Heaven Have A Stage At One End?, looking at the performance aspects of modern Sunday morning services. The funny part is I see most paid pastors as paid entertainers as well, they're just paid motivational speakers instead of paid musicians. Head and heart, right? In the typical Protestant church the worship band is the opening act and the speaker is the headliner.

(Side note: For those that don't know, what the church calls Contemporary Christian Music, or CCM, the music biz calls "faith-based entertainment". 'Nuff said.)

The problem, though, is not the musical style, nor is it the instruments that are used. It's the spectator sport vibe. More on this if we open or split off a thread re worship music.

 

[Mojo]

Definitely not connecting

Music was a side point/example to argue a greater point.

While we're talking music, anybody here heard of shape notes hymns? They are intriguing. I love them!

Split thread here????

 

[andrew]

Definitely not connecting

Music was a side point/example to argue a greater point.

I got that, I just don't think it makes your point.

While we're talking music, anybody here heard of shape notes hymns?

Yup. Very interesting stuff.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

While we're talking music, anybody here heard of shape notes hymns? They are intriguing. I love them!

I know of them. My aunt learned to play piano with them as a girl. The first couple of times she tried to play with the rounded notes she failed miserably. Later she learned to play with them but said the shaped notes for her was much easier to play with.

Some of our old hymnals had most of the scores written in shaped notes.

 

[Mojo]

 

[Shibboleth]

While we're talking music, anybody here heard of shape notes hymns? They are intriguing. I love them!

A couple of the choruses in our chorus book use it, but I never learned to read the shapes (it's a form of solfege, right?). I just ignore them and read it as regular notation (what with me being the regular pianist, and that being the only regular instrument in my church).

We're pretty old fashioned in our selections too. I don't know almost anything contemporary. I've no cause to judge those who find it edifying, but whenever I'm in a setting where it's used, I tend to feel very disconnected from the worship.

 

[Mojo]

I think the content of these older hymns continued theteaching through song method to a largely illiterate church. They couldn't "feel" the words of worship until they knew the theology behind them.

 

[rockfox]

If you read carefully you'll see my approach to both music and paid pastors is not really that much different.

Paid pastors and instruments are probably both fine; so long as you do it in a Biblical way and keep in mind the intention behind the practice. If you must deviate from 1st century practice, do it in a way that avoids the problems the modern tradition causes.

But to me it feels like leaven. I've seen how just the simple addition of a piano or an acoustic guitar has dramatic, far reaching side affects that compromise the original purpose.

Interesting! Sources?

No citable source for either, just life experience. Most people don't even know the history of their own practice. The interesting part to me, the monophonal signing among US anabaptists, I'm not sure how widespread the practice is. But I am very intrigued by it as it is not just the original practice, but I suspect it will have some beneficial aspects spiritually.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

So this monophonal singing is a current practice? I wasn’t aware that there were any groups still publicly identifying as Anabaptist. I know that there’s quite a few that proudly trace their roots to them or groups like them but wasn’t aware of that group. I’d be very interested to find out about them.

 

[rockfox]

I use Anabaptist as a general theological identifier; none identify by that anymore but that stream of faith includes many different sects (Mennonite, Old Order Mennonite, Amish, Hutterite, etc).

My wife attended a service a few years ago with an old order type of group that did this still. But their history is complicated and they are not classifiable as any particular known sect. I'll confirm with her the details on their practice. I suspect that others within the Anabaptist of faith still hold the same practice. I know some Amish so I'll ask them next time I'm out how they sing.

 

[cnystrom]

I thought of a new angle on this question that I did not see brought up in the previous 6 pages.

By pastor, do you mean pulpit minister? Because of 1 Cor 14:29 there should not be a single person speaking God's word. There should be two or three. It is my impression that these should come from the laity. Internally the members should minister to each other. I can see that the meeting can be a forum for debate as well. Someone said something you disagreed with? Go on up and wait your turn and then state your case. It seems to me scripture encourages this, but I have never seen it in practice.

Paying someone to preach to you each Sunday is just laziness. The men should be stepping it up and leading.

I think the church can support (pay) someone to do ministry locally (beacuse of 1 Timoth 5:18) just as they can support someone from afar, but I think anyone who is paid should be working on seeking and saving the lost. Paying someone to do the internal work is simply encouraging spiritual laziness.

I also think this is a general principle. For example, my father is involved in a multi-level marketing company (Shaklee). He once told me that they way to have a dead meeting is to have the same old person who has had success re-tell their story. The way to have an exciting meeting is to get the new person up there to tell their story.