• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Should pastors be paid/vocational?

andrew said:
@Mojo, unless you want to modify your definition of Separatist I'd ask that you add a fifth category of "MoreExcellentWayist". I'm actually a bit vigilant towards malcontents and rebels--people who's primary motivation appears to be "agin" something. The better question is what are you for.

It's a bit "chicken and egg" or "two sides of the same coin", but my departure from the corporate church had more to do with pushing in where I saw God at work (an "in joke" plug for Experiencing God), which was mostly in my living room in small groups, on the streets of Houston doing worship evangelism, and in large prophetic conferences. What I saw going on Sunday mornings was ritual and good intentions, but I didn't see the power of God at work (see 1 Cor 2:4).
Click to expand...

I believe "More excellent wayist" is a judgment call based on one's personal preference or experience. Each of the four listed might see their path as more excellent. You used a lot of personal pronouns in your evaluation of the situation. I'm not a strict relativist by any means, but each person has his or her own perspectives and experiences. Again, I say Grace is a beautiful thing, and allowing individual congregations and leaders of those congregations to pursue what they deem profitable or more excellent is fine by me.

I will concede that my separatist description was short. There could be Separatist A and B.

A) To hell with it, I'm gone and I'll crawl into my shell and complain.
B) To hell with it, I'm gone to serve Christ better than what I see available around me.

Better?:)
 
I think it's different for different churches. Jesus addressed the 7 churches in some different ways. Although I would prefer to be in a Philadelphian Church, the solution for Ephesus was not to pretend to be weak and well meaning beleaguered believers, but to reclaim their first love and return to being the powerhouse they always were. I believe that Jesus lends strength to all His Churches, even if they are.... objectively wrong in most things. I also believe that objective wrongness will inevitably catch up with them and great will be their fall and I have zero interest in riding that particular roller coaster...

I do sometimes wonder if I should have just stayed in the place I was ministering without regard to my misgivings. But, that ship has well sailed.
 
My biggest problem with Purifiers and Reformers is the new wine old wineskin's principle.

The idea of change is often a category error. Most people don't care about these things, doctrine and praxis are just their way of denoting us vs. them. When you try and change things all you're doing is advertising you're not one of them.

Mojo said:
is it possible that your existence within the Bible Belt of our country has tainted your views of the corporate assembly called "church"?
Click to expand...

I have experience in and out of the Bible Belt. The same forces and moves are at work everywhere. If anything it is worse outside the Bible belt because you have a greater proportion of old line churches and far far fewer congregations that care much about scripture.

Mojo said:
I will concede that my separatist description was short. There could be Separatist A and B.
Click to expand...

You missed C, the Purifier who got kicked out. You might say, 'hey you rocked the boat trying to change people' but in my case I was simply trying to purify my own heart and walk and they found such righteousness too offensive to bear.

Part of the problem with separatists which @andrew alludes to is they are often of the personality type that simply just rejects authority. Trying to get them to work together in one body or agree to a way of doing things is like herding cats.

Mojo said:
Purifiers- "The form is fine. We just need to purify each person's mindset to reflect the agape of Christ. Each person needs to take up their own cross. Pastors/Bishops stick around, but your role is changing."
Click to expand...

The nature of cultural Christianity, and esp. the corporate church model, means this will not work outside of a few localized outbreaks. It is also just plain poor systems design. It is better to design a system that is resistant to corruption than one that depends on the users being incorruptible. Historically speaking, purifying movements if they take hold often become separatist ones.

Now you might object that such perspective is admitting defeat and the whole point of Christianity is the reform of hearts and we were given instructions for the careful selection of elders. And you'd be right.

But then if you look at all the problems that paid pastors and buildings and top down institutional human kingdoms have caused and then notice that the apostles never created such things but rather operated in a way very much the opposite and you'll realize that the NT really did outline a system which was more resistant to corruption.
 
Good points @rockfox . I agree that purifiers will likely end up being separatists in the long run.

I'm sure your experiences are probably the norm for most like us who don't like the status quo, or the corrupt model being peddled. My personal experiences have not been the same, so my idealism is still intact, I guess.
 
I am going to go through these thoroughly and share my thoughts tomorrow hopefully (been a crazy couple days, I'm demoing and remodeling a house with my uncle and some cousins for side dough). but I just wanted to make sure to thank you all for your insights thus far. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a community of believers who acknowledges morally lawful polygyny would have such studied and well-informed opinions on such a controversial (yet critical) and rarely addressed topic. God bless you all!
 
Mojo said:
^^^That right there is the corporate model mindset that I want to reform!^^^^

You can't replicate, franchise, or cookie cut the successes of one congregation to another congregation.
Click to expand...
Well, I must have miscommunicated, because I think you're misunderstanding my point. Let me try again.

I hope you are able to 'reform' your church, but to my way of thinking, any meaningful reform would start you on a trail that is going to end up outside the government/corporate control system. If you are able to accomplish that, I'm hopeful that your experience and lessons learned would provide helpful information--a key of sorts--to enable others to make the same jump from where they are, if that's what they're trying to do. That's what I mean when I said 'replicate'. No cookie cutters involved.

Mojo said:
@andrew, and others, is it possible that your existence within the Bible Belt of our country has tainted your views of the corporate assembly called "church"? Folks in Massachussetts, New York, California, or Vermont don't experience the cultural phenomenon of the Southern US. Folks in these liberal bastions go to church because they want to! There is no cultural push beyond that. Just food for thought.
Click to expand...
Anything's possible, but my objections are legal and ontological, not so much based on my experiences in the Presbyterian and Methodist churches (not exactly the Baptist/Fundamentalist vibe of the so-called "Bible Belt"). And my work with plural families had led me to conclude that churches up north are some of the worst with respect to self-righteousness, and I'm not sure what you mean by "the cultural phenomenon of the Southern US". What does that mean to you?
 
Mojo said:
I will concede that my separatist description was short. There could be Separatist A and B.

A) To hell with it, I'm gone and I'll crawl into my shell and complain.
B) To hell with it, I'm gone to serve Christ better than what I see available around me.

Better?:)
Click to expand...
Much!

I still want to push back on your relativist assumptions, though. I'm a big fan of freedom of conscience (and am presently up to my ears in Libertarian politics for the foreseeable future). But the "right to be wrong" is a weak foundation for spiritual development. I'm all about letting everyone else find there own way to where God wants them to be. But if what you're looking for is to see the power of God demonstrated in your midst, then my respectful suggestion is that you're going to have to look beyond religious institutions, because that's not what they're about.
 
Slumberfreeze said:
I think it's different for different churches. Jesus addressed the 7 churches in some different ways.
Click to expand...
Just remember that anything Jesus referred to as a gathering or assembly, later translated "church", was not a corporation, a department of the secular government. Corporations hadn't been invented yet....
 
rockfox said:
The idea of change is often a category error. Most people don't care about these things, doctrine and praxis are just their way of denoting us vs. them. When you try and change things all you're doing is advertising you're not one of them.
Click to expand...
Boom. Well said.
 
My opinion of how either the mega-church or the fellowship down street are run or structured won’t change either of them one whit. I must be careful to not join the enemy’s team in opposing them.

I am to be the shepherd of my flock and I relish the chances that I get to sit around the campfire with other shepherds sharpening our swords.
How’s ‘bout that for mixing metaphors?

Additional thoughts, we are shepherds banded together fighting the monogamanic wolves.
 
rockfox said:
The idea of change is often a category error. Most people don't care about these things, doctrine and praxis are just their way of denoting us vs. them. When you try and change things all you're doing is advertising you're not one of them.
Click to expand...

A point of clarification. I don't say this as a criticism of such people, I speak neither negative nor positive towards them here.

Rather, I speak to reveal the reality of the situation. Most people are not of the personality and intellect to obsess over such things. They are simply followers and as such act according to the established parameters which denote fellow followers. And thats not bad per se, we can't all be leaders, by definition.

But neither do I say we shouldn't speak of such things nor try and change hearts. Act with understanding, knowing not everyone is like you.
 
steve said:
I am to be the shepherd of my flock and I relish the chances that I get to sit around the campfire with other shepherds sharpening our swords.
How’s ‘bout that for mixing metaphors?
Click to expand...
That's pretty good mixing! ;)
 
rockfox said:
A point of clarification. I don't say this as a criticism of such people, I speak neither negative nor positive towards them here.

Rather, I speak to reveal the reality of the situation. Most people are not of the personality and intellect to obsess over such things. They are simply followers and as such act according to the established parameters which denote fellow followers. And thats not bad per se, we can't all be leaders, by definition.

But neither do I say we shouldn't speak of such things nor try and change hearts. Act with understanding, knowing not everyone is like you.
Click to expand...
Right on. It's not personal until it's personal. Observation is not judgment.
 
Mojo said:
And we didn't threaten each other over it!
Click to expand...
Holy crap, I hadn't caught that! Right on!
steve said:
we are shepherds banded together fighting the monogamanic wolves.
Click to expand...
I had to teach my spell-checker to not flag monogamism (which to me is a legitimate term — even if it's never been said before, because it's clearly related to monogamist and thus its opposite, the well-established polygamist).

But monogamania? Prize to steve for coinage! (OK, an internet search for it says he's not first. But still.)
 
mystic said:
But monogamania? Prize to steve for coinage! (OK, an internet search for it says he's not first. But still.)
Click to expand...
You were right to check, I totally stole it.
Such a loverly descriptive word though, don’t you think?
 
Lots of points to address. I will try one post to distill them. This is my general response to the thread so far.

My favorite modern president, the great Reagan, was definitely outside his party's mainstream. His predecessors in the cause of more classic liberal policies (Taft and Goldwater) either failed to get the nomination, or got it, but weren't supported as vigorously in the general. Seeing this reality, I believe some urged him to leave and go another route. He refused, even supporting some questionable candidates in the process. His rationale? "I can effect greater change in my direction more effectively staying within than branching off on my own."

I begrudge no one their right to branch out and take another path. I choose not to. If that means paying one man to help organize and tend to others in the assembly, even if it not the most biblical format, I will support it. For now, this is my version of the Serenity Prayer.

The founding fathers feared the concept of parties for good reason. Many on this board have chosen to either engage in national party politics or disengage altogether. I have chosen to leave that and focus just on purely local issues and needs. I'm not opposed to someone doing the same, but in regards to the church structure.

Lots more to address later, but busy.
 
I am confused reading all the responses, none of them to seem to answer the question that actually started this thread. Should pastors be paid vocational. In order to answer that we have to put aside all are ideas and opinions and look in to Gods word. There is no where that I have seen in the Bible where a pastor gets paid in the Bible. There is biblical presentence where a evangelist gets paid in the Bible though
 
Hello James!

Part of the reason I can't simply answer the question as posed is because whether I say yes or no, I still haven't communicated my actual answer intelligibly.

This is because the job description 'pastor' (the way it is commonly understood) does not exist. If one is letting the Word be the Word, the title 'pastor' should rightly be translated 'shepherd' and should therefore be understood to be the same as an elder and an overseer. (1 Peter 5:1-2).

In my occasionally humble opinion, modern pastors do not quite fulfill the duties of an elder, but if they did, scripture does very much teach that they should be given money for elding., and an apostle for apostling. (1 Tim 5:17-19 and 1Cor 9:1-12)

These days it seems to me that most pastors are nothing more than teachers propped up beyond their level of gifting, but even if that were the case, they ought to receive material compensation from those they benefit. (Gal 6:6)

tl;dr My left eye twitches whenever I have to give my opinion on pastors, but ultimately I'd have to say that any hard-working and productive minister of the gospel involving preaching, teaching, or 'ruling' can scripturally expect those who are benefited to break them off some bread. At times this might even be appropriate as a vocation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top