• 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?

James A said:
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
Click to expand...
What's the difference between an evangelist and the men termed "pastors" in the church? Is not one of the pastor's key roles to bring people to Christ both within the congregation and through ministry activities of the church into the community? This is evangelism. A pastor who is doing his job IS an evangelist.
 
James A said:
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
Click to expand...
@James A this is a pertinent question.

But I have to answer a question with a question:

Where does it say he shouldn't? There is no sin where there is no law. There is no prohibition, so I believe it lies under soul liberty (congregational liberty).
 
@PassionatePatriarch, I'd like to refer you back to my post #2 in this thread: Keep meeting with your passionate friends, love on each other, and do what God tells you to do.

We'll hit 100 posts here yet, but in the meantime, that's what you need to do, and everything else we're doing here is just a bunch of guys sitting around shooting the breeze because we enjoy each other's company.

My sense is that there's another way to look at the question that maybe you're really asking: Sometimes when a small group of believers starts to gather together for bible study and fellowship, they start thinking that maybe they want to be a "church", but then they start thinking that to be a "real" church they have to have a "pastor" because that's how everybody else does it, so now they need to raise some money to hire somebody to pastor them. That's BS.

If you guys will commit yourselves to prayer and unity, God will lead you guys to exactly where you need to be.
 
This!
 
andrew said:
My sense is that there's another way to look at the question that maybe you're really asking: Sometimes when a small group of believers starts to gather together for bible study and fellowship, they start thinking that maybe they want to be a "church", but then they start thinking that to be a "real" church they have to have a "pastor" because that's how everybody else does it, so now they need to raise some money to hire somebody to pastor them. That's BS.
Click to expand...

Have narrowly avoided that in the past.
 
True story: Back in the '90s, my family did a lot of street ministry (together with others that were part of a cell church I was leading) and took in a lot of homeless people. We got involved with a corporate church that was doing similar work (leaving behind another corporate church that wasn't interested), but weren't there long before we realized that most of their attention was directed toward "trying to figure out how to do street ministry by studying other 'successful' corporate churches to see what they were doing" (IOW, what programs they had developed and how they could be copied). It put us at odds with the leadership of that church (no conflict, just different visions), and we sort of ran our own plays from our playbook while they ran theirs.

The stories of how badly that church got hurt and how our little band of merry men (and women) survived and thrived are best told at late night gatherings at retreats, ;) not here, but this is just one of many stories I could allude to to give you some backstory and context for my advice.

Wherever two or three of us gather in His name, He is with us. Christ is the Head of His assemblies and His sheep hear His voice (it's a multi-metaphor!). Don't worry too much about what others are doing; you be you. He'll take care of the rest.
 
FollowingHim said:
What's the difference between an evangelist and the men termed "pastors" in the church? Is not one of the pastor's key roles to bring people to Christ both within the congregation and through ministry activities of the church into the community? This is evangelism. A pastor who is doing his job IS an evangelist.
Click to expand...

No. This reflects a misunderstanding of the roles and of the nature of the church. The confusion here lies in that the modern church has by and large combined all of the 5 roles into one office. See Ephesians 4:11-13 as a start.

An elder/bishop does the work of pastoring (shepherding) the flock of God, to be NT precise. You can't evangelize the flock of God, by definition. An evangelist spreads the good news in order to add to the flock. These are two very very different roles. One is inward focused and one is outward focused. They have different qualifications, are suited to different personalities, and operate in very different manners.
 
rockfox said:
No. This reflects a misunderstanding of the roles and of the nature of the church. The confusion here lies in that the modern church has by and large combined all of the 5 roles into one office. See Ephesians 4:11-13 as a start.

An elder/bishop does the work of pastoring (shepherding) the flock of God, to be NT precise. You can't evangelize the flock of God, by definition. An evangelist spreads the good news in order to add to the flock. These are two very very different roles. One is inward focused and one is outward focused. They have different qualifications, are suited to different personalities, and operate in very different manners.
Click to expand...

I still haven't had a chance to absorb all these but am following intermittently and I have to say I think rockfox is onto something here. This seems to be where I am falling at the moment in my studies anyway.
 
rockfox said:
No. This reflects a misunderstanding of the roles and of the nature of the church. The confusion here lies in that the modern church has by and large combined all of the 5 roles into one office. See Ephesians 4:11-13 as a start.

An elder/bishop does the work of pastoring (shepherding) the flock of God, to be NT precise. You can't evangelize the flock of God, by definition. An evangelist spreads the good news in order to add to the flock. These are two very very different roles. One is inward focused and one is outward focused. They have different qualifications, are suited to different personalities, and operate in very different manners.
Click to expand...
And what if the flock is outward focused? What if they don't always want to study, love , and fellowship with each other, but be organized to be doers and not just hearers? Each one can do it on their own, but if they pay someone to help organize it and refine it...what's the sin?
 
Mojo said:
And what if the flock is outward focused? What if they don't always want to study, love , and fellowship with each other, but be organized to be doers and not just hearers? Each one can do it on their own, but if they pay someone to help organize it and refine it...what's the sin?
Click to expand...

I think that's just it...every flock should be both inwars and outward focused to an extent. They are both NT directives of the church. Building one another up in love and the breaking of bread, sharpening each other in the Word and then also evangilizing. Therefore it seems (at least to me at the moment) that there should be a teacher/pastor role and then also evangilizers who go out and preach the gospel exclusively. ..because even though every believer is commanded to preach the gospel, they are not all commanded to ve traveling missionaries (evangilizers). So there seem to be distinct roles being set apart in the NT. But I could be wrong.
 
@andrew
Regarding the Southern culture thing:

This is all anecdotal because I have not lived in (only visited) the Bible Belt.

Just two stories of folks I either knew personally, or had a common acquaintance.
  1. An elderly gentleman knew he was a Southerner, a Texan, a Mason, and a Methodist. Did he know anything biblical? Not really. He insisted he was a Christian because he was a Southern Methodist. It's just what people did. They picked an organization and belonged.
  2. A member of the military was stationed away from his native Louisiana. Like a good southern boy, he went to church on Sunday. After a while, he realized the people he was worshipping with weren't there out of routine...they were there because they were sincerely seeking to learn and grow.
Neither of these stories are recent. Things may have changed. They just stuck with me.

My impressions of southern life from others, or what we see in media (not first hand) are that its common to have the mayor, city council, sheriff, and dog catcher all proudly belonging to prominent congregations in the town. Would I be wrong to presume that in the changing and new south?
 
PassionatePatriarch said:
I think that's just it...every flock should be both inwars and outward focused to an extent. They are both NT directives of the church. Building one another up in love and the breaking of bread, sharpening each other in the Word and then also evangilizing. Therefore it seems (at least to me at the moment) that there should be a teacher/pastor role and then also evangilizers who go out and preach the gospel exclusively. ..because even though every believer is commanded to preach the gospel, they are not all commanded to ve traveling missionaries (evangilizers). So there seem to be distinct roles being set apart in the NT. But I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
I'm not one, but I hear that the big bragging point of the Marines is that every Marine is a rifleman. Anyone want to correct me?

Each believer is to be an evangelist, but it may be beyond their pay grade to organize, implement, and instruct on the best methods and opportunities on getting it done. If someone has a spiritual gift of such things, and he can get it done more efficiently by not having to also make tents (shout out to the Apostle Paul) then what's the harm?

Part of leadership and forward thinking is doing things that may not have been done before to help your cause.

Phones, microphones, computers, televisions.....shall I go on??? are not specifically mentioned in scripture! Guess we gotta be like the Amish and avoid using such things in the purity of the scriptures even if they can help us get our spiritual commission accomplished. Break out the buggy Ma!

This is why I'm reform minded (in my congregation only...y'all do as you please). Call it what you will( pastor, bishop, evangelist, congregation leader, rabbi.....) but there will always need to be leaders and elders in the faith helping the weaker brethren in their walk and talk as believers. Spiritual care will always be needed. The more effective they are at training others, the more time and space they will need to handle the harvest. Are 40k member congregations with a Joel Osteen smiley faced motivational guru the answer....heck no! A modest flock of 25-100? Sure. When they get bigger.....branch out and repeat the cycle.
 
Mojo said:
I'm not one, but I hear that the big bragging point of the Marines is that every Marine is a rifleman. Anyone want to correct me?

Each believer is to be an evangelist, but it may be beyond their pay grade to organize, implement, and instruct on the best methods and opportunities on getting it done. If someone has a spiritual gift of such things, and he can get it done more efficiently by not having to also make tents (shout out to the Apostle Paul) then what's the harm?

Part of leadership and forward thinking is doing things that may not have been done before to help your cause.

Phones, microphones, computers, televisions.....shall I go on??? are not specifically mentioned in scripture! Guess we gotta be like the Amish and avoid using such things in the purity of the scriptures even if they can help us get our spiritual commission accomplished. Break out the buggy Ma!

This is why I'm reform minded (in my congregation only...y'all do as you please). Call it what you will( pastor, bishop, evangelist, congregation leader, rabbi.....) but there will always need to be leaders and elders in the faith helping the weaker brethren in their walk and talk as believers. Spiritual care will always be needed. The more effective they are at training others, the more time and space they will need to handle the harvest. Are 40k member congregations with a Joel Osteen smiley faced motivational guru the answer....heck no! A modest flock of 25-100? Sure. When they get bigger.....branch out and repeat the cycle.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with you to an extent. except what I'm finding is that Paul explicitly states that the apostles were free to forbear working so they could devote themselves to the ministry of the Word. Also he explicitly states that traveling evangelists like Barnabas and himself are free to accept carnal gifts as a result of spiritual sowing (even though he persoy chose not to and instead worked day and night as a tent maker to support himself).

What I don't see is a precedent for paid vocational pastors. Which is why I originally posed the question. Perhaps.I missed some scriptural references in this thread and will catch them when i go over it all. But to be clear, that is what I am looking for.
 
Maybe there isn't a precedent for one. Maybe it's borne of necessity?

Could the pastor be expressing multiple gifts (evangelism and teaching) listed in scripture while we give him an all encompassing title?

Men in the early church were allowed to be paid. We all agree, right? Is it wrong to give these men a different name if they are still fulfilling the specific roles described in scripture?
 
rockfox said:
No. This reflects a misunderstanding of the roles and of the nature of the church. The confusion here lies in that the modern church has by and large combined all of the 5 roles into one office. See Ephesians 4:11-13 as a start.

An elder/bishop does the work of pastoring (shepherding) the flock of God, to be NT precise. You can't evangelize the flock of God, by definition. An evangelist spreads the good news in order to add to the flock. These are two very very different roles. One is inward focused and one is outward focused. They have different qualifications, are suited to different personalities, and operate in very different manners.
Click to expand...
I think this is a very simple issue fundamentally. However it is becoming a complex debate over words, which we are specifically instructed to avoid as unprofitable (2 Timothy 2:14). Pastor, evangelist, elder, who is or is not one, whether one should be paid and another not - all this is purely a distraction from the reality at the core. I'm going to set aside these titles to avoid confusion.

People work for the Kingdom in various ways. When someone is working full-time for the Kingdom, it is acceptable for the Church to support them financially and/or physically to ensure their needs are met and they can be fully devoted to their Kingdom work without having to also set aside time to earn a secular income. It is also acceptable for someone to earn a secular income and simultaneously work for the Kingdom while receiving no external support.

The titles given to individual workers for the Kingdom will differ depending on the fashion of particular denominations. Some use non-Biblical titles, others use the wrong titles (just because someone is called something does not mean they ARE that), and is it not always easy to even work out what the precise scriptural designation of a particular worker is or even if their role is mentioned in scripture - nevertheless all such people are workers for the Kingdom in one way or another.

We know that either option (pay or no pay) is acceptable in at least some circumstances, and we know that every person's needs and mission set by God is different. It is between individual believers, individual churches, and God, what financial arrangements are appropriate in a particular situation.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
My impressions of southern life from others, or what we see in media (not first hand)....
Click to expand...
Yeah, beware media stereotypes....

All I can say is my personal experience includes people who go to church because they want to in the south and traditional conservative civic cultural churchgoers who have never met Jesus in the north. Big wide world out there....

As it relates to your original point, it's not the Bible Belt that has tainted my view of corporate assemblies; it's corporate assemblies that have tainted my view of corporate assemblies. That, and some practical legal facts relating to what a corporation is by definition: an extension of the secular government....
 
I agree with @rockfox that the shepherding/oversight of the flock and the conversion of the lost are two different undertakings that are best suited for two different personality types and skill sets, especially if you're talking about paying someone to do it. Yes, we're all supposed to be reasonably proficient as teachers and preachers, like the Marine is with a rifle, even if Combat Infantryman isn't our MOS. I'm a reasonably competent carpenter, but I don't do it full time and don't do it for a living. In our individual lives we must be generalists; in the bigger picture of community, we specialize.
 
Snap, Samuel. Did I mention it's good to have you back?...

It's like a naming fallacy: We give titles like "pastor" and "evangelist" (and in some circles "prophet" or "evangelist"), and then we expect the person with that title and business card to have certain capabilities. But we ignore the practical reality of what's happening.

Back in the day we had a functional rule, kind of a "what have you done for me lately?" test. If you're shepherding, you're a shepherd. If you're elding, you're an elder. Etc. Funny thing is, when you're using the functional test, you don't need the title....

I knew a guy awhile back that everybody called "pastor" that spent 20 hrs/wk (he told me this, I'm not just picking numbers) writing and memorizing and rehearsing on stage the exact delivery of his 'sermon', and the other 20 hrs mostly on administration of the church, with the odd hospital visit or "pastoral" visit thrown in as necessary. He's not a shepherd; what is he?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top