Points well taken.
-
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?
- Thread starter PassionatePatriarch
- Start date
I couldn't agree more.An actor with business accumen. Bet he runs a club with a steeple.
His name wasn't Benny was it?
How did you know?...An actor with business accumen. Bet he runs a club with a steeple.
Seriously, the guy's seminary education had more to do with speechifying and how to keep the corporation out of legal trouble than anything else. Sorry, that's not a judgment, just an observation. He was a nice guy and I felt sorry for him.
The flock SHOULD also be outward focused. And God has gifted people with skills of evangelism, helps, and administrations toward this end. The elder's needn't be burdened with this.
Our context...
Given this, I will tell you from the NT how they did it and what scripture says about the roles and how this is better than the way churchianity does it and the problems the one-man system leads to. My implicit bias is I think the apostles did things a certain way for a reason and I've seen plenty in history to believe that is true.
That is not to say I'm condemning you to hell for doing it differently, I'm just sharing the Biblical model. Whether it is wrong or sinful to do it a different way is an entirely different question outside the bounds of this discussion (its just too complex to go into here and I don't have a definitive answer to give). 'Its not sinful to do it different' isn't really a defense on the question of how the first apostles and their churches did it.
But I will tell you, in light of history, the scriptures and what we know about gifting and personalities. that it is very unwise to do it differently.
Nor is this just an unprofitable debate over words. I'm not insisting on any certain title. I could care less what title folks use. For example, most denominations have apostles still, they just call them missionaries or church planters. Whatever. But I do use the scriptural titles for clarity and specificity when talking about the roles and gifts lined out in scripture and how those contrast with common practice today.
There is great spiritual and practical utility in understanding how the first Christians did things; especially when one is coming together in a new fellowship and wondering how to go about things. Words mean things and the scriptures were given for a reason. Many of the problems we see today are a direct result of doing things differently than they were done by the first Christians. Whatever path you take should be entered into with eyes wide open in light of all that we know and not just because 'that is how it is always done'.
Be wary of putting new wine in old wineskins; I've seen that destroy new fellowships.
But neither is this the most important thing in a new fellowship. For that, go read the concluding chapters of John where Jesus talks about loving one another.
Given this, I will tell you from the NT how they did it and what scripture says about the roles and how this is better than the way churchianity does it and the problems the one-man system leads to. My implicit bias is I think the apostles did things a certain way for a reason and I've seen plenty in history to believe that is true.
That is not to say I'm condemning you to hell for doing it differently, I'm just sharing the Biblical model. Whether it is wrong or sinful to do it a different way is an entirely different question outside the bounds of this discussion (its just too complex to go into here and I don't have a definitive answer to give). 'Its not sinful to do it different' isn't really a defense on the question of how the first apostles and their churches did it.
But I will tell you, in light of history, the scriptures and what we know about gifting and personalities. that it is very unwise to do it differently.
Nor is this just an unprofitable debate over words. I'm not insisting on any certain title. I could care less what title folks use. For example, most denominations have apostles still, they just call them missionaries or church planters. Whatever. But I do use the scriptural titles for clarity and specificity when talking about the roles and gifts lined out in scripture and how those contrast with common practice today.
There is great spiritual and practical utility in understanding how the first Christians did things; especially when one is coming together in a new fellowship and wondering how to go about things. Words mean things and the scriptures were given for a reason. Many of the problems we see today are a direct result of doing things differently than they were done by the first Christians. Whatever path you take should be entered into with eyes wide open in light of all that we know and not just because 'that is how it is always done'.
Be wary of putting new wine in old wineskins; I've seen that destroy new fellowships.
But neither is this the most important thing in a new fellowship. For that, go read the concluding chapters of John where Jesus talks about loving one another.
I really like the special account for anonymous giving idea, bravo.
I think so many who give in church feel they are being watched and if that becomes the motivation for their giving ... they have lost their reward. Places where we have had a say or advisory role, we've cancelled the "basket pass" and put up a "tsedakah box" (charity box) where people can almost anonymously drop stuff in and not at a specific time where everyone gets called up to approach the sacred box of cash (while the music plays)...
On the flip side, I sometimes receive "love gifts" as a guest speaker at different congregations and I vastly prefer it to be anonymously given as well.
This helps me to be more grateful to G-d for the gift and not the individual person who He stirred up to give it.
I like to use "tyranny of monogamy" as hyperbole in discussions ... people sit up pay attention...
This is certainly true in a Utopian way. What I've seen on the ground in many fields is the "Evangelist" role that has developed is the high profile dude heavily funded comes flying in, passes out bibles, has some big event, gets some salvation stats and photo opps for fund-raising, and jams out of town. If there isn't a Pastor-type and his eklesia there to pick up the pieces, the recently "evangelized" types get destroyed and don't come back.
One of my teachers called these types "Vacationaries" haha. Love that term
I agree that the closer we get to the original intent and model, the better.
That being said, at what point does "doing it the NT way" become pedantic? I'm jot a liberal or progressive by any means, but at what point do we get too bogged down in these details?
Are you suggesting we only open up OT scrolls? That's what they would have done. I believe most of them made it an entire weekend thing by visiting temple/synagogue on Sabbath and meeting house to house on the first day of the week.
This is a good question. I don't know when it starts. But if you're drawing lines of fellowship and salvation based on right belief in ecclesiology you're there. But we can also all see some traditions that history has saddled us with which are not just extra-biblical, but wrong. Why wouldn't you want to sit at the feet of Paul on such matters?
Think about it this way. Paul told us that said Christ sends a church different people with giftings for different roles (Ephesians 4:11-16, etc). Not only that, He sends them today still!
Is it possible these could be mixed and matched; as in one fulfilling a couple different roles? I'll grant that could maybe possible, especially in a small church. In fact I'd point out God does exactly that in the role of apostle. The man who kicks it off a local fellowship and makes those first converts has to have some element of being able to do all roles.
But it is also true that this is not what is at work when the default position for everyone everywhere is to combine all of those roles into one paid hireling who lords it over the flock as is the usual case. The one man pastorate isn't just a variation on the model, its an entirely different beast. And one that is not accepting of any other servants we are told will be sent.
What I find interesting is that my most pedantic suggestion in this thread has gained the most traction: the patreon account. I think this is because we can sense it both captures the spirit of the scripture and is a ready solution from the mileau of our day to many of the problems associated with paid hirelings and church offerings. (not all, but many)
The modern pastor is in fact the hired CEO of a corporation that we call the church, we just use religious titles for the organization and it's hired leader when the corporation is a 501(c)(3). So statements like "where do you go to church?" and "I've heard they have a really good pastor" can be used in modern parlance and convey meaning, it's just not biblical meaning.
And its not 'just' paperwork either. It is true in practice as well. Twice now when I've asked to meet with a pastor to learn more about his congregation the only thing he brings me was the articles of incorporation & bylaws. In both cases the qualifications for leadership would have excluded Christ himself. The last one was a 32 page document (which was only the first half) and included the gem that the pastor was the final authority in all theological disputes.
Corporate CEO indeed. Christ and the Holy Spirit need not apply.
I don't think we disagree on much here. I don't like the concept of evangelical Popery any more than you do. It stinks to high heaven! It creates helpless dependents ready to cede all responsibility and authority to a supposed spiritual superior....not good.
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?
As you said, the size of the fellowship may necessitate overlap. Just because several gifts are listed doesn't mean that each congregation must cease operating if each of those gifts are not present. That is not the case in the overwhelming number of congregations, but it would true of many.
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?
...naked...
I meant that comment as an extension of the "they did it this exact way in the NT" line of thinking. I'm not opposed to music. My point is that amplified, electronic sounds didn't exist then.And?…
You interpret "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" your way, and I'll interpret it David's!Something about playing skillfully with a loud noise….
Apples and oranges—that’s a tech question. The NT is full of music; if we can’t use electric guitars with our music, maybe we shouldn’t have air conditioning in our church buildings or drive cars to meetings farther away than we could walk. Maybe a preacher shouldn’t use a word processor to prepare his sermon.
OTOH, this business of the ministries and gifts and how leadership works in the church is in a different category, like whether we should have music in the church, or whether we should still expect prophesy or healing today, or whether women should have authority in the assembly.
OTOH, this business of the ministries and gifts and how leadership works in the church is in a different category, like whether we should have music in the church, or whether we should still expect prophesy or healing today, or whether women should have authority in the assembly.
I think we're speaking past each other trying to make the same point. The tech aspect was just an extension of the "they did it this exact way" premise.
I agree. If we use the "they did it this exact way" premise....we've got to look at a lot of things...electricity, conveyance, Segregation of the sexes....
I need to look at my NT closer. 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?