I know that’s a bold statement, but I didn’t say it. The apostle Paul did. That is a direct quote from 1 Corinthians 9:14, and it is preceded by saying that this is the Lord’s command (not Paul’s). Here’s the whole passage, in context:
This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don’t we have the right to food and drink? Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?
Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?
But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. Don’t you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me. I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of this boast. Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it (1 Corinthians 9:3-18, NIV, emphasis mine).
Matthew Henry wrote this in his commentary on v. 6:
[Paul] had a right to marry as well as other apostles, and to claim what was needful for his wife, and his children if he had any, from the churches, without labouring with his own hands to get it. Those who seek to do our souls good, should have food provided for them. But he renounced his right, rather than hinder his success by claiming it. It is the people’s duty to maintain their minister. He may wave his right, as Paul did; but those transgress a precept of Christ, who deny or withhold due support.
In other words, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel have the right to earn their living from it. This is the modern day pastor (which corresponds more to the biblical role of elder). Paul chose to serve in bi-vocational ministry, that is, he chose to earn his living from a separate job, that of tentmaking. But that was Paul’s choice. Paul makes it clear that biblically, ministers have a RIGHT to earn their living from preaching the gospel.
However, Paul also says that voluntary preachers receive a reward for their duties, while those who exercise their right to a salary “simply discharge the trust committed to [them].” In other words, their vocation is no better than the local plumber, teacher, tax collector, or nurse. Each of these is commanded to be a full-time minister of the gospel (all believers), but some may earn their living from it as a right, which has clearly been commanded by the Lord.
Paul recognized that as a missionary in his context, bi-vocational ministry was a more effective approach. He willingly sets aside his right to financial support so that people will not think his message is just a fancy speech designed to get money. Some Greek orators made their living by traveling and entertaining audiences with speeches. Others formed schools and charged students for lectures. Paul does not want anyone to think his message is motivated by selfish concerns. But Paul’s willingness to support himself does not change the Lord’s command. Ministers of the gospel have a right to financial support, and believers have an obligation to provide that support.
The command is not aimed solely at vocational ministers so that they should run around demanding their support (although it would be biblically warranted if their “flock” didn’t support them), the command appears to target all believers so that they recognize that it is their responsibility to support the work of the gospel.
1 Timothy 5:17-20 says:
The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.” Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.
Elders here are appointed leaders, not merely those recognized because of their age and experience. Those folks are actually addressed in v. 1: “Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father.” In Acts 14:23, “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.” “Double honor” in the 1 Timothy 5 passage does not refer to salary, but this passage does reiterate the point that “the worker deserves his wages.” It also establishes that those elders whose work is preaching and teaching are serving in an honorable vocation. It is a respectable career choice.
This becomes even more pertinent as more and more heresies abound and the resurrection of false teachings from the past continues. It is extremely beneficial to the church to have individuals who receive in-depth training in the bible, church history, theology, and practical ministry (counseling, helping people cope with traumatic events, addiction therapy, etc.). There is nothing wrong with this, indeed it is very helpful to the Church. Unfortunately, not everyone can afford to go to seminary to learn about church history, biblical languages, etc. Many more don’t have the opportunity to go, and even more do not have the intellectual capacity to retain this knowledge. This doesn’t invalidate the education and training, however. A lot of people aren’t smart enough to go to medical school, but we’re all glad that we have doctors. The same is true of pastors. They are not better than other believers because of their training, but they are to be respected and should be able to earn a living from their work.
Not everyone is meant to serve in this role. Ephesians 4:11-13 says:
It was [God] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
Clearly not all are called to fulfill these roles in the Church. The purpose of these roles is to prepare God’s people for good works of service, building up the body of Christ “until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” Since this hasn’t happened yet, we still need people to fulfill these roles. Not just anyone should jump into these roles, either. James 3:1 says:
Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
God apparently even has a higher standard of judgment for those who teach His people. This should not be taken lightly. To ensure that not just anyone became an elder, Paul set up standards for them. Hear his words in Titus 1:5-9:
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
There you have it, the requirements of an elder and parts of his job description, and a reiteration of the fact that it is an appointed position. Paul also mentions here (and in several other places) that elders should not pursue dishonest gain. This precludes those folks who would serve in these roles solely to make money, or to make it dishonestly (such as through prosperity teachings). That would be wrong. But it doesn’t preclude them from making an honest living from preaching and teaching the gospel.
There are a lot more scripture passages that we could explore, but this post is long enough as it is. It is a topic that deserves attention, though. And it is one I should have posted at least a few weeks ago before I started shifting some of my terminology on this blog. I apologize for not sharing these thoughts sooner with you, my readers. I know I have written blog posts with the opposite stance in the past, but the clear teachings of the word of God prevail, as explained above. Undoubtedly there will be more discussion on this issue, feel free to comment and read the comments to gain more insight.
Related posts:
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Hey hey! I’m going to be the first to comment on my own blog post. I just wanted to say this:
I really wish that all the pastors and other believers I have argued with in the past would have simply pointed me to these scriptures, because their meanings are very clear. Instead, they often would just get defensive and give me arguments from logic or church history. The scripture must be our guide, not man’s wisdom. History can serve as a light to understand many issues, such as how the early church progressed after the new testament (not much like Barna and Viola would have us believe), but the bible is the ultimate authority.
Dan- I am glad for the change. You cannot do better tha walthers use of scripture and history on The Church and the Ministry. As you note both single vocational and bivocational are biblical. I kind of remember JT Wartic sp? doing a fair bit of proof texting.
Per Barna and Viola- these guys have value but not in this area and not in history. I do not trust either of them in the area of history because they have shown me consistent errors in this area. If either of them had done much homework on Baptism they would know all the early church practiced Infant Baptism.
Not that this is the only significant thing that you have said lately but this for me is very significant. Roughly quoting “the things that the House Church and others are looking for can be found in the writtings of the Lutheran Reformers.”
I will wager the farm on this- nearly every sermon preached in the LCMS today would be flunked by Walther (note almost none pass the test of the 13th, 20th and 30th Lecture). While many today label him pietist- he simply preached and taught what Luther and Chemnitz and the other Reformers taught.
I read Drickhammers translation of Walthers Pastoral Theology last winter. The Church today is nothing like that. He notes that “every sermon is to have these 5 things:
teach truth-
expose error-
rebuke sin (likened to an axe splitting wood not kissing sins butt)-
exhort to Holy Living-
give comfort-
every sermon need not be divided evenly but in the course of time each is given it’s due.”
He also noted that ‘Public sin requires public repentance so that:
the person caught up in sin understands:
how serious God takes sin-
so that the person may be lovingly restored to the congregation and everyone knows it-
so that the watchers may take warning.”
You are absolutely correct in the dialog with Vieth the issue is sin. Until sin becomes utterly sinful the Gospel can only give false comfort to those with a false faith. From the CTCR on church Discipline referencing the Apology of the Augs Conf. ” repentance without a corresponding change in behavior is a sham Repentance” end. it is the mark of false faith- we do not teach this any more.
The Issue is sin that has been wrongly given comfort by poor teaching and preaching and fueled by the nonsense “you cannot teach and preach that way to the Baptized”.
Those aren’t just Lutheran problems, Dick. Those are problems being experienced universally within the Christian faith. The problem for all in sin.
Dan….
Well, we’re all called to preach the gospel, aren’t we? So shouldn’t we all be getting paid…?
Seriously though, I have actually struggled quite a bit as to whether or not I should try and give an in-depth response to this post. Part of me feels that it would just be a waste of time in the end, because as experience has been continuously showing me, if a person has already decided what sort of conclusions are acceptable, and which are not, then there is really no point in trying to go through it all verse by verse. I hope you don’t think this is some sort of cop-out, it really isn’t, I just find myself having less energy for this sort of thing anymore. If people want to have professional pastors so badly, then they can have them. I’m not going to exhaust myself trying to convince people to let go of something they simply are unprepared to.
All in all, I would simply say that the verses here which you claim are so crystal clear, in reality are not. In fact, I believe you are approaching all of them with a considerable amount of assumption already in hand. I have become absolutely convinced that if someone was truly approaching the scriptures with no predispositions, no biases based on their upbringing, and having never been influenced by the church sub-culture, then there is absolutely NO WAY that a person could read the entirety of the New Testament and then envision the system which is embraced today. It matters not one tiny bit to me if such a face-value reading of the scripture might have negative implications to so many people out there who are doing “ministry”. We have been called to follow Christ, and Him alone, even if it means forsaking everyone in our family, every one of our friends. I honestly do not care if being true to the Word means that people will feel judged or get their feelings hurt. Good intentions are no excuse for disobediance…
The Gospel is not like the field of medicine. It is not some science that human beings developed through academic pursuits or practical trial. It came directly from God, and in His Wisdom, He doesn’t rely on human intellect or worldly approaches to learning to spread His Kingdom. Learning about church history might be useful, and give some good insights on some things, but if we come to the place where we believe that such “training” is essential in order to preserve the gospel, then we have made it into an idol. Don’t forget, none of the original twelve apostles were “trained”, they simply learned at the feet of the Master, and Jesus is still teaching the hearts of men and women through His Spirit to this day. Just because there have been many who prefer to retreat to the confines of their theological ramparts, doesn’t mean that God has been confined to working through such ways.
The apostles (or “sent ones”) in the NT were very probably given support for their travels, but that is a huge difference than paying someone based on their theological credentials. There isn’t one example of that in all of the NT. They weren’t paying people to stand behind a pulpit and give lectures. If they were, then I welcome anyone to show me where they find it in the bible. If these “house church” folk are really twisting history so badly, then please, someone educate me in the true history of the New Testament church. Show me where these stretched interpretations of these few verses are actually seen being lived out by those in the NT. Show me somewhere where someone was rebuked for not giving a tithe to their pastor. Show me where someone who was appointed as an elder was actually hired into a paid job with official capacities…
In 1 Corinthians 9, which you quote, it actually spells out what Paul means when by “a living”. He says, “Don’t we have the right to food and drink? Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us“? If Paul considered a sum of $ to be one of the “rights” of an Apostle, then of all places we should expect to see it listed right here! But mysteriously, he forgets to mention it. It is clear here that he is talking about being supported (in practical ways…) by the local congregations which an apostle travels to. But trying to take that verse, and then flip it over to apply it to elders is completely without warrant…
Anyhow, you see how easy it is for me to get sucked into this discussion, even when I’ve already decided that I should probably sit it out. It’s hard to do I suppose, since this issue was such a huge factor in my own journey to coming to a full understanding of the gospel. It’s hard to walk away from the debate sometimes, but I know I need to learn to do it. At this point I don’t have a lot of optimism towards convincing hardly anyone out there, but that’s ok… It’s not all on my shoulders, and I’m so glad! I didn’t come to a full acceptance of the “priesthood of all believers” because I was such a genius or anything, it was purely the grace of God, and in fact, I probably fought against it more than most. But it’s where I am now, and I have peace with that.
Peace to you friend… D
Daniel, it works both ways in regards to people drawing conclusions. Everyone approaches the text with biases, on both sides of the fence.
It seems your main contention with using this text to justify a paid minister is the definition of “receive their living.” You’ve indicated that this may simply consist of a place to sleep, food to eat, and being able to support a family. The 1 Timothy passage does specifically say “The worker deserves his wages.” This had the same connotation then that it does now: they got paid in a form of currency for their work. Granted, Paul simply stayed with folks and earned his own money, but he makes it clear that this was his personal choice, he had a right to “reap a material harvest” from the believers is he wished to do so.
I’m not asking anyone to acknowledge that the modern-day clergy is the best way to do things, nor am I denying that it has many flaws. I’m simply demonstrating that scripturally, there is nothing wrong with them receiving a paycheck for preaching the gospel.
The other texts make it clear that people are to be appointed to these positions. Paul never argues that all ministers should be paid, just that some would be justified for earning a living from doing ministry. The aim is not to say that everyone should get paid, but that some can be.
There’s no need to exhaust yourself trying to get people to let go of anything, the scripture allows it both ways. Business-as-mission, bi-vocational, vocational – either way is fine. The bible never forbids any of these, in fact it indicates that one has a right to “earn a living” from preaching the gospel.
You are correct in saying that “good intentions are no excuse for disobedience,” but you are operating on the assumption that the scriptures forbid a paid minister, when this text makes it clear that this isn’t the case. It seems more of a bias to try and construe this text to say that it has nothing to do with paying ministers, then to say the opposite. Once again, the text doesn’t say that everyone has to do this (and certainly many in the New Testament did not), it simply says that it is permissible. And to argue against that is to introduce an even larger bias to the text. As I pointed out in my “Missionary as Vocation” post (http://prayeramedic.com/2010/02/missionary-as-vocation), the church today still follows the New Testament pattern in many ways. They were preaching to people who had never heard the Gospel, there were no established churches in many cases. They were vocational missionaries. We do the same when we send missionaries to China to teach English, but they are really there to share the Gospel. We wouldn’t ask an offering from people who have never heard the message before. But of those who were established, Paul collected several offerings for the poor, and here he explains that the Lord commands that people support a minister of the Gospel. Do they have to give him a paycheck? No. They can simply house, clothe and feed him. The text doesn’t argue this either way, it leaves it open. Whether you give a minister a paycheck or simply provide for all his needs – either way you have the same end result in many ways. The text doesn’t take much care to explain this either way, and it would be reading bias into it to do so. In my post I only pointed out what the text says, they can “receive their living from the gospel.” I didn’t say it, Paul did. You really can’t make a valid argument based on the absence of something in the text. That’s like saying that believers can’t celebrate birthdays because we see no examples of believers celebrating them in the New Testament, instead the bible says, “However many years a man may live, let him enjoy them all” (Ecclesiastes 11:8). The bible allows us to exercise judgment and choice in these matters. There is nothing wrong with you choosing in your own judgment not to serve under paid ministers, I am simply pointing that you can’t really argue against that from the text. You can’t condemn paid ministers as unbiblical. That would be to make an argument from the absence of something in the text.
I just hope you realize that you also approach the text with a lot of assumptions, as do I. We all do. Bias is unavoidable. The point is that this text doesn’t specify how one “receives a living,” but that doesn’t seem important. The bottom line is that they receive it. If Paul cared how this came about (whether by a sum of currency or via lodging/food), he would have specified. To try to defend it one way or the other is to read a bias into the text. I don’t think Paul would have cared either way, because the point was that believers should support the work of the gospel, not that ministers should run around demanding payment. Paul only has to say this (and reminds us it is the Lord’s command) because we are not by nature generous people. The text you quoted isn’t necessarily defining how they made a living, Paul is simply listing benefits of those who receive a living (from any trade). Since the meaning can be ambiguous, we shouldn’t definitively say either way. The text can likely mean both a paycheck or just basic needs.
You are right in saying it is not essential to understand church history in order to preserve the Gospel, but it certainly helps. The old saying rings true, “those that do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.” And that has never been more true than in Christianity today. For a great book on the early church, check out http://www.amazon.com/Story-Christianity-Early-Church-Reformation/dp/0060633158 by Justo Gonzalez. It’s a big book, but it does a great job giving a fairly non-biased look at just the facts of Christian history, written as a scholarly work for Yale University (not that this lends credibility to it, but it was peer-reviewed by many historical scholars). You may be surprised to know that many of the direct disciples of the apostles became “bishops” over various regions and used altars, incense, liturgy and many other formal Jewish practices in their worship. The church rapidly moved away from Jewish practices shortly after this then intense persecution occurred until Christianity became officially protected under Constantine. Don’t get me wrong, some bad stuff happened when Christianity was merged with state under Constantine, but not everything is as doom and gloom as Viola’s account makes it seem.
At the same time, nothing can replace having an in-depth knowledge of the Bible. And that is another important component of ministerial training: the original languages of the scripture. It has been said that the Word itself is the Sword of the Spirit, and the original languages is the sheath which contains that Sword. The book was delivered to men in human language. Certainly God speaks to men and women through His Word in translated versions of the text, but much false doctrine is avoided when one can go back to the text and understand its specific syntax. The biblical languages are very difficult to translate and often times verses that seem vague in English are very specific and clear in the original languages. This is not to say that those who only have a translation do not have the very words of God, nor is it to say that the Holy Spirit does not reveal Himself through His Word in a translation. I am simply making the point that having folks trained in the original languages is helpful to the body of Christ. It helps us refute faulty translations (http://prayeramedic.com/2009/07/not-scholar) and clarify disputes over the meaning of words and phrases. I know Viola and others have made it seem that anyone who insists on having people trained in the original languages is equivalent to advocating that people can’t understand the bible apart from a professional clergy (like when the Bible was in Latin, although that is another example of a faulty historical interpretation from Viola because he fails to point out that even most priests didn’t understand Latin), but this is really a moderate position. It is helpful to have people trained but not everyone needs to be.
None of this negates the priesthood of all believers. Paul clearly exercised authority over other believers, yet he never placed himself as a mediator between them and God (1 Timothy 2:5). Paul clearly asserts his legitimate authority (2 Corinthians 10:8; 13:10), but explains that the Lord gave him authority for building up, not for tearing down – but he also threatens that if has to, he will be harsh in the use of his authority. Sometimes you have to be harsh in order to build the Church, such as when dealing with false teaching. When Paul writes to Titus, whom he had appointed and even charged to appoint elders (Titus 1:5), he tells him to “Encourage and rebuke with all authority” (2:15).
It seems that you are accusing me of taking an extreme viewpoint (ALL vocational ministers should be paid, we MUST train them in church history and the original languages, we MUST have a professional clergy). But I am not saying that! My position is moderate. I am simply acknowledging that the Bible warrants a paid minister, and that these things can help the Body of Christ (history has demonstrated this, those who refuted much false doctrine were well-trained in philosophy, theology, languages, etc.). Not all must learn these things, just like we don’t teach everyone how to perform surgery. We each are called to our own respective vocations. I am simply saying that there is room for both paid and unpaid ministers in the Body of Christ, and each side should learn to appreciate the other, recognizing that they are both striving towards the same goal: to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One may think they do it better than the other, and one actually may, but that is besides the point. Both preach the Gospel.
To see the traditional “modern day pastor” in 1 Cor.9 is to make the mistake of reading our way of doing church into the NT documents. 1 Cor.9 has itinerant people in view, not resident elders. In this regard I will share some thoughts I gave in response to the question, “What about ‘supporting the pastor’ & how is this to be done?”:
Well, there’s no such animal in the NT as ‘The Pastor,’ so there is really nothing in the NT, therefore, about supporting such a person. In Acts 20, the words/concepts of Elders/Pastors/Bishops are used with reference to the same group of men who came from Ephesus to see Paul on Miletus. Paul seems to assume that these elders/pastors/bishops are all working men, as he calls them to follow his example in the same. 1 Cor.9 has nothing to do with the
support of elders/pastors/bishops. It has to do with itinerant people like Paul, Barnabas, Titus, Timothy, Silas, Junia, Priscilla, who evangelize in
new places, plant & encourage assemblies. This passage says nothing about
resident elders. The only passage that talks about elder-support is 1 Tim.5:17-20. Notice the amount of space given to helping widows that
precedes the few verses on helping elders! There is nothing about ‘the pastor’ in this text. The assembly has a body of elders, and Paul says any
of these are potentially worthy of support, “especially” — not “only” — those who work hard at teaching. So to talk meaningfully about support of
church leaders we have to first jettison the unbiblical tradition that isolates one person as ‘the pastor,’ and focuses on their support, and see
that the NT knows only of elders/bishops/pastors as a body of men, any of whom might be helped, especially those that labor hard in Word-ministry.
Tradition has created the office of ‘the pastor,’ and developed a whole theology and support system around it. The NT knows only of elders/pastors/bishops. If an assembly has 3 elders, then it has 3 pastors,
and it has 3 bishops. The assembly is free to evaluate — if they are financially able — as to how they can best maximize the elders’ gifts,
which can then be used to equip the saints for many other ministries. The NT assumes that elders are working men until they are freed in some way as the congregation discerns how to best use their resources. When you think about it, there is actually very little in the NT about elders — that is, compared to the inordinate emphasis people place on the
importance of traditional categories of church leadership. Consider the following brief thoughts: *the epistles were written to the bodies of saints
in a town or region, not to the leaders; *when discipline takes place in the body, leaders are never specifically addressed, but the ekklesia
(congregation) is — “take it to the ekklesia” (Mt.18), “when you are assembled in the Name…hand this man over to satan” (1 Cor.5), “if any one
is overtaken in a fault, you you are spiritual restore such a one” (Gal.6); *elders are not mentioned at all in Romans, 1 & 2 Cor., Gal., Col., 2
Thess., Philemon, 2 Tim., 2 Pet., and 1 Jn.; *in Hebrews 13:24, “Greet the leaders,” it sounds like they are not present, perhaps they were imprisoned; *in 1 Tim.5 the few verses on the support of elders are preceded by 13
verses about supporting widows; *in the NT Epistles the writers always address the assembly as a whole and never address the elders separately
about issues that must be dealt with (the sections about the qualifications and support of elders are given to apostolic assistants; Peter addresses the
elders directly about their responsibilities); *viewing the ekklesia as spiritual ‘family’ seems to be a springboard perspective for everything — elders (Greek, ‘presbuteroi’) are simply older, mature men of wisdom in the family of Christ who are viewed as ‘fathers,’ and there are also older women (Greek, ‘presbidas’) who are viewed as ‘mothers’; *you don’t have ‘offices’ that are filled in a family, instead you have loving functions worked out among the members. Thus, the following sentiment expressed by David McKenna — which reflects the common practice of American churches — is opposed to everything taught in the NT about the ekklesia:
“[The pastor] is like the cerebellum, the center for communicating messages, coordinating functions, and conducting responses between the head and
body….The pastor is not only the authoritative communicator of the truth from the Head to the body, but he is also the accurate communicator of the needs from the Body to the Head” (“The Ministry’s Gordian Knot,” Leadership,
Winter, 1980, pp.50-51).
This sounds more like a Roman Catholic view, and it certainly reflects no concern for what God’s Word teaches about how the Body of Christ is to
function. With such a view you would think that the NT should have been written to ‘the pastor’ of each church, but it wasn’t — it was written to
the saints who as a family were responsible to administer the keys of the kingdom and carry out the will of Christ. Much more could be said, but the above communicates a number of important,
basic concepts.
Jon
Amen… It really does boil down to what you think the Body of Christ is meant to resemble, a family, or an institution? Once you settle on that question, everything else settles into place fairly easily… You can support family members, take care of them, help them in all kinds of ways, rely on them, etc., there are all kinds of relational dynamics that can happen. But one thing you would never do is hire someone to be a part of a family. To do so would be to destroy the very heart and soul of the whole concept, to rob the word of all meaning…
I do not think we are all called to preach. In order to be able to preach, you must be able to teach, and James 3:1 lets me out of that. I’m not under any “great commission” either. That’s the paid Christian’s job. NO WORK CAN BE DONE WITHOUT PAY–IT’S A LAW: DEUTERONOMY 25:4: DO NOT MUZZLE AN OX WHILE IT IS TREADING OUT THE GRAIN.
Personal evangelism is not in the Bible. There is not a single example of anyone either getting saved or hearing the gospel through personal evangelism. It’s all handled through the apostolic ministry, which is paid Christians. Right now, there is enough money going onto the offering plate nationally to evangelize the entire world. Sadly, the clergyman is taking all this money, and the entire world is going to hell–all because of the greedy clergyman.
Once again, just to reiterate: I am not saying that having paid ministers (whether one or a plurality, whether we call them pastors/elders/bishops/deacons) is the best approach, nor am I saying it is the most biblical approach. I am simply saying that it is not unbiblical, that is, it does not contradict scripture. This post wasn’t defending the pastoral “office” Jon, I was simply demonstrating that the Bible does make room for paid ministers of the gospel. Scripture does seem to support a minister of the gospel who makes his living off of preaching the gospel. It’s very clear in scripture – call him whatever you will.
“the entire world is going to hell–all because of the greedy clergyman.
Okay… I can’t stop grinning there… What? No… The world is going to hell because it is full of lost, sinful people…. It’s no secret I’m not an advocate of the clergy, but dude, that’s definitely overboard!
Dan… How can you say you’re not advocating here that paid ministers are both the most biblical and the best approach? You just spent all this time trying to show that it is totally biblical (and you are in fact defending it as an “office”), and not only that, you went to quite some length to make the point that without official, academically trained ministers, we’d be opening up the gates to all kinds of false teaching due to the inevitable biblical and historical ignorance that would follow.
Not to mention the fact that you chose “deception” as one of your subject tags for this post…
“As you note both single vocational and bivocational are biblical. I kind of remember JT Wartic sp? doing a fair bit of proof texting.”
I think I’m being called out! But I can’t figure out what I’m being called out on…
I agree Dan, I think Scripturally, pastors (and other workers in the ministry) can earn their livings from the Bible. The Scripture you’ve been citing shows that fairly well, I think.
“If Paul considered a sum of $ to be one of the “rights” of an Apostle, then of all places we should expect to see it listed right here! But mysteriously, he forgets to mention it. It is clear here that he is talking about being supported (in practical ways…) by the local congregations which an apostle travels to.”
I disagree here. The fact that “$” is not being specifically said doesn’t mean that it is being forbidden. The fact of the matter is that the society many pastors are in right now is such that giving money is quite similar to giving food, drink, board, etc.
“Scripture does seem to support a minister of the gospel who makes his living off of preaching the gospel. It’s very clear in scripture – call him whatever you will.”
I agree. We could argue about what exactly this person is or what his/her position is called, etc., but that’s not what the argument is here. I agree with you Dan.
Yes, that was overboard Brian.
Daniel, I am defending paid ministers as being biblical. But I am not invalidating a plurality of leadership who receive no pay. I am simply stating that the Bible allows for paid ministers. I do think it is important to have well-trained believers in church history, exegetical theology (biblical languages), and practical theology (counseling skills). Unfortunately, most believers don’t think it is important to have this knowledge in the Body of Christ, and history has demonstrated that this creates many problems when people remain ignorant of their past/history and biblical interpretation. Many modern-day denominations base faulty doctrine on a misapplication of the English text of the Bible, more and more believers have no knowledge of the original texts and languages.
I don’t think that the folks trained in these disciplines have to be “pastors,” but it certainly makes sense since most of us don’t have the time nor money to go to seminary and learn these things, which often require years of intensive training (especially biblical language instruction). The modern-day pastor certainly seems to be in the best position to receive this training. Unfortunately, pastors today often keep this information to themselves, rather than train other believers. At the same time, there are pastors who want to share this knowledge but many believers do not find it important. Most have no discipline nor desire to learn Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, church history, etc.
But it is important to note that church history (which includes the biblical events themselves) repeatedly demonstrates that ignorance of scripture leads God’s people into false teachings and deception, idolatry and apostasy. It is not necessary that all people learn these things, but some knowledge of these disciplines is helpful for all. And I have yet to see churches with no official leadership structure adequately train people in these disciplines. It simply seems that seminary is one of the best places to gain this information.
What I see today is many organic church movements moving into some of the heresies of the Anabaptist and Quaker movements (Viola even recently spoke at a Quaker seminary in Portland, Oregon). A lot of this has to do with a lack of understanding these movements in their historical context, plus I personally believe this is just another way for charismatic teachings to find inroads into the church.
I chose deception as a tag for the post because I believe it is deception to say that the Bible does not support a paid minister, when this text in 1 Corinthians 9 makes it very clear that a minister of the gospel has a right to receiving a living from that Gospel, however that looks – room & board or a paycheck.
Paul did not exercise this “right,” nor do ministers have to do so today. But this doesn’t mean that others cannot. We must also consider the context. Paul was a missionary to those who had never heard the Gospel. When we send missionaries to unreached people today, we often have them work among them, and they don’t collect an offering. But once a church is established, leaders are identified and trained, and these individuals are supported. In early church history, the direct disciples of the apostles were appointed as bishops over entire cities (Polycarp was a disciple of John, he was placed over Smyrna, also Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Irenaueus of Lyon, etc.). Granted, there were some groups that opposed this practice, the Montanists being a classic example, lead by Montanus and later Tertullian. This group quickly devolved into heresy, however. Tertullian lead them into a field to find the New Jerusalem (and to avoid the persecution that has befallen all Christians), they believed in the Trinitarian heresy of modalism, they practiced “ecstatic prophecy” often appearing to be speaking in tongues, Montanus spoke in first person as God in many instances, followers claimed to have received visions of Christ in female form, etc. Unfortunately history demonstrated that most of these “splinter” groups were heretical. Yet modern organic church “scholars” (who often have little to no scholarly instruction) like to present these groups as examples of organic church movements. If the only examples are groups that end up moving into rapid heresy, and we know history tends to repeat itself….
Once again, I am trying to show that the Bible does indeed support a minister who receives their living from preaching the gospel. Please reread 1 Corinthians 9. It seems very clear. But the Bible doesn’t exclude other forms of leadership, such as Paul’s bi-vocational approach, or other forms of leadership. My main point is that we should not reject a paid minister, even if that is not one’s preferential leadership structure. I’m not asking anyone to fall under a pastor, I’m simply asking that they are not denounced as unscriptural – this does not seem to be the case.