Assumptions and opinions.
There is a lot of speculation and assumptions being tossed around about what a pastor does. If you do not know, then hang around your pastor for a while. I lived with one for 20 years of my life (my father), and he would have loved to have been locked up in his office most of the day. It just didn't happen. I do believe that it is more biblical for him to be there spending time in the Word and prayer (as was pointed out by standingfirminchrist.
As for paying a pastor, Scripture is very clear about this. Congregations need to look back at Scripture instead of saying "I think...." Study it out in Scripture and let it form your opinion. Following is an excerpt from a paper I wrote on this topic a couple years ago:
There are many passages in the Bible that address this topic. The principle of financially supporting the minister is clearly defined throughout the Bible. The Levitical priests were to eat of the meat the Israelites brought as a sacrifice to the Lord. Concerning the upkeep of the priests, Moses said, “And this shall be the priest's due from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep; and they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw. The firstfruit also of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the first of the fleece of thy sheep, shalt thou give him.” Paul affirms this when he says, “Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings?”
In Numbers 35, the Israelites were also commanded to give the priests certain cities and lands. The priests did not need the land so that they might till and plant crops. They were fed by the tithes and offerings from the people, but the lands were given simply for them to have a place to dwell. Matthew Henry states,
They were not to have any ground for tillage; they needed not to sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns, for their heavenly Father fed them with the tithe of the increase of other people's labours, that they might the more closely attend to the study of the law, and might have more leisure to teach the people; for they were not fed thus easily that they might live in idleness, but that they might give themselves wholly to the business of their profession, and not be entangled in the affairs of this life.
They were to concentrate their daily efforts on their duties in the temple – not on tilling the ground and planting crops.
These passages clearly show that the Israelites were required to provide for the priests food, drink, clothing, and dwelling place. These items are the daily needs of the pastor today as well. Since Paul reaffirms this principle in I Corinthians 9:13, it is safe to assume that the New Testament church should continue this practice.
Paul’s reaffirmation in I Corinthians 9 requires a closer look. The entire chapter is devoted to discussing the maintenance of Paul and other ministers of the Gospel. He states that he has the right to receive of the fruit of his work, yet he refuses this right in certain situations. Some use this passage to assert that the pastor should not be paid, but a closer examination shows the opposite to be true. In fact, Paul did accept support from some churches.
At the beginning of the chapter, Paul asks a series of rhetorical questions to prove that he has the right to be supported for his work. “Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?”
Obviously, Paul is defending his right to be supported. Note that this does not apply to Paul alone. He names Barnabus, Cephas, and the other apostles as well, and passes these rights to them. In a more general sense, the soldier, vineyard worker, and shepherd are all entitled to a provision. If a layperson is entitled, by extension, the shepherd of a local flock is entitled as well.
Paul continues by using an Old Testament law to further prove his point. He quotes from Deuteronomy 25:4 where Moses states that an ox should not wear a muzzle while it is threshing the grain. Since the ox is not muzzled, it may freely eat of the grain. Paul asks the obvious question, “Is it for oxen that God is concerned?” Of course, God is concerned about the ox, but Paul continues by saying that “it was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.”
As the ox labored at its work, it was free to bend down and eat of the grain. This was the reward for the work that it was completing. Moses originally recorded this law, yet Paul states that it was written for his own sake. In other words, this law was specifically written to show that Paul, and all ministers, have a right to be supported by the work that God calls them to do.
The word “hope” in verse 10 is not a doubtful hope. This hope is an expectant hope, and something that Paul and pastors today should be able to rely on with confidence. There should not be any doubt whether the pastor will be paid. There should not be any doubt that the pastor will be sufficiently paid either. If the ox was allowed to eat as much as it saw fit, then certainly the pastor should be able to count on receiving a provision that provides for all of his needs.
Paul reaffirms the practice of paying ministers in I Timothy 5:17-18 where he says, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine. For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his reward.” The importance of this passage demands a closer look.
The meaning of the words “double honor” in verse seventeen has been debated for centuries. This phrase has been interpreted several ways:
1. Honor as an elder and extra honor for those who serve well
2. Double the honor as the widows mentioned in the first part of the chapter
3. Honor and pay
4. Double pay
There certainly may be additional interpretations, but these embody the predominant views of this passage. All hold some merit since each of the interpretations consider either honor or compensation.
Unquestionably, the pastor that rules well is worthy of our honor and respect. As the Chief Executive Officer of a corporation demands the respect of the employees, so much more should the local flock honor and respect the man that God has called to lead them spiritually. The office itself demands honor, but as these verses state, the ones who rule well should require extra honor.
Though few would dispute the fact that honoring the pastor is esteeming or respecting him, others, such as the Mormons, have denied that honor also indicates a financial provision. Verse eighteen indicates Paul’s intended meaning of honor. Once again, Paul uses the Old Testament law of muzzling the ox. As noted above, this same phrase was also used in I Corinthians 9 to indicate that Paul held the right to receive payment for his work. Also, Paul continues by stating that “the laborer is worthy of his reward.” If an employee is rewarded with a paycheck every week, a pastor should certainly receive compensation as well.
Looking further, honor is translated from the Greek word Timē. It can be used as honor, price, or compensation and is used as price or pay in Matthew 27:6, 9; Acts 4:34; 7:16, and I Corinthians 6:20. Surely Paul is suggesting that the elder should be respected and paid for his work.
