Church budget dwindling

[Havensdad]

Having your needs met and receiving a salary are not the same thing. When Jesus sent out the disciples in pairs and told them not to take anything along, He wasn't sending them out to get paid.

I think it IS the same thing, although I would allow that the life of a Pastor/elder be a frugal one. I think that the intent of the passage (and the passage in 1 Corinthians) is that your living is made "by the gospel." That is, that all the needs of you and your family are met, to the point that you do not have to work another job. Food, shelter, transportation, etc., should be provided by the assembly, so that the person can devote themselves to full time shepherding and preaching.

I think that passages such as Acts 20:33, would demand conversely a life of frugality for the pastor. I have seen churches where the pastor is driving a fancy new car, for instance, when one cannot be found among the congregation. Personally, (personal information alert!) I drive a 12 year old car, have a salary of 22k per year, and am provided a parsonage in which to live. That's it. And my family of four makes it on that. I COULD get another job, so that we could "live large", but I believe that would violate the heart of the command in 1 Corinthians 9, that our efforts should be devoted to the Gospel and missions.

That begs the question, is it salary being spoken of? Context would allude to it being double the gifts received of widows. The widows were not on staff.

Actually, I would say that the context is that the elders who rule particularly well, are being paid double the salary of those who rule less well. I would say that it is a salary, of sorts, that provide for the needs of the pastor and his family. It is a "timae" (payment) given out of the weekly offerings.

 

[Revmitchell]

Just because the church was pleased by what the apostles had decided doesn't mean they had a say in the matter besides doing what they were told to do.

That is exactly what it means:

Act 6:3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.

 

[webdog]

That is exactly what it means:

Act 6:3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.

They were following directions. They didn't have a business meeting with the 12 and vote that they should choose deacons.

 

[Tom Bryant]

They were following directions. They didn't have a business meeting with the 12 and vote that they should choose deacons.

Your wrong view of Scripture will turn the elders into Popes and remove the idea of the priesthood of believers from Baptist life.

 

[Revmitchell]

They were following directions. They didn't have a business meeting with the 12 and vote that they should choose deacons.

You do not know how they did it you weren't there and scripture is not specific other than to say that the church body did the choosing. The process the church body chose is not given.

 

[webdog]

Your wrong view of Scripture will turn the elders into Popes and remove the idea of the priesthood of believers from Baptist life.

How? That's like saying the current false view that Baptist deacons act like elders has removed the priesthood of the believer.

Please tell which flock of sheep dictated what the shepherd does. The current democratic view of the modern church is rooted in pride...that I get as much of a say as anyone else. Like I said prior, the body follows the head, it doesn't dictate what the head does. Spiritual matters within the church are decided by the spiritual leaders God has put over us. The pastor is likened to the head of the family. Are you going to tell me now that the wife and children have equal say in the fathers leadership?

 

[webdog]

You do not know how they did it you weren't there and scripture is not specific other than to say that the church body did the choosing. The process the church body chose is not given.

You can't be serious. Its written quite simply and plainly, the Hellenistic Jews complained to the leaders, the leaders met to come up with a solution, they presented it to the people and told them what to do. I don't see anywhere in the text where they merely suggested what to do or told them to put it to a vote. You are reaching.

 

[Revmitchell]

You can't be serious. Its written quite simply and plainly, the Hellenistic Jews complained to the leaders, the leaders met to come up with a solution, they presented it to the people and told them what to do. I don't see anywhere in the text where they merely suggested what to do or told them to put it to a vote. You are reaching.

I don't deny any of that. We are on the same page up to this point. But what you are doing is using the direction of the elders to ignore the role the church played in this. Regardless of the direction of the elders the church still chose for themselves. The direction of the elders does not negate the fact that the church chose for themselves even if that is what the elders directed them to do.

 

[Tom Bryant]

How? That's like saying the current false view that Baptist deacons act like elders has removed the priesthood of the believer.

Please tell which flock of sheep dictated what the shepherd does. The current democratic view of the modern church is rooted in pride...that I get as much of a say as anyone else. Like I said prior, the body follows the head, it doesn't dictate what the head does. Spiritual matters within the church are decided by the spiritual leaders God has put over us. The pastor is likened to the head of the family. Are you going to tell me now that the wife and children have equal say in the fathers leadership?

The discussion about deacons is completely different. We would probably agree that Deacons have usurped an authority not given to them in Scripture.

The problem is that we are just an undershepherd.

The family relationship and the church relationship are different. Jesus was specific not to call anyone father. Believers are called Kings and priests. You have made church members into order taking followers.

We're not going to agree. I think you give pastors/elders too much authority that is not given them in Scripture. But like I said, we are not going to agree about this. So I'll drop out.

 

[webdog]

The discussion about deacons is completely different. We would probably agree that Deacons have usurped an authority not given to them in Scripture.

The problem is that we are just an undershepherd.

The family relationship and the church relationship are different. Jesus was specific not to call anyone father. Believers are called Kings and priests. You have made church members into order taking followers.

We're not going to agree. I think you give pastors/elders too much authority that is not given them in Scripture. But like I said, we are not going to agree about this. So I'll drop out.

You have misrepresented my position. I never made those in the church slaves or doormats. You completely take the priesthood to a place never intended. I also believe that, but that is never mentioned in a corporate setting. Using such logic, when the worship leader asks everyone to bow in prayer, if I want to keep singing I should...after all who tells a king what to do.

If you think the family and church relationships should be viewed differently, you need to take that up with Paul. That is his similie given to Timothy, not mine. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)
You are right, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[webdog]

I don't deny any of that. We are on the same page up to this point. But what you are doing is using the direction of the elders to ignore the role the church played in this. Regardless of the direction of the elders the church still chose for themselves. The direction of the elders does not negate the fact that the church chose for themselves even if that is what the elders directed them to do.

They didn't choose for themselves. They were given the task, even the parameters of who could be chosen. They didn't decide this, it was decided for them. After given the direction they chose. We see this in the current church.

 

[Revmitchell]

After given the direction they chose.

I agree, "they chose".

 

[Revmitchell]

Elder rule churches are unorthodox in Baptist churches. In fact it is contrary to baptist distinctives.

 

[webdog]

Elder rule churches are unorthodox in Baptist churches. In fact it is contrary to baptist distinctives.

Doesn't make it right. Baptist churches are not the standard, the Bible is.

 

[webdog]

I agree, "they chose".

You read only what you want to see. Apparently you think they chose the qualifications, too.

 

[Revmitchell]

You read only what you want to see. Apparently you think they chose the qualifications, too.

I did not say that. My position is the fact that the Elders chose the qualifications does not negate the fact that the church chose. You found it necessary to include the phrase "they chose", why is that.

 

[Tom Bryant]

If you think the family and church relationships should be viewed differently, you need to take that up with Paul. That is his similie given to Timothy, not mine. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)
You are right, we will have to agree to disagree.

This is one of the reasons I am beginning to hate this place. If i disagree with your interpretation of what Paul is saying, then I disagree with the Bible.

This passage has nothing to do with elder rule, it has to do with requirements for being an elder/pastor. It doesn't say that the pastor/elder is a father to the church - in fact Jesus precluded us from ever calling anyone "father" in a spiritual sense. If he can't live up to his responsibilities as a father and dad, how can he live up to his responsibilities as a pastor/elder.

This has nothing to do with not agreeing with Paul or the Bible and you know it!

 

[Revmitchell]

Also the fact that the elders chose the qualifications does not add up to "thus saith the Lord".

 

[webdog]

This is one of the reasons I am beginning to hate this place. If i disagree with your interpretation of what Paul is saying, then I disagree with the Bible.

This passage has nothing to do with elder rule, it has to do with requirements for being an elder/pastor. It doesn't say that the pastor/elder is a father to the church - in fact Jesus precluded us from ever calling anyone "father" in a spiritual sense. If he can't live up to his responsibilities as a father and dad, how can he live up to his responsibilities as a pastor/elder.

This has nothing to do with not agreeing with Paul or the Bible and you know it!

I see...so the elder knowing how to manage his family has nothing to do with his role in the church. You do know what a similie is, right? The management of both the family and by extension our church family are in view (we are called brothers and sisters for a reason, right?). Please share where I said we are to call the pastor 'father'.

Im on the same page as Johnny Mac with this http://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA203/Why-Elder-Rule

 

[Havensdad]

Elder rule churches are unorthodox in Baptist churches. In fact it is contrary to baptist distinctives.

THAT, my friend, is just plain incorrect. The earliest Baptist churches, going back to the early to mid 1600's, were elder led.

I find myself in an odd position of agreement with Webdog.... The example given in scripture (and Baptist history) is an elder led church, with the congregation holding an "ultimate veto" power, if the elders go off the deep end (they start deny the deity of Christ, or something)