Should a pastor be full time or bi-vo

[Salty]

From another thread

Neither Pastors, nor Assistant Pastors, should be on the payroll of the Church Budget.

Instead, they should be true to what the Bible says. They should follow Paul's example. Paul, in addressing the early Church, told the Elders that he worked with his own hands to provide for himself and those who traveled with him. He told the Elders that they too should labor with their hands.

Than who is going to pay for his gas for church business, who will pay for extra insurance - (many extra miles)
How will he be paid at a secular job, if he needs time for funeral or hospital visit.
How will he get any sleep if he is woken up at 2 am for a hospital visit.
How is he to properly preform all duties of a pastor - sermon preparation, ect while still holding a 40+ hour a week job?

Yes, many Bi-vos are doing it - but could they do even a better job if they were working only part-time or not at all at a secular job.

 

[canadyjd]

I Tim. 5:17-18 "Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching (18)For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing' and 'The laborer is worthy of his wages,'

Paul appears to allow for elders to receive pay.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Double honor is not speaking of a salary. If it was, Paul would be contradicting himself when he told Elders to follow his example and work with their hands to provide for their sustenance and that of others.

 

[canadyjd]

Double honor is not speaking of a salary. If it was, Paul would be contradicting himself when he told Elders to follow his example and work with their hands to provide for their sustenance and that of others.

The laborer is worthy of his wages. Especially those who preach and teach. What does that mean?

 

[Steadfast Fred]

The word honor in verse 17 is also found in verse 3.

If one is going to argue that double honor is referring to a salary, then one must be consistent and pay widows half the amount they give pastors.

Do the widows get money each week like the pastors? Not that I've seen or heard.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

I know many versions use the word wages in verse18, but I believe the word reward is the correct word.

My reasoning? Paul had already said that the elders should work to provide for themselves. Reward is not necessarily wages, but more of a gift of appreciation. If the congregation wants to honor the pastor, oreven if it is only one or two members who want to honor him, great... They should do so.

But putting one on a payroll can be a hindrance to the Gospel.

 

[Van]

It is not clear to me that the Widows of verse three are not getting their needs met through the giving of the local Elder led assembly.

Some local assemblies cannot support a full time Pastor. That is why many church plants have part of the costs shouldered by the planting church or churches. Usually, three or so years is considered normative to establish a local assembly healthy enough to meet its needs.

 

[Revmitchell]

Double honor is not speaking of a salary. If it was, Paul would be contradicting himself when he told Elders to follow his example and work with their hands to provide for their sustenance and that of others.

Why did he tell those specific elders to do that? Does it have to be applied to all elders everywhere?

 

[Van]

Whether we call it wages or reward, the idea seems to be compensation for the service provided. Note a different Greek word is translated wages at Romans 6:23.

One other idea conveyed with reward is that it is like tip money, given not because it is owed like a wage, but given to "honor" the service provided. Our rewards in heaven are not earned as a wage are they?

 

[Revmitchell]

Double honor is not speaking of a salary. If it was, Paul would be contradicting himself when he told Elders to follow his example and work with their hands to provide for their sustenance and that of others.

1Ti 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.
1Ti 5:18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages."

 

[michael-acts17:11]

The very idea of a full-time, payrolled sole-authority pastor would be completely foreign to First Century believers. The Biblical standard is multiple equal-authority elders who were already leaders within their own communities. The modern payrolled priestly-pastor more closely resembles Catholic priests than First Century elders; paid to be human mediators between believers & God.

 

[annsni]

The very idea of a full-time, payrolled sole-authority pastor would be completely foreign to First Century believers. The Biblical standard is multiple equal-authority elders who were already leaders within their own communities. The modern payrolled priestly-pastor more closely resembles Catholic priests than First Century elders; paid to be human mediators between believers & God.

If this is so, Paul is lying in 1 Corinthians 9, specifically verse 14. "In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel."

That's pretty clear in my book. The whole of chapter 9 clearly says that pastors were paid - and paid by the church. Paul and Barnabas chose not do take money but Paul says that they have every right to be paid just like the other pastors who are.

 

[John of Japan]

Double honor is not speaking of a salary. If it was, Paul would be contradicting himself when he told Elders to follow his example and work with their hands to provide for their sustenance and that of others.

The Greek word for "honor" here is timh (ti-me), which has a much wider range of meaning than the English word "honor." It can mean "honorarium, compensation, payment received for service (1 T 5.17)" (the Fribergs' Analytical Lexicon). The well respected BAGD has something similar. Abbot-Smith has "a price paid or received" (p. 446).

The Greek scholars are almost unanimous in this: it means monetary remuneration for pastors in 1 Tim. 5:17. A. T. Robertson says in his Word Pictures of the NT: "White suggests 'remuneration' rather than 'honour' for timês (a common use for price or pay). Liddon proposes 'honorarium' (both honour and pay and so 'double'). Wetstein gives numerous examples of soldiers receiving double pay for unusual services. Some suggest twice the pay given the enrolled widows" (accessed through PowerBible 3.3).

 

[Steadfast Fred]

If this is so, Paul is lying in 1 Corinthians 9, specifically verse 14. "In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel."

That's pretty clear in my book. The whole of chapter 9 clearly says that pastors were paid - and paid by the church. Paul and Barnabas chose not do take money but Paul says that they have every right to be paid just like the other pastors who are.

They which preach the Gospel was not referring to pastors. It was in reference to traveling ministers such as missionaries and evangelists.

 

[preachinjesus]

Double honor is not speaking of a salary. If it was, Paul would be contradicting himself when he told Elders to follow his example and work with their hands to provide for their sustenance and that of others.

Your interpretation of this verse is incorrect. There was a system of payment for ecclesiastical leaders in the first century and following thereafter. See my next reply for additional info.

 

[annsni]

They which preach the Gospel was not referring to pastors. It was in reference to traveling ministers such as missionaries and evangelists.

So if you traveled you got paid but if you stayed and took care of a flock, you didn't?

 

[preachinjesus]

The very idea of a full-time, payrolled sole-authority pastor would be completely foreign to First Century believers. The Biblical standard is multiple equal-authority elders who were already leaders within their own communities. The modern payrolled priestly-pastor more closely resembles Catholic priests than First Century elders; paid to be human mediators between believers & God.

This is also an incorrect view of things in the first century. Not only does the NT speak of remuneration for certain offices within the local church, surrounding documents also speak of controversies and policies around these issues.

One of the earliest documents, The Didache speaks about how to receive itinerant prophets who would come through the towns and cities and minister among the people. Also, 1 Clement and Ignatius Epistles also show patterns of authority and support for leaders in the local churches. While the system might not be as developed as we use today, it was in place. The earliest churches cared for and supported their leaders.

The early churches did not accept that the local church officers, which transitioned from apostle and prophets to bishops and elders (both local offices without governing authority over other churches), served a mediating role between them and God. Instead the overwhelming evidence is that the early offices (post-apostolic era into the late second century) existed to provide guidance and leadership for the local church as well as a sacerdotal function for the two ordinances while also providing an ordained leader for the local churches.

The earliest Christians through to late second, early third century proudly believed and practiced the priesthood of the believer as one of the central doctrines of the faith which gave way to equality in access and authority between clergy and laity. Even through the mid-4th century congregational votes were required to install a new pastor (or episkopos) in a local church.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

So if you traveled you got paid but if you stayed and took care of a flock, you didn't?

Annsni,

Do a search through the Bible on all instances of preaching the Gospel. People were separated to preach the Gospel, called out from the local body of Believers, and sent to preach the Gospel. Stationary pastors are not told to preach the Gospel to their congregations. Their congregations already heard the Gospel, believed, and were joined to the Body. The pastor needs to feed the flock that which edifices them now that they are past the baby stage.. Not keep them on pablum.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Than who is going to pay for his gas for church business, who will pay for extra insurance - (many extra miles)

Year in and year out godly saints in the pews (the laity) serve without recompense. They use their vehicles, study materials for Sunday School, use their lawn equippment to mow the Church lawn etc. Everyone makes these types of sacrifices.

How will he be paid at a secular job, if he needs time for funeral or hospital visit.

How are you paid in the private sector when you have jury duty? Why aren't weddings for instance presided over by the Fathers of the household? That is the ideal scenario. Why do we EXPECT or require a professional "clergy" to perform ceremonies like weddings and funerals? We DO it, but that doesn't mean we necessarilly ought to.

How will he get any sleep if he is woken up at 2 am for a hospital visit.

Fundamentally, that isn't the pastor's job. IF there is any church office which more accurately would cover ministering to the sick etc....that would be the office of deacons. I believe churches are wildly out of Scriptural bounds to think that that is inherently a pastor's job.

How is he to properly preform all duties of a pastor - sermon preparation, ect while still holding a 40+ hour a week job?

bi-vo seems to cover that. I don't think that he should HAVE so many "other" duties other than that of sermon prep study prayer etc....a "40-hour" week seems a bit rough to me. I don't know that we could reasonably expect "FULL-TIME" work outside of the Church for the bishops. But I don't think that in MOST scenarios, the church should be a vocation for a professional "clergy" as such either.

Yes, many Bi-vos are doing it - but could they do even a better job if they were working only part-time or not at all at a secular job.

I believe too often that pastor's are doing work that is not strictly their job to perform. Scripturally, prayer and study are about it as far as what they should be required to do. (That and the "ruling" facets of the job also). I imagine that some counseling can be expected also, and that takes time as well.

Kissing sick people's boo-boo's isn't their job.

I am not against fairly recompensing elders for their work. But we have created a monster by requiring them to do things the Scriptures don't and now they haven't a CHOICE but to work full-time in the ministry. The church body itself could and should IMO take care of about 50% or more of what the average pastor is doing every week. Also, I think an argument can be made for a plurality of elders rather than one guy who does EVERYTHING.

 

[convicted1]

Not being a pastor, but a preacher, I do not receive any wages from my homechurch, nor would I want any money from them. Our pastors do not receive wages from the church they pastor, but work throughout the week. I personally believe that the pastor should not receive a check from their church, but work a job and use the church money for other needs.