Should pastors have salaries?

[Ben W]

Eph 4:11-12 And He Himself gave some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangalists, and some Pastors, and Teachers. For the Equipping of the saints for the work of the ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ.

I do not see here that the Pastor is the head guy who trains and equips others. He is one of six different offices in the church, used for that purpose. (Although some churches do not validate the ministry of an Apostle = Missionary) Really each of these have an equal share in equipping the saints, and have an equal share in the offering. I can see a definate case for pulpit time to the Evangalist and the Teacher. The others less. The role of a Pastor is a Shepherd who cares for the flock. His role is counselling, Administrating, watching for false teachers etc.

However each of these roles require equal time to prepare and to do there respective ministry. Who evangalises to the masses in the Bible? Quite often Paul.

You would be right if you think I hate Industrial Capatalism I think it breaks up families in order to introduce a class system into society. In the Early church read about Ananias and his field. Acts 4:34-35. This is the opposite of Capatalism, Sharing what you have. It is the principal in which the church was founded. It is obvuiious to me that the way Capatalism is organised has influenced the Church. All are required to work, Paul made tents in a co-operative. However it is my opinion that the Capatalist money system had done alot to break up families. People work two jobs and still live below the poverty line

I wish we could get back to the system of sharing things with one another. And for all the offices of the Church to work together equally. I can see a case for offerings for the Apostles, that certainley did happen. I am not so sure about a singular offering for a Pastor? I am thinking that an offering would support all those officers in the church who have a need of it.

Teachers and Evangalists need time to prepare sermons, Pastors need time to call on their people. It can be worked out though. I think Pauls example of working as a tent maker is a good example of managment. Some support from offerings, and some support from work is a good system.

 

[Jim1999]

So, how many tents will you buy?

Cheers,

Jim

Let's see.....How many motorcars would you have to make to pay for your employment at the plant?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ben W:
I do not see here that the Pastor is the head guy who trains and equips others.

Why?? That is what the text says. He is not one of "six different offices." The apostle and prophet are not contemporary offices. They were first century offices. I have no idea what you are referring to about the other three. The evangelist (church planter) is one; the pastor-teacher is the other.

The role of a Pastor is a Shepherd who cares for the flock. His role is counselling, Administrating, watching for false teachers etc.

Note the job description fo the pastor in 1 Tim 3: He is to be able to teach. Why? BEcause he is the one in the church with the primary role of teaching.

Who evangalises to the masses in the Bible?

Every believer, if you read the book of acts.

I am not so sure about a singular offering for a Pastor?

The pastor's salary is paid out of the general receipts of the church. The only other officers in the church are deacons that are generally not paid positions. There are no more offices in the NT church.

Some support from offerings, and some support from work is a good system.

Preparing sermons is work, hard work. To suggest that getting paid for preparing sermons is not getting paid for work is out of bounds. I do it because I love it. But it is, bar none, the most difficult and hard task I have ever done.

 

[Sherrie]

I think the Pastor should be paid. And I think everyone should call on the sick/family/nursing homes/visitations/etc. Everyone should be active in the church. Down to the point of even helping to do the church cleaning.

It is always the same people who help out in everything. No matter what church it is.

Pete....didn't realize you were so talented. Go you!

Sherrie

 

[Ben W]

Pastor Larry, Let me say to you that I have nothing but respect for you and for the position that you are in. I find your posts challenging, and well put.

However I disagree with your interpretation of Eph 4:11-12. I dont agree that Apostles and Prophet have finished there ministry. I know that is IFB teaching, but I dont see it. Jesus gave out those offices and did not put them under a time constraint. As I see it these were established by Jesus to be ongoing.

1Tim 3, Desiring to be a bishop. Or as some other versions put it an overseer. To keep it simple lets focus on the KJV use of the word Bishop.

Bishop Strongs no 1985 episkopos, ep-is'-kop-os; A Superintendant, an officer in general charge of the church.

Pastor Strongs no 4166 poimen poy-mane; A shepherd, pastor.

Looking at the greek, these two offices are clearly not the same. The Pastor is to Shepherd. He certainley is not the head guy that equips and trains others.

The other offices in the church are as listed above in my opinion, so there is not to much more I can say on that.

Financial contributiuons for the church are to be distributed according to Acts 4:34-35 there is also a biblical case for food distribution amongst the brethren. Money is not the only form of support.

Jim1999, I already have a tent, and I work in a paint factory?

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by Sherrie:
Pete....didn't realize you were so talented. Go you!

Sherrie, God has given me more up my sleeves than just my arms Now call me radical (it's been done ) but I think He has given every part of the body more up their sleeves than their arms.

When we have an itchy foot, the foot does not have to pay the hand to scratch it

Pete

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ben W:
Pastor Larry, Let me say to you that I have nothing but respect for you and for the position that you are in. I find your posts challenging, and well put.

That's very kind of you. I am honored.

However I disagree with your interpretation of Eph 4:11-12. I dont agree that Apostles and Prophet have finished there ministry. I know that is IFB teaching, but I dont see it. Jesus gave out those offices and did not put them under a time constraint. As I see it these were established by Jesus to be ongoing.

But the way that the offices are defined and the role of sign gifts in them show us that they are no longer here. When special revelation ceased in AD95, a "prophet" became non-existent in the true sense of the word. We might today call someone who preaches a "prophet" but that is not the biblical use of the term just as a biblical evangelist is not an intinerant speaker. The apostle was one who had seen Christ. No one after the first century qualifies.

Looking at the greek, these two offices are clearly not the same. The Pastor is to Shepherd. He certainley is not the head guy that equips and trains others.

But the Scripture put the roles of overseer, elder, and pastor all on teh same person. Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1-2 show that these functions are vested in one and the same person. IN Acts 20:28, the Holy Spirit made them overseers (Episkopos) to shepherd (poimaino) the flock. In 1 PEter 5:1-2, the elders (Presbuteros) are to shepherd (poimano) the flock of God by exercising oversight (episkopeo). So in the teaching of Peter, the elder was to be the shepherd and the overseer.

These are three titles, describing three functions of the same office. It might be analogous to the fact that a man can be a husband and a father and a grandfather all at the same time.

]Financial contributiuons for the church are to be distributed according to Acts 4:34-35 there is also a biblical case for food distribution amongst the brethren. Money is not the only form of support.

I agree. I have people who bring us food on a regular basis. Just lack week someone brought us a chicken and some breakfast pastries along with some vegetables. We get taken out to eat by someone probably 3-4 times a month. I have been taken out to purchase suits, shoes, shirts, ties, books ... more than I can remember. So I agree with this. I also agree that we are to help our brothers and sisters in teh church with their needs. So don't think I am negative on this. I am not.

I would return though to 2 Cor 9 where those who preach the gospel are to live of the gospel. That does not negate other responsibilities such as helping the widows, paying the rent, etc. It is one of many things the church is to do.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Ben W:
I don't agree that Apostles and Prophets have finished their ministry...As I see it these were established by Jesus to be ongoing.

Bishop...episkopos...Pastor...poimen...Looking at the greek, these two offices are clearly not the same.

Ben, I agree with some of the points you have made, but disagree with you concerning apostles & prophets, and bishops & pastors. I do appreciate your bringing this up, though, because so many times we operate with a closed mind on these matters, assuming what we believe is the way it is - like the people who believe that the term "apostle" refers to only the twelve and Paul. Yet several other men in the N. T. are referred to as apostles. But I agree with Larry that those referred to as apostles were probably only those that had seen Christ. I feel that N. T. "evangelists" were possibly those non-apostles who fulfilled the same type of ministry as the apostles (less the apostolic authority - look at Philip, for example). As for prophets, I also agree that special revelation of the prophets ceased probably near the close of the first century. I think we need more than just Eph. 4:11-12 to prove the continuing offices of apostles and prophets, since the fact that they were given to the church doesn't have to imply that the office still exists. In fact, we do still have their ministry in the form of the New Testament. Of course, I Cor. 12:28 is a parallel passage and also needs to be considered, as well as Eph. 2:20. But that leads further and further off topic, so I'll not comment further. Certainly if you are correct, that would cause a lot of necessary re-thinking of the issue of pastors' salaries. I also agree that I Pet. 5 & Acts 20 give good evidence that bishop & elder were the same office. But it should be kept in mind, which is especially evident in the Acts passage, that these churches had a plural number of elders who might have differing gifts that they bring to their office.

Originally posted by Kal-El:
What about the verses that Pastor Larry brought up?

Kal-el, these verses were mentioned in a previous post, but no one commented on my questions. Here they are again: people "can't just throw I Cor. 9, Gal. 6, and I Tim. 5 on the table and say these are our scriptures, you need to deal with them. They are God's Word, and both sides must deal with them. There are some things that must be considered in these passages by those who support setting a salary for a pastor. Such as, in I Cor. 9:14, et. al. - where are pastors (elders, bishops, I use them as equivalent) found in the context of the passage? What does living of the gospel mean? How were the priests supported - salaries or freewill offerings? How does an apostle's refusal to use this right, but rather setting a model of self-support for elders (cf. Acts 20:34,35) fit the interpretation? Or in I Tim. 5:17 - if honor means a set salary, does double honor mean pay a double set salary? Have you considered that Timothy was in Ephesus and they had a plurality of elders? Did all of them receive a double salary? What about the possible division of labours of elders - elders that rule well, and elders especially who labour in word and doctrine? Or in Gal. 6:6 - does 'all good things' inherently mean a set salary? If it means a 'set salary' from the one taught to the one who teaches, does that include a salary to itinerant ministers, radio preachers, or others who teach us? If not, why not? If so, who will set their salaries? The point here is that these passages are not as cut and dried as some might suppose."

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
where are pastors (elders, bishops, I use them as equivalent) found in the context of the passage?

I can't imagine you are suggesting that pastors are not those who preach the gospel. I quite honestly cannot imagine what you are asking here.

What does living of the gospel mean?

IN the context, it is the means of living, just as the ox who plows, the plowman or the thresher who gets part of the harvest for their work.

How were the priests supported - salaries or freewill offerings?

Both according to the OT. The priests got a part of the burnt offerings and sacrifices as well as a part of the tithes and firstfruits as well as freewill offerings.

How does an apostle's refusal to use this right, but rather setting a model of self-support for elders (cf. Acts 20:34,35) fit the interpretation?

Paul clearly states that his example does not set a precedent. If his example set a precedent for all to follow, then we would have to question why 1 Cor 9 is even in the Bible. Why include something that is to be ignored??

Or in I Tim. 5:17 - if honor means a set salary, does double honor mean pay a double set salary?

It seems to mean that the proclamation ministry of the word is to be honored above other elder ministries.

Have you considered that Timothy was in Ephesus and they had a plurality of elders? Did all of them receive a double salary?

YOur first question assumes a lot (about which we have disagreed before). Your second assumes that all of them labored well in word and doctrine. There are elders whose primary responsibilities include other things.

Or in Gal. 6:6 - does 'all good things' inherently mean a set salary?

Not necessarily but "all good things" cannot be reasonably made to exclude it. The argument is that those who minister spiritually should reap materially.

If it means a 'set salary' from the one taught to the one who teaches, does that include a salary to itinerant ministers, radio preachers, or others who teach us? If not, why not?

ONce you get outside the local church you are on your own as far as I am concerned. I can see no reason for someone to support a radio teacher. If his local church wants to pay for him to be on the air, then more power to him. The local church is what God established and what should be supported by the giving of his people.

The point here is that these passages are not as cut and dried as some might suppose.

With due respect to you who I consider a friend, I disagree. I cannot see where the wiggle room is here.

 

[Ben W]

I have got alot out of this discussion

. I really had some interesting study with the role of Pastor versus Bishop.

Surprisingly Pastor Larry, you have had an influence here I can now see a parallel between a Bishop and a modern Pastor, although I think we could do better on terms.

So there you go I have actually learned something

 

[Timothy P. Posey]

This is a difficult question, and one that I am almost sure will not be answered on this site anytime soon. However, when I think about this subject, I think back to my first day of orientation at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. The words of wisdom that I am about to share with you did not come from the president of that fine institution, nor did they come from a professor nor the secretary of a professor. They came from Ms. Almeda, she was a little black lady from Tylertown, Mississippi who was in charge of all the cleaning crews on campus and this is her quote as best as I can remember it. "There are two types of people that come to seminary, 1)Those that God called and we don't have any problems with them and 2) Those that Mama called and Daddy sent. They are the ones that we want to run south on Seminary place and not stop running till they are outside the front gates." If I had not known it before, I was learning fast that not everyone in ministry shared the same thoughts and opinions about ministry.
I say all that to say this, not everyone in ministry is called to the same type of ministry and therefore there are differences that need to be taken into account for each person. Most Churches don't do that. Most have a salary and some have a pastors home and they are looking for someone who will fit both. The truth of the matter is that most pastors have a family that they must take care of and if the church doesn't do that financially then that money has to come from somewhere. It may be from another job or from the spouse working or some other means.
Dr. Richard Jackson said something one time that I happen to agree with, he said if the pastor is a true man of God, then you can't pay him too much. I agree with that... every pastor who has ever served on a church field knows of areas in his ministry that could use extra money, he knows poor people in his community that don't have food, he knows children that do not have school supplies and if he is being paid enough, and his heart is right he will do the right thing with his money and help those types of people. However it's been my experience that most churches don't ever give their pastors the freedom in that area to find out what they will do with the extra money. A few do, and some of those pastors fail the test, they forget about the poor, home missions, foriegn missions, buying Bibles for the lost in their neighborhood and other true needs and they think they need that BMW, Cadilac, Lincoln, Land Rover or other SUV. And I'm sure they are right.
However... what about the salary.. I've seen salaries that were way too low and salaries way too high. I've seen pastors controled by churches and the salary that they had so that they would not go where God called them to go. It is very seldom that you actually hear of a pastor who "is called" to a church for less money.. Yes I have known some, I'm not saying it never happens.. just saying it is rare.
I am becoming more and more convinced that if we will simply serve by faith, God will meet all our needs and even beyond our expectations.. it says that in the Bible somewhere.. But for the most part we as Baptists.. especially Southern Baptists don't teach faith. Maybe that's our problem, for the Bible says that without faith it's impossible to please him.
In our mission organization, I get a set amount when we have it.. but if we don't then I don't receive it. Last year there were several months I didn't get my huge salary of $1,000.00 per month. But God was always faithful. We always had food on the table and I'm doing what he called me to do. So I guess I don't have a guaranteed salary.. I have a "if" salary.. If it's there I get it, and if not I don't.
One final note, I've seen many more problems originate from churches controlling the man of God with his salary. They don't understand why they pay the pastor. You don't pay a pastor to minister or to visit people. The pastor is called of God to do the will of God and you pay the pastor so that he can be able to do the will of God in your community. If he's not doing his job (following the will of God)then God will take care of him, and if he is doing everything that God wants him to do, then God will take care of him. And that's all I have to say about that.... as Forest Gump says.. Don't worry so much, God's still in control.. Hey it was 75 degrees here in lovely Tegucigalpa, Honduras today.. if your in the neighborhood drop by.. Bro. Tim

 

[rlvaughn]

Hello, Bro. Posey. Welcome to the Baptist Board. It's nice to have you here; I'll look forward to seeing more of your posts.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I can't imagine you are suggesting that pastors are not those who preach the gospel. I quite honestly cannot imagine what you are asking here.

What I am suggesting is that Paul has in mind apostles (and possibly evangelists), and that pastors/elders/bishops are not in view here. Yes, I think there is a sense in which pastors preach the gospel. There is as well a sense in which other members of a church preach the gospel. But I believe a proper interpretation of the context in the letter as well as the early church context in which the letter was written must take into account that there were those such as the apostles that travelled proclaiming the gospel good news of Jesus Christ and His resurrection, especially to those who had not heard the message and/or did not understand - non-believers and unbelievers. On the other hand, the "job" of the pastors/elders was to serve in teaching and maturing the saints to minister in the gift/calling that God had given/called them to. These men seem to have generally been called and ordained from within the church body. The men in view in I Cor. 9 seem to be men who have been called apostles elsewhere.

IN the context, it is the means of living, just as the ox who plows, the plowman or the thresher who gets part of the harvest for their work.

I tend to agree, especially in light of verses 6,15,18, et.al., but there are further considerations I note in the next series of comments.

Both according to the OT. The priests got a part of the burnt offerings and sacrifices as well as a part of the tithes and firstfruits as well as freewill offerings.

I am not aware of any priests or Levites receiving a salary in the sense of the original question, and it appears to me that the Levites (as Levites) were "supported" by the tithes and that the Levites as priests were "supported" by portions of the offerings brought to the altar. I think there are considerations in the Old Testament that would indicate this wasn't their entire livelihood. For example, that they were given "suburbs" for their farming and cattle (e.g., Josh. 21:1-3). In light of that background, it seems that it would be stretching Paul that "live of gospel" has to mean their total living.

Paul clearly states that his example does not set a precedent. If his example set a precedent for all to follow, then we would have to question why 1 Cor 9 is even in the Bible. Why include something that is to be ignored??

I'm not sure to what you refer when you say that "Paul clearly states that his example does not set a precedent." His instructions to the Ephesian elders seem pretty clear - I have set an example for you to follow, that you should so labor as I have done (for myself and others). There he seems to want them to understand that he had set a precedent. Why is I Cor. 9 in the Bible? First, let me say that I Cor. 9 & Acts 20:34,35 do not seem to fit too well in most explanations I have heard. But if I Cor. 9 refers to an apostolic right, it makes sense that Paul could teach the right and yet set it aside (because it was his to set aside), with one reason being to set an example for the elders. If these Ephesian elders had the same right to "forbear working," wasn't Paul doing a great disservice to them and their church by urging them to work? Second, in the broader context, I Cor. 9 is about relinquishing one's rights/privileges/liberties for the greater good. Paul had instructed the Corinthians to do this if needed concerning the eating of meats (ch. 8). He was not asking them to do something that he was unwilling to do (i.e. set aside one's rights for the greater good).

It seems to mean that the proclamation ministry of the word is to be honored above other elder ministries.

I think that certainly is in mind in I Tim. 5:17, but why does it follow that pastors must have an established living to be honored above elder minstries? In fact, it says all elders are to be counted worthy of double honor (though it adds "especially they that labor in word & doctrine").

Your first question assumes a lot (about which we have disagreed before). Your second assumes that all of them labored well in word and doctrine. There are elders whose primary responsibilities include other things.

I realize we are not in agreement concerning the place of plurality of elders in the church, but I don't see that there is any assumption that the Ephesian church had plural elders (Acts 20:17) or that Timothy was in Ephesus when this was written (I Tim. 1:3). From what in I Tim. 5:17 would we conclude that some elders should be paid and others not, if we assume that double honor has reference to a salary?

Not necessarily but "all good things" cannot be reasonably made to exclude it. The argument is that those who minister spiritually should reap materially. Once you get outside the local church you are on your own as far as I am concerned. I can see no reason for someone to support a radio teacher...

I do not think that sharing in all good things excludes sharing materially; nay, that it would definitely include it. But Paul here appears to be speaking in general terms of individual responsibility without any view of pastors or pastors' salaries. In most churches, it is not the case that all teaching comes from the pastor(s). I just threw in the radio preachers, et. al, for thoughts because I have heard this verse used as a reason to support such para-church causes. But non-pastor preachers who travel to a church to preach on occasion (such as supply, fill-in) could receive possible consideration in this verse. I've known of preachers driving a couple of hours (or more) to fill-in at a church and leave without even being offered a meal. That's hard to imagine. I'm not advocating that preachers be "thrown to the wolves." I am advocating that ministers not enter into financial agreements with churches to pastor them.

With due respect to you who I consider a friend, I disagree. I cannot see where the wiggle room is here.

I certainly have great respect for you as a brother, a minister, and a friend, and hope that my cut and dried comment was not taken to imply that I believe you haven't studied this. What I had in mind is that many people do just read over these passages and just assume that whatever they are practicing is what is being referenced. I do expect there are people reading this who haven't studied the subject. I enjoy engaging in such discussions with you because you go to the scriptures.