Storehouse Thithing according John R. Rice

[Darrell C]

Fine, then don't cry about it when the "elders" cease desiring to pay him. If he works for God, and it is God who called him to perform that role, than God shall take care of him. But, you are worried that these "elders" won't. If he doesn't work for them, than it isn't their responsibility to pay him.

You have entirely missed the intent of my original post, HOS. Which was a counter-thought to a statement about Pastors that "live like kings," which I am for the most part in agreement with, because there are men that fleece the flock, and this is wrong.

The counter-point is that other side of the coin should be that Pastors receive a fare wage.

And now here we are dealing with "improbable scenarios" that you have created based on this. Hopefully, though, it will not turn out to be a complete waste of time.

As to my friend, the issues that he deals with are spiritual, not carnal. My view that he should not have to work another job to support his family is entirely outside of his issues with a board that very much believe the Pastor works for them, which you asserted was the brass tacks...period. Your words.

The traditions I mentioned in the original post did not focus on the amount he was paid, as I know of no tradition that teaches a low wage, lol. It is a doctrinal issue, not a monetary one.

It is in this way the elders seek to rule over the very one that has been placed in the position of spiritually feeding the fellowship, which, by the way, is a separate group from the elders. While the elders can be said to be a part of the congregation, it cannot be said the congregation is part of the elders, though in my own fellowship my Pastor often will remind people that he is "one of us," and that we are all under our Great Shepherd, which is reality.

What does "leadership" have to do with anything?.........

*tap tap tap...testing, testing, is this thing on?*

As I said, the Pastor stands in the role of leadership in the Body. For this conversation to make sense it might be a good idea that we distinguish between what is Biblical and incorporate into that the modern application of Biblical Doctrine in local fellowships.

In other words, HOS, what is standard in many churches, how they are run, are not necessarily how things were accomplished in the Early Church. Today, many meet in a building built for the purpose of fellowship, whereas some groups decry this practice and meet in homes. Who is right? Is it wrong to spend money that could be given to the poor on building a structure, and paying utilities for it, and paying an on-staff Pastor? Some would say it is.

But this practice is accomplished in the mission field as well. Structures are raised for the purpose of fellowship, so is that wrong as well? I don't look at it that way, but hey, each man must consider this and act on it according to his conscience.

Back to the issue at hand now, which is my belief that a Pastor should recive a fair wage. Is this not reflected in Paul's writing? You mention Paul getting a job in response to the failure of the Church to support him, when it seems that Paul does not involve himself, but is speaking for others. Is this a better way? Sure. Does it change Paul's writing? No.

O.K. so, if your young man is such a gifted "leader".....

He is a young Pastor, thought I made that clear. Whether he is gifted in leadership remains to be seen. At this point he is still plugging away, and from what I grown to know about him I have no doubt that God's hand is on this man, and that he will continue plugging away, and that as a result a young man with a solid doctrinal base will turn out to be a fantastic leader.

But that does not change the fact that at this time, he faces opposition as to his role of leadership, which most men would probably say "I'm outta here." This shows great resolve on his part, in my opinion.

His wage is something that is my own personal opinion, not something he has complained about, so it might be a good idea to better understand what you're talking about before asserting such nonsense and applying it to someone.

then why is it you seem concerned that he can't convince the congregation to follow him?

The show aint over yet, HOS.

Here you mention the congregation, of which I have not mentioned, that I can recall. In view are the elders, not the congregation. As to whether the congregation follows him, I don't really know, and I would be guilty of speculation to comment, so I won't. I am not a part of this congregation, though if I lived in his area I can assure I would be. I would follow his spiritual leadership, and he has been a great source of doctrinal fellowship. He is one of about a handful of men that I consider to be men of God, doing exactly what God means for them to do, in contrast to those that fleece the flock and hold to doctrine which is questionable.

Here's a hint: the "leader" is the person that people ACTUALLY follow. Not the one who demands to BE FOLLOWED. Whoever it is that the congregation is following is the leader.........not your compadre, he just wants to be.

Do you follow the President? Is he your leader?

And again, the congregation is not in view.

Or, they could can him and get someone else to do the job.

Wait a minute...what happened to all that talk about God being in charge?

The fact is that if God means for him to Pastor that Church, the elders have no power to "can him." lol

"Employers" don't do the work, they pay people to do the work they don't want to do or can't do.

Never been in business for yourself I see.

You might say some employers, but the truth is that most companies are built by the owner (despite what the president thinks), and they are the ones that do the work that gets it going.

How do I know? That is how it is with my company, lol.

But to liken the Church to a business and expect it to be run as a business is, as I think I mentioned before, something that is a problem in many fellowships.

A Pastor should be given his role based upon his ability to feed the flock, right? So when the elders, who also not only should be able to do the work but actually do minister as well (Shepherds don't make sheep, sheep make sheep, as the saying goes) try to determine how God will minister through the Pastor, there is a problem there.

If these elders want to decide doctrinal issues, then as I said, perhaps they should take on the position themselves. You know why they don't, HOS?

Because being a Pastor is a real job. Not everyone can handle that which many Pastors deal with, plus minister the word of God. Which was another point I made in the original post you responded to...a Pastor needs the time to prepare his sermons...right?

Thus, a Pastor should be able to fulfill his role, and have the time for such preparation, thus...my view that a Pastor receive a decent wage, at least enough to support his family and still have time give attention to the spiritual things he is called to minister.

We see this same principle at the outset of the Church in Acts, where men are called to deal with more mundane issues so that those ministering the word can focus on just that.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

They can't do it or don't want to do it.

Nonsense.

We should all be able to minister the word.

Again you inject a secular philosophy into a spiritual matter.

So, they pay someone else to do it.

But that is not the issue here. The issue is wanting to dictate doctrine from behind the scenes.

If the Pastor's theology is errant, then the proper procedure would be to find someone else. Not try to manipulate the man that is supposed to minister the word.

Do you understand what I am saying?

How about I reverse the scenario on you:
If your friend needs this pay-check so badly, then why doesn't he go out and earn it from someone who WANTS to pay him for his work?

How about I disregard the hypotheticals. This will save a little time, lol.

Did I say my friend complained about what he makes? That was MY complaint.

And as a matter of fact he did go out and do other work. Perhaps it is my fault, really, because I should have never mentioned him. I simply expressed a view that I hope would balance the view about Pastors that "live like kings." The issue is not a monetary one for my friend, and he has, to my recollection, never once complained about his wage or going out and doing other work.

If your friend isn't performing said task to their satisfaction, than they have no requirement whatsoever to continue paying him.

Your conclusions have nothing to do with what was said.

It is PRECISELY a "secular" viewpoint I am presenting......

I realized that.

and do you know why?

I have my thoughts on it, yes, lol.

Because admit it or not, it is a "secular" scenario, and also it is secular worldly and material "lucre" and "mammon" that you are concerned about for your friend.

In part I would agree, as I do wish he made enough that he could devote his time to full-time ministry.

And I reiterate that I think all worthy Pastors should receive a fare wage, that they might support themselves.

And I agree the scenario you present is secular, I am just left wondering why you think your hypothetical scenarios have anything to do with what has been posted.

I don't doubt that he is the most well-meaning and Spiritual one in the lot of them.......

It's not really your place to offer an opinion, though, is it? This is irrelevant to the original post, and it is irrelevant to you and I.

but, in order to win this scenario

So you feel it is normal for there to be this kind of issue in a local body?

and actually help the Church he is in.....there is one sure-fire way to do it. I've seen this scenario (everyone who's been a Baptist for more than a decade has) and it's to stop relying on "their" money to do it. Like it or not, there is a reality to that situation. And that is, that their money is in charge of that Church.

Again, money is not the issue. The issues do not revolve around money, but around elders that think they rule the church. What they say...goes.

You okay with that? You think that it is the role of elders to direct the Pastor in his ministry? That they will determine doctrine, and tell the Preacher what they want him to preach?

And for as long as your friend is beholden to it, than it will remain that way.

You conclude in error, HOS. If you would deal with what is said rather than creating what is going on you might save yourself a little time.

I would bet this much:
If you are honest with yourself, you will admit that your concern isn't for that church or it's Spiritual health..........it's for your friend's financial security.

You would lose that bet, HOS.

But then, it seems you have a tendency to make conclusions like this.

I will just reiterate what I have already said, that I wish he was paid a wage that would allow that he focus on his ministry to that fellowship, but knowing him, I have confidence that he could work several jobs and still minister in an effective manner. I'm telling you, this is God's man, and I believe God's hand is on him, and the result will be glorious.

Deep-down, IMO....I think you know I'm correct in that.

Actually, deep down, I think you have a bad habit of failing to respond to what is said and contriving and injecting your own "deep downs" in order to speak ill of others.

But then, I can only go on what you have said, so I won't guess about your deep-downs, lol.

Guess what? As long as that is the concern that YOU have for him, it's the same concern that these insufferable old codgers have too.

Guess what, you lose that bet as well. You have assumed that this is about money, when that aspect is entirely my opinion, and has nothing to do with either my friend or the issues he is dealing with.

It's spiritual, HOS, not carnal.

I am being realistic.

That is up for debate, but that too is just my opinion. :smilewinkgrin:


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

I've seen these scenarios turn around before................and usually, it involves a man who doesn't need their "secular" money to do it.

Well that is the problem, isn't it: your scenario has nothing to do with anything but a platform to base a rant.

Right?

It is, and you are correct..........but you are acting as though it isn't "business" that you want for the CEO of that company.

It isn't.

My advice has been to continue preaching as God leads him. I think that he will overcome in this and it will be from the pulpit. I believe that because I believe, again, he is God's man and he is where he is supposed to be.

But, your concern, I repeat, is PRECISELY for "business" for your friend.

If your scenario accurately portrayed the situation, I would likely agree, but it does not, so I don't. lol

You want the board to pay him for a task they aren't comfortable paying him for.

Where do you get this?

How do you conclude the "board isn't comfortable paying him for a task?" Not from what I have said, to be sure. Another deep-down, maybe?

Ask yourself.....does God REALLY desire that scenario?

Not my place to second guess the Lord. It may very well be that this is for the purpose of teaching him leadership. That would be a safe bet...want to get in on the action? lol

and whose job is it to "lead" them out of that?

Them? The elders? The congregation? Both?

Who is it you refer to? No wait, forget I asked.

I can tell your friend how, in a second, to fix it.........it's to stop taking their money.

Irrelevant. Would this resolve the issues? No, because again you have jumped to an erroneous conclusion and ran after it, thinking that it is relevant.

Know what'll happen?

Yes...they will seek to push him around for free, lol.

The codgers who run the show will either repent or eventually leave (because they are likely carnal anyway) and then new blood will begin pouring into that church.

I do think that eventually this latter will happen. And this, not because my friend tries to "win a battle" that shouldn't be taking place in the first place, but because God will do His work when he has a willing servant.

And it will be people who sincerely seek to follow God rather than these old thugs who merely desire the "preemininece" among them.

And now we get to the congregation. If they have even a trace amount of respect for him that I do from getting to know him, they already love this fellow.

My hope is that through this the elders do repent, rather than leave. You see, while I might have a negative view about their actions, it is not my desire that this should end in their leaving, but that they will allow God to work through this young man rather than seek to enforce their own traditions upon him.

Then guess what?
Within about two years.......there will be more than enough people who love that man and DESIRE to give him a fair recompense for his labour then they will vote to pay him a good and fair wage. Seen it before.

I believe this will happen as well.

And as I said, he has been steadfast, and my hat is off to him. Many would have been gone long ago, leaving this fellowship to it's own fate.

You can pray all you want for an improbable scenario. But God's not likely to do it.

But I'm not the one inserting improbable scenarios. I'm just responding to the ones you inject.

Me too....but God uses human agents to dole out his providence, and that's what you want done here. And it isn't a pay-check from the sky you want.....it's a pay-check from "Old-Dead Baptist Church"

Correction: that is the scenario you have presented.

My opinion has very little to do with the issues.

I am willing to bet the money that you desire for your friend that a whole LOT of the assumptions you make about the Pastoral staff of New Testament Churches isn't strictly Scriptural either my friend

Well, that is easy enough to pursue.

We can start with first presenting the scripture that has Paul upset that he isn't paid enough and going out to find a job.

:smilewinkgrin:

As far as my desires for my friend, they revolve around a successful ministry to that congregation...despite the elders.

........Traditional, yes, "Scriptural"??

Let me see, in the five or so posts that I have interacted with you, you have questioned my salvation, questioned my motives, questioned my doctrine...


...anything else you want to throw in there?

As far as scripture goes, if you want to actually address what I have said, feel free. Be glad to look at the scriptures I have thus far presented, and we can go from there.

NO. By way of example... your friend is the "elder"...those codgers are just old goats.

Biblically, yes, he would be considered an elder, but, we have to also take into consideration how many fellowships function today. A board of deacons can sometimes, when a new Pastor is involved, try to dictate to the Pastor how he will minister and what he will teach. And this is not entirely out of order, I believe, as a sitting membership must bring in one that represents their own theology. So don't take an extreme view that I think a Pastor should have free reign to the point where he changes the doctrinal position of the fellowship altogether. But, choosing a Pastor should be given the care that someone that is contrary to the statement of faith of that fellowship isn't chosen.

The board IS the "leadership" around there, or does this scenario not exist?

I thought "steeped with tradition" would have been a clue as to what was in view. But again, it would have been netter had I not mentioned it at all, and simply presented my view that a Pastor should receive a fare wage.

While I might not be entirely opposed to a Pastor being independent from a wage given by the fellowship, we have to consider that today...that is just how it is done. And I think we could go back to Paul's statement and look at whether Paul teaches this very concept. I think he does, and if you disagree, we can discuss it.

I mean, does your friend really "lead" the situation?

*tap tap tap...no, I'm pretty sure this thing isn't on. Where's the tech?*

The issue is that the elders seek to lead. It is not a monetary issue, HOS.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

I don't think he does, or this discussion would not exist. That's his failure to lead.......not their failure to follow.

The discussion...is contrived. You are talking about something altogether different.

If you want to discuss my opinion, great. At least that would be relevant to what was posted.

Not if Scripture is to be believed. The same scenario existed for the Apostle Paul and rather than "get rescued".....Paul responded (oh so counter-intuitively) by getting himself a job.

Present the scripture.

Paul stood in a precarious position in his ministry, hated by many, and accused, more than likely, of seeking to gain monetary gain through his ministry.

He chose to support himself that he might not be charged with seeking after filthy lucre. Not that he was upset because he wasn't being paid enough.

If you and your friend truly cared about those people,

You will now question my friend's integrity?

Incredible.

and not the fatness of his wallet, or the wealth he can extract from those Spiritually defunct people,

Incredible.

You have singlehandedly condemned everyone involved. Congratulations.

he could try the counter-intuitive tactic of not relying on their lucre and then see what kind of revival might occur there.

I think he is simply trusting in the Lord. He is not trying to wage a carnal warfare, at least, that is what I gather.

Uhhh........no...I asserted it, as in, "I" this corporation of one said it......not you.

Okay...

And what then, is it precisely that you are doing to these "elders" about whom you speak?? HUH? You, sir, are as guilty of "slandering" them, as you think I am of your compadre. Are you not?

Now this I have to agree with, and am pricked in my conscience.

But at least what I have said actually presents the actual situation. :smilewinkgrin:

But it is probably best not to talk of such things.

I don't doubt you for a minute.

That is not how it seems HOS. It seems you have for some reason simply looked for something to doubt.

His not being able to demand any money from the flock he is pastoring, if you read me correctly.

I think I do, and can tell you that you have misread and read into worse than I have seen done in quite some time.

It depends. It always does. I sure do know a LOT of crusty old "pastors" who out-lived their usefulness decades earlier who won't for the life of them give their job away, nor the pay-check they extract for it.

And I can take your word for it that these men were as bad as you imply in your statement about them? Based on how you have interpreted my post I might be inclined to think perhaps you may have misread them as well.

Then again, there are also Godly men who labour selflessly and continually in the word who are under-recompensed as well. BOTH scenarios are real.

Hate to say it, but you are getting dangerously close to being relevant to my post.

Careful...

I truly don't doubt for a minute that your friend is the latter either, as you suggest.

Maybe I have misread him and am a poor judge of character. Maybe he is the man you portray him as...

I am sorta.....I am aware that I equivocated the various meanings of "feed".....and that what I posted wasn't "literally" the intent of those passages.

So what exactly was your intent in your post? What did you hope to accomplish, HOS?

I was borrowing the phraseology to make a different but similar point. Perhaps that was bad dialectic.

How is an irrelevant rant making a point?

And...........you are correct AGAIN! :applause: What you have blithely failed to consider is that Paul's response to that VERY SAME church's failure to support him is PRECISELY what advice I am giving now.

Again...show me that in scripture.

Paul GOT.. A.. JOB!!

Paul...had a job.

You said that you wanted God's man "rescued" from that scenario......

No, actually I simply responded to your hypothetical with an equally hypothetical response.

It had nothing to do with the post I made, my friend, the elders, or the congregation.

Understand?

but, that isn't what Paul's response was. Paul wasn't "rescued", he got a job and that's Scripture.

I don't see Paul as the focus in the passage provided. Perhaps you could show that to me. His concern, like mine, I believe, was for another/others.

Take that truism, dry it out, cut it up, flavour it, then tamp it down into your pipe, and subsequently smoke it.

Truism?

Delusions of grandeur, really, lol.

I don't doubt it. As did the Apostle Paul, and when carnal men didn't recompense him fairly........he got himself a job.

Show me that in scripture.

Again....my post knowingly was equivocal, perhaps that was not the best way to make my point. I understand it for sure.........I just should have expressed it better.

You begin with...

Originally Posted by HeirofSalvation View Post

He DOES "work for them".....PERIOD.

...and you have still to make that point.

Of course......Paul wasn't a "Bishop" or a "Shepherd" in that sense either.........he was a missionary.

Now we have to distinguish between the reality of Paul's ministry and how many fellowship operate today. Paul was an Apostle, and I doubt many would question where that title placed him concerning leadership in the early Church.

So, strictly speaking, the only men who have a "right" to expect payment, are men willing to leave the comforts of these United States and the cozy offices they work from.

And this mentality contributes tot he spiritual decline of America, I believe.

America has become one of the greatest mission fields in the world.

Our fellowship actually supports a missionary to...Montana.

Your friend isn't a Missionary.

Nonsense. We are all missionaries, my friend.

You will nowhere find in the Scripture nor early church history that the pastors or bishops of local assemblies derived their living from that position. Missionaries did.......not Bishops.

Could you show me that in scripture?

Paul uses the Levitical Priesthood as an example, does he not? Were they missionaries?

God bless you too.

Okay, seems we have gotten off to a good start, but a I can (and do) appreciate your perspective, though we may be butting heads a little.

But that makes it interesting, no? :smilewinkgrin:

I would ask that from here on out my friend be excluded from our discussion. Deal with me, not him. I am one that mentioned I felt he should receive a fare wage, not him, so your beef is with my attitude and actions, not his.

You correctly rebuke me concerning my statement about the elders, which, if nothing else, that gives me something to carry away from the conversation so far.

God bless.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Just A Few Question..

Darrell....I've been following this little discussion you and HOS have going with some interest and while I DO NOT wish to interject myself into the middle of it (and I won't) it has brought up in my mind a few questions regarding your Pastor friend's situation. All matters of wages or other means of compensation ASIDE....just WHAT is this board of "elders" saying or doing to him that is creating a problem? Is this a Baptist church that is RUN by a board of elders or is it a Presbyterian church?
Just for the record....I'm 100% in favor of my Pastor who,besides being my friend is also a sincere and hardworking man with a great family. I would strenuously withstand ANY deacon or elder that tried to push him around for any reason. Thankfully, that kind of situation does NOT exist in our fellowship. As for the money thing...if he is getting the WORK of the ministry done then he is worth every penny he EARNS. If done properly that is a BIG job and definitely full-time in nature. If he was a deadbeat or a mere hireling...he should be sent packin'...as the old saying goes. You and HOS try to be nice to one another...OK?:laugh:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Hey Darrell,
Your points are well made, God bless your friend as this situation un-ravels.

 

[RLBosley]

And here for the longest time I thought I was the only baptist that didn't believe in tithing... Good to know

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I know how you feel. I believe there is actually a GROWING number of Bible-Believers who are coming of the opinion that "Storehouse Tithing" is un-Scriptural. Personally, it is good to see IMO. Like so many others, I accepted it and practiced it as a fait accompli for years until I started studying the issue about a year and a half ago.

In case you are interested.....Aresman's book is INDEED worth the read. I like his book VERY much. I have given it to a number of my friends and family as gifts.

Russel Kelly's work (I have only seen debates and read articles, not his books) while very informative gets a little bit caustic. Although I understand the source of his angst against tithing.....He comes across as (understandably) a little angry that he has been "lied" to for years about the doctrine.

Many of us who have abandoned belief in the N.T. tithe I think feel that way at least a LITTLE bit, but I think we have to divorce ourselves from the latent feelings we have about it to be effective in showing the truth about the doctrine.

 

[Darrell C]

Hey Darrell,
Your points are well made, God bless your friend as this situation un-ravels.

Thanks, Hos, that is my hope for him as well.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell....I've been following this little discussion you and HOS have going with some interest and while I DO NOT wish to interject myself into the middle of it (and I won't) it has brought up in my mind a few questions regarding your Pastor friend's situation. All matters of wages or other means of compensation ASIDE....just WHAT is this board of "elders" saying or doing to him that is creating a problem? Is this a Baptist church that is RUN by a board of elders or is it a Presbyterian church?
Just for the record....I'm 100% in favor of my Pastor who,besides being my friend is also a sincere and hardworking man with a great family. I would strenuously withstand ANY deacon or elder that tried to push him around for any reason. Thankfully, that kind of situation does NOT exist in our fellowship. As for the money thing...if he is getting the WORK of the ministry done then he is worth every penny he EARNS. If done properly that is a BIG job and definitely full-time in nature. If he was a deadbeat or a mere hireling...he should be sent packin'...as the old saying goes. You and HOS try to be nice to one another...OK?:laugh:

Bro.Greg:saint:

Hello brother Greg, to be honest, I feel a little uncomfortable having a focus on my friend, so will try to drop that aspect of the discussion, only saying that what I know of the situation is limited, as I have not really discussed it in detail, just a few basics concerning a tendency to try to control what is taught from the pulpit.

It is my belief that the man of God in the pulpit is not led by a board, but by God, and that a competent preacher will be led of God to preach as God moves him. Preachers that fit their messages to the desires of others, or are directed, I should say, seems a little foreign to me, lol.

Understand that my comments about this situation I now see as untoward, I should not have said anything specific, but left it at "while I frown on those that seek to fleece the flock and live like kings, preaching for no other reason than money (and I once had a man I looked up to make the comment "There's good money in preaching," which about broke my heart to hear from him), I also think that a Pastor or Preacher should make a fare wage (and that he is a sincere man of God goes without saying, that is implied, as I do not think the wolves should receive a cent).

And I will be nice to HOS, lol, even if he picks on me...

:laugh:

God bless.