These are pet verses of those that wish to justify taking salaries (especially large ones) for preaching to the flock. However, most who quote these verses, fail to follow Paul's own example:
"If we have sown spiritual things to YOU, is it something great if we shall reap things for the flesh from YOU? If other men partake of this authority over YOU, do we not much more so? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this authority, but we are bearing all things, in order that we might not offer any hindrance to the good news about the Christ. Do YOU not know that the men performing sacred duties eat the things of the temple, and those constantly attending at the altar have a portion for themselves with the altar? In this way, too, the Lord ordained for those proclaiming the good news to live by means of the good news. But I have not made use of a single one of these [provisions]. Indeed, I have not written these things that it should become so in my case, for it would be finer for me to die than—no man is going to make my reason for boasting void! If, now, I am declaring the good news, it is no reason for me to boast, for necessity is laid upon me. Really, woe is me if I did not declare the good news! If I perform this willingly, I have a reward; but if I do it against my will, all the same I have a stewardship entrusted to me. What, then, is my reward? That while declaring the good news I may furnish the good news without cost, to the end that I may not abuse my authority in the good news."
(1 Corinthians 9:11-18)
It seems Paul made use of the Priests officiating at the altar and the fact that they were able to eat while performing their duties. Likewise, it is cruel to an ox to muzzle it while it is threshing; it is kind and loving to allow it to eat while it labors. How these examples can be used to support a paid clergy are beyond me, especially considering the fact that Paul himself would have rather died, than take advantage of this provision. The next time a clergyman needs to make a payment on his car, I suggest he take up making tents...(Acts 18:3; 2 Thessalonians 3:7, 8)
Regards, Brenden.
institutional church?
Re: institutional church?
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]
-
dwight92070
- Posts: 1550
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am
Re: institutional church?
I cannot believe my ears! Where in the Bible does it tell us that we must obey all scripture, except "pet" verses?
These "pet" verses are also God's word! Is it not obvious that Paul is saying that MOST who preach the gospel will get their living from the gospel, but he has chosen, of his own free will, to not use this right? By your reasoning, then, no preacher of the gospel should get married, either. Paul asked, "Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife?" Again, apparently Paul chose to not use this right, but he is not imposing celibacy on all preachers! So why do you impose "muzzling the ox while he is threshing"? MOST preachers will get married and MOST preachers will take a living from their preaching and teaching. Of course it could be abused but that's where the rest of the body of Christ must use their brains to not allow a covetous, greedy, "pastor" to continue. It is quite easy to "vote" with our pocketbook.
What ever happened to rightly dividing the word of truth?
These "pet" verses are also God's word! Is it not obvious that Paul is saying that MOST who preach the gospel will get their living from the gospel, but he has chosen, of his own free will, to not use this right? By your reasoning, then, no preacher of the gospel should get married, either. Paul asked, "Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife?" Again, apparently Paul chose to not use this right, but he is not imposing celibacy on all preachers! So why do you impose "muzzling the ox while he is threshing"? MOST preachers will get married and MOST preachers will take a living from their preaching and teaching. Of course it could be abused but that's where the rest of the body of Christ must use their brains to not allow a covetous, greedy, "pastor" to continue. It is quite easy to "vote" with our pocketbook.
What ever happened to rightly dividing the word of truth?
Re: institutional church?
HI Dwight,
Sorry you seem so upset. "Pet verses" is a reference to the way certain verse are trotted out to shore up a cherished paradigm, such as "submit to your leaders" even when it becomes clear that the leaders are abusing their so-called position, ie. the Shepherding Movement, etc. Trotting out a verse that at best shows that a shepherd to a local church group had a right to take a meal is a long, long way from what I typically see in churches these days. How you cannot see the diference is beyond my reasoning capabilities. At first blush, I suspect that there is someone you respect, admire and love and trust very much, that is getting more than a good meal out of his services, and the Biblical concept I am espousing is causing you some cognitive dissonance.
Regards, Brenden.
Sorry you seem so upset. "Pet verses" is a reference to the way certain verse are trotted out to shore up a cherished paradigm, such as "submit to your leaders" even when it becomes clear that the leaders are abusing their so-called position, ie. the Shepherding Movement, etc. Trotting out a verse that at best shows that a shepherd to a local church group had a right to take a meal is a long, long way from what I typically see in churches these days. How you cannot see the diference is beyond my reasoning capabilities. At first blush, I suspect that there is someone you respect, admire and love and trust very much, that is getting more than a good meal out of his services, and the Biblical concept I am espousing is causing you some cognitive dissonance.
Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]
Re: institutional church?
In my opinion a lot of the 'issue' that people have with 'paid clergy' is just style-preference.
If someone is really putting in a full-time effort into discipling in a local church, so much so that they aren't able to take on other employment opportunities, then an appropriate response from a congregation would be to make sure all their needs are met. Now, there are multiple ways to meet those needs.
One local church could provide said minister with milk and eggs from the farms of the congregants, an extra vehicle from a well-to-do family, cover their medical bills in case of emergency, pay for their housing, lift up occasional love offerings, etc. This could all be done via spontaneous free will offering. I trust that if people were obedient this would work just fine.
But another local church could decide that, in their opinion, it would be more well-organized to established a set amount that the minister needs to live each month. They might consider that this gives the minister a bit more freedom (seemingly a nice thing) to decide exactly what way he'd like his needs met (maybe he doesn't prefer milk or Ford's or whatnot). We need not be talking about luxuries, just some compensation comparable to those in the congregation.
Ultimately, there is not necessarily much different about these 2 arrangements. But anti-institutional people idealize spontaneity and, therefore, find the 2nd model icky. I use the word 'necessarily' on purpose, knowing that in practice the 2nd model often becomes corrupt. The minister might be given more than he needs and become rich. The minister might lose motivation to keep working hard since his/her compensation is pre-established. The minister might teach in ways that keep people (customers?) happy. But, really, all of those things COULD happen in the 1st model too.
If someone is really putting in a full-time effort into discipling in a local church, so much so that they aren't able to take on other employment opportunities, then an appropriate response from a congregation would be to make sure all their needs are met. Now, there are multiple ways to meet those needs.
One local church could provide said minister with milk and eggs from the farms of the congregants, an extra vehicle from a well-to-do family, cover their medical bills in case of emergency, pay for their housing, lift up occasional love offerings, etc. This could all be done via spontaneous free will offering. I trust that if people were obedient this would work just fine.
But another local church could decide that, in their opinion, it would be more well-organized to established a set amount that the minister needs to live each month. They might consider that this gives the minister a bit more freedom (seemingly a nice thing) to decide exactly what way he'd like his needs met (maybe he doesn't prefer milk or Ford's or whatnot). We need not be talking about luxuries, just some compensation comparable to those in the congregation.
Ultimately, there is not necessarily much different about these 2 arrangements. But anti-institutional people idealize spontaneity and, therefore, find the 2nd model icky. I use the word 'necessarily' on purpose, knowing that in practice the 2nd model often becomes corrupt. The minister might be given more than he needs and become rich. The minister might lose motivation to keep working hard since his/her compensation is pre-established. The minister might teach in ways that keep people (customers?) happy. But, really, all of those things COULD happen in the 1st model too.
Re: institutional church?
Matt Wrote:
Probably most people are unaware that anything given to a pastor by his congregation, or a member of the congregation, even a "love offering" or a $100 bill handed to him as a gift as someone passes by on the way out of the church is considered taxable income. The classic case settled in tax court was of a lady pastor who got a large part of her income from the congregation by means of quarterly "love offerings" which she never reported as income. Very bad, as the penalties imposed by the IRS are huge.
Before complaining about some local pastor receiving his living from the gospel, take a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbN0C8-pYrc
For those who think a preacher of the gospel should get a job and support himself while he preaches/teaches, how do you think Jesus lived for three years after he laid aside His carpentry tools?
Not sure what is included in the 1st model but spontaneous gifts and the so-called "love offering" are probably as abused, or more so, than the salaried system.But, really, all of those things COULD happen in the 1st model too.
Probably most people are unaware that anything given to a pastor by his congregation, or a member of the congregation, even a "love offering" or a $100 bill handed to him as a gift as someone passes by on the way out of the church is considered taxable income. The classic case settled in tax court was of a lady pastor who got a large part of her income from the congregation by means of quarterly "love offerings" which she never reported as income. Very bad, as the penalties imposed by the IRS are huge.
Before complaining about some local pastor receiving his living from the gospel, take a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbN0C8-pYrc
For those who think a preacher of the gospel should get a job and support himself while he preaches/teaches, how do you think Jesus lived for three years after he laid aside His carpentry tools?
Re: institutional church?
Hi Matt,
There is very little that I respect about the way the JW arrangement was. It was very authoritarian, and etc. as I have referenced many times on this Forum. However, I will give the Devil his due on this point; The JW Org. was Presbeyterian in congregational polity, meaning they had a body of Elders that served voluntarily. Shepherding was (ideally) delegated around so that one man was not given all the work to do. Typically, one brother would be in charge of shepherding his Book Study group (weekly home meeting) and that usually consisted of 15 or so people,
Regional Elders (called Circuit Overseers) would visit congregations and complete a "circuit" of visits about twice per year; they usually officiated over about 20 congregations. The WT Org. encouraged the Circuit Overseers to live with the friends; have a host family put them up for the week they were there. I only remember one CO that actually did that when I was a kid. Most COs sold their homes and bought a travel trailer or fifth wheel and parked it in the Kingdom Hall lot of wherever they happened to be that week. Later, many Halls were built with a very modest "parsonage", or little apartment to accommodate the CO. COs were also shifted around every few years so that they couldn't get a following. A good idea, but of course it also kept the friends looking to the WT. At the end of the week, the local Body would make a motion to the congregation that brother so-and-so's expenses be covered--an amount that typically covered gas and incidentals; all the time I was growing up I never saw that go over 150.00, usually far less, as the meals the CO and his wife ate were given them by the friends in their private homes.
On this one point, I think they came about as close as any institutional church at replicating the first century arrangement, on that score, as far as it goes. Was it perfect? No, but we never had to dole out a healthy chunk of change every month for the "Pastor" and hope that he was a good steward of the money. From what I have heard, and it is anecdotal, this is far less common among mainline churches and large independent ones. Most of those ministers live rather comfortably.
Regards, Brenden.
There is very little that I respect about the way the JW arrangement was. It was very authoritarian, and etc. as I have referenced many times on this Forum. However, I will give the Devil his due on this point; The JW Org. was Presbeyterian in congregational polity, meaning they had a body of Elders that served voluntarily. Shepherding was (ideally) delegated around so that one man was not given all the work to do. Typically, one brother would be in charge of shepherding his Book Study group (weekly home meeting) and that usually consisted of 15 or so people,
Regional Elders (called Circuit Overseers) would visit congregations and complete a "circuit" of visits about twice per year; they usually officiated over about 20 congregations. The WT Org. encouraged the Circuit Overseers to live with the friends; have a host family put them up for the week they were there. I only remember one CO that actually did that when I was a kid. Most COs sold their homes and bought a travel trailer or fifth wheel and parked it in the Kingdom Hall lot of wherever they happened to be that week. Later, many Halls were built with a very modest "parsonage", or little apartment to accommodate the CO. COs were also shifted around every few years so that they couldn't get a following. A good idea, but of course it also kept the friends looking to the WT. At the end of the week, the local Body would make a motion to the congregation that brother so-and-so's expenses be covered--an amount that typically covered gas and incidentals; all the time I was growing up I never saw that go over 150.00, usually far less, as the meals the CO and his wife ate were given them by the friends in their private homes.
On this one point, I think they came about as close as any institutional church at replicating the first century arrangement, on that score, as far as it goes. Was it perfect? No, but we never had to dole out a healthy chunk of change every month for the "Pastor" and hope that he was a good steward of the money. From what I have heard, and it is anecdotal, this is far less common among mainline churches and large independent ones. Most of those ministers live rather comfortably.
Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]
-
dwight92070
- Posts: 1550
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am
Re: institutional church?
To Editor,
"Trotting" out a verse to shore up my argument? You bet I am. What else should I use? Yes, you did make me angry, because you show disrespect to the Word of God by saying I'm using "Pet" verses, and you add to it by saying that I'm "trotting" out these verses. Both of these terms are showing your dismissal of these verses, but EVERY verse in God's word is to be honored. For you to say that "So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their LIVING from the gospel." and "The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing, and The Laborer is worthy of his WAGES.", means that the elder can get a meal or two, is unbelieveable! The words capitalized, LIVING and WAGES are not just a meal or two. Words have meanings and you are choosing to ignore the meaning of these words. Look them up in the dictionary.
You also said that pastors should follow Paul's example by not taking any compensation. But you did not comment on my point: Then why don't you also say that pastors should follow Paul's example and never get married? You see, you are inconsistent. Again, the obvious truth is that there is a general "rule", i.e. that, as the Lord directed, MOST pastors are to get their living from the gospel. Paul chose not to. He was an exception to the rule. If any other pastor chooses not to, that is up to him, but the Lord's direction remains the same. You cannot scripturally insist that all pastors follow Paul's example (in this category) any more than insisting that all pastors stay single.
This is why I got off of the Bible Forum for several months. Because of people like you, who refuse to accept the obvious meaning of words, I am open to being corrected if I see from the Bible that I am in error. Are you? But when 2 people won't even agree on the real meaning of a word, we might as well be speaking 2 different languages. Consequently, we are wasting our time. Iron sharpens iron, but only if both people have an honest and good heart. If either party is unteachable, then nothing is accomplished. Jesus was very clear that there are "tares among the wheat". Why would there not be tares here on the Bible Forum? I am sure there are.
"Trotting" out a verse to shore up my argument? You bet I am. What else should I use? Yes, you did make me angry, because you show disrespect to the Word of God by saying I'm using "Pet" verses, and you add to it by saying that I'm "trotting" out these verses. Both of these terms are showing your dismissal of these verses, but EVERY verse in God's word is to be honored. For you to say that "So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their LIVING from the gospel." and "The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing, and The Laborer is worthy of his WAGES.", means that the elder can get a meal or two, is unbelieveable! The words capitalized, LIVING and WAGES are not just a meal or two. Words have meanings and you are choosing to ignore the meaning of these words. Look them up in the dictionary.
You also said that pastors should follow Paul's example by not taking any compensation. But you did not comment on my point: Then why don't you also say that pastors should follow Paul's example and never get married? You see, you are inconsistent. Again, the obvious truth is that there is a general "rule", i.e. that, as the Lord directed, MOST pastors are to get their living from the gospel. Paul chose not to. He was an exception to the rule. If any other pastor chooses not to, that is up to him, but the Lord's direction remains the same. You cannot scripturally insist that all pastors follow Paul's example (in this category) any more than insisting that all pastors stay single.
This is why I got off of the Bible Forum for several months. Because of people like you, who refuse to accept the obvious meaning of words, I am open to being corrected if I see from the Bible that I am in error. Are you? But when 2 people won't even agree on the real meaning of a word, we might as well be speaking 2 different languages. Consequently, we are wasting our time. Iron sharpens iron, but only if both people have an honest and good heart. If either party is unteachable, then nothing is accomplished. Jesus was very clear that there are "tares among the wheat". Why would there not be tares here on the Bible Forum? I am sure there are.
Re: institutional church?
Yes, words do have meaning. And the manifest meaning of words can be obfuscated by:
a) Language/translation
b) Pre-existing paradigm
c) Lack of information regarding the historical context when the words were uttered or penned
What makes you so certain that your understanding of any of Scriptures you cited are not colored and checkered by the above qualifiers? Other than a preference to maintain the Western view of Churchianity, what is there in the words of Paul that would lead you to such a conclusion?
Your question about marriage is not germane. Paul recommended singleness to anyone that could make room for it, as did Jesus. But in marrying one does not sin. Can you make the same assured statement regarding one that makes a comfortable living running a church? And your statement about paid Pastors as being the norm in the 1st century is a fiction. These are baby-steps to Papacy.
Perhaps before you come in here and start doling out judgments on people you have never met, you take the time to consider the arguments from all sides of an issue, and not merely swallow down whole the institutional arrangement we have had for centuries. Remember, the Jews of the 1st century ran afoul of Jesus because their traditions had rendered the word of God invalid. The past was once the present.
Regards, Brenden.
a) Language/translation
b) Pre-existing paradigm
c) Lack of information regarding the historical context when the words were uttered or penned
What makes you so certain that your understanding of any of Scriptures you cited are not colored and checkered by the above qualifiers? Other than a preference to maintain the Western view of Churchianity, what is there in the words of Paul that would lead you to such a conclusion?
Your question about marriage is not germane. Paul recommended singleness to anyone that could make room for it, as did Jesus. But in marrying one does not sin. Can you make the same assured statement regarding one that makes a comfortable living running a church? And your statement about paid Pastors as being the norm in the 1st century is a fiction. These are baby-steps to Papacy.
Perhaps before you come in here and start doling out judgments on people you have never met, you take the time to consider the arguments from all sides of an issue, and not merely swallow down whole the institutional arrangement we have had for centuries. Remember, the Jews of the 1st century ran afoul of Jesus because their traditions had rendered the word of God invalid. The past was once the present.
Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]
Re: institutional church?
By the way, I always presume that the person I am dialoguing with is trying to know the truth and discern the correct meaning of Scripture, even if they are mistaken in my opinion. It's a pity you can't do the same.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]
Re: institutional church?
One of the uncomfortable realities of our present situation, in my opinion, is that the church exists as a core within a congregation. There is an organism within the organization. The congregation/organization is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it someways it is a pathway to the core/church. Institutions usually pay their employees/officers.
Most modern day pastors, to my mind, really have 2 jobs. One is semi-secular (overseeing the institution/organization/congregation). The other is kingdom work (teaching/preaching/overseeing the organism/church/core). This is the cultural situation we find ourselves in. It is not that different from Paul making tents and planting churches.
Most modern day pastors, to my mind, really have 2 jobs. One is semi-secular (overseeing the institution/organization/congregation). The other is kingdom work (teaching/preaching/overseeing the organism/church/core). This is the cultural situation we find ourselves in. It is not that different from Paul making tents and planting churches.