Justification for Salaried Clergy

[blackheart]

The subject says it all - Please give a biblical justification for salaried clergy

[SamIam]

As a member of the priesthood of all believers, I do not support the concept of "clergy." On the issue of being paid, consider the following:

One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches. (Galations 6:6)

I infer that money is one of the good things we should share with those who teach us.

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

Elders who teach deserve their wages. It they teach regularly, do they not deserve a regular wage? Is this a "salary?"

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?
Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain." Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?
Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of my ground for boasting. For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but if not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship. What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel. (1 Corinthians 9:1-18)

Those who preach the gospel are entitled to make their living by preaching the gospel. They may at times surrender this right, but they still have the right to earn their living from the gospel.

Are you concerned about the pitfalls? Are you worried about teachers compromising their teaching in order to keep their salary? Are you worried about the people who write the check coercing the bible teachers?

[blackheart]

I was very deliberate in using the term "salary". I have considered the passages you have suggested. Some thoughts.

Galations passage justifies the supporting of Sunday School teachers also, why do they not receive a "salary"?
1 Timothy refers to muzzling an ox. The ox eats what it finds - The farmer does not restrict the consumption (ie the muzzle). This seems to be a different concept than a salary.
1 Corinthians 9:1-18 is referring to apostles - not elders/pastors.

BTW - how were elders to have a good reputation among those "without" (1 Tim 3:7) if they were always within (the congregation/church/ministers office). Could it be that the elders were just ordinary schmucks that loved God, worked a trade, and ministered amongst people as they lived? Or is this too simple?
If the elders were consumed with ministry, will not those they minister to seek to assist in every way possible without a contractural obligation enforcing their "love". Or will not the Lord Himself supply their needs without the requirement of human promises?

[mattrose]

In my opinion your distinction b/w receiving compensation and 'salary' can be, in many cases, a distinction without a difference. Why can't a group of people (a congregation) freely commit to a fixed amount of monthly/weekly compensation to be given to a edifying minister who has freely decided to minister full-time?

Are there more risks involved when it becomes a longer-term commitment and a fixed number? Perhaps. But they need not be sinful risks.

[SamIam]

Galations passage justifies the supporting of Sunday School teachers also, why do they not receive a "salary"?

Maybe they should be compensated for their work.

1 Timothy refers to muzzling an ox. The ox eats what it finds - The farmer does not restrict the consumption (ie the muzzle). This seems to be a different concept than a salary.

The next sentence says the worker deserves his wages. These would seem to be parallel thoughts. The difference between wages and salary is the difference between being paid by the hour (or by the piece, or by the pound) and paid by the month (or the year).
Since the ox probably does not have a bank account for direct deposit, the only way to pay the ox is to feed it. The ox was to be allowed to eat from the results of his effort, whether that was while the threshing was taking place or later in the feed trough, the result was the same.

1 Corinthians 9:1-18 is referring to apostles - not elders/pastors.

True, if you consider Barnabas and the brothers of Jesus (James, Jude, I can't recall the names of the other two.) to be apostles. I don't read Paul making a restriction to only paid Apostles. He said "those who proclaim the gospel ..."

BTW - how were elders to have a good reputation among those "without" (1 Tim 3:7) if they were always within (the congregation/church/ministers office).

Can't salaried church employees be well know in their community?

Could it be that the elders were just ordinary schmucks that loved God, worked a trade, and ministered amongst people as they lived? Or is this too simple?

That is exactly the way it is for the most part. In my experience, paid elders are rare.

If the elders were consumed with ministry, will not those they minister to seek to assist in every way possible without a contractural obligation enforcing their "love". Or will not the Lord Himself supply their needs without the requirement of human promises?

"Those they minister to" would need to be educated that they need to financially support those who teach them. Before you know it they start passing the hat at the meetings. Then somebody suggests that the teacher get a certain amount each week, then your back to a "salary."

[kaufmannphillips]

In some respects, a salary may ease pressure on a preacher/teacher to compromise their teachings. If their income depends on whatever comes from "passing the hat," then they may be tempted (regularly, or on occasion) to preach/teach the sorts of material that tend to yield big offerings - as opposed to what needs to be preached/taught.

When I was in the ministry, I approached it a number of ways.

In my first position, I refused a salary. The congregation had a parsonage, so I did accept housing; and I accepted occasional unsolicited offerings. At one point, I was without solid employment for almost a year, and the congregation did supply me with gas and an allowance on their account at the town grocery. I eventually secured employment, and this support stopped. And the congregation did pay for some auto maintenance.

In another position, I also refused a salary. The school did let me spend the night in their dormitory on some occasions, when I could not travel due to the sabbath.

In my last position, I accepted a regular salary, contingent on working a minimum number of hours monthly.

I would be disinclined to accept regular compensation again for ministry. On one hand, there is temptation that comes with money issues. But on another hand, the congregation (or school, or what-have-you) can have the outlook that they are the employer, and the minister is the employee. This sets up an undesirable dynamic of power and assumed accountability. The minister's employer should be G-d; the minister should be looking to follow G-d's direction in pursuing their ministry. But when the congregation assumes the role of employer, then they may feel that they should be calling the shots: "we've hired you; we define the job."

[blackheart]

In my opinion your distinction b/w receiving compensation and 'salary' can be, in many cases, a distinction without a difference. Why can't a group of people (a congregation) freely commit to a fixed amount of monthly/weekly compensation to be given to a edifying minister who has freely decided to minister full-time?

Are there more risks involved when it becomes a longer-term commitment and a fixed number? Perhaps. But they need not be sinful risks.

I am curious as to your background and present status within the group of people you fellowship with. Do you have an agreement with a group of people to supply your needs?

[mattrose]

I'm a salaried minister in a Wesleyan church.

My point is that whether my church fellowship decides to support their full-time ministers with weekly free-will offerings OR a freely decided upon annual salary, it need not make any significant difference. There are pros and cons to both possibilities AND both possibilities may be done in a positive or negative way.

I think the Bible is not overly concerned with which system is used, but is overly concerned with ministers being willing to minister no matter the compensation (I am) and congregations being willing to support those who minister to them (they are).

[blackheart]

Thanks for the honesty.
One more question if you don't mind
Do you have the freedom to follow your conscience, and teach accordingly, if you find the scriptures teaching other than Wesleyan Theology?

[mattrose]

Thanks for the honesty.
One more question if you don't mind
Do you have the freedom to follow your conscience, and teach accordingly, if you find the scriptures teaching other than Wesleyan Theology?

I do feel I have that freedom. It helps that the Wesleyan Church is not overly dogmatic on secondary issues. There are a number of doctrinal issues where I have taught something non-traditional when compared to the Wesleyan Church. I will try to come up with some examples...

1. I've taught a partial-preterist & amillennialist eschatogicaly. The Wesleyan Church isn't very dogmatic on this issue, but most pastors are premillennialists it seems.
2. I've taught the 3 views of hell and, more recently, stated that my position is conditional immortality. The Wesleyan Church is in the eternal torment camp.
3. I've questioned the appropriateness of female pastoral/elder leadership. Though I myself don't consider this a huge issue. The Wesleyan Church is passionate about getting women involved in leadership.
4. I reject infant baptism. The Wesleyan Church allows (Though doesn't prefer) it.
5. I've taught that the abstinence stand concerning alcohol, though perhaps rightly motivated, is certainly not biblical. But I think my position on this is similar to the Wesleyan Church in actuality.
6. I discourage formal membership in our own church
7. That's all I can think of right now

I can only speak of my own experience, but our congregation actually prefers to be challenged on these issues.