10. The work of pastors being constantly to attend the service of Christ, in his churches, in the ministry of the word and prayer, with watching for their souls, as they that must give an account to Him; it is incumbent on the churches to whom they minister, not only to give them all due respect, but also to communicate to them of all their good things according to their ability, so as they may have a comfortable supply, without being themselves entangled in secular affairs; and may also be capable of exercising hospitality towards others; and this is required by the law of nature, and by the express order of our Lord Jesus, who hath ordained that they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.
( Acts 6:4; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Timothy 5:17, 18; Galatians 6:6, 7; 2 Timothy 2:4; 1 Timothy 3:2; 1 Corinthians 9:6-14 )
Well that all seems very sound and has lots of Scripture proofs referenced, so it must be right. Or maybe we should look at these proofs and see what they actually say...
Acts 6:4 is talking about the apostles, not elders in a local church
Hebrews 13:17 seems to be talking about missionaries or apostles (the "leaders" who preached the Gospel to you, past tense. More about that in a future post)
1 Timothy 5:17-18 is perhaps speaking of giving to or sharing with elders (see Alan Knox on this question)
Galatians 6:6 speaks of sharing, not of paying a salary
2 Timothy 2:4 is directed at Timothy specifically
1 Timothy 3:2 refers to the qualities to be desired in an elder
1 Cor 9: 6-14 is the most inexplicable because in 1 Corinthians 9 Paul is saying that he did not take money from the Corinthians. Why?
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. (1Co 9:18)
So yeah, I have a disagreement with the LBCF on this issue. I don't think the Scripture proofs given by our brothers in the 17th century do much to bolster their case in this instance. I especially am concerned that when Christians see a listing all of these Scripture proofs, are they actually comparing what the proofs say to what the confession writes? The confessions are useful tool but cannot replace studying the Word.
9 comments:
Arthur,
At least those proof texts sounded like they might apply at first glance. The ones in chapter 22 to justify both changing a seventh day OT sabbath to a first day Christian sabbath and the existence of a NT sabbath at all don't even come close to applying. I attended a Reformed Baptist church for a while, and it was simply amazing that they wouldn't even consider this.
It is true that often the proof texts do not prove what they claim; however, I believe you are mistaken in this case. BTW, I read through my response and some of the language sounds harsh. I do not intend this to be as harsh as it sounds. Please, forgive the harshness, but I could not think of a better way to explain.
Acts 6:4 is referring to the Apostles; however, Peter was also called an elder. Elder is pretty much a general term for leader. An Apostle is a specific kind of elder. Therefore, their ministry is a model for modern elders.
Hebrews 13:17 could also refer to either an apostle, missionary, or elder. However, it seems your bias against elders forbids you from acknowledging that possibility.
1 Tim. 5:17-18 is the passage that most clearly refutes your position. I disagree thouroughly with Alan Knox's analysis of this text. I do not have the time to do a thourough rebuttal. Maybe some other time.
1 Tim. 3:2 is mentioned because Elders must be hospitable they must be paid enough to perform this duty.
Gal. 6:6 all good things and do good in this context seem to mean providing for the needs of others. While this is not a salary, it is teaching that the needs of the teacher should be met by the students.
1 Cor. 9:6-14 This is another clear passage that refutes your belief, yet you twist it to suit your opinion. Paul explains that he did not make use of his right for payment; rather, he volutarily refused so that he could preach the gospel free of charge. Key word here is voluntarily.
Jeremy,
A "bias against elders"? Perish the thought! Do I have a problem with a professional clergy that has replaced the Biblical model of servant-leaders, i.e. elders? Well sure.
I will address the other issues a little later.
I meant bias against paying elders. Sorry.
Oh, now that I do have a bias against!
There is a text of Scripture in which the author specifically deals with the topic of whether elders should work ("with their hands") to support themselves or not, but this passage is rarely, if ever, considered - Acts 20:32-35.
-Alan
Jeremy,
This is overly long for a comment but I wanted to respond to your comments.
Acts 6:4 is referring to the Apostles; however, Peter was also called an elder. Elder is pretty much a general term for leader. An Apostle is a specific kind of elder. Therefore, their ministry is a model for modern elders.
That is an enormous leap.
Keep in mind also that the ministry of the apostles was a far cry from that of a local pastor. Look at the verse that preceded Acts 6. It doesn’t sound like hours and hours spent in administrative meetings and studying commentaries in their offices:
Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ. (Act 5:41-42)
If you are willing to go out and spend all day, every day preaching the Word from house to house, getting tossed into prison, suffering reproach for the name of Christ, then I could see supporting you financially. You said that their ministry was a model for modern elders. OK, but if you are going to make that argument, let’s see it lived out.
Hebrews 13:17 could also refer to either an apostle, missionary, or elder. However, it seems your bias against elders forbids you from acknowledging that possibility.
You need to look at the surrounding text. Who are these “leaders”? Verse seven gives us an answer. It also doesn’t even mention paying them, so I am not sure where my “bias” against paying elders comes in.
1 Tim. 5:17-18 is the passage that most clearly refutes your position. I disagree thouroughly with Alan Knox's analysis of this text. I do not have the time to do a thourough rebuttal. Maybe some other time.
1 Tim 5: 17-18 is one of those verses that are great if you approach the text with a presupposition, a “bias” if you will, toward paying elders. It doesn’t specifically address paying elders a salary but if you already assume that we should, you can apply it to your presupposition. By the way, in a plural elder church, should all the elders draw a salary? What if a sermon stinks that week, should we pay the elder less? Maybe we should pay the pastor on commission, taking up the offering after the sermon.
1 Tim. 3:2 is mentioned because Elders must be hospitable they must be paid enough to perform this duty.
That assumes that a) you can’t be hospitable unless you are paid enough, b) only elders are to be hospitable and c) that elders are supposed to draw their pay from the church. Neither is supported by that text. In fact I would say that I find many “poor” people to be more hospitable and willing to share what they have than many “rich” people I know.
(continued)
(cont.)
Gal. 6:6 all good things and do good in this context seem to mean providing for the needs of others. While this is not a salary, it is teaching that the needs of the teacher should be met by the students.
Interestingly, there is no mention of “pastor”, “elder”, “bishop”, “leader”, etc at all in Galatians. Should we pay Sunday school teachers? What if you have someone teaching a Sunday school class that the pastor is sitting in on? Should the pastor pay the Sunday school teacher? What about nursery workers? That is going to start getting expensive pretty quickly. Maybe the better model is to have everyone contribute and do so for free?
1 Cor. 9:6-14 This is another clear passage that refutes your belief, yet you twist it to suit your opinion. Paul explains that he did not make use of his right for payment; rather, he volutarily refused so that he could preach the gospel free of charge. Key word here is voluntarily.
A couple of points here. First, Paul is an apostle and a travelling missionary. He is not an elder or pastor in a local church in the sense we think of. As someone who travelled all over the place (see any set of maps in a Bible that detail his journey), he certainly could have expected to be supported financially and instead he chose not to. I have far less issue with financially supporting missionaries than I do with paying able bodied men to minister locally where they could find a job. Second, even though Paul laid out the case that he, as an apostle and a missionary, had a right to get paid, it was his reward to preach the Gospel free of charge. What a wonderful testimony we have in the life of Paul! A man who worked with his own hands so that he could not only support himself, he could help others. A man who had a burden to teach but sought to not be a burden on the church. What we see in 1 Cor 9 is not a defense of paying local elders a salary, benefits, housing allowance, etc. In fact it is not talking about elders at all. It is a testimony of a man who had his focus on the preaching of the Word of God. If Paul, a man who moved all over the place and was hated among Jews and looked at with suspicion by fellow believers could support himself in a world where preaching the Gospel led to beatings, stonings, drownings, etc., doesn’t it stand to reason that a man in a safe environment here in America could get a job and still minister in the local church?
I know from personal experience that it is possible to work a stressful, 40+ hour a week job to support my family and still preach two 45 minute expository sermons every week. Yes it was stressful but I brought much of that stress upon myself. I came away from that experience thinking the solution was “full-time” ministry. I now believe that what the text shows us is a model where instead of one or a couple of clergy, the entire body should minister to one another. If you put a hundred pounds in a cruddy backpack, it will crush you. In a really nice backpack, the weight is distributed better and it is more tolerable but it is still really heavy. That same hundred pounds spilt up among twenty people is only five pounds each. That is a faulty analogy but my point is that the Body is healthier and can accomplish far more when we all minister rather than when we all contribute a couple of bucks to pay one guy to do all of the ministering.
I think in the big picture what we have are, on the one hand, a few verses that maybe speak about elders getting some sort of recompense which may or may not be monetary and which certainly doesn't imply a regular, full-time salary. On the other we have several specific verses by Paul where he takes pain to note that he worked for a living and preached the Gospel for free.
Anyway, my bigger point in this post was not about paying pastors a salary. It is that there is a real danger that we assume that because something is in the LBCF or the Westminster, it must be OK. The Scripture proofs offered in some cases bolster that (esp. in my opinion on soteriological issues) but when it comes to propping up church traditions, it bears more scrutiny. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, mormon materials, Jehovah's Witness materials, Greek Orthodox materials, all have Scripture proofs and unless we are willing to do the hard work of checking them out, they are worthless.
Post a Comment