----------------
Almost 3700 words, and only two quoted (and misused) Scriptures. We deleted large irrelevant sections in order to distill the author down to his reasoning regarding pastoral pay.
Almost 3700 words, and only two quoted (and misused) Scriptures. We deleted large irrelevant sections in order to distill the author down to his reasoning regarding pastoral pay.
The big problem, so common in Christianity, is investing the pastor position as being the titular head of the local church, with everyone else under him. This is unbiblical. There is nothing in the Bible that places the pastor in such a position.
It is from this flawed model the author develops his thesis.
We should say that we are not opposed to those who are in the ministry being paid adequately. Rather, we are opposed to unbiblical church leadership.
(...)
Rights and Wrongs
A final concern to address is that of possible tension caused by paying a pastoral family wage. As noted, supporting a family on one salary is now unobtainable for many. Pastors, it is generally felt, should live in a way fairly in-step with their local community. And so the thinking goes that paying a pastor a family wage, when this is unobtainable for his peers, will cause trouble.
I do think this is a valid concern. Pastors do, I believe, have a right to demand a family wage. In part this is simply because I think everyone should be able to support their family in a way that allows mothers to spend a large amount of time at home. I think 1 Corinthians 9:4-6 are also fairly clear on this point: (Our first Scripture quote, after thousands of words...)
Don’t we have the right to food and drink? Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?
This seems fairly clear cut to me: Paul thinks pastors have the right to enough money to feed themselves, support their families, and to not have to work for a living (which surely includes his wife, too). (No, Paul does not think "pastors have the right to enough money." Paul and Barnabas were not "pastors." An evangelist preaching the Gospel is not a "pastor." A church planter is not a pastor.
Paul was defending his and Barnabas' apostleship and their right to receive support from the various churches they were connected with, in a manner like the other apostles. Paul noted that he and Barnabas were "working for a living," [that is, supporting themselves with outside income, 1Co. 9:6], while the other apostles were apparently better supported by the various churches.
Extending this a bit farther, Paul was clearly making an argument to support itinerant evangelists.
Most importantly, pastors do not lead churches, elders do:
1Pe. 5:2-3 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers — not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.
Further, there is no indication in Scripture that pastors preach or teach. Pastors care for the flock [shepherd], preaching is the sharing of the Gospel [evangelism], and teaching is instruction to the flock [teacher]. It's highly unlikely this is all done by one CEO "pastor" presiding over a local church.
The author is making his case based on an unbiblical model.)
v14 is even clearer: “The Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.” (An evangelist.)
Yet, of course, Paul says this in the midst of explaining how he willingly gave up his rights for the sake of the Gospel: “If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the Gospel of Christ” (9:12). He did this so that he could win a hearing among the largely pagan Corinthians and (it seems fair to assume) maintain that hearing among them once they joined the church.
And so pastors are certainly free to deny themselves their rights for the sake of the Gospel. (Then what is the author writing about? If pastors have made this decision and continue their work in churches though they are not paid well, they have done so voluntarily. This means that the author is simply agitating pastors to expect more pay.)
Yet, of course, Paul says this in the midst of explaining how he willingly gave up his rights for the sake of the Gospel: “If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the Gospel of Christ” (9:12). He did this so that he could win a hearing among the largely pagan Corinthians and (it seems fair to assume) maintain that hearing among them once they joined the church.
And so pastors are certainly free to deny themselves their rights for the sake of the Gospel. (Then what is the author writing about? If pastors have made this decision and continue their work in churches though they are not paid well, they have done so voluntarily. This means that the author is simply agitating pastors to expect more pay.)
This is one of their callings and burdens. But the aspiration of churches should be to be generous, to honour (doubly!) the pastor’s rights, (The author is making reference to an unquoted verse:
1Ti. 5:17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.
Perhaps this is why the author is reluctant to quote Scripture. It too often contradicts what he is telling us!
This verse is about the elders. They direct the affairs of the church. Those elders are worthy of "double honor." The Greek word for "honor" is
timé, perceived value; worth (literally, "price") especially as perceived honor – i.e. what has value in the eyes of the beholder; (figuratively) the value (weight, honor) willingly assigned to something.
The author thinks this means more money for pastors, but it is actually esteem for elders, especially those elders that preach and teach.)
and to cultivate a spirit among their people which does not baulk at doing such things. 1 Corinthians is an epistle largely prompted by the spiritual immaturity of the Corinthians, and is the locus classicus for dealing with those “weaker brothers” who struggle with things which are permissible—whether that be eating food sacrificed to idols or paying your pastor a sensible wage. The book teaches us that there will be times where we must gladly concede to the sensitivities of weaker brethren, yet I cannot imagine that any sensible exegete of the book would think that we should be content to let people remain in those sensitivities. The goal is always maturity, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:13).
No comments:
Post a Comment