Chuches/Pastors-How to support them?

Hi Bob. Thank you for your comments. I do believe in the legitimacy of the role of the pastor, provided the pastor meets the requirements of 1 Tim 3. If a pastor DID meet those requirements, the question of “compensation” would not even be an issue. It is only an issue because MOST pastors do not live up to the 1 Tim 3 standard (which would automatically disqualify them from being pastor in the first place).

I know of pastors who get “fat” off of the congregation and do VERY little by way of service. I know this is NOT true of every pastor (as Larry has correctly suggested in one of his earlier posts). But it IS true of many. I don’t understand why following Paul’s example of “no compensation” is so difficult to grasp. Apparently it is.

latterrain77

 

Hi HankD. Yes, I hear you.

latterrain77

[ August 01, 2002, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

I have not softened anything. I believe pastor's should be educated but that is not the point here. A pastor (whether educated or not) who proclaims teh gospel has a right to be paid for it. "Any believer" cannot be a pastor. Any male believer who meets the 1 Tim 3 standard can be a pastor and get paid for it. 1 Tim 3 says nothing about money per se, only about being greedy for money. That is a big difference.

BTW, I noticed you didn't answer my questions from my post above. Why not?

[ August 01, 2002, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

i have gone only through a few arguments, and i want to share my own:

1. pastors have the right to demand to its church support for living.

2. pastors do not have the right to demand support for a luxurious life.

3. but if the church would give it to him, it is fine.

4. if the church cannot support a pastor, the pastor can ask sister churches for support.

5. if no support is available, the pastor should work outside the church and earn his living while pastoring.

6. there are instances when a pastor must not ask support from his church for a certain moment, if doing it would hinder church growth. an example would be when the church is new and the concept of giving money to the pastor may look like more of a gimmick from the pastor. this would require discernment from the pastor.

7. financial support for pastors should be seen as support, and not as salary. the ministry is there for them to take care of, and not to earn a living from. in other words, the church does not pay him for his preachings and other works. it supports him as its pastor.

8. tithing is not for the church.

 

Nice jump there but that was not what I said. First, I said Pastors should be, not that they had to be. In fact, notice my exact words from the post above: A pastor (whether educated or not) who proclaims teh gospel has a right to be paid for it.

You put words in my mouth there. Second, Jesus was omniscient. What was he going to learn? We learn because there are things we don't know. YOu are really trying hard here but it doesn't fit the text.

I missed your answers. Here are the questions again:

Answer the questions:
Does the soldier fight at his own expense?? Yes or No
Does the farmer get to eat from his crops?? Yes or No
Does the Cattleman get to drink of the milk from his herd?? Yes or No
Does the ox get to eat of the grain he is treading out?? Yes or No

These are the questions Paul asked to get his point across. When you answer these, then you will have the answer to the question under consideration here.

I just realized you are following a textual variant here. It is probably a gloss from Titus 1:7. In any case, it doesn't support your point since "material things" have already been declared by the Lord through Paul to be fitting, not filthy. You have decided wrongly what 1 Cor 9 means by ignoring the context and that illustrations, and then import that into a passage that is talking about something different, if it is original at all.

I misunderstood what you said. I was offering a clarification. Please accept my apologies for the inference that I made and commented on.

 

I’m happy to see that you believe a pastor does NOT “have to be” formally educated (though you feel they “should be”). This softens your earlier comment about “professional pastors” and would mean that ANY believer (including soldiers/farmers for example) meeting the 1 Tim 3 standard would be qualified to be a pastor (i.e. “laymen”).

V7 is simply distinguishing “earthly” careers from “heavenly” obligations (careers from callings). A soldier/farmer CAN make a living from soldiering and farming, yet they cannot as a pastor (though each of these CAN also be a pastor, without compensation, if they meet the 1 Tim. 3 standard). It illustrates that Paul could make a living as a “tentmaker,” though not as a pastor. A soldier/farmer’s reward is not the same as a pastor’s, and verse 7 makes that distinction, and V18 bears it out, where Paul says:

“What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.” 1 Cor. 9: 7 (kjv).

I agree that “material things” are not filthy. However, they BECOME filthy when they are idolized, become the object of greed and avarice, or the aim of attainment through bad intent.

No apologies are necessary at all Larry, and I thank you for offering it.

latterrain77