Living in the necessary
The second edition of Frank Viola’s book Pagan Christianity (with the addition of co-author George Barna) is making a huge splash in the blogosphere – perhaps a larger splash than the first edition. It seems that certain sectors of the church are seriously considering this book (whether they agree or disagree with the premise) while other sectors are ignoring it.
I read the original edition of the book a few years ago. At that time, I thought that Viola had some very important things to say, but that at times his message was lost behind his over-the-top rhetoric. I was hoping the rhetoric would be toned down in this new edition, but apparently this is not the case. (However, I would still recommend this book highly!)
As I read Pagan Christianity, I thought Viola’s purpose was to demonstrate that many of the practices that we consider necessary to the church today were not developed from Scripture but from pagan culture. He tackles things such as church buildings, paid professional pastors, sermons, order of service, etc. Again, his point is that we do not find the modern expression of these things in Scripture, but instead they were developed from pagan culture – primarily, Roman culture.
(Update: There is a very good interview with Frank Viola concerning the purpose of Pagan Christianity at Drew Marshall’s website. HT: Brother Maynard)
I think that Viola is correct in much of his history. But, what should we do with this information? If church buildings were developed from culture instead of from Scripture, does that make church buildings wrong? If paid professional pastors developed from pagan practices instead of from Scripture, does that make it wrong to have paid professional pastors? These are the questions that we must deal with, and in fact I think that each group of Christians – each church, if you will – should deal with them separately.
Why? Well, notice that Viola is starting with current practices and working backwards. He begins with various aspects of modern churches, and then he attempts to determine where those practices originated.
My desire is to work in the opposite direction. In my research, and on this blog, I am trying to begin with Scripture to determine what is necessary for the church to operate and grow as God prescribed and described in Scripture. If we know what is necessary, then we know what can be altered, added, or removed without affecting the working of the church.
For example, I believe that Scripture teaches us that the purpose of the church meeting is to build up all believers toward maturity in Christ. Notice that this says nothing about buildings, or pastors, or music styles, or carpet colors, or steeples with crosses, or choir robes, etc. However, if the purpose of the meeting of the church is edification, then this does say alot about how we relate to one another in order to know how best to encourage one another toward maturity (Heb 10:24-25).
I do believe that this has major implication to how we meet together. However, different groups of believers may decide that different context would be more beneficial for edification. The context – building, house, store front, school, etc – is not as important as the purpose of the meeting. Edification is necessary – buildings, houses, schools, etc. are not necessary.
Instead of determining whether or not we should have buildings, paid professional pastors, etc, I prefer to focus on determining what is necessary for us to live as the church. If we live in the necessary, the other aspects will fall into place based on our context. If we begin with the necessary, and we find something that distracts or hinders the necessary, then we know what needs to be changed or removed. If we attempt to live in the necessary but something is missing, then we will know what to add.
Let’s start with searching Scripture to determine what is necessary. Then, let’s live in the necessary.
New Testament Church Workshop
Steve Atkerson of the New Testament Reformation Fellowship (NTRF) is holding “A Biblically-based workshop on New Testament Church Life” in Smithfield, NC on Friday, February 8 and Saturday, February 9 (Note: The dates have changed). The conference is free, but registration is required.
While the conference is called a “House Church Workshop“, the topics appear to be applicable to many different meeting locations. Here are some of the topics:
- The Lord’s Supper as a Celebratory Fellowship Meal
- Participatory Church Meetings
- Elder-Led Congregational Consensus
- Apostolic Traditions & New Testament Patterns
I have not decided if I am going to attend this conference. If you decide to attend the conference, please let me know. (HT: House Church Unplugged)
Ecclesiology FAQ
Ecclesiology is one of my interests, and my primary academic pursuit. Ecclesiology is the branch of biblical and theological study that deals with the church. Since this blog is primarily about ecclesiology and since people often ask me what I think about certain topics, I thought I would give links to my blog posts that deal with the most common aspects of the study of the church and the answers to the most comment questions that I’m asked.
1. The Nature of the Church
“Definition” label
“Defining the Church (part 1)“, “part 2“, “part 3“, “part 4“, “part 5”
“Minimalist Definition of the Church”
“Historical Ecclesiology“
2. Local/Universal Church
“Local or Universal?”
“How does God view the church in your city?”
“The ekklesia in context”
“Local church in Scripture“
3. Church Leadership (Pastors, Elders, Bishops, Deacons, etc.)
“Elders” label
“Elders (part 1)“, “part 2“, “part 3“, “part 4“, “part 5“, “part 6“, “part 7”
Series – Should elders/pastors be paid a salary? “part 1“, “part 2“, “part 3“, “part 4“, “summary”
“What does a bishop oversee?”
“What does a non-bishop oversee?”
“Exercising Authority”
“Ruling or Leading?”
“Obey and Submit? (Hebrews 13:17)”
“To Deacon or Not to Deacon“
4. Institutions, Structures, and Organizations
“The Church or the Organization”
“Am I against church programs?”
“Models and Mehods and Forms, oh my”
“Creating Church Organization”
“Old Testament Structures and the Church“
5. The Church Meeting and Edification
“Gathering” label
“Edification” label
“Messy Meetings”
“What if we met to edify one another?”
“Distractions to Worship?”
“Here I am to worship”
“But I have perfect attendance”
“Edification (part 1)“, “part 2“, “part 3“, “part 4“, “part 5“, “part 6“
6. Fellowship, Community, and Unity
“Fellowship” label
“Community” label
“Unity” label
“Community in name only?”
“A Common Table”
“The depths of community”
“The unhypocritical church (part 1)“, “part 2“, “part 3”
“Look also to the interest of others“
Examples and Models
I love the latest post by a new blogger, Trey from “One Man’s Journey“. The title of the post is “Walk Away for the Love of Christ?” I love his honest reflection and life-changing questions. I also see in his questions many of the questions that I started asking myself a few years ago. Here is an excerpt from Trey’s excellent post:
As my family and I sunk into a financial pit of despair, I began to read much in the realm of finance, investing, financial planning, and biblical financial stewardship. I grew to love this and can see many ways in which the average Christian and also the average church misuses the resources provided by God. I began to see myself as doing this sort of consultation work to families, small businesses, churches, and parachurch ministries once I gained the proper training. But what about seminary? What about my calling? What will my family think?
As previously, most issues discussed here have not been settled in my mind completely. I have been reminded in my prayer times that God certainly does not need me. He has managed eternity just fine before me and will do so long after I become one of saints on high. Also, why do I need the spotlight of an official pastor-elder of a local congregation? Can I not teach and serve in other ways just an important to the kingdom?
Several years ago, I also had this “calling”. Looking back, I think that God was calling me to a more committed life of serving himself and others – he was calling me to full-time ministry, although I don’t think he was calling me to “full-time ministry”. At the time, though, I only saw two options: 1) become a vocational pastor, or 2) become a missionary.
Why did I only see these two options? Well, those were the only two options that I saw modelled. These were the only examples that I saw of what it meant to serve God full-time. So, I picked one – vocational pastor – and did what I was supposed to do: I went to seminary. But, as my family will tell you, I struggled with the idea of being a full-time vocational pastor from day one. I did not think that this accurately reflected what God wanted from me, but I did not have any other categories, models, or examples to compare to.
I knew what God wanted from me: he wanted me to serve him and serve others in everything that I said and everything that I did. But, this couldn’t happen if I worked a regular job, right? I mean, regular people are distracted by work and commuting and co-workers and business trips and office parties. But, God didn’t want me to be distracted by these “secular” things, so I needed to give all of that up, go to seminary, get hired by a church in order that I could concentrate on “spiritual” things.
As Trey expressed in his blog post, I thought that the real work of God was done by those people who prominently stood before me each Sunday morning, Sunday evening, Wednesday evening, etc. These were the people who knew God and what God wanted from me and others and how to teach the Bible and how to put on Bible studies and where to find the lost people and when to schedule the Children’s program.
A strange thing happened on the way though. As I was happily preparing myself for just this type of “spiritual” vocation, I took my professors seriously, and I read Scripture to find the answers to my questions. It began with recognizing that Scripture does not call the Sunday morning routine “worship”. I asked myself, “If that’s not worship, then what is worship?” Again, I turned to Scripture for answers. From those answers, I was forced to ask other questions and search for more answers.
In fact, the more I studied and read and asked questions, the more I realized that the type of “spotlight servants” which Trey mentions – and to which I was aspiring – was not described in Scripture at all. In fact, I would suggest that “spotlight servants” are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus, Paul, Peter – in fact, all the books of the New Testament. Instead, Jesus calls all believers to be servants – not “spotlight servants”, but servants.
And, slowly, I began to understand that “vocational pastors” may be necessary to carry out what we typically see associated with church today. However, when we examine church in Scripture, we see that “vocational pastors” seem out of place. Instead, we see people shepherding as they work, and discipling wherever they are, and teaching in any context, and caring and comforting wherever they find people who are hurting. We find leaders who lead by example, not from the spotlight. We find elders who are mature and wise and known, not hired for their education and speaking abilities. We find prophets and teachers and apostles who are willing to dialog instead of monologue. We find disciples who are constantly and consistently attempting to live for Christ with the help of other brothers and sisters. We find that there is no secular and sacred divide. Through the indwelling Spirit, all things become sacred – every place becomes a sanctuary – every believer becomes a priest and a temple.
In other words, God can use me as his full-time servant when I am selling cars, or writing code, or running a business, or seeing patients. I can pastor while I am teaching in a school or college, or taking care of the home, or packing boxes, or delivering mail, or selling clothes. I can meet with other believers as the church in a church building, or in a restaurant, or in a park, or in a home, or in a car, or in an office. God was calling me – and he is calling others – into full-time service, wherever we are and whatever we’re doing.
It is my desire to live the rest of my life as an example of following God and serving him full-time in whatever vocation he provides for me. I hope that the believers who come along after me will see my example as another option when God calls them also.
Gospel and Monoepiscopacy in Ignatius
I am writing a paper on the gospel and monoepiscopacy in the seven letters of Ignatius. This is a synopsis of the paper which I presented a few days ago.
[UPDATE: “Monoepiscopacy” is the doctrine that there should be one bishop per city (church). This is usually combined in a hiearchical fashion with elders (presbyters) under the bishop, and deacons under the elders. (Thanks, Jonathan.)]
—————————————————————————
Leadership in early Christian writings
(107-117 AD) Ignatius to the Magnesians 6.1 – “Make every effort to do all things in the harmony of God, while the bishop presides over you in the place of God and the elders [preside over you] in the place of the assembly of the apostles and the deacons, who are dear, [preside over you]…”
(80-120 AD) Didache 15:1 – “Therefore, choose for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of God, men who are gentle, not lovers of money, dependable, and proven, for they also serve you with the service of prophets and teachers.” (The Didache does not mention elders, and bishops are only mentioned in the plural.)
(110-140 AD) Polycarp to the Philippians 5:3 – “Therefore, it is necessary to keep away from all these things, subjecting yourselves to the elders and to the deacons as to God and to Christ.” (Polycarp does not mention bishops, much less a single bishop. He does not call himself a bishop although Ignatius does call him by the title “bishop.”)
For Ignatius, it is important that believers stay in harmony with the single bishop of their area. From reading the Didache and Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians, Ignatius’ view is not the only view of leadership at the beginning of the second century. Why would Ignatius put so much emphasis on the monoepiscopacy?
Theological Sources in Ignatius’ Letters
Sometime between 107 and 117 AD, Ignatius, the Bishop of Smyrna, was arrested and taken to Rome for execution. On the way to Rome, he wrote seven letters: one each to the churches in Tralles, Magnesia, Ephesus, Philadelphia, Smyrna, and Rome, and one to Polycarp, the bishop of the church in Smyrna.
From the text of these seven letters, it is clear that Ignatius knows of the Old Testament Scriptures. He quotes the Old Testament three times: he quotes Proverbs 3:34 in Ign. Eph. 5.3, he quotes Proverbs 18:17 in Ign. Magn. 12, and he quotes Isaiah 52:5 in Ign. Trall. 8.2. He introduces the first two citations with the scriptural formulation, “It is written†(ge,graptai). These three citations are minimal compared to Old Testament citations in the writings of other apostolic fathers. Ignatius recognizes the Old Testament as an early, but incomplete witness to Jesus Christ.
Ignatius’ recognition of and use of the New Testament writings are even more difficult to determine. From a statement in Ign. Eph. 12.2, it is clear that Ignatius knows of more than one of Paul’s letters. Most scholars agree that there are allusions to some of these letters, especially 1 Corinthians. Similarly, there may be allusions to Matthew’s Gospel in Ignatius’ letters. However, he does not quote from the New Testament writings with the formula, “It is written.â€
For the most part, Ignatius seems to downplay written records and holds “the Gospel†as authoritative. For example, he says:
Moreover, I urge you to do nothing in a spirit of contentiousness, but in accordance with the teaching of Christ. For I heard some people say, “If I do not find it in the archives, I do not believe it in the gospel.†And when I said to them, “It is written,†they answered me, “That is precisely the question.†But for me, the “archives†are Jesus Christ, the inviolable archives are his cross and death and his resurrection and the faith which comes through him; by these things I want, through your prayers, to be justified. (in Ign. Phil. 8.2)
What does Ignatius mean by “the gospelâ€? For the most part, he identifies the gospel with the tradition handed down to him concerning the birth, life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He does not use the standard term for “traditionâ€, nor does he use the phrase “rule of faith.†However, his teaching concerning “the gospel†is similar to later references to the “rule of faith.†He uses the term “gospel†six times and the term “passion†fifteen times within his letters. At times, Ignatius uses “passion†to refer to “the gospel†as a whole and, at other times, “passion†only refers to Christ’s suffering or death. To a lesser extent, he refers to this tradition as “the teaching of Christ†and “stewardshipâ€.
Ignatius’ statements about “the gospel†are very similar to later creeds. He exhorts his readers to believe in various aspects of the birth, life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, unlike the creeds, his statements do not appear to be standardized, memorized, or verbatim. For example, consider these two statements (along with the above citation from Ign. Phil. 8.2):
But the Gospel possesses something transcendent: the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, His passion and resurrection. (Ign. Phil. 9:2a)
There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first able to suffer and then not able to suffer, even Jesus Christ our Lord. (Ign. Eph. 7.2)
Throughout the seven letters, there are ten instances of these “gospel†sayings; however, none of the ten are identical. If all of the elements of the ten gospel sayings are combined, none of the ten instances include all of the elements. From this data, it seems that even though the tradition of “the gospel†was very important to Ignatius, this was not a creedal-type tradition (yet). Instead of focusing on specific words to express the gospel, Ignatius was more interested in the content of the gospel. Thus, whether someone calls it suffering, passion, or crucifixion did not concern Ignatius. Instead, he was concerned that Christians believed in this gospel.
Ignatius did not turn to either Old Testament or New Testament Scriptures for his authority, although he did recognize the writings as being very important witnesses to the gospel. Similarly, he did not find authority in specific creedal statements that may have been handed down (as some suggest are found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Instead, for Ignatius, authority is found in the gospel: the events surrounded the life of Jesus Christ and the correct interpretation of those events.
The Unity of the Gospel
Importantly, even though “the gospel†was not a formulaic creed, there was still only one gospel for Ignatius. He states that there is one God, one faith, and one Eucharist. Based on this unity, Ignatius, encourages his readers to maintain harmony with God and with one another, and the proper way of maintaining harmony is found in the bishop. Since there is one God, and one gospel, there should be one bishop. He says:
Therefore, make every effort to take advantage of the one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup for the unity of his blood, one altar, as there is one bishop along with the elders and the deacons, my fellow servants, in order that whatever you might do, you might do according to God. (Ign. Phil. 4:1)
For Ignatius, the monoepiscopacy was necessary to maintain the unity of the gospel. Since Ignatius found his authority in the gospel, he took this unity very seriously. Anyone who found himself outside of the teachings or the practices of the bishop also found himself outside of the gospel, because the one bishop maintained the unity of the one gospel. Living according to the bishop was the same as living according to the gospel and Jesus Christ.
However, Ignatius does not seem to envision a “ruling†bishop. While he instructed the believers in each city to submit themselves to the gospel as well as to the bishop, he did not instruct the bishops to take an authoritarian position over the Christians. In fact, this would be contrary to Ignatius’ understanding, since he finds the gospel to be the authority. Instead, Ignatius commends the bishops that he meets along the way for being humble and gentle.
Conclusion
For Ignatius, there is one gospel because there is one God and one Lord Jesus Christ. Within this one gospel he finds his authority. The gospel is not primarily written or recited verbatim. Instead, the gospel is the events and interpretation of the events surrounding the life of Jesus Christ. From his concerns of protecting the one gospel, he derives a need for a single human leader (the one bishop) as well as the one Eucharist, the one altar, and the one meeting. Other writers from the same time period did not derive a monoepiscopacy from the one gospel.
During the first thousand years of the history of the church, Ignatius’ letters were arguably the most cited and most influential writings of any of the apostolic fathers. However, later church figures latched onto Ignatius’ derivatives (one bishop, one Eucharist, one altar, etc.) while losing his primary emphasis on the one gospel. For Ignatius, the monoepiscopacy should exist only as an extension of the one gospel in order to protect that gospel.
More Church Government
Matthew McDill has written an excellent post called “Church Government?” He says:
I have seen much discussion about who rules or governs the church. Everyone seems to recognize that Christ does, and then the arguments begin. Are elders (or pastors) in charge? Does the congregation have the final say?
I am suspicious that we are too quickly moving past the reality of Christ’s rule by assuming there must be a human government in the church. Could it be that it is inappropriate to say that either elders or the congregation rules?
Then, Matthew suggests that elders lead the church by example through relationship and discipleship. He says the most important factor in church leadership is that all of the believers seek to follow Christ. He concludes:
If the shepherds take such an approach, they will develop a caring, trusting relationship with the congregation. The church will have confidence in their teaching and example and will follow willingly. There is a dynamic here that transcends “government”. It is too spiritual and relational to be described as such.
I agree with Matthew. The type of leadership that Scripture describes for the church is not “government” but leadership by example through relationship and discipleship. I think it is possible to govern without relationship. However, I do not think it is possible to lead apart from relationship. Scripture calls Christian leaders to be servants, to lead by example, to disciple through relationships. But Scripture does not instruct Christian leaders to govern.
A brother needs advice (Guest Blogger)
I received an email from a brother in Christ recently asking for advice. I’ll call him S.P. (for “Senior Pastor”). I’ve enjoyed getting to know S.P. more through email. I asked him if I could share this email with my readers, because some of you have more experience and more wisdom in this area than I do.
———————————————————–
For a long time (at least 15-18 years) I have been convinced that the church is to be led by a plurality of men referred to as elders. This means that no one man is to assume the role of Senior Pastor and to do all the work of “the ministry” himself or even with a “staff.” It seems clear that pastor, elder, overseer, and bishop are all interchangeable terms. Unfortunately, I have not known of any churches that practice this type of leadership structure.
Currently I serve as the Senior Pastor for a church. We are a Baptist church with an elder structure. This is what drew me to this particular congregation. However, while I was told that the Senior Pastor is one of the elders (the first among equals), after more than three years here it is very clear that this is no different than the deacon led Baptist churches I have served at with the deacons or elders functioning as a board of directors. To make matters worse our staff (associate pastors) are not even elders at all. So in our church we have a Senior Pastor (me) who also serves as an elder, the elders, associate pastors who are not elders, and ministry team leaders who function much like deacons should function. What a mess!
Well, I’m tired of it all. For reasons too numerous to list in this email and very similar to the views expressed on your blog, I think this is a serious failure to follow the simple plan of the Scriptures. The result: 1) I am very tired and less than effective, 2) I have all the responsibility for the church’s success or failure (because I’m the Senior Pastor) without all the authority (neither of which I should have – both the responsibility and authority should be shared), 3) I have a frustrated staff who are confused because they are pastors without being elders and so they have very little real authority and much responsibility, 4) the Senior Pastor is viewed like a CEO, 5) other teachers/preachers are not accepted in the pulpit, the ministry of the church is focused upon growth in numbers and budget, not upon “kingdom†things, 6) the overall health of the church suffers.
I know that some would say that other churches with the “traditional” model are doing just fine. I suppose that is true if fine means the efficient running of a corporate organization. But this is not what I believe God has called me to. I want to be a real shepherd. But most of my energy is wasted on management issues that I’m not even good at.
So, I am finally getting the courage of my convictions (again, long held convictions). Something needs to change. But I am not sure what to do. Do you have any advice?
A couple of things I am starting to do (some inspired by Dave Black): 1) I am asking people to call me by my first name, 2) I am going to remove my “ordination” certificate from my wall, and 3) I am teaching through 1 Timothy and addressing these issues as they come up in the text (I’ve expanded my study of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 this week to include other texts about elders). I’m also considering taking our elders through a study on the subject. I might even suggest we drop the use of ecclesiastical titles (I agree with you – only Jesus is the real Senior Pastor).
Do you have any advice? It is particularly hard when all of your training has been to be the Senior Pastor of a church (I’m a seminary graduate). I’m also not as young as I used to be (I’m not old either!). So, I am seeking wise and godly counsel.
———————————————————–
If you have any wise and godly counsel for S.P., please leave it in a comment here.
Leaders, Sermons, and Church
Here are a few links that I think my readers will find interesting:
Guy at “The M Blog” discusses how non-professionals lead “Weddings, funerals, baptisms, in house churches“. We do realize that these are not scriptural responsibilities of elders alone, right?
Eric at “Hammer and Nail” is asking Sermon Questions. So far he’s asked Question 1, Question 2, and Question 3. I think it is good to ask questions, especially when we don’t like the answers.
Drew at “A Beautiful Collision” has been “Experiencing Church“. I agree that this how the church should always react when people are in need.
Summary – Should elders/pastors be paid a salary?
This is a summary of my position and the argument for that position:
Position: Scripturally, we cannot justify paying elders/pastors a salary based on their position:
1. Generally, all believers should “work with their hands” in order to provide support for themselves and others. (see “What about work?“) Whatever it means to “work with your hands”, Paul keeps it separate from work that is offered in service to others as a follower of Jesus – leading, teaching, admonishing, etc.
1. a. Elders specifically should “work with their hands” in order to provide for themselves and others. (see “What about work for elders/pastors?“) Again, according to Paul, this type of work is distinct from their work in shepherding the flock of God.
2. “Double honor” is not a salary offered to elders because of their position. (see “What about honor for elders/pastors?“) Instead, “double honor” represents a response from individuals given to those who have already taught and led (including elders). This response may include money, but it is given by the individual (not a corporate salary) in response to the elders’ service, not their position.
3. Elders/pastors do not have a “right” to receive compensation because of their position. (see “What about the right of elders/pastors?“) Instead, this “right” is reserved to believers who are travelling away from their home and their source of income. Plus, even those travelling believers are encouraged to give up their right by Paul’s instruction and example.
While there have been several comments regarding testimony or experience, only a few have interacted with the points of my argument. I would encourage you to consider these points of argument and either refute them or support them as you see fit. Thank you for your interaction on this very important topic.
By the way, I do not believe that we can justify paying a salary to an elder/pastor from Scripture. This does not mean that I condemn everyone who believes otherwise. There have been many believers (the majority by far) throughout history who have believed that it is acceptable to pay a salary to an elder/pastor. There are many believers (the majority by far) today who believe that it is acceptable to pay a salary to an elder/pastor. I disagree with them, but I admit that I could be wrong. And, this is why I welcome your input on this issue.
——————————————————————–
Series: Scripturally, we cannot justify paying elders/pastors a salary based on their position.
1) What about work?
2) What about work for elders/pastors?
3) What about honor for elders/pastors?
4) What about the right of elders/pastors?
5) Summary – Should elders/pastors be paid a salary?
What about the right of elders/pastors?
So far, as I have attempted to share my argument against paying an elder/pastor based upon his position, I started with a general principle of work: 1) “working with your hands” to support yourself and others is different than 2) work as service or ministry (see “What about work?“). Also, I showed that elders specifically are instructed to work with their hands to provide for their own needs and the needs of others, and that this work was distinct from their responsibilities of shepherding the flock of God (see “What about work for elders/pastors?“).
Then, in response to a possible counter-argument, I suggested that the “double honor” of 1 Timothy 5:17 is not a salary paid because of an elder’s position, but it is an individual’s response to anyone who has already led or taught (see “What about honor for elders/pastors?“).
In this post, I would like to consider a second counter-argument: Paul said that as a minister of the gospel, he had the right to receive compensation from those he served. Even though Paul did not exercise his right, elders still have the right to receive compensation from the church and are not wrong when they exercise that right.
First, we should consider Paul’s “right” to receive support from those he served:
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? (1 Corinthians 9:4-6 ESV)
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. (1 Corinthians 9:11-15 ESV)
For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. (2 Thessalonians 3:7-10 ESV)
So, we see Paul talking about his “right” to receive compensation from those he served in two passages: 1 Corinthians 9 and 2 Thessalonians 3. Since I have already discussed 2 Thessalonians 3 in a previous post, and since 2 Thessalonians 3 seems to speak against the counter-argument, I will focus my attention on 1 Corinthians 9.
First Corinthians 9 appears in the middle of a discussion of giving up one’s rights for the “weaker brother”. In Chapter 9, Paul offers himself as an illustration and as an example to follow. But, specifically, what “right” is Paul giving up, and is this a “right” that is given to all followers of Jesus Christ?
Paul begins Chapter 9 by explaining the context of his illustration and example. In 1 Corinthians 9:1-6, he says that he is talking about himself, Barnabas, other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas (Peter). In particular, he says that he is talking about those “take along” (not “have”) a wife (vs. 5). These verses set the stage for his argument: Paul is talking about Christians who are travelling away from their home for the purpose of spreading the gospel. Since these people are away from their home, they are also away from their primary source of support: their place of employment or their job.
As we read through Chapter 9, we should keep this in mind. If we begin to apply this to all believers, then the argument will not make sense. For example, Paul says, “In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 9:14 ESV) However, Paul clearly believes that ALL followers of Jesus Christ are responsible for “proclaiming the gospel”. Does this mean that ALL followers of Jesus Christ have a “right” to receive a salary? No. We must keep context in mind. When Paul says, “those who proclaim the gospel”, we should remember that he is talking about those who travel away from their homes in order to proclaim the gospel.
In fact, in 1 Corinthians 9, while talking about his “right”, Paul never changes his focus to “local leaders”. He never mentions elders or pastors or teachers or even prophets. Instead, he maintains his focus – from the beginning of his argument to the end – on those who are travelling away from their home, and thus, away from their source of support. These are the ones who have the “right” to receive compensation, and even they should give up that right, according to Paul’s example.
By the way, we can see that this “right” is not reserved for apostles and the brothers of the Lord by examining 3 John. In that short letter, the author praises Gaius and others for supporting brothers who are travelling away from their home, and he admonishes Diotrephes for failing to offer support. According to the author of 3 John, Christians should offer support to other Christians who are travelling through their area. The author also recognizes leaders who remain in one location, such as Diotrephes.
However, in Scripture, we never see this “right” to support offered to those who remain in one place. It is never offered to elders/pastors.
So, my response to the counter-argument that elders/pastors have a “right” to receive compensation because of their position, I suggest that Scripture does not offer this “right” to elders/pastors or any other believer who stays in one location. Instead, that “right” is available only to believers who travel away from the source of income. Even those believers who travel are encouraged by example to give up their “right” so that they will not hinder the gospel.
Do you agree that Paul is focusing on believers who travel away from their home in 1 Corinthians 9? If not, what in that passage indicates that Paul is broadening his focus beyond those who travel? Does this “right” – either for travelling Christians or for any Christian – include the “right” to a salary?
——————————————————————–
Series: Scripturally, we cannot justify paying elders/pastors a salary based on their position.
1) What about work?
2) What about work for elders/pastors?
3) What about honor for elders/pastors?
4) What about the right of elders/pastors?
5) Summary – Should elders/pastors be paid a salary?