To deacon or not to deacon
As I was reading Dave Black’s blog this morning, I was encouraged by the way that he described his wife:
I like to tell people, “If you want to understand my wife, just read Romans 16:1-2.” Usually, people compare Becky and me to Priscilla and Aquila. We always travel to Ethiopia together. But on this trip she will be more like Phoebe. Note that Phoebe is described by two words: “diakonos” and “prostatis.” In the New Testament the noun diakonos is often translated “deacon,” not always a good choice in my opinion. The English word has a religious connotation lacking in its Greek counterpart. A diakonos is simply a person who serves other people. If you know Becky, she is a deacon par excellence. (I have written about this often.) The second word is even more emphatic. The Greek term prostatis is defined by Douglas Moo as “one who came to the aid of others, especially foreigners, by providing housing and financial aid and by representing their interests before the local authorities.” Moo thinks Phoebe was “a woman of high social standing and some wealth, who put her status, resources, and time at the service of traveling Christians, like Paul, who needed help and support†(Romans, p. 916). Now, if you will combine Rom. 16:1-2 with Phil. 2:3-4, you will understand exactly why Becky is going back to Ethiopia.
Are you familiar with the passage in Romans that Dave referenced?
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well. (Romans 16:1-2 ESV)
As Dave Black pointed out, the word translated “servant” above is the same word that is often translated “deacon”. In fact, sometimes within the same context the word will be translated different ways, giving the illusion that one refers to an ecclesial office while the other simply refers to being a servant. This distinction is unfortunate, in my opinion. For example, consider this passage from 1 Timothy:
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 3:8-13 ESV)
This is the famous passage that gives “qualifications” for deacons. In fact, it is the only passage that speaks of “deacons” in this way. Interestingly, the phrase “those who serve well as deacons” is a translation of a two word participial phrase. The exact same two words are used as nouns only nine verses later in 1 Timothy 4:6 – “If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed.” (ESV)
Did you see where Timothy was called a “good deacon”? No? Well, that’s because the translators did not translate that same phrase as “good deacon” this time, but instead they translated it as “good servant”. Why? Well, everyone knows that Timothy wasn’t a deacon, right? He was the bishop of the church in Ephesus, right? Only, Scripture never calls Timothy a bishop or an elder, but here Timothy is encouraged to be a “good deacon”. It seems strange to me that Paul would use the exact same phrase twice within a few sentences with completely different meanings. Could it be that the meanings are not different? Could it be that both passages are describing good servants of Jesus Christ without reference to any kind of ecclesial office?
Today, as with many discussions, the conversation surrounding “deacons” usually revolves around the issues of control and authority. How much authority should a deacon have? How much decision-making control should churches give to deacons? And, along with those issues, we find the issues concerning gender: Should women be deacons?
Honestly, I think these questions completely miss the point. Those who serve well are not interested in making decisions or having authority. They are interested in using their abilities, talents, gifts, and situations in life in order to serve other people. They spend their time and their energy by helping other people, both believers and nonbelievers, both friends and strangers. As Dave Black said, they come to the aid of other people.
In this sense, Phoebe is certainly a good example of a servant – a deacon. If Moo is correct that Phoebe was “a woman of high social standing and some wealth, who put her status, resources, and time at the service of traveling Christians, like Paul, who needed help and support”, then she should be an encouragement to us all. Wherever God has us, in whatever station or status in life, God has placed people around us that need help. They need physical help, emotional help, financial help, spiritual help. And, He has placed us where we are to be deacons in their lives – to be servants.
Are you looking for opportunities to deacon?
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.
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?
What about honor for elders/pastors?
So far, as I have tried to explain my argument against paying a pastor based on his position, I have said that all believers are instructed to “work with their hands” in order to support themselves and others, which is a different kind of work than ministry/service work (see “What about work?“). I have also suggested that elders specifically are instructed to “work with their hands” to provide for themselves and others, and that his type of work is different from their shepherding responsibilities (see “What about work for elders/pastors?“).
A counter-argument for my two points could be stated as follows: Scripture instructs us to offer double honor to elders in particular. This double honor appears to be a salary payment offered because the person holds the position of an elder.
In response, I’ll begin with two more general observations. First, followers of Jesus are instructed to provide help (monetary help as well as other types of help) for anyone (especially other followers of Jesus) who is in need:
And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. (Acts 2:44-45 ESV)
There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:34-35 ESV)
Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. (Ephesians 4:28 ESV)
But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? (1 John 3:17 ESV)
If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? (James 2:15-16 ESV)
So, for the first general observation in answer to this counter-argument, we should recognize that believers in general should share with those who are in need. This was demonstrated in Scripture by description and by prescription.
Furthermore, as a second general observation, followers of Jesus are instructed to share with those who lead and/or teach in response to their leading and/or teaching:
One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches. (Galatians 6:6 ESV)
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 ESV)
Note that the “sharing”, “respect”, and “esteem” offered to teachers and leaders in these passages are offered in response to their labor, not in anticipation of their labor. Nor is the “sharing” offered in order for them to teach and lead.
Also, in these two passages, the people leading and teaching are not called elders. Perhaps they were elders, but Scripture does not limit the “sharing”, “respect”, and “esteem” to those who hold the position of “elder”. Instead, the “sharing”, “respect”, and “esteem” is to be offered to any who teach or lead. This is not payment for a position, but response to the impact a teacher/leader has already had on a person’s life.
Finally, as a third observation, and one that is a bit more specific, we should consider the verse referred to by the counter-argument:
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. (1 Timothy 5:17 ESV)
This passage is very similar to 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 above. In this case, however, followers of Jesus are instructed to respond to the teaching and leading of elders, not just any who teach or lead. This, then, is a more specific case than 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13. Once again, though, the response (“double honor”) is not offered to elders because of their position, but the response is offered to elders who lead well and labor in the word (literally “word”, not “preaching”) and teaching.
The illustrations offered in the following verse help to make this case:
For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” (1 Timothy 5:18 ESV)
First, we notice that author says that elders who lead and teach well deserve “double honor” just as the ox deserves to eat grain while pulling a plow and just like the laborer deserves his wages. The author knows and uses the word for wages, but not in relation to elders. Also, it can be assumed that the ox does not primarily eat while plowing, but that the ox is provided his main meal at another time.
Just as we would not withhold the grain from a treading ox, nor would we withhold wages from a laborer, we also should not withhold “double honor” from elders who lead and teach well. Once again, “double honor” is a response to the teaching and leading of elders, not an anticipation of teaching and leading, nor even an allowance for more time to teach and lead. Elders are offered “double honor” after they have already led well and labored in the word and teaching.
What is “double honor” then? We see in 1 Timothy 5:3 that widows are to be “honored”, presumably by having their needs taken care of by other believers. “Double honor”, then, would indicate sharing above and beyond the point of need. So, it would appear that it is right for followers of Jesus to offer monetary (as well as other types) of “honor” to elders in response to their leading and teaching. Note, though, that this does not relieve the elders from their responsibility to “work with their hands” to support themselves or others, nor does it indicate that the elders should always assume that the “honor” is for their own use.
This “double honor” should not be confused with a salary either. Instead, it is a response by each believer to the impact that the elder has had in his or her own life through their leading and teaching. While this could be in the form of a monetary gift, “double honor” could also be given – and should be expected – in other forms as well, in whatever form God provides to the individual offering the “double honor”.
If, instead, a salary was paid to an elder based on his position, then withheld if the elder did not lead or teach well, this would be backward from the position of Scripture. This type of salary would attempt to remove the responsibility from the individual, who according to Scripture is responsible for recognizing the leading and teaching of an elder and to respond accordingly.
Thus, the counter-argument is invalid. Scripture does not instruct followers of Jesus to pay elders a salary because of their position. Instead, “double honor” is a response by the individual taught or led to the person teaching or leading.
Do you recognize a difference between paying a salary to an elder because of his position and offering honor because an elder has led and taught well? Do you agree or disagree that an organizational type salary removes the responsibility from the individual to recognize how the teaching and leading of an elder impacts the individual’s life? Money is certainly a valid type of honor, what other ways might someone honor an elder who teaches and leads well?
——————————————————————–
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 work for elders/pastors?
In my previous post (“What about work?“), I said that I was presenting the steps of my argument against paying a pastor based on his position.
The first step begins with Paul’s communication to the Thessalonians. It appears that Paul uses the word “work” in at least two different ways: 1) “work” as a vocation in order to provide support for yourself and others, and 2) “work” as ministry or service.
The second step is presented in this blog post. Specifically, Paul told elders to “work with their hands” (which is separate from their responsibilities to shepherd or care for God’s people) in order to provide for their own needs and the needs of others.
It is important to note that the Thessalonians did (or at least were instructed to) recognize leaders among themselves:
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 ESV)
While those “who labor among” the Thessalonians are not called elders or pastors in this passage, the passage itself is very similar to 1 Timothy 5:17, which does mention elders specifically. So, the “leaders” in Thessalonika were either elders, or possibly included elders along with other types of leaders.
So, while Paul recognized that some of the Thessalonians were leaders labor, admonish, and work among the believers there, all of the Thessalonians were instructed to work with their hands in order to support themselves and others. These leaders would have also been instructed to imitate the way that Paul and those with him worked hard with their hands so that other people would not have to provide their bread.
But, there is another passage that seems more clear that Paul expected elders to “work with their hands” (that is, vocationally not ministerially) in order to provide for themselves and others. That passage is found within Paul’s instructions to the elders in Ephesus in Acts 20. Paul begins by telling them how they should take care of God’s people. Then he warns them about false teachers. Then Paul says this to that same group of elders from Ephesus:
And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ (Acts 20:32-35 ESV)
In this passage, Paul appears to tell the elders in Ephesus to work with their hands in order to provide support for themselves and for others who may be weak or in need. Remember that this is presented as following and separate from the instructions to “shepherd the flock of God”.
So, continuing our discussion, does it appear from this passage that Paul wanted elders to “work with their hands” in order to provide support for themselves and others? Does this “working with their hands” appear to be the same as or separate from their responsibilities in “shepherding” God’s people?
——————————————————————–
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 work?
I’ve posted a few times concerning “church employment”, especially paying salaries to vocational pastors (for example, see “Employment” (and comments), “On Being Honored“, “Are Pastors Part of the Body“, “Advantages of non-hired, local leaders“). This post is one step in my argument from Scripture that elders/pastors should not be paid a salary based on their position. In this post, I would like to talk about “work”.
First, consider these two passages from 1 Thessalonians:
But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may live properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one. (1 Thessalonians 4:10-12 ESV)
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 ESV)
Notice that Paul uses the same word (“work”) for “working with your hands” (that is, supporting yourself) and in the sense of serving others, what is sometimes called “ministry work”. However, even though Paul uses the same word, he differentiates between the two “types” of work.
In the first passage, Paul urges all of the believers to “work with their hands”. One of the reasons for this is that Paul wants them to “be dependent on no one”. From the context, it seems that Paul has in mind that believers should work vocationally in order to support themselves.
In the second passage, Paul encourages believers to esteem those who labor, admonish, and work among them. Again, this is the same term, but it appears that Paul is using it in a different sense. This is not the type of work (i.e. “with your hands”) that would allow someone to “support” themselves. Instead, it is serving one another, teaching one another, studying Scriptures, etc.
Here are two other passages from 2 Thessalonians dealing with work:
Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word. (2 Thessalonians 2:16-17 ESV)
Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. 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. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living. As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good. If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. (2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 ESV)
Again, Paul uses the same term (“work”) in two different senses. Importantly, in the second passage, Paul instructs believers to “keep away from any brother” who does not “work with their hands” in order to support themselves. He offers himself as an example of one who worked with his hands, and says “You ought to imitate us”.
Now, context is very important. Many commentaries will explain that there were some lazy believers in Thessalonika who were sitting around waiting for Jesus to return – they were not working with their hands. However, does this mean that this passage is only relevant to people who do not work because they are waiting for Jesus’ return? Every passage of Scripture is delivered within a context. But, within that context, believers can learn truths that are general. Reading 2 Thessalonians 3, the general teaching seems to be: “work with your hands in order to support yourself and others”.
So, do these passages apply to any believer? Does this mean that all believers should “work with their hands” in order to support themselves and their families? Do you think that Paul had “ministry work” in mind when he said “work with your hands”? Do these passages only apply to believers who are not elders/pastors?
——————————————————————–
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?
More on Pastors and Elders
I continue to think through and discuss the implications of my view of elders as expressed in my recent series on elders, which starts with “Elders (Part 1) – Introduction“. I have come across a few blog posts that you may find interesting.
First, Bill Lollar from “The Thin Edge of the Wedge” has written a very thought provoking post called “What does a ‘shepherd’ look like?“
Also, Cyle Clayton wrote a post for SBC Impact called “Elders in Baptist Congregational Life“. In this post, Cyle describes how his church transitioned from a single pastor to multiple elders.
These posts come from brothers with different perspectives on leadership. It is interested to read their thoughts in this area.