Jim Lincoln wrote: By the way, our Sunday school teachers at IHCC don't get paid! ‚Ä¶ Neil, a better expositor than you had to say this about 1 Corinthians 9 Your interpretation of those verses are unique. Uniqueness usually means error.
How delightfully absurd! That IHCC SS teachers are unpaid shows that your own church ignores Henry's conclusion! I never denied that teachers deserve pay, only that pastoral salaries are always necessary. Your SS teachers should be paid for their prep time ‚Äď show this verse to papa Gil.
Henry logically errs by inferring that what's due to Apostles & evangelists is the same as for local church elders, a different office which is addressed by 1 Tim. 5. However, he said nothing about whether ‚Äúdue support‚Äú means an annual salary or hourly remuneration for work done, so how does this makes your case? He undoubtedly deserved a salary since he produced an almost complete Bible commentary while acting as a pastor, what has papa Gil or the like done that's comparable, either in quantity or quality? Besides booklets, any scholarly works? He solicits money on his site; don't you pay him enough?
Uniqueness means error, you say. ‚ÄúUsually‚ÄĚ is a weasel-word.
How long does it take John Piper to prepare each sermon?
Jim Lincoln wrote: By the way, our Sunday school teachers at IHCC don't get paid! Neil, a better expositor than you had to say this about 1 Corinthians 9 Your interpretation of those verses are unique. Uniqueness usually means error. You need more exposure to better pastors and then you'd realize that it takes more than a couple of hours to research and prepare a good sermon.
By the way, our Sunday school teachers at IHCC don't get paid!
Neil, a better expositor than you had to say this about 1 Corinthians 9
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary wrote: I Corinthians 9:3: 1-14 It is not new for a minister to meet with unkind returns for good-will to a people, and diligent and successful services among them. To the cavils of some, the apostle answers, so as to set forth himself as an example of self-denial, for the good of others. He had a right to marry as well as other apostles, and to claim what was needful for his wife, and his children if he had any, from the churches, without labouring with his own hands to get it. Those who seek to do our souls good, should have food provided for them. But he renounced his right, rather than hinder his success by claiming it. It is the people's duty to maintain their minister. He may wave his right, as Paul did; but those transgress a precept of Christ, who deny or withhold due support.
Your interpretation of those verses are unique. Uniqueness usually means error.
You need more exposure to better pastors and then you'd realize that it takes more than a couple of hours to research and prepare a good sermon.
jpw wrote: I'm not sure why a church, if able (I mean community of believers not building) wouldn't provide support to their pastor so that they can focus full time on teaching, strengthening the Body to take gospel out to world.
You do not understand either: the problem is not money, but ability & attitude. Why should we pay a salary to get one or two hours a week of nonfat milk padded with rhetoric, gags, & anecdotes? Sermons like this can be prepared part-time by anyone with half a brain. But show me a polymath like John Gill or Jonathan Edwards, for example, then we can talk about a 1 Tim. 5:17-18 salary so they can produce world-class scholarship of academic quality the broader church can benefit from. Men for whom scholarship is in their bones, not conceited, power-hungry pikers like most pastors are now. It is the latter, salary & all, whom I believe have truly undermined the church, for they do NOT treat Scripture, or worship, with the seriousness it deserves.
I'm not sure why a church, if able (I mean community of believers not building) wouldn't provide support to their pastor so that they can focus full time on teaching, strengthening the Body to take gospel out to world. The last thing people need is more canned teaching out of books. Discipleship is meant to be relational, through teaching and deed.
Disturbs me, this movement to undermine pastors in a time when culture is making it more difficult. Why not, instead, encourage those who are exceptional?
Its like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Christians will likely be moving to less state run churches, home churches, maybe less organized, but to continue passing down a strong knowledge of scriptures to the next generation and for well-equipped evangelists, why not be an encouragement to those who lead?
Admittedly, a pastor at a small church will have a hard time being able to spend the time he needs to prepare a sermon, especially an expository one. It really takes time and work to do so. Just ask any of the Sunday school teachers at our church who are paid to do that work but still follows an expository framework.
Too many preachers are have prepared when it comes to sermon preparation and add on some of the responsibilities that occur in small churches, well you get what you pay for--and all too often it isn't much. Good amateur preachers are the exception and not the rule.
The Bible verses I gave more than adequately point out that pastor/teacher should be paid. Paul says so.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Neil, the apostle Paul stated in several places for years functioning as a teacher/preacher/prophet. He thought that he had the right to be paid, which I already gave you the verses for. ‚Ä¶ If a pastorate is a full-time job, and any church that is functioning properly will be able to have one, then that person has to be paid for survival purposes, if for no other reaso
Jim, what places? Is it too hard for you to provide supporting verses? Now I already said that 1 Cor. 9 says NOTHING about resident elders, only Apostles & itinerant evangelists, so this verse is irrelevant.
Your other major point begs the question, since I already claimed that responsible pastoring IS possible along with full-time secular employment for survival, esp. when there is more than one elder (as at your church). Any pastor who requires a full workweek to prepare a 1- or 2-hr. lecture (plus other sundry duties) must be incompetent & not worth a salary. Paul managed to be self-employed, despite his not being required to as an Apostle, and possibly having a physical impairment of some sort.
I admit there may be cases where a man of exceptional scholarship ability (Th. D material), might be worthy of full-time pay, per 1 Tim. 5:17. But such are rare
Neil, the apostle Paul stated in several places for years functioning as a teacher/preacher/prophet. He thought that he had the right to be paid, which I already gave you the verses for. No, the Old Testament is an example, but not one to be followed literally such as in the replacement theology of Catholics. ,Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist, Part 6. If a pastorate is a full-time job, and any church that is functioning properly will be able to have one, then that person has to be paid for survival purposes, if for no other reason. So of course, I am well aware Book of Hebrews, and Christ being our High Priest.
You mention elders and that was good which shows churches were not clan or physical family affairs. Who and how much they are to be paid are part of each individual churches decision. Now if you have a James Kennedy, not a perfect preacher, or a Rick Warren, a preacher , then you don't have to pay them. But most full-time pastors are not in the position of personal wealth that these examples are.
Since the clan church is not the example in the Bible, you are going to have to have a "Rabbi," to lead the congregation(the early church did follow the synagogue example)
Jim Lincoln wrote: Neil, ah, ever heard of the tribe of the Levites? 1/12 of the population of Israel could be paid ministers! I would think there is enough biblical examples to show that a paid ministry can be a very desirable thing.
Ahhhhhh Jim, the NT εκκλεσσία is a different creature from the OT Temple, which I should NOT have to remind a Dispy about . NT elders don't have to slaughter animals every day, & as I said, weekly sermon preparation ain't necessarily a full-time job, esp. with a plurality of elders.
I'm waiting for all those Biblical examples you talk about. And I mean the NT, please; never mind the Levites, who were part of the old Dispensation (there, I said it), which passed away with the coming of the New.
Neil, ah, ever heard of the tribe of the Levites? 1/12 of the population of Israel could be paid ministers! I would think there is enough biblical examples to show that a paid ministry can be a very desirable thing. Of course where there are only small groups of Christians, especially in Islamic countries, it will be hard to have an organized church. However, family churches or clan churches, e.g., Westburo Baptist "church" are good examples of what is not Christian. The modern day United Methodist Church is much different from the days of the circuit rider, and I wouldn't argue that the Methodist Church is much worse for that also. You won't find me in favor in top-heavy churches.
Jim, what does any of that have to do with ministerial remuneration or weekly labor? Gathering together isn't the issue. Please show where full-time, salaried pastors are the Scriptural pattern & requirement. Don't make me wade through commentaries to try & guess your argument.
Hebrews 10 24 And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.---NASB
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown wrote: assembling of ourselves together‚ÄĒThe Greek, "episunagoge," is only found here and 2Th 2:1 (the gathering together of the elect to Christ at His coming, Mt 24:31). The assembling or gathering of ourselves for Christian communion in private and public, is an earnest of our being gathered together to Him at His appearing. Union is strength; continual assemblings together beget and foster love, and give good opportunities for "provoking to good works," by "exhorting one another" (Heb 3:13). IGNATIUS says, ‚Ä¶"When ye frequently, and in numbers meet together, the powers of Satan are overthrown, and his mischief is neutralized by your likemindedness in the faith." To neglect such assemblings together might end in apostasy at last.‚Ä¶
I failed to address your quote of 1 Cor. 9 ‚ÄĒ it addresses a different subject, Paul's right as an Apostle, or a full-time itinerant evangelist, to remuneration: ‚Äúthey that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel,‚ÄĚ v. 14. This is a different role & office than πρεσβυτερος, a resident church elder like Gil Rugh, which is why I cited 1 Tim. 17-18 instead.
And I learned it is quite possible to be a family man holding down a full-time secular job, & still prepare a well-packed 1-hour sermon every week. I would only argue that preparation time be worthy of pay, which heeds 1 Tim. 17. Where is it written, besides Rome's tradition, that pastors ought to be salaried?
Jim Lincoln wrote: No, Neil, there is nothing un-biblical about having a paid ministry.
Depends on how one defines ministry. Do not read modern conventions of vocation into 1 Tim. 5:17-18. It is unsurprising that this text is bent by those with a professional interest in doing so. Why would pastors teach themselves out of their jobs?
You will find that the main purpose of the chaplaincy is to provide the sacraments to the Catholic members of the military, who indeed make up a large part of the active military. But I will agree with the chaplain, the idea of it is unconstitutional.
No, Neil, there is nothing un-biblical about having a paid ministry.
1 Corinthians 9 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain." Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? 12 If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more? Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? 14 Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.---NASB
Chaplains are another example of Professional Christianity. Why do Christians today rely so heavily on full-time ministers, when Bibles & theological literature are so widely available, inexpensive, or with the Internet, even free?
The Duke of Wellington (as a Tory) worried about lay Methodists infiltrating his Peninsular Army. Presumably they weren't certified ‚Äúpadres.‚ÄĚ Maybe they were onto something.
Chaplain I am glad things seem different to you. I wish things were different in all of the areas, but in my own experience, religion just didn't really play a large factor in the average soldiers life. Yes everyone likes to pray and talk a good game when people are dying and their buddies are getting killed, but true disciples are few and far between. Evangelization just doesn't happen and the services are watered down to meet the broadest audience possible. I pray that maybe you can be more effective in your mission than most of the others that I have seen.
As someone in the Chaplaincy, let me explain the tension as best I can. Every Chaplain has an endorser. You are sent by your endorser to represent that particular faith group. Some people see an inherent "conflict of interest" because of the first amendment...the establishment of religion. However, the Chaplaincy IS in direct violation of the First Amendment (since it's inception), but the American Goverment has seen fit to continue the Chaplaincy because in their estimation the promotion/facilitation of the freedom of religion is more important than any other part of the first amendment. Bottom line, the government believes it's most important function regarding the First Amendment is to promote or facilitate the freedom of religion. Therefore, the Chaplaincy exists. The mantra of the Chaplaincy is "perform or provide". Regarding the 5%...not in my experience nor an facts to validate. Just as in a Church environment, alot depends on the minister. Unfortunately, most denominations have developed this philosopy...well, you can't make it in the local Church, so we'll send you to the mission field. Rather, they should send the best and brightest as representatives of their denomination...because outside the walls is where the most intense fighting happens. Hope this helps..Blessings
Jim most of this makes very little difference in the real world. I would say that in real life, not just theory, there are probably less the 5% of soldiers that are religious. During my time overseas we would have maybe 20 people at a service out of a couple of thousand troops. So, the anemic preaching of the military chaplaincy will have very little impact.