Should CA ministers, deacons, and bishops be paid?

[GaryK]

I have a hard time that a paid pastor is easier to socialise with. If anything, it makes relating to them a lot harder.

When coupled with a desire for “qualifications” and higher education, this also means people seeking to be ministers will start going to seminaries or similar colleges. The history of such things is not good, particularly in Mennonite circles.

I thought you wanted this thread to to focus on conservative Anabaptists churches that intend to stay conservative. CA's don't usually go to seminaries and do not seek to become ministers. We say cA leaders are chosen by God, through the church.

I'm not aware that supporting church leaders in cA churches has been tried so I'm not sure how we can be sure that supporting them financially makes relating to them harder.

[NedFlanders]

Are you saying brotherhood support of church leaders or brotherhood support of anyone in need? If you are saying brotherhood support of church leaders, that's what I'm suggesting as well. If you are saying brotherhood support of anyone in need, that seems to miss the context of these passages.

I would say the brotherhood should support anyone who labours in the gospel ministry. So I have duties to arrange distribution in tracts, and the brotherhood pays for the tracts. If I needed help to pay for expenses in driving them around, I could ask for that. (Recently a family that is on the less wealthy side of things volunteered to drive a car full of boxes of tracts to Chicago. I believe their mileage expenses were reimbursed.) If I wanted to do tract work full time, I could ask, and would probably be supported - albeit perhaps only for a time span of 2 or 3 years. We have multiple openings for full time tract workers.

Matthew 10:9-10 NKJV 9 "Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts, 10 "nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; for a worker is worthy of his food.
Galatians 6:6 NKJV 6 Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches.
1 Corinthians 9:13-14 NKJV 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.
1 Timothy 5:17-18 NKJV 17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. 18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer is worthy of his wages."

I see Matt 10 is saying a person travelling should be provided meals and hospitality.

Gal 6 is not clear at all it means being paid.

1 Ti 5 I have heard actually explained in IFB Baptist circles as that whatever salary the congregation votes on, it should be doubled and paid to the pastor.

Overall, I see strong support for helping pay for missionaries who share the gospel with unbelievers. But I don’t see that preaching on Sundays to the converted is supposed to be a paid occupation.

Those were Jesus' 12 disciples He spoke those words to. We know they were chosen by Jesus to lead the coming Kingdom.

Pretty much everyone agrees that sharing in all good things with him who teaches is talking about supporting the teacher.

The 1 Cor passage is the most specific and talks about a commandment of Jesus. "those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel"

The 1 Tim passage is very specific as well and Paul references scripture to make the point "The laborer is worthy of his wages."

What I'm suggesting is that if the need arises, and I think in some of our larger settings, the need is there, the church should willingly support their pastors financially so that they can spend all the time they need in church work without having to worry about financially supporting their families. I believe these passages support that.

I too think 1 Corinthians is the most specific:

1 Corinthians 9:18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

But you don’t read it in full context to see this verse and so you understand it as meaning the opposite of what it reads as here. I’ve always understood 1 Corinthians 9 as speaking out very strongly against paid preaching because in context this verse says that and the verse you mention is actually rightly understood as simply meaning “practice what you preach.”

[Josh]

An even better question is why ordained men should be paid but the common member is expected to work and live independently.

I think Paul answers that question for you.

1 Timothy 5:17-18 NKJV 17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. 18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer is worthy of his wages."

OK - so ministers are paid but only if they “rule well”?

[Josh]

I have a hard time that a paid pastor is easier to socialise with. If anything, it makes relating to them a lot harder.

When coupled with a desire for “qualifications” and higher education, this also means people seeking to be ministers will start going to seminaries or similar colleges. The history of such things is not good, particularly in Mennonite circles.

I thought you wanted this thread to to focus on conservative Anabaptists churches that intend to stay conservative. CA's don't usually go to seminaries and do not seek to become ministers. We say cA leaders are chosen by God, through the church.

I'm not aware that supporting church leaders in cA churches has been tried so I'm not sure how we can be sure that supporting them financially makes relating to them harder.

The old Mennonite church also used to be conservative. It gradually started having paid ministers, and then people wanted more qualified ministers for the salaries they were paying, so seminaries got started.

[ohio jones]

I would say not salaried, but maybe we could so a bit better on reimbursement of travel and expenses. Our church lifts a "love" offering every December and is split among our ministers. Guaranteed it doesn't come anywhere close to paying a living wage, but it helps.

If it's not large enough, maybe it should be called a "like" offering.

[GaryK]

I would say the brotherhood should support anyone who labours in the gospel ministry. So I have duties to arrange distribution in tracts, and the brotherhood pays for the tracts. If I needed help to pay for expenses in driving them around, I could ask for that. (Recently a family that is on the less wealthy side of things volunteered to drive a car full of boxes of tracts to Chicago. I believe their mileage expenses were reimbursed.) If I wanted to do tract work full time, I could ask, and would probably be supported - albeit perhaps only for a time span of 2 or 3 years. We have multiple openings for full time tract workers.



I see Matt 10 is saying a person travelling should be provided meals and hospitality.

Gal 6 is not clear at all it means being paid.

1 Ti 5 I have heard actually explained in IFB Baptist circles as that whatever salary the congregation votes on, it should be doubled and paid to the pastor.

Overall, I see strong support for helping pay for missionaries who share the gospel with unbelievers. But I don’t see that preaching on Sundays to the converted is supposed to be a paid occupation.

Those were Jesus' 12 disciples He spoke those words to. We know they were chosen by Jesus to lead the coming Kingdom.

Pretty much everyone agrees that sharing in all good things with him who teaches is talking about supporting the teacher.

The 1 Cor passage is the most specific and talks about a commandment of Jesus. "those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel"

The 1 Tim passage is very specific as well and Paul references scripture to make the point "The laborer is worthy of his wages."

What I'm suggesting is that if the need arises, and I think in some of our larger settings, the need is there, the church should willingly support their pastors financially so that they can spend all the time they need in church work without having to worry about financially supporting their families. I believe these passages support that.

I too think 1 Corinthians is the most specific:

1 Corinthians 9:18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

But you don’t read it in full context to see this verse and so you understand it as meaning the opposite of what it reads as here. I’ve always understood 1 Corinthians 9 as speaking out very strongly against paid preaching because in context this verse says that and the verse you mention is actually rightly understood as simply meaning “practice what you preach.”

I don't interpret the 1 Cor 9 passage as being against supporting church leaders. I understand Paul to be saying that even though he doesn't demand to be supported by the Corinthian church, Jesus has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel. I'm not clear how this commandment of Jesus can be interpreted to mean that He is against financial support of those who labor in the gospel. In other passages Paul talks about how he did receive support from other churches and was grateful for it.

[GaryK]

An even better question is why ordained men should be paid but the common member is expected to work and live independently.

I think Paul answers that question for you.

1 Timothy 5:17-18 NKJV 17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. 18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer is worthy of his wages."

OK - so ministers are paid but only if they “rule well”?

Ask Paul what he meant.

[mike]

I would say not salaried, but maybe we could so a bit better on reimbursement of travel and expenses. Our church lifts a "love" offering every December and is split among our ministers. Guaranteed it doesn't come anywhere close to paying a living wage, but it helps.

If it's not large enough, maybe it should be called a "like" offering.

That's funny. I would guess that's essentially what our ministers get - a small amount that might pay for a bit of the gas they burn going around to meetings and speaking in other churches. And the bishops get a double amount. The reason I know it's not a large amount is because we only have "ministerial aid" offerings infrequently, and those funds are used for various purposes, only one of which is paying the ministers an honorarium.

[NedFlanders]

If Paul was for paid preaching why was he also concerned about working to pay for his own food to avoid the church supporting him?

2 Thessalonians 3:8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:

[Josh]

I would say not salaried, but maybe we could so a bit better on reimbursement of travel and expenses. Our church lifts a "love" offering every December and is split among our ministers. Guaranteed it doesn't come anywhere close to paying a living wage, but it helps.

If it's not large enough, maybe it should be called a "like" offering.

That's funny. I would guess that's essentially what our ministers get - a small amount that might pay for a bit of the gas they burn going around to meetings and speaking in other churches. And the bishops get a double amount. The reason I know it's not a large amount is because we only have "ministerial aid" offerings infrequently, and those funds are used for various purposes, only one of which is paying the ministers an honorarium.

Paying bishops double seems a bit indefensible.