ohio jones wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 8:13 am
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.
I think one could defend that if they wanted to.
The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”
However, I'm not intending to defend it. Just stating what is.
0 x
Remember the prisoners, as though you were in prison with them, and the mistreated, as though you yourselves were suffering bodily. -Heb. 13:3
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.
Is not this voluntary serving others:
1 Corinthians 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
If he was talking about getting paid then maybe he was wanting to gain more money?
I haven’t said I’m against getting support whatsoever - I am for it but it is a delicate thing to start thinking towards salaried positions.
0 x
Psalms 119:2 Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.
Before the great exodus from the COB district happened, we had three churches in our district that were still "free will" ministry. The only people that were paid a real salary was the cleaning crew.
Some decades ago a few in our district went down the route of paid ministry and it didn't stop with ministry: chorister leaders wanted paid, too, and from there it snowballed. Those churches are on the verge of becoming a "mega church" with Saturday night services and two Sunday services, one traditional and one contemporary.
0 x
I self-identify as a conspiracy theorist. My pronouns are told/you/so.
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.
Is not this voluntary serving others:
1 Corinthians 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
If he was talking about getting paid then maybe he was wanting to gain more money?
I haven’t said I’m against getting support whatsoever - I am for it but it is a delicate thing to start thinking towards salaried positions.
I don't think I've ever advocated for salaried positions in conservative Anabaptist churches. I'm suggesting that those not in leadership initiate whatever support is needed for their church leaders to be able to fulfill their calling with the least amount of other cares getting in the way. If things are going well in the church and pastors do not need to spend much time in church work, then little financial support is needed.
Eastern and Pilgrim lift, I believe, quarterly offerings for ministerial aid. In Pilgrim, the bishops got double what the ministers (and I suppose the deacons were included) received. When a minister came from a distance to preach for a Sunday evening or a Winter Bible School message, they were paid a fixed amount (if I remember correctly it was $50.00) plus mileage. This was in addition to the Ministerial aid.
The ministerial aid offerings were never large. No one got rich from preaching.
It has been a number of years since I was a part of either Eastern or Pilgrim.
Biblical Anabaptist wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 9:40 am
Eastern and Pilgrim lift, I believe, quarterly offerings for ministerial aid. In Pilgrim, the bishops got double what the ministers (and I suppose the deacons were included) received. When a minister came from a distance to preach for a Sunday evening or a Winter Bible School message, they were paid a fixed amount (if I remember correctly it was $50.00) plus mileage. This was in addition to the Ministerial aid.
The ministerial aid offerings were never large. No one got rich from preaching.
It has been a number of years since I was a part of either Eastern or Pilgrim.
Personally, while I don’t object to your son, I do object to the idea of getting an income from three churches and if it’s more then the local leadership I think that is a mistake.
0 x
Soloist, but I hate singing alone Soloist, but my wife posts with me Soloist, but I believe in community Soloist, but I want God in the pilot seat
Biblical Anabaptist wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 9:40 am
Eastern and Pilgrim lift, I believe, quarterly offerings for ministerial aid. In Pilgrim, the bishops got double what the ministers (and I suppose the deacons were included) received. When a minister came from a distance to preach for a Sunday evening or a Winter Bible School message, they were paid a fixed amount (if I remember correctly it was $50.00) plus mileage. This was in addition to the Ministerial aid.
The ministerial aid offerings were never large. No one got rich from preaching.
It has been a number of years since I was a part of either Eastern or Pilgrim.
This sounds like what we do. Our church is of course derived from Eastern in the early 1980s, and I assume this is one of the various artifacts we have from our origins.
I thought of something else. Probably the closest we come to paying pastors is paying revival meeting speakers. I believe these payments can be thousands of dollars. I assume this is done because we are basically asking the speaker to take a week off work.
0 x
Remember the prisoners, as though you were in prison with them, and the mistreated, as though you yourselves were suffering bodily. -Heb. 13:3
mike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 9:53 am
I thought of something else. Probably the closest we come to paying pastors is paying revival meeting speakers. I believe these payments can be thousands of dollars. I assume this is done because we are basically asking the speaker to take a week off work.
That makes sense.
0 x
I self-identify as a conspiracy theorist. My pronouns are told/you/so.
mike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 9:53 am
This sounds like what we do. Our church is of course derived from Eastern in the early 1980s, and I assume this is one of the various artifacts we have from our origins.
If I'm not mistaken, this is in turn an artifact from Lancaster.
I thought of something else. Probably the closest we come to paying pastors is paying revival meeting speakers. I believe these payments can be thousands of dollars. I assume this is done because we are basically asking the speaker to take a week off work.
We technically do the same, but the amount is not very much (basically travel expenses). Revival preachers have to be "recruited" and in order to get them to come, it helps to find a time when they aren't as busy with their business or work. (One of our revival preachers last year worked a salary type of job. I assume he had to use up his vacation days.)
It is also customary to send the revival preachers' wives flowers and then to send them home with a lot of gifts. A revival preacher pointed out to me that the gifts can be so voluminous, they had to pay extra for a suitcase just to fly them all home on their Basic Economy tickets.
