Thanks for the interaction here. I’ve enjoyed the discussion.

Guy,

You’re not late. Thank you for adding your “Amen”.

-Alan

A. I think you’ve hit it right on the head regarding Biblical prescriptions and descriptions. Simply put, your case for arguing any point is weaked when you argue on descriptions rather than prescriptions. Application becomes more and more complex when you argue from a descriptive account rather than a prescriptive one. The requirements of 1 Timothy and Titus are prescriptive.

And to say that we should drop the other pastoral requirements such as those in Timothy and Titus is not sound either because these are qualities required of ALL believers.

I also think that most churches are aware that pastors don’t often stay for the rest of their lives. My father has pastored for about 25 years at four different churchs ranging from 2 years to 14 years. And I know that he does not plan on being in the present church for the rest of his life either.

When it comes down to it. I think that you’re confusing form and function. Character is prescribed and gifting is prescribed.

Church government is arbitrary.

As you point out, “modern pastors” are not the same as biblical pastors. The point of my blog and this post is to discuss biblical aspects of the church, including pastors. If modern believers do not feel that their leaders should follow the biblical prescriptions and descriptions, then this blog and discussion is not for them. However, I would suggest that they also stop requiring their “pastors” to meet biblical qualifications or to carry out biblical functions. Because, as you pointed out, they are different.

I wonder how many “pastors” would be hired if they told people that they were actually functioning as “Paul and Barnabas” and that therefore they plan to leave in 1 1/2 to 3 years.

Jon,

I think you make a good point. As I said to Mike above, believers should ask themselves if they want to follow the prescriptions and descriptions of Scripture or not. If not, then this discussion does not apply. If so, then hopefully they will consider my argument, which I think is from Scripture.

The difference between modern day pastors and biblical evangelists is that biblical evangelists did not expect to stay in a certain area, nor did they tell people that they expected to stay in a certain area.

Steve,

I see the distinction you are making between one-time support and continuing support. I think it is a good distinction and a biblical distinction.

-Alan

Yes, I thought of the Philippians passage when I commented, but wasn’t sure if it fell into the category of “support”. Unless I’m forgetting some details of what he writes (I’m shooting from the hip here), I don’t think we can make a case that what he received from Philippi was anything but a one-time gift.

A gift is a gift, not a salary. But I don’t think there’s any indication that Paul was receiving a monthly check from Philippi to support him in his missionary work, is there?

Bear in mind, I’m not trying to argue against missionary support (or even paying an elder). Just trying (as you are) to distinguish between what is a biblical indication and what is simply a practice we have put in place. Hopefully, then, we can move beyond “it’s the way Jesus told us to do it” concept that seems to permeate our traditions.

This brings up an interesting issue (interesting to me anyway). I could be totally off base here, but it seems to me that we have missed an important distinction made by the NT writers, Paul in particular. The distinction is between local elders and evangelists. We seem to confuse the two. I think we need to recognize these as separate giftings.

What Mike has just described………..”Today, pastors do leave their homes and travel to new churches to minister and often (hopefully because of God’s calling), leave when the work they were called for is done, moving on to the next city.”…….is exactly what we see Timothy, Titus, Apollos, Barnabas and even Paul doing. They traveled from area to area to “Preach the Word”, and “set things in order”. These men were clearly marked out in the NT as evangelists and not local elders.

Local elders seem to be men who were ALWAYS raised up from within the local congregations. We NEVER see from the scriptures where local elders are brought in from outside a local congregation. Therefore our “modern” practice of finding men to function as elders from outside our congregations is, if I may say so, unbiblical.

I would appreciate anyone’s thoughts on this.

Jon

Today, pastors do leave their homes and travel to new churches to minister and often (hopefully because of God’s calling), leave when the work they were called for is done, moving on to the next city.

And for that reason, I see pastors as fitting the mold of Paul and Barnabas more than of the elders.

I think Paul does receive money from churches in cities where he is not currently located. For example, in the book of Philippians he thanks them for sending a gift to him.

Brent,

You left out the first part of that passage:

Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying; give without pay. Acquire no gold nor silver nor copper for your belts, no bag for your journey, nor two tunics nor sandals nor a staff, for the laborer deserves his food. And whatever town or village you enter, find out who is worthy in it and stay there until you depart. As you enter the house, greet it. (Matthew 10:5-12 ESV)

It seems that the apostles were travelling from place to place, much like Paul later. But, beyond that, this phrase which comes just before your quote is very interesting: “You received without paying; give without pay.” It’s spoken in the context of proclaiming, healing, raising, cleansing, and casting out. The apostles received all of these without paying for them, and Jesus says to do them without receiving pay.

-Alan

Which command of our Lord is Paul referring to? Is it this one?

“Freely you have received, freely give. Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep. Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave.”

This does seem to me what Paul is referring to since he is talking about being supported by those he is ministering to as opposed to receiving an offering from other churches (which he did sometimes do).

Perhaps this is why the New Living Translation puts 1 Cor 9:4-6 this way:

“Don’t we have the right to live in your homes and share your meals? Don’t we have the right to bring a Christian wife with us as the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers do, and as Peter does? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have to work to support ourselves?”

In this sense, then, one might draw the conclusion that our modern practice of missionaries being fully supported by sending churches is not even in line with what Paul describes.

Your thoughts?