I try to follow a couple of principles
First, the husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits - or the ox treading out the corn must not be muzzled. 2 Tim. 2:6
Second, each assembly or house should set their own budget independent of outside controls or judgement.
Third, Christians ought to be charitable, but out of a willing heart, not of necessity or coercion.
As to whether or not it’s acceptable to “pay the pastor”, is he laboring in the Word and in deed? Pay the man if he has need of it. Paul writes in 2 Cor. 12:13 For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? Forgive me this wrong. Paul was not paid by the church at Corinth, but was paid by others (2Cor 11:8&9) so that the naysayers had no basis for their attacks.
That being said, I agree that this system that we have that makes the position a vocation is a very real travesty to the office and has resulted in hirelings that care more for the prestige, authority, remuneration and personal gain than for the families that are under their care.
The structure that I’ve found that best matches first century church is one described in a letter from the 15-1600 era. In it, the assembly was a collection of families that met at a designated home, and 3-5 of the men would take time to speak about their personal study of the previous week for 45 min to an hour each, then they would exercise the Lord’s Table and afterwards they would have the common meal and fellowship and would conclude in the early afternoon with a time of singing and worship before returning to their individual homes.
Ultimately, it’s up to the individual group, or individuals within the group. I know of small groups (like is mentioned above) where no money is exchanged but there’s a lot of love and respect given. I know of a small church that the pastor preferred not to be paid and the men insisted. I know of another small church where the pastor earns enough in his trade to provide for his family, but is also paid a decent amount because of how much he still labors in the Word and in Prayer for his people. Not from coercion, but from appreciation. Obviously, these are anomalies in our Churchianity culture where it is more blessed to coerce and consume than to be an honored steward.
As a parting thought, why should one shepherd be compensated for moderating an assembly of shepherds. I can understand being compensated for caring for the sheep, but not for other shepherds. If the assembly is comprised of sheep then the shepherd should be paid accordingly as he is worthy of his hire. OTOH, if its just a get together of shepherds who happen to bring their own flocks with them, maybe they should just be sharing in the expense to make the get together possible.
P.S.S. Using the analogy of the flock, does the flock pay the shepherd for his oversight? Or does the owner of the flock pay the shepherd? Perhaps the owner of the flock pays the shepherd through the increase from the flock.
First, the husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits - or the ox treading out the corn must not be muzzled. 2 Tim. 2:6
Second, each assembly or house should set their own budget independent of outside controls or judgement.
Third, Christians ought to be charitable, but out of a willing heart, not of necessity or coercion.
As to whether or not it’s acceptable to “pay the pastor”, is he laboring in the Word and in deed? Pay the man if he has need of it. Paul writes in 2 Cor. 12:13 For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? Forgive me this wrong. Paul was not paid by the church at Corinth, but was paid by others (2Cor 11:8&9) so that the naysayers had no basis for their attacks.
That being said, I agree that this system that we have that makes the position a vocation is a very real travesty to the office and has resulted in hirelings that care more for the prestige, authority, remuneration and personal gain than for the families that are under their care.
The structure that I’ve found that best matches first century church is one described in a letter from the 15-1600 era. In it, the assembly was a collection of families that met at a designated home, and 3-5 of the men would take time to speak about their personal study of the previous week for 45 min to an hour each, then they would exercise the Lord’s Table and afterwards they would have the common meal and fellowship and would conclude in the early afternoon with a time of singing and worship before returning to their individual homes.
Ultimately, it’s up to the individual group, or individuals within the group. I know of small groups (like is mentioned above) where no money is exchanged but there’s a lot of love and respect given. I know of a small church that the pastor preferred not to be paid and the men insisted. I know of another small church where the pastor earns enough in his trade to provide for his family, but is also paid a decent amount because of how much he still labors in the Word and in Prayer for his people. Not from coercion, but from appreciation. Obviously, these are anomalies in our Churchianity culture where it is more blessed to coerce and consume than to be an honored steward.
As a parting thought, why should one shepherd be compensated for moderating an assembly of shepherds. I can understand being compensated for caring for the sheep, but not for other shepherds. If the assembly is comprised of sheep then the shepherd should be paid accordingly as he is worthy of his hire. OTOH, if its just a get together of shepherds who happen to bring their own flocks with them, maybe they should just be sharing in the expense to make the get together possible.
P.S.S. Using the analogy of the flock, does the flock pay the shepherd for his oversight? Or does the owner of the flock pay the shepherd? Perhaps the owner of the flock pays the shepherd through the increase from the flock.
