According to ACU research, we now have 16 different 'levels' of ministers, with 'appropriate' levels of 'compensation.'
When I read the 'minister wanted' adds, i see the same language as the business world. Terms like "commensurate" and preferred levels of education.
For twenty years I have argued against our current system. We claim to speak where the Bible speaks. Show me paid local ministers. Or even the concept of "the preacher."
The"preaching" words are from believer to non-believer. Never in a gathering of the body.
We have a generation of Biblical illiterates - after all, it is rhe preacher's job to know the Bible...
Timothy and Titus were effectively local preachers. They stayed put, studied, brought the word, and directed their congregations in regular spiritual feasts. Per Ephesians 4, the Biblical term is “evangelist.” But we should remember that as much as elders and teachers are a part of a local work, so are evangelists. In fact, their placement in Paul’s order of roles indicates that they’re pretty central to a church’s mission. As far as paying them? “A laborer deserves his wages” was Jesus’ argument.
I don’t get hung up on any given length of time. What matters is that the role of a skilled herald of God’s Word has a clear Biblical precedent. Every indication is that Timothy was in Ephesus for a good while. Tradition even says he died there as a martyr. One of the points you’ve made in the past is that the first century church was an infant. As the Kingdom expands and churches grow to maturity, it makes sense that skilled persons would serve there as educational centers. The several churches that I’ve personally witnessed who lack a preacher — well, they don’t seem to thrive or gain a great amount of traction. At the end of the day, you need skilled heralds who stay put to build up the body. An eldership should be a part of this. But it’s pretty clear from Timothy that those elders work in tandem with a primary herald.
I believe in preachers, and I think they should be paid. I don’t believe our mercenary system or centralized training centers is a path to sustainability.
Interesting statements: acts 8. THEY went everywhere, preaching...
1 cor 14 - now when you meet, EACH of you
Evangelist are those who spread the EUNGELION - the good news. Why would a local preacher use "evangelist" on his business card when his ONLY "audience" are the gathered believers on Sunday? What makes us think that the prepared sermons should be evangelistic? Evangelism is done to OUTSIDERS. Not to the family of faith which gathers to be encouraged and uplifted!
I gladly support missionaries and full time elders rather than local preachers. Too many Congregations spend a by far larger percentage of local "budgets" on real estate and salaries than on missions - which is the main reason for the existence of the Body - go, teach, baptize, teach to go, teach, baptize...
IF we claim to follow the Bible, that is the pattern rather than have a group, now we need a building and a preacher, while becoming less and less interested in our core reason for existence!
I saw a website of a congregation where 250 words were written about the God we worship, and twice as many words to explain the preacher...
Well, I suppose I’m calling Timothy an evangelist because Paul did. 2 Timothy 4:1-5. Read the whole description. You’ve greatly limited what that role involves, and you’ve greatly limited the scope of the gospel. Gathered believers don’t need the gospel? The gospel is only presented to unbelievers? Evangelists cease to be evangelists once their audience is converted? And what then do they become? To be “evangelistic” has become a technical term that connotes “going out,” but that sense is only part of its Biblical meaning, and to limit it to that is to ignore the “pattern”. Paul said that he resolved to know nothing among the believers at Corinth except Jesus Christ and him crucified (the precise definition of gospel, 1 Cor. 15:1ff). Do you realize that evangelist literally means “herald of good news?” It literally means, gospel preacher. The word “gospel” is the word euangellion (evangellion), which makes our English word evangelist.
Thank you for clarifying. I was remembering KJV, in which "Paul preached unto them." I was unaware that other versions have him speaking instead of preaching.
My first husband of 51 years lived the life of a gospel preacher similar as to what you described, moving often. It was difficult for our family. I’ve been married for a little over two years to my second husband. He has been at the same location since 1978. It makes a big difference in the stability of the congregation and I don’t worry about having to move.
great thoughts!!! It's so true, everything you said.
1. I've been a member at quite a few churches of Christ while there was a search for a new preacher, youth minister, etc...and most of them went to preacher training school and had to meet a list of qualifications. But we did NOT "know" them, and it's risky! 30% of the time, the man chosen was ok. 70% of the time, things eventually came to light that required letting them go.
2. sometimes I feel conflicted about paying 1 person because we don't hear others in the congregation speak or share their thoughts or reflections much because the preacher's getting paid and that's his job to to do that.
3. *also if a person fills in for the preacher and does not get paid, even though that's something the preacher gets paid for, some say it's like being a substitute teacher and not getting paid for it. others say you shouldn't get paid for filling in. and this has caused REAL divisions in the church.
I'm glad you bring up this topic and I have really enjoyed reading all the comments about it, good stuff!
Your words resonate with me. Up until just over two years ago I had not enjoyed a church with such intentional leadership. My current church is one of 6-7 plants from the "sending church". The sending church is intentional about raising up leaders and sending them out from their congregation with a significant seed fund with which to plant. We have 3 pastors, 3 directors teaching the congregation in various ways. Currently there is a path men can follow that will lead them to a leadership role. It's a beautiful model and the stability you speak of is certainly there - even in a "young" church. Why? Because it's still rooted in the sending church.
I am well aware this is not the norm, but it is possible. It is a prayer of mine that many more Christians will throw off the chains of "tradition" (the way it's always been) and realize there is a better way. We will never attain the perfect way but I am so encouraged my our current church that peace is growing inside me for the time when the Lord moves one or both of my son's into ministry work - whether that's on payroll or through service.
Jack you are not wrong. It is a messed up system. My dad was in it most of my growing up and it impacted his family. My husband and I have been a lot of places and have seen how poorly the system works. The only congregation I've ever seen do anything that makes any sense at all is a congregation we visited in Oklahoma. They have an evangelist that does itinerant preaching, holds meetings and such, but for the corporate body, all the men are expected to teach. They don't have a located preacher. Now, I know that probably puts this congregation in a particular category, but that doesn't diminish the fact that they do a lot of things right. I think we ought to be sending our boys to preaching school right out of high school, give them 15 months to two years of good solid bible training, at the expense of the congregation, after which they can decide what vocation they want to do. Fill our congregations with men who can teach, not just one man who gets paid for the priviledge. I'm with you that there are many good men out there who do the job and do it well. But we need a better system, if we must have a system at all. I hope that doesn't sound ranty, it's just that your post really resonated with me and started my brain gears roaring. Thanks for always keeping us thinking.
I think that sounds like a great system. The church would be forced to keep their pipeline stocked, and I think that's how it should be. Thanks for sharing!
I think at times Paul was supported exclusively by the church, but there’s strong precedent for multiple jobs. And great point about the school buildings.
Our preacher and elders are training our young men how to develop a lesson and teach a class. They are teaching on Wednesday nights this summer. The young women have a class on Thurs nights. Our young marrieds appear to be growing spiritually. Thank you, Jack, for your excellent thoughts.
Well I think if we look at scripture it’s pretty clear that the way we do ministry now is not at all the way that scripture says it should be done. From who we choose to how they’re supposed to work we do it all pretty much wrong. I think if we stopped doing it wrong, we would find that it would be a lot easier on the family.
Some has been mentioned above, but a quick response:
1) A Church should have elders (plural) and deacons (plural). Pastoring is one of the job of the elders.
2) The elders should be chosen from amongst the older (see the name) men of the church who have proved themselves over the years, have faithful children, etc.
3) All of the men should be bringing things to the church in the form of teaching, singing, etc etc.
4) The men of the church should be asking questions in church (while the women are silent) so that
5) The men are leading daily worship at home, teaching their wives and children and answering their questions.
That is part of what our churches should look like, a far cry from the modern system.
The economic factors are an argument for the celibate ministry. This very good piece seems to vindicate that aspect of the Catholic priesthood, despite the throwaway comment at the end.
Roots indeed. Well said. I feel similarly. I think there is a way to shape compensation so that it does not incentivize "professionals from outside for hire." In the Episcopal Church where I grew up, the ministers were compensated largely in kind (given a nice house in a nice neighborhood; kids private school tuition paid for, etc). This is in keeping with the ancient Levitical practice which made the Levites the receivers of the tithe and yet did not allow them to own property. In-kind compensation allows congregations to bless their ministers as much or more than the average congregation member, while tying their physical blessings to their relationship with the church rather than giving private ownership like everyone else. In my opinion, this sets apart from the minister's role from the common marketplace economy and also incentivizes longer term continuity and sustainability.
Mansions with Ferraris? Sounds like the senior pastors at a particular church in Redding, CA. Their theology has destroyed many a church, and nearly my own. We've recovered, thanks be to God and our current pastor.
During 27 years of military transfers, I've been in a lot of churches. I've seen churches abuse pastors and pastors abuse churches. People are people, who always fail whenever they put themselves first. Post-military, I've now been in one church for 20 years. There's a lot to be said for putting down roots. We're trying hard to build from within, but I believe that COVID caused the loss of a generation of future leaders. So many people went to online church, and then to no church. The natural maturation process was interrupted, and there's no telling when we'll get it back on track.
In the meantime, we hired a worship leader from within...at $100 a week, and she's thrilled. We're about to ask someone else to take over children's ministries, with the same arrangement. An inexpensive way to build up a staff, not quite volunteer, but the next thing to it.
Jack, you seem to be a jack of all trades. Keep up the good work. You're in the right place at the right time.
This article resonated with me. I have watched with heartbreak the deleterious effect that a ministerial termination (six years ago) has had upon my family. It has been devestating. All of our lives were turned upside down overnight. We had to leave a church we loved. Because of this experience, our son has expressed no interest in full-time ministry. He serves in the local setting but that's all feels safe doing. I have had to work extremely hard at keeping my wife and children encouraged and motovated to continue to do the Lord's work. The congregation we currently work with has been wonderful to us and supportive of our efforts. We love them very much. If an eldership is considering terminating a preacher who has done nothing wrong and simply for the sake of change, it needs to also calculate the cost of what it will do to the family of a preacher, the church members they look after, and the church's reputation in the local community. Elderships make decisions and life goes on for them. However, affected families may be impacted by those decisions for a very long time.
According to ACU research, we now have 16 different 'levels' of ministers, with 'appropriate' levels of 'compensation.'
When I read the 'minister wanted' adds, i see the same language as the business world. Terms like "commensurate" and preferred levels of education.
For twenty years I have argued against our current system. We claim to speak where the Bible speaks. Show me paid local ministers. Or even the concept of "the preacher."
The"preaching" words are from believer to non-believer. Never in a gathering of the body.
We have a generation of Biblical illiterates - after all, it is rhe preacher's job to know the Bible...
Timothy and Titus were effectively local preachers. They stayed put, studied, brought the word, and directed their congregations in regular spiritual feasts. Per Ephesians 4, the Biblical term is “evangelist.” But we should remember that as much as elders and teachers are a part of a local work, so are evangelists. In fact, their placement in Paul’s order of roles indicates that they’re pretty central to a church’s mission. As far as paying them? “A laborer deserves his wages” was Jesus’ argument.
They were, but it’s hard to prove it was a permanent role. Titus 1:5 seems to indicate otherwise.
I don’t get hung up on any given length of time. What matters is that the role of a skilled herald of God’s Word has a clear Biblical precedent. Every indication is that Timothy was in Ephesus for a good while. Tradition even says he died there as a martyr. One of the points you’ve made in the past is that the first century church was an infant. As the Kingdom expands and churches grow to maturity, it makes sense that skilled persons would serve there as educational centers. The several churches that I’ve personally witnessed who lack a preacher — well, they don’t seem to thrive or gain a great amount of traction. At the end of the day, you need skilled heralds who stay put to build up the body. An eldership should be a part of this. But it’s pretty clear from Timothy that those elders work in tandem with a primary herald.
I believe in preachers, and I think they should be paid. I don’t believe our mercenary system or centralized training centers is a path to sustainability.
Well, I’d agree with you there. Something in the system is broken.
Interesting statements: acts 8. THEY went everywhere, preaching...
1 cor 14 - now when you meet, EACH of you
Evangelist are those who spread the EUNGELION - the good news. Why would a local preacher use "evangelist" on his business card when his ONLY "audience" are the gathered believers on Sunday? What makes us think that the prepared sermons should be evangelistic? Evangelism is done to OUTSIDERS. Not to the family of faith which gathers to be encouraged and uplifted!
I gladly support missionaries and full time elders rather than local preachers. Too many Congregations spend a by far larger percentage of local "budgets" on real estate and salaries than on missions - which is the main reason for the existence of the Body - go, teach, baptize, teach to go, teach, baptize...
IF we claim to follow the Bible, that is the pattern rather than have a group, now we need a building and a preacher, while becoming less and less interested in our core reason for existence!
I saw a website of a congregation where 250 words were written about the God we worship, and twice as many words to explain the preacher...
indeed, Houston, we have a problem!!
Well, I suppose I’m calling Timothy an evangelist because Paul did. 2 Timothy 4:1-5. Read the whole description. You’ve greatly limited what that role involves, and you’ve greatly limited the scope of the gospel. Gathered believers don’t need the gospel? The gospel is only presented to unbelievers? Evangelists cease to be evangelists once their audience is converted? And what then do they become? To be “evangelistic” has become a technical term that connotes “going out,” but that sense is only part of its Biblical meaning, and to limit it to that is to ignore the “pattern”. Paul said that he resolved to know nothing among the believers at Corinth except Jesus Christ and him crucified (the precise definition of gospel, 1 Cor. 15:1ff). Do you realize that evangelist literally means “herald of good news?” It literally means, gospel preacher. The word “gospel” is the word euangellion (evangellion), which makes our English word evangelist.
But Paul did preach to "a gathering of the body" in Acts 20:7.
He spoke, but he didn't "preach," I believe is the point
Thank you for clarifying. I was remembering KJV, in which "Paul preached unto them." I was unaware that other versions have him speaking instead of preaching.
It is a different Greek word than the one typically used for preaching. This one is translated elsewhere (in the KJV) as "reasoning" and "disputing."
Actually, none of the "preaching words" is used, the word from which we get DIALOG (DIALEGOMAI).
It was a conversation. Some version use "talk TO them," which is not really a good translation, while others say "talk WITH them."
My first husband of 51 years lived the life of a gospel preacher similar as to what you described, moving often. It was difficult for our family. I’ve been married for a little over two years to my second husband. He has been at the same location since 1978. It makes a big difference in the stability of the congregation and I don’t worry about having to move.
Wow, since 1978? That's a wonderful tenure. We need many more cases like that.
great thoughts!!! It's so true, everything you said.
1. I've been a member at quite a few churches of Christ while there was a search for a new preacher, youth minister, etc...and most of them went to preacher training school and had to meet a list of qualifications. But we did NOT "know" them, and it's risky! 30% of the time, the man chosen was ok. 70% of the time, things eventually came to light that required letting them go.
2. sometimes I feel conflicted about paying 1 person because we don't hear others in the congregation speak or share their thoughts or reflections much because the preacher's getting paid and that's his job to to do that.
3. *also if a person fills in for the preacher and does not get paid, even though that's something the preacher gets paid for, some say it's like being a substitute teacher and not getting paid for it. others say you shouldn't get paid for filling in. and this has caused REAL divisions in the church.
I'm glad you bring up this topic and I have really enjoyed reading all the comments about it, good stuff!
Great points! I think #2 is an especially common issue. “That’s the preacher’s job” stops a lot of Christians from growing and serving.
Your words resonate with me. Up until just over two years ago I had not enjoyed a church with such intentional leadership. My current church is one of 6-7 plants from the "sending church". The sending church is intentional about raising up leaders and sending them out from their congregation with a significant seed fund with which to plant. We have 3 pastors, 3 directors teaching the congregation in various ways. Currently there is a path men can follow that will lead them to a leadership role. It's a beautiful model and the stability you speak of is certainly there - even in a "young" church. Why? Because it's still rooted in the sending church.
I am well aware this is not the norm, but it is possible. It is a prayer of mine that many more Christians will throw off the chains of "tradition" (the way it's always been) and realize there is a better way. We will never attain the perfect way but I am so encouraged my our current church that peace is growing inside me for the time when the Lord moves one or both of my son's into ministry work - whether that's on payroll or through service.
That's an interesting way of doing it. Sounds like a big improvement.
Jack you are not wrong. It is a messed up system. My dad was in it most of my growing up and it impacted his family. My husband and I have been a lot of places and have seen how poorly the system works. The only congregation I've ever seen do anything that makes any sense at all is a congregation we visited in Oklahoma. They have an evangelist that does itinerant preaching, holds meetings and such, but for the corporate body, all the men are expected to teach. They don't have a located preacher. Now, I know that probably puts this congregation in a particular category, but that doesn't diminish the fact that they do a lot of things right. I think we ought to be sending our boys to preaching school right out of high school, give them 15 months to two years of good solid bible training, at the expense of the congregation, after which they can decide what vocation they want to do. Fill our congregations with men who can teach, not just one man who gets paid for the priviledge. I'm with you that there are many good men out there who do the job and do it well. But we need a better system, if we must have a system at all. I hope that doesn't sound ranty, it's just that your post really resonated with me and started my brain gears roaring. Thanks for always keeping us thinking.
I think that sounds like a great system. The church would be forced to keep their pipeline stocked, and I think that's how it should be. Thanks for sharing!
The original church fathers were bi-vocational, being fishermen and preachers. Why should it be different now?
In many places, the preachers were also school teachers and the buildings used for both.
Why should it be different now?
I think at times Paul was supported exclusively by the church, but there’s strong precedent for multiple jobs. And great point about the school buildings.
Our preacher and elders are training our young men how to develop a lesson and teach a class. They are teaching on Wednesday nights this summer. The young women have a class on Thurs nights. Our young marrieds appear to be growing spiritually. Thank you, Jack, for your excellent thoughts.
It seems to me like it might be better to work on the doctrine rather than discourage the ministry.
How do you mean?
Well I think if we look at scripture it’s pretty clear that the way we do ministry now is not at all the way that scripture says it should be done. From who we choose to how they’re supposed to work we do it all pretty much wrong. I think if we stopped doing it wrong, we would find that it would be a lot easier on the family.
Not trying to be obtuse, genuinely interested - what do you believe is a more Scriptural way to do ministry?
Wasn't at all thinking you were being obtuse :)
Some has been mentioned above, but a quick response:
1) A Church should have elders (plural) and deacons (plural). Pastoring is one of the job of the elders.
2) The elders should be chosen from amongst the older (see the name) men of the church who have proved themselves over the years, have faithful children, etc.
3) All of the men should be bringing things to the church in the form of teaching, singing, etc etc.
4) The men of the church should be asking questions in church (while the women are silent) so that
5) The men are leading daily worship at home, teaching their wives and children and answering their questions.
That is part of what our churches should look like, a far cry from the modern system.
The economic factors are an argument for the celibate ministry. This very good piece seems to vindicate that aspect of the Catholic priesthood, despite the throwaway comment at the end.
I strongly agree with the section that churches should be functionally self-sufficient in training up leaders.
Roots indeed. Well said. I feel similarly. I think there is a way to shape compensation so that it does not incentivize "professionals from outside for hire." In the Episcopal Church where I grew up, the ministers were compensated largely in kind (given a nice house in a nice neighborhood; kids private school tuition paid for, etc). This is in keeping with the ancient Levitical practice which made the Levites the receivers of the tithe and yet did not allow them to own property. In-kind compensation allows congregations to bless their ministers as much or more than the average congregation member, while tying their physical blessings to their relationship with the church rather than giving private ownership like everyone else. In my opinion, this sets apart from the minister's role from the common marketplace economy and also incentivizes longer term continuity and sustainability.
You’ve raised some interesting points. Thank you for the article.
Mansions with Ferraris? Sounds like the senior pastors at a particular church in Redding, CA. Their theology has destroyed many a church, and nearly my own. We've recovered, thanks be to God and our current pastor.
During 27 years of military transfers, I've been in a lot of churches. I've seen churches abuse pastors and pastors abuse churches. People are people, who always fail whenever they put themselves first. Post-military, I've now been in one church for 20 years. There's a lot to be said for putting down roots. We're trying hard to build from within, but I believe that COVID caused the loss of a generation of future leaders. So many people went to online church, and then to no church. The natural maturation process was interrupted, and there's no telling when we'll get it back on track.
In the meantime, we hired a worship leader from within...at $100 a week, and she's thrilled. We're about to ask someone else to take over children's ministries, with the same arrangement. An inexpensive way to build up a staff, not quite volunteer, but the next thing to it.
Jack, you seem to be a jack of all trades. Keep up the good work. You're in the right place at the right time.
This article resonated with me. I have watched with heartbreak the deleterious effect that a ministerial termination (six years ago) has had upon my family. It has been devestating. All of our lives were turned upside down overnight. We had to leave a church we loved. Because of this experience, our son has expressed no interest in full-time ministry. He serves in the local setting but that's all feels safe doing. I have had to work extremely hard at keeping my wife and children encouraged and motovated to continue to do the Lord's work. The congregation we currently work with has been wonderful to us and supportive of our efforts. We love them very much. If an eldership is considering terminating a preacher who has done nothing wrong and simply for the sake of change, it needs to also calculate the cost of what it will do to the family of a preacher, the church members they look after, and the church's reputation in the local community. Elderships make decisions and life goes on for them. However, affected families may be impacted by those decisions for a very long time.