What is the definition of a professional pastor? I believe it is quite simple. A professional pastor is a pastor who receives a regular salary from a local church for performing pastoral duties.
Many pastors in the West are paid a wage by a local church. In exchange for this wage, the pastors do things like preach, teach, counsel, administrate, perform weddings, perform funerals, encourage the flock, etc., etc., etc.
When I use this term, I do not use it in a derogatory manner. Although I cannot find any scriptural support for pastors receiving salaries (and therefore cannot personally any longer receive one), I'm not going to condemn pastors for doing so.
It is interesting to me that many pastors who receive salaries don't seem to like being referred to as professional pastors. Those who don't like it suspect that there is automatic criticism in the term. I'm not sure why this is.
The reality is that if a pastor is receiving a salary from a church, then he is a professional. He may do a wonderful job performing his duties. I hope he does. He may think of what he does as more of a calling than a profession. If this is the case, that is wonderful. Regardless, he's still a professional.
A professional receives a wage in exchange for services rendered. Therefore, if a pastor is paid a salary, he's a professional.
This is not criticism. Rather, it is reality.
21 comments:
Eric,
I think you raise a good point. I think many pastors do think of themselves as professionals and that a salary can reinforce that perception. I think the salary can also be dangerous when, out of fearing the loss of it, the pastor is tempted to keep quiet when he knows he should speak truth out of conviction (as you know all too well).
That said, I also think it's possible for a pastor who receives a salary to receive it foremost as coming from the hand of the Lord, and also as a gesture of love from a congregation who desires to support him and his family.
I'll leave aside the question of the NT not offering examples of pastors receiving salaries (though, for the record I think that it might e.g. 1 Tim 5:17-18), because I think it goes back to the prescriptive/descriptive discussion.
Michael
Michael
Mike,
I agree with everything you have said. I'm not going to add anything to it.
Eric
Eric,
Having spent many days over many years, and had conversations with, and listened to conversations of, other "pastors", there can be no doubt that, at least some (I think more than we would like to believe) consider themselves as professionals who are in a chosen profession. I have listened to denominational leaders at pastors" conferences, both in USA and Australia, remind pastors, and I quote," You are professionals, and you must function as such!"
No wonder the idea of humble servanthood, supported by the work of ones own hands, is not understood!
John,
Part of the problem is that this is what we grow up seeing. Just about every pastor I have ever known has been paid a salary.
An additional difficulty is that seminaries promote professional pastors - if not in attitude then at least in payment.
The entire system is problematic. We need a Reformation of the church in the West.
I can't tell you how many sermons I have heard in seminary regarding "the Call." By "call" the speaker seems to always refer to the call to paid ministry. In emphasizing this, it seems that the call every believer has on their life is lost.
Andy,
The call certainly does seem subjective. It is certainly problematic that those who don't experience "the call" then don't think that they have responsibility to proclaim the good news. It fosters the clergy-laity divide even if that isn't the intention.
Eric,
Not offended by the title "professional pastor" not sure why the term "professional" needs to be added. I suppose it makes the distinction between the "professional"(salaried), and the "non-professional"(non-salaried) pastor. Not sure why that matters?
Over the years I have come to to prefer to be called simply Brother. If someone insists on a title I use Minister.
I often tell other Christians that every member is a minister and wherever God has placed you that is your ministry. Since many are placed in secular workplaces where they receive a salary then I suppose they are all "professional ministers".
Great Book by John Piper - Brothers We Are Not Professionals.
http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/product_id/1356/nm/Brothers_We_Are_Not_Professionals_A_Plea_to_Pastors_for_Radical_Ministry
Brother Scott ><>
Hi Scott,
In talking about issues related to pastoral ministry, and specifically the issue of pastors receiving a salary, I need some way of differentiating between those who are salaried and those who are not. That's the reason for the term "professional pastor." I might just begin using "salaried pastor" instead.
The reason for the differentiation is that when a pastor is paid, it is understood by most churches that he will do more ministry than most of the other people will. In that sense, he is different. He is also different because he does most of the teaching/preaching within the church (in most cases).
I agree with you that every Christian should minister. That is a very important concept.
I like "Brothers, We Are Not Professionals." I agree with Piper that pastors should avoid a professionalism mindset at all costs. Where we disagree is over the salary.
Thanks!
Formerly-salaried Brother Eric,
I understand what you are trying to do by using the prefix "salaried" that is so you can differentiate between those who are salaried and those who are not. What I'm saying is I'm not sure of why you "need some way" of making the distinction. For what purpose? Not trying to be argumentative but seriously… why the need to draw lines over what kind of pastor someone is?
There are many forms of pastoral care, pastor means to shepherd or to care for. I know shepherds that are salaried, non-salaried, bi-vocational, retirees, volunteers at the hospital, and secular employees. I find no need to differentiate those who are in salaried ministry positions vs. those who volunteer. As a salaried minister of our local congregation I do not reduce myself to a hireling. Because I am salaried and because we operate under a plurality of elders I am free to spend the majority of my time exercising the gifts God has given me. Because I am not forced to devote my time to secular employment in order to support my family, I am able to devote more of my time to prayer, and study, in order to preach the word. That certainly appears to be a biblical NT church model – Acts 6:1-4.
Here is a recent example where being a salaried minister was beneficial. Tuesday I had a member who suddenly died of a massive heart attack age 55, his wife needed pastoring, she immediately called an elder and her pastor, within a few minutes (because I am not tied to secular employment) I was the one who was most available to get to her and minister to this grief stricken wife and her family. I prayed with family, friends, doctors, called relatives including their son, and then I notified other ministers such as elders & deacons.
Since I am not tied to a 9-5 secular job I am also free to preach the funeral and coordinate other things during this week. Can others do this work… certainly and many are, elders are praying, visiting, others are preparing meals and ministering to this wife and family in many ways. But I am not doing these things out of a sense of "salaried duty", I am simply thankful that God has freed me to be available do them.
Continued in a second message…
Here is the thing - I have worshipped, studied and served with you over the years. I have admired your commitment to your Christian faith and I know you seek to be above all biblical in service to Christ. I even admire that you have been willing to follow your convictions concerning home vs. building and salaried vs. non-salaried pastorate.
Yet - as I read some of your more recent blogs it appears that you are establishing this house church like I have seen many do and that is define what you are by what you are not. I.e. we do not meet in a building, we do not have a paid pastor, we do not follow a planned order of worship, etc.
Just say… here is what we are, “we are body of believers, some who are called to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers. We gather together to study, teach, exhort, pray, fellowship, share communion, disciple, baptize, reach in, reach out, minister to each other, equip the saints for the work of ministry, preach the gospel, reach the unbeliever, and ultimately come together to edify the body of Christ that he might receive all the Glory for all that we attempt to do in his name.” If you prefer a shorter version I tell our church we exist to Love God, Love People, (Matthew 22:37-39) and Make Disciples (Matthew 28:18-20).
I think it is OK to say we are different from the church on 1st and main. But to continually make reference in your communication claiming that salaried pastors and church buildings are not biblical, whether you intend to or not, you are saying by implication that the people gathering in that form of church are unbiblical. Thereby I think you are at risk of setting up divisions among God’s body over secondary or tertiary issues and I know you are opposed to doing that. Anyway as to quote the great theologian Forrest Gump… that is about all I have to say about that.
If you prefer not to post this I understand. However I think many of your followers/commenters are from the house church model and could benefit from understanding how those “left behind to suffer out salaried service in the located church” feel. OK that was extreme sarcasm and uncalled for :)
Seriously Brother, the conversation is good, and I love you in Christ… Blessings to You, Alice, and the Children.
Brother Scott ><>
Scott,
I appreciate you brother and your willingness to dialog. These are important issues and I'm glad to discuss them.
My purpose in this post was to simply define a term I was using in the hope that it would not offend.
The reason I use a specific term is that when a church pays a salary to a man, that church then expects certain things from that man. This leads to a clergy-laity divide that I cannot find biblically. That is not the intent, but is what almost always plays out in practice.
You are right in that I've pointed out many things that I see as unbiblical about the institutional church (another term I'm not thrilled with). The reason for this is that so many of these things are almost never challenged. If I can do so, as one who has been a part of it, then I hope others will listen and begin asking questions that need to be asked.
Regarding house fellowships, I've tried to get people to read a book that has meant a lot to me. That's why I recently put a link to it in a visible place on my blog. The title isn't very original: "House Church."
As for positives about house church life, I'll be saying a lot about that once we begin meeting together in a few weeks.
God bless, Eric
Eric,
Just FYI... Lifeway makes a distinction between pastors and professional pastors. Pastors who are not professional pastors do not get a pastor's discount.
-Alan
"...when a church pays a salary to a man, that church then expects certain things from that man. This leads to a clergy-laity divide that I cannot find biblically."
You should join the Catholic Church, where there is no pretense that a church-laity divide does not exist. Read the gospels again and you will find a distinct difference between Jesus, Peter, Paul, the disciples............and the rest of the people (non-clergy).
Alan,
Arrgh. Now I'll have to pay full price!
Joe,
Thanks for the comment. I'll respectfully pass on joining the Catholic Church.
As for Jesus, of course He was different - He's God.
The disciples were a special case of being the original twelve. Additionally, none of them served as pastors in churches. Therefore, their example doesn't apply to this discussion.
As someone who meets in a home, I agree with Scott that many in the "Home Church" beat the drum constantly about what they are not, and about their distinction from the otherwise organized chrches. I have found that people need a time of venting after they make the transition to a simpler way of meeting. Most are not allowed to opine the way Eric has, prior to the transition, because they would be labeled as divisive or troubled, so they tend to suppress their concerns.
In my experience, this season passes, and then they move into more of Scott's description of simply getting on with things.
I'm glad that Jesus is the one we answer to, and that He is able to show us the proper path at the proper time in all things.
Time to make some dry wall dust.
Jeff
Jeff,
As I have begin to see the church through new eyes, I have realized just how many problems there are. I'm referring to problems that are less pragmatic in nature than they are just plain unbiblical.
Because of this, I've wanted to stress much of what is wrong within the institutional church - kind of like giving a diagnosis of the illness.
As we now make the move to home fellowshipping, I will begin to transition more toward the positive of trying to follow the biblical model in all things.
We're looking forward to it!
Hi Eric-
I have been reading your blog over the past few days and have a couple of questions.
What is your interpretation of 1 Timothy 5:17-18?
What about Chevis Oaks Baptist Church do you feel is unbiblical?
Hi Angie,
Thanks for reading my blog.
I'm glad you asked about I Timothy 5:17-18. Those are very important verses to the issue of whether or not pastors should be salaried. They are verses that even pastors do not agree on as far as interpretation is concerned.
I'll tell you what I think.
These verses say to let the elders be worthy of "double honor." The question is what this means. If Paul meant for this to mean "salary," he could have used the word for "wages" that we see later in 5:18. However, he didn't - he chose to use "double honor." I believe these two verses are telling us that people who do certain things should receive certain things. A laborer should get his wages, while the elder should receive double honor. But, what does "double honor" mean?
We can learn from looking at I Timothy 5:3 and 6:1. In those verses, we see that widows should receive honor and that servants are to show their masters honor. Paul uses the same word for "honor" in all three places. In the case of widows it seems that financial gifts and respect are in view. As for servants, it is obviously respect.
Back to 5:17-18. If you read on to 5:19-20, the context is clearly one of respect as opposed to discussion of salary.
In light of all this, I believe I Timothy 5:17-18 is clearly telling us to show respect to elders who labor well. I believe it leaves open the possibility of financial gifts (such as love offerings), like would be given to widows. I don't think this passage gives evidence for salaries.
On to the next comment...
Angie,
Let me address the term "unbiblical."
There is unbiblical in the sense of being disobedient to the commands of scripture. We all agree this is wrong. False teaching, division, and immorality are examples of this. I don't see this to be the case at Chevis Oaks.
Then there is "unbiblical" in the sense of not following the biblical model for church life. All churches that I have ever seen or been a part of follow the biblical model in some things (such as singing songs, baptizing, and teaching) and not in other things (such as having full-time salaried pastors, gathering in large buildings, and sitting in pews). As for the biblical model, Chevis Oaks follows is in some ways but not in others.
There is disagreement across Christianity about how much of the biblical model we should still follow as far as church life is concerned. I've come under conviction that (at least for me) I've got to follow the biblical model for church as closely as I can. If we follow the biblical model, as seen and approved of by the apostles, then we can know that God gives approval to what we are doing. If we do things not in the bible, the best we can do is be uncertain about what God thinks.
My desire is not to argue with other Christians about this or separate from them over it. I don't think all traditional churches are bad churches. We look forward to visiting with our friends at Chevis Oaks.
Thanks.
Post a Comment