Priesthood of the Few or Priesthood of All?

As I'm reading through various modern ecclesiologies, I came across a book by Wallace M. Alston, Jr. called The Church of the Living God: A Reformed Perspective (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002). I've never read an ecclesiology from the "reformed perspective", so I was looking forward to reading this book. I don't know if this book is characteristic of all reformed ecclesiologies, so my comments will be directed solely toward this book.

First, while there are many positive aspects about Alston's book, I was disappointed that he did not discuss Scripture more. Instead, in most of the book, Alston exegeted and expounded on Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and others. I learned alot about what these magisterial reformers thought about the church, but I did not learn how Alston believed their views meshed with Scripture.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, I was concerned with the explanation of the priesthood of the believer. Here are a couple of quotes:

In Calvin’s mind, the priesthood of all believers had to do with the access of the individual to God… It was Martin Luther, however, who gave to the universal priesthood its broadest and clearest expression... Luther was of no mind to destroy the priesthood. Luther wanted to expand the priesthood. (45-46)

Luther never really sorted out the precise relationship between the priesthood of the few and the priesthood of all. Later Lutherans spoke of it in terms of representation. The priesthood of the few was representative of the priesthood of all. The church may not be dependent upon the ordained clergy for its existence, but for its well-being it needs the few who are called and set apart by the laying on of hands to the particular vocation of preaching, administering the sacraments, teaching, and pastoral care. But the priesthood of the few must never obscure, threaten, or usurp the priesthood of all. (47)

To be honest, I don't understand how a priesthood of the few can do anything except "obscure, threaten, or usurp" the priesthood of all. If there are some that are "more priest" than others, then the responsibilities of the others are lessened while the responsibilities of the few are heightened.

I think that my differences with Alston concerning the priesthood of the believer is primarily found in this sentence: "The church may not be dependent upon the ordained clergy for its existence, but for its well-being it needs the few who are called and set apart by the laying on of hands to the particular vocation of preaching, administering the sacraments, teaching, and pastoral care." As I study Scripture, I cannot find where only a few are given the responsibility of preaching (proclaiming the good news), administering the sacraments (baptizing and breaking bread - the Lord's Supper), or pastoral care (caring for one another). Instead, I see where all believers are given these responsibilities.

Of course, if we find the need for "ordained clergy" (again, a term or designation that I can't find in Scripture), then I suppose we must find something for this "ordained clergy" to do. Thus, we end up with a "priesthood of the few", which - despite Alston's warning - does tend to "obscure, threaten, or usurp the priesthood of all". Why? Because by definition now, the responsibilities of the "all" are not as important as the responsibilities of the "few" - the "ordained clergy".

I am not arguing against leaders. Leaders are very important to the church. But, leaders are not important because they are set apart for special duties, such as preaching, administering the sacraments, or pastoral care. Instead, they are important as an example to all believers as to how they ALL should be preaching, administering the sacraments, and caring for people - as well as other God-given responsibilities.

I do not think it is possible to maintain the priesthood of all while requiring a priesthood of the few at the same time. Since the Reformation, it has been clear that the doctrine of the priesthood of the few has worked to maintain the clergy/laity divide with which the magisterial reformers disagreed. According to Scripture, all believers are priests.

Submission is given not taken

This post is part of a monthly synchroblog. The topic for November is "leadership". At the bottom of this post you'll find links to other posts about leadership.

Today is election day in the USA, and many Americans are thinking about leadership. In the church, Christians often think about leadership as well. In fact, as Hans Küng has stated, leadership defines the church to such an extent that, for many, ecclesiology is simply an exercise in hierarchiology.

Whenever we discuss church leadership, the question of submission arises. Who is supposed to submit to whom? How do those "above" get those "under" to submit to their decisions? I suggest that these questions demonstrate a flawed understanding of the leadership that Scriptures teaches the church.

Starting with Jesus, he said:

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:25-28 ESV)

Thus, according to Jesus, leadership among Christians is to be radically different - not front and center - but among and under. Leaders who follow Jesus' example are not in front of a group directing them, but among and under a group serving them. Jesus was not talking about "servant-leadership", but "servants".

However, the more important point for this post revolves around the idea of "submission". According to Hebrews 13:17, we are to "Trust our leaders, and submit to them." This passage, and others like it, are often used by leaders to force, encourage, persuade, even cajole people into acquiescing to the decisions made by the leaders. This practice demonstrates a misunderstanding of submissions.

Leaders cannot force people to submit to them. This is not submission, but subservience. Instead, submission can only be given.

We often take instructions given to others and apply them for ourselves. For example, husbands often feel it is there responsibility to force their wives (or at least remind them strongly) to submit. Yet, the instruction is for wives to submit, not for husbands to force their submission (which is not submission but subservience or enslavement). Instead, husbands are instructed to love their wives. What does a husband do if his wife does not submit? He loves her.

The same can be said of leaders. We are told to follow or submit to those who are leading us. In reality, our submission demonstrates who our leaders are. Leaders are never told to force or even try to persuade others to submit to them. What are leaders to do if others do not submit? Keep living as an example of a disciple of Jesus Christ. We cannot choose whether or not people submit; we can only choose to obey for ourselves.

To look at it another way, is someone a leader if no one is submitting? If someone chooses not to submit (or follow) then I am not their leader – it doesn't matter what "position" I hold, or what they say about me being a leader.

When Jesus began to teach about leaders among Christians, he pointed his followers to the "Gentiles" and said, "It shall not be so among you." Today, most leaders in the church model themselves after the prevailing Gentile cultures and norms. But, this is NOT the type of leadership that Jesus taught.

Its time for believers to start following servants, not those who place themselves in the front of the group because of position or education or knowledge. And, its time for leaders to stop trying to force people to submit (which is not submission), and instead simply live their lives as examples of Jesus Christ. We persuade people to follow Christ, not our decisions and our leadership and our vision.

Submission is something that can only be given; submission cannot be taken.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Below is a list of other bloggers who are taking part in the synchroblog on "Leadership":

Jonathan Brink - Letter To The President
Adam Gonnerman - Aspiring to the Episcopate
Kai - Leadership - Is Servant Leadership a Broken Model?
Sally Coleman - In the world but not of it- servant leadership for the 21st Century Church
Alan Knox - Submission is given not taken
Joe Miller - Elders Lead a Healthy Family: The Future
Cobus van Wyngaard - Empowering leadership
Steve Hayes - Servant leadership
Geoff Matheson - Leadership
John Smulo - Australian Leadership Lessons
Helen Mildenhall - Leadership
Tyler Savage - Moral Leadership - Is it what we need?
Bryan Riley - Leading is to Listen and Obey
Susan Barnes - Give someone else a turn!
Liz Dyer - A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Polls…
Lionel Woods - Why Diverse Leadership is Good for America
Julie Clawson - Leadership Expectations
Ellen Haroutunian - A New Kind Of Leadership
Matt Stone - Converting Leadership
Steve Bradley - Lording or Leading?
Adam Myers - Two types of Leadership
Bethany Stedman - A Leadership Mosaic
Kathy Escobar - I’m Pretty Sure This Book Won’t Make It On The Bestseller List
Fuzzy Orthodoxy - Self Leadership

Every member is a minister... really

In Scripture, every believer is a minster (servant) and every believer is a missionary (sent to proclaim the gospel). No... really... not just in theory. This is not something that's interesting to talk about, it is our identity and purpose as followers of Jesus Christ. Thus, with this blog, I talk about what I'm learning and what I'm living. I'm certainly not perfect, and the people that God has placed around me are not perfect, but we are attempting to serve and proclaim the gospel to the community in which we live. Do we make mistakes? Absolutely! But, we make mistakes while doing... not while thinking or planning or wondering... but doing!

Tuesday morning, Dave Black posted a short article called "Christianity's Prescription for Sick Churches" which included an excerpt from a Bible study that his son Nathan put together. (I've encouraged him to publish the entire Bible study online.) In response to this short excerpt, Dave says the following in general and about Nathan in particular:

Every member of Christ’s Body is a minister. Every function is a ministry. This means, as Nathan implies, that all Christians are to be known by one word: servant. This service to others is an obligation, not an option. The Bible teaches the priesthood of all believers, and not merely a few.

Nathan himself is a rank-and-file part of his small congregation in rural Virginia. There he leads and plays piano and teaches the Bible lesson every Sunday, not as a pastor, but as a parishioner. (The church, in fact, has no full-time "pastor.") This is how he "washes feet" in Jesus’ name. He refuses to be paid for serving. After all, he reasons, I am an able-bodied man and can support myself.

Nathan truly practices what he preaches. What a rich heritage his children will have. No, there is nothing wrong with receiving an occasional love offering from others. But that, it seems clear from Scripture, is to be the exception, not the rule.

It seems like today everyone wants to give or receive a title before actually doing something. Nathan doesn't desire the title "pastor", but he "pastors" just as every believer should do. Nathan doesn't want money for his service... then it wouldn't be service... it would be a job. Instead, Nathan desires to "practice what he preaches" - he is serving the people among whom God has placed him. He wants to be known simply as a servant... like his Lord... who didn't come to be served, but to serve.

What about you? Are you content being known and recognized as simply a servant?

Acts 20 and salaries for pastors

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post called "1 Corinthians 9 and salaries for pastors". That post has turned out to be (in only a few weeks) one of my most read posts. Interestingly, in 1 Corinthians 9 Paul does not mention pastors (elders or bishops). However, in another passage, Paul does talk about the relationship between pastors and financial support.

After a near riot in Ephesus, Paul decided to leave for Macedonia and Greece, where he spent three months. (Acts 20:1-3) He then decided to return to Syria by travelling through Macedonia. At one point, he stopped in Miletus which is near Ephesus, and asked the elders of the church in Ephesus to meet with him. (Acts 20:17-18) For most of the remainder of Acts 20 (vs. 19-35), Luke records what Paul says to the elders of the church in Ephesus.

In the first part of his speech, Paul reminds the elders of his manner of living while he was among them. In the second part of his speech, Paul instructs the elders concerning their ongoing service to the church and the reasons why their service is so important:

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears." (Acts 20:28-31 ESV)

Most believers and most elders consider this instructions to be normative for leaders today. Thus, many books on ecclesiology and leadership will include admonitions for elders (pastors) to "care for the church of God". However, many do not consider the next parts of the speech to be normative.

In the third part of Paul's speech, he once again reminds the elders of his manner of living while he was among them. Then, in the fourth part of the speech, he again instructs the elders concerning how they should live after he departs and the reasons for this:

And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. I coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' (Acts 20:32-35 ESV)

Notice that Paul begins by pointing out his own practices. When he lived in Ephesus, he says that he did not desire anyone's money (silver or gold). Paul is very specific that he worked "with his hands" (and apparently a different kind of work than the previous work that he said he did 'in public and house to house' - Acts 20:18-21) so that he could provide for himself and other people who were with him. In fact, Paul said that they were witnesses to how hard he worked with his hands in order to support himself.

Then, Paul turns his example around. He tells them, "In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak..." The phrase translated "we must" is usually translated "one must" or "it is necessary". In other words, Paul is saying to these elders from Ephesus that it is necessary for them to work hard with their hands like he did so that they will be able to help those who cannot support themselves.

Paul did not expect these elders to receive financial support from others. Instead, he expected them to work so hard (in the same manner that he worked) that they would be able to support themselves and others too. Remember, Paul's example for them was that he had worked hard enough to financial support himself and others. He reminded them of his example, and told them that it was necessary for them to do the same thing.

He finishes his exhortation with the words of Jesus: "It is more blessed to give than to receive." Paul wanted the Ephesian elders to be examples of givers, not examples of takers.

This admonition seems different than the "right" of apostles as found in 1 Corinthians 9 and other passages. In 1 Corinthians 9, for example, Paul says that some have the right "to get their living from the gospel." (1 Cor. 9:14 ESV) I suggesting in my previous post that the "some" in that passage (i.e. "those who proclaim the gospel") are those who are travelling away from the home and their means of support. Of course, some of those travelling, like Paul, could work with their hands wherever they travelled.

But, elders - who were selected from the believers who lived in a city - were already living in the city and working with their hands to support themselves and their families. Paul expected elders to continue working - both "ministry" work and "working with their hands" - both are hard work and both are expected of all believers. This does not mean that people couldn't show their appreciate for elders and others by helping them financially from time to time. But, Paul seems clear in this passage that he expected the elders at Ephesus to work with their hands in order to support themselves and in order to help others.

Now, one question remains: Is this passage normative for all elders or just for the elders at Ephesus? If the first part is normative for all elders (i.e. "Shepherd the flock of God..."), then why would the second part not be normative as well (i.e. "By working hard in this way it is necessary to help the weak")? If you do not think the second part is normative, would you explain what has caused you to reach that conclusion?

Since the post on 1 Corinthians 9 generated some good discussion and good questions, I'm looking forward to the discussion here as well.

Küng on the Church in Corinth

I've recently been introduced to the writings of Hans Küng, a Catholic theologian who has written several books about the church. This excerpt is from his book, The Church, in a chapter called "Ecclesiastical Office as Ministry":

The problem becomes finally acute when we take a look at the Church which we know so much more about than any other of the New Testament Churches: the Church of Corinth. We have a reasonably good idea as to how preaching and the Lord’s Supper were organized, as to what sort of ecclesiastical discipline and order there was. We know from Paul’s lists exactly how many different kinds of ministries there were at Corinth—apostles, prophets, teachers, and so on. But there were no "bishops", deacons or elders. Moreover, when it is a question of restoring order in matters of preaching, the Lord’s Supper and Church discipline, Paul never addresses himself to a single official or a single group of officials, responsible for all the community. He addresses himself throughout to all and at the same time to each individual. With regard to the irregularities that had occurred at the Lord’s Supper, where the writer of the pastor letters might have said to the Corinth community something like: 'Timothy is to give the sign for the celebration to begin' (or perhaps even: 'Timothy is to celebrate the Lord’s Supper'?), what Paul in fact says to the Corinthians is: 'When you come together to eat, wait for one another' (I Cor. 11:33). With regard to the confusion which had arisen through several members of the community preaching during worship, where the writer of the pastoral letters might have said something like: 'Titus is to decide who shall speak' (or even perhaps: 'Titus is to give the sermon'?), what Paul actually says is: '… let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn… you can all prophesy one by one' (14:27 and 31)… All of this is more than an argumentum e silentio [argument from silence]. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to assert that there existed in the Corinth community, in Paul’s time, an office of leadership, whether elders or the later monarchic kind of episcopate. (403)

While I disagree with Küng concerning the pastoral epistles (i.e., the author did not lay out rules for Timothy, Titus, and other rulers to control others or to control the church meeting), Küng raises some very good questions that we should consider.

For now, consider the question of leadership. Küng recognizes that the church in general and academic works concerning eccesiology in particular have blurred the distinction between the church and leadership. He says:

The fundamental error of ecclesiologies which turned out, in fact, to be no more than hierarchologies (where ecclesia=hierarchia) was that they failed to realize that all who hold office are primarily (both temporally and factually speaking) not dignitaries but believers, members of the fellowship of believers; and that compared with this fundamental Christian fact any office they may hold is of secondary if not tertiary importance. (363)

There may or may not have been leaders (elders or deacons) at Corinth. But, Paul did not consider their presence or absence relevant to the problems at hand. He did not tell the elders to handle discipline problems (1 Cor. 5). He did not tell the deacons to take of issues surrounding the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11). He did not tell any leaders to take control of the meeting to ensure that it did not get out of hand (1 Cor. 14).

Yet, today, when there are problems, everyone turns to the leaders. Why? Why do we presuppose that leaders are to make decisions while others are to either approve or disapprove of those decisions? If no one approached a brother or sinner who was sinning, whose "fault" would that be? If the Lord's Supper gets unmanageable, who is responsible for ensuring that everyone is considering others first? If some people disrupt the meeting, who should help get things settled down? Why do we usually think of leaders first? Why did Paul not think of leaders first?

The Holy Spirit has made you overseers

Back in February 2007, I wrote a blog post called "The Holy Spirit has made you overseers". The post was prompted by a conversation that I had about the role of the Holy Spirit in appointing elders. It generated a good discussion then, and I hope it will do the same this time.

----------------------------------------

The Holy Spirit has made you overseers

We are currently attempting to recognize additional elders among the church. We believe that a pastor, an elder, and an overseer are the same. In other words, an elder is a pastor is an overseer.

Recently, someone brought this verse to our attention:

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. (Acts 20:28 ESV)

As we discussed this verse, and how we should apply it, we noticed the phrase "the Holy Spirit has made you overseers." This brought up a very interesting question: At what point does a person become a pastor/elder/overseer?

According to Acts 20:28 (above), it is the Holy Spirit who makes someone a pastor. Does the Holy Spirit do this as a response to the actions of a church? I don't think so. Instead, I believe that the Holy Spirit makes someone an overseer regardless of the actions or lack of actions of the church itself.

In other words, the Holy Spirit places someone in a group of believers and subsequently gives that person the responsibility of "caring for" (that is, being an overseer for) that group of believers. The church is then supposed to respond to the work of the Holy Spirit and to recognize that individual as an overseer.

If the church does not recognize that person as an overseer, the church's action does not remove the responsibility from that person, because the responsibility was given by the Holy Spirit not the church. If the church recognizes different people as overseers, the church's action does not remove the responsibility from the first person, because the responsibility was given by the Holy Spirit not the church.

Now, this is not the way that we normally think of pastors/elders/overseers. However, it does seem to align with what Scripture says about the work of the Holy Spirit among a group of believers (especially Acts 20:28 above). How does a church ensure that the people the church recognizes as overseers are the same people that the Holy Spirit has made overseers?

1 Corinthians 9 and salaries for pastors

In my post "Pastors and Churches and Salaries" from last week, I started a discussion concerning why a church might not allow pastors to "work with his hands," but would instead desire to pay pastors a salary even if the pastors did not desire it. I did not intend to discuss my position on pastors and salaries, but listed some previous blog posts as background. However, some commenters brought up 1 Corinthians 9, and I thought it would be beneficial to discuss this passage.

I want to begin this discussion by stating what should be obvious. This post represents my own interpretation, although I think it is informed by several other studies. Also, I do not believe that this should be a basis of fellowship. Without hesitation I fellowship with those who disagree with me on this topic.

To begin, let's place 1 Corinthians 9 in its context within Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth. In 1 Conrinthians 8-10, Paul exhorts the "strong" in Corinth to consider the "weak" when making decisions. He tells the "strong" not to exercise their rights if that would hinder the faith of the "weak". He concludes chapter 8 by saying that if eating meat would cause his brother to stumble, then Paul would never eat meat again.

This leads to chapter 9, especially verses 1-15. In this chapter, Paul gives an example from his own life. As an apostle, Paul had the right to be supported by the church in Corinth. However, he relinquished that right so that he would not be a hindrance to the spread of the gospel there (1 Cor 9:12, 15). Paul, as an example of the "strong", gave up his right to support so that the faith of the "weak" would not be hindered.

(By the way, 2 Corinthians tells us that Paul's refusal to accept support from the Corinthians caused some of doubt his apostleship. Nevertheless, Paul says that he would still not accept support from the Corinthians while he was in Corinth (2 Cor 11:7-9).)

As part of his argument, Paul assumes that apostles have the right to receive support ("eat and drink" - 1 Cor 9:4 - "refrain from working for a living" - 1 Cor 9:6). To reinforce this right, Paul gives several examples: a soldier does not go to war at his own expense, the one who plants a vineyard eats from the produce of the vineyard, the one who tends a flock receives milk from the flock (1 Cor 9:7), the law says not to muzzle an ox while it is threshing (1 Cor 9:9), and those who serve in the temple receive a part of the sacrificial offerings as food (1 Cor 9:13). Paul concludes his defense of "support" with the following statement: "... [T]he Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:14 ESV)

Few would disagree with my interpretation so far. In fact, most people agree on the meaning of this passage. However, problems come along when we start asking questions about the implications and significance of this passage for today.

Primarily, the disagreements revolve around the extent of the metaphors: who is like the soldier; who is like the farmer; who is like the one who herds the flock; who is like the ox; who is like the temple servants?

Many begin to answer this question with 1 Corinthians 9:14 - "[T]he Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:14 ESV) Some argue that since pastors proclaim the gospel, then they should "get their living by the gospel", that is, they should be supported by the church. However, we should make a couple of observations about this verse before we associate it with pastors and elders.

The phrase "those who proclaim the gospel" could be associated with anyone who proclaims the good news of Jesus Christ. Or, the phrase could be limited to a certain group of people who proclaim the gospel. If we decide that the phrase references ANYONE who proclaims the gospel, then it certainly includes pastors and elders, assuming that they proclaim the gospel. However, the phrase would also include anyone who proclaims the gospel. Thus, if the phrase "those who proclaim the gospel" actually references "anyone", then we should be prepared to support anyone who proclaims the gospel. We should not limit our support only to pastors and elders.

However, if we limit the phrase "those who proclaim the gospel" to a certain group of people, then we must explain why we limit the phrase to that group. For me, the only adequate explanation is to limit the phrase to the group discussed within its own context. What group is discussed in 1 Corinthians 9? Apostles and others who travel around. This is indicated in the first few verses of the chapter:

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? (1 Corinthians 9:1-6 ESV)

Remember that Paul is discussing his "right" to support, which he is relinquishing for the benefit of the "weak" in Corinth. According to 1 Cor 9:1-6, this "right" is shared by Paul, Barnabas, other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Peter. Notice specifically that "other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas" have the "right to take along a believing wife". This is not discussing their right to be married, but their right to take their wife with them as they are travelling, and thus the entire family would have the right to be supported. The key here is that "the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas" are TAKING ALONG a believing wife. Paul does NOT say that they have the right to support because they are apostles, brothers of the Lord, or Peter. He says they have the right to support because they are travelling around, and thus TAKING ALONG their wives.

When discussing the ox metaphor (1 Cor 9:9) which Paul took from Deuteronomy 25:4, Richard Hays agrees that the metaphor is used in this passage with specific reference to apostles. He says:

[Deut 25:4] functions as an elegant metaphor for just the point that Paul wants to make: the ox being driven around and around on the threshing floor should not be cruelly restrained from eating the food that his own labor is making available... so, too, with apostles. (First Corinthians, 122)

Furthermore, most commentators agree that Paul takes his statement in 1 Corinthians 9:14 from either Matthew 10:10, Luke 10:7, or a combination of both. In both of these instances, the Lord is also giving instructions to those who are being sent away from their homes. Thus, the instructions are given to those travelling around in order to proclaim the gospel, not to those who are remaining in the same place to proclaim the gospel.

So, in the context of 1 Corinthians 9, and in the context where Paul found his command from the Lord, the reference is to those who are travelling away from home in order to proclaim the gospel. If we do not think we should give support to ANYONE who proclaims the gospel, then the only limiting group within the context is the group of believers who are travelling away from home (and their own source of income) in order to proclaim the gospel.

It is possible to decide that the phrase "those who proclaim the gospel" in 1 Cor 9:14 reference to a different limited group. However, there is no way to choose a different group from the context of 1 Corinthians 9. There is no other group listed in the context of 1 Corinthians 9. Thus, the choice of any other group (i.e. pastors, elders, teachers) would be arbitrary.

Therefore, in my interpretation, when Paul discusses his right to receive support in 1 Corinthians 9, he's talking about a right that is possessed by those who travel away from home in order to proclaim the gospel. He is not talking about a right that is possessed by any other group of believers. Since Paul (and Peter) specifically talk of pastors and elders as being those who are chosen or recognized from among the church (in other words, they stay in their home location and do not travel from place to place), pastors and elders would not fall under the context of this passage.

Pastors and Churches and Salaries

About a year ago, I wrote a series on pastors and salaries. These are the posts in that series:

1. "What about work?"
2. "What about work for elders/pastors?"
3. "What about honor for elders/pastors?"
4. "What about the right of elders/pastors?"
5. "Summary - Should elders/pastors be paid a salary?"

In that series, I concluded that we cannot defend paying a pastor a salary from Scripture. I understand that some of my readers disagree with me. That's fine. I have many friends who are paid pastors. This is not the point of this blog post.

Because of the series on pastors and salaries, I've received more and more "search hits" concerning this topic. I've also received more and more emails concerning this topic. It is a very sensitive topic both to pastors/elders and to churches.

Recently, I've talked with a few paid pastors who trying to decide whether or not they should stop being paid by the church. Instead, they would get a job in order to "work with their hands" to provide support for themselves and their families. (I'm assuming that those who consider paying a salary to a pastor to be scriptural, would also allow a pastor to choose not to receive a salary. But, I could be wrong.)

However, each of those pastors has been troubled by something. The biggest problem to them does not seem to be ge