Are they Irresponsible Pastors...?

[xyluz]

I know these pastors, who have "testimonies" that go something like this:

 

"Everything i have is by gifts and offering, there is no time when i needed something that God has not provided"

 

"On my wedding day, i didn't spend a dime"

 

"My car was a gift, my children's school fees is taken care of by the church ..."

 

"My house was a gift from a church member"

 

These are wonderful testimonies, i mean, yes God is our provision... no matter what we do for a living, i personally believe, all we have is given to us by Him (besides, the bible did say so),

 

But each time i hear such things from Pastors, it sounds to me like a very irresponsible way for a man to live.

 

I would think every man should be able to cater for his family...

 

Now, i don't know of those who God gave instructions not to do any work for themselves (like full time missionaries), but for those who don't have instructions from God...

 

 

It is so extreme that they go into fasting and praying for things like children school fees, car repairs etc and eventually someone from the church brings something, or meets that need...

 

I think it is irresponsible to live that way.

 

I will appreciate your opinion on this.

[OneLight]

Not one Apostle ever have their life given to them on a silver platter.  Every one of them worked for a living so they did not have to depend on the offerings, which should go to the needy.

[Guest]

Even Paul supported himself by working, make tents I believe. He was quite vocal on this. Yet, reading 1 Corinthians 9:7-14 - "Who ever goes to war at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock? Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain." Is it oxen God is concerned about? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more? Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel." - we see that Paul states that he is entitled to be supported by the Church. So, if we go through these verses carefully we can see:

 

a. In an army, the soldiers are supported (Who ever goes to war at his own expense?). The farmer is fed by the field he works in (Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit?). The shepherd is supported by the sheep he cares for (who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock?). Therefore, it should not seem strange to the Corinthian Christians that Paul has the right to be supported by the people he ministers to.

 

b. Does not the law say the same also? Paul's right is also stated in the Mosaic Law. He appeals to Scripture, not only human illustrations (Do I say these things as a mere man?).

 

i. In Deuteronomy 25:4, God commanded You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain. This law simply commanded the humane treatment of a working animal. In those days, grain was broken away from its husk by an ox walking on it repeatedly (usually in a circle). It was cruel to force the ox to walk over all that grain, yet to muzzle him so he couldn't eat of it.

 

ii. Is it oxen God is concerned about? The principle of Deuteronomy 25:4 is much more important than providing for the needs of oxen. God establishes the principle that a minister has the right to be supported by the people he is ministering to. Since oxen cannot read, this verse was not written for them.

 

iii. The law about oxen stated a principle that had greater application. However, "We must not make the mistake of thinking that Paul means to explain that commandment allegorically; for some empty-headed creatures make this an excuse for turning everything into allegory, so that they change dogs into men, trees into angels, and convert the whole of Scripture into an amusing game." (Calvin)

 

c. Why? That he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partakers of this hope. It would be cruel to starve those who are providing and preparing your food. To do so would take away all their hope. It makes them feel abused and unappreciated.

 

d. If we have sown spiritual things: Paul here makes it plain that it is right for the spiritual work of God's ministers to be repaid with the material support of the people they minister unto.

 

e. If others are partakers of this right: It wasn't that the Corinthian Christians refused to support anyone in ministry. No, others are partakers of this right. The problem with the Corinthian Christians was they refused to support Paul, and thought less of him because he did not receive it.

 

f. Nevertheless we have not used the right . . . lest we hinder the gospel of Christ: Just as strongly as Paul affirms his right to be supported by the people he ministers unto, he will also affirm his right to not use that right, if using it might hinder the gospel of Christ.

 

i. Here we see Paul's real heart. Paid or not paid, it did not matter to him. What mattered was the work of the gospel. Was it more effective for the gospel if Paul should receive support? Then he would receive it. Was it more effective for the gospel if Paul should work to support himself? Then he would do that. What mattered was that the gospel not be hindered in any way.

 

ii. If Paul was willing to deny himself such an important right for the good of the gospel and the Corinthian Christians, then should not also the Corinthian Christians deny their "right" to eat meat sacrificed to idols for the same good?

 

g. The Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel: This summary statement is conclusive. Some might say, "Yes, the apostles had the right to be paid, but no one today has that right." But this command from the Lord means that anyone who preaches the gospel has the right to be supported by those he preaches to.

 

i. Should modern ministers assert or release their right to be supported? They should do whichever will serve the gospel and the church better. But if a minister does take money for support, he should work hard to earn that money.

 

ii. "If a man who does not labor takes his maintenance from the Church of God, it is not only a domestic theft but a sacrilege. He that gives up his time to this labor has a right to the support of himself and his family: he who takes more than is sufficient for this purpose is a covetous hireling. He who does nothing for the cause of God and religion, and yet obliges the Church to support him, and minister to his idleness, irregularities, luxury, avarice, and ambition, is a monster for whom human language has not yet got a name." (Clarke)

 

h. Where has the Lord commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel? We have no record of those specific words of Jesus, but in two places He states the principle. In Matthew 10:10 (for a worker is worthy of his food), and in Luke 10:8 (Whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you).

[Ezra]

While those who seriously and sincerely labor in the Word and doctrine are entitled to compensation, it is not only unbecoming, but unwise, and uncalled for, to publicly boast about how the Lord has provided for pastors and their finances. There has been a trend for many years, and among many ministers of the Word (particularly televangelists), to engage in lavish lifestyles and impose on God's people.  That is totally unethical and unacceptable.

[Guest]

Boasting, yes. I agree. That is what the prosperity gospel folks do. I was under the impression, though, that the OP was about ministers (preachers) accepting and living off of the giving of his flock. Maybe I was wrong in that assumption?

[Ezra]

Boasting, yes. I agree. That is what the prosperity gospel folks do. I was under the impression, though, that the OP was about ministers (preachers) accepting and living off of the giving of his flock. Maybe I was wrong in that assumption?

Either way, they have no scriptural authority to talk about these things. The command is "Preach the Gospel", and sadly enough the true and complete Gospel is rarely proclaimed as it should be.

[Guest]

I agreed with you. What's the problem?

[missmuffet]

"Everything i have is by gifts and offering, there is no time when i needed something that God has not provided"

That sounds ok.God does provide.

 

"On my wedding day, i didn't spend a dime"

I do not know exactly what he means by this comment.

 

"My car was a gift, my children's school fees is taken care of by the church ..."

That sounds ok.

 

"My house was a gift from a church member"

That sounds ok.God provided for this man.

 

If this pastor was boasting or being haughty that is not right.

I used to attend a Church that started out so small in a school.This Pastor was blessed.He gave the best sermons and you could tell that he loved the Lord.People like him.I have been to his house.Everything I saw was very plain and simple.Nothing extravagant at all.The Church became a very large church and Congregation.There is no way that this Pastor could have a job on the side.The Church is too big.Being a Pastor at that Church now is a full time job.He is not prideful or boastful.He does not have a private jet or a couple of mansions or expensive cars like several other WOF pastors that are ripping people off.

[xyluz]

Boasting, yes. I agree. That is what the prosperity gospel folks do. I was under the impression, though, that the OP was about ministers (preachers) accepting and living off of the giving of his flock. Maybe I was wrong in that assumption?

 

Its not about accepting gift from the church or living off the giving of the flocks... 

 

Yes, that's ok.. for a pastor to be cared for by the church or for any church member cared for by the church.

 

But, this is my challenge with the whole thing...

 

Shouldn't a man who is not a full time pastor have a job on the side.

 

As a matter of fact, one of those pastors is an assistant pastor in his church... 

 

Yet, as at yesterday when he came for a visit at my place, he was still talking about these things... and i sincerely felt its just wrong...

[Guest]

Yes, that is boasting and probably inappropriate (I say probably because I don't know exactly what he said.) But you know, GOD will handle it, if He feels that it is inappropriate. In the mean time, you could always talk to him about how such talk makes you feel uncomfortable and tell him why.