# Pastor Salary (Baptist Edition)



## LongWar

I recognize this is an emotional topic for many, especially those who "make their living off the gospel" as many authors put it. I have been reading quite a bit in favor of bi-vocational ministry lately and wanted to ask why, in an over-saturated ministry environment we tolerate funding so many full-time pastors, let alone church staffs (who tend to be the spouses of "influencers". deacons, or other elders, from what I've seen). Most reformed Baptists advocate for having a plurality of elders, and while the number of churches in America is shrinking, just the SBC seminaries are churning out over a thousand graduates each year, not to mention many more from independent seminaries. Given the disproportionate amount of money that we as Americans keep in domestic ministry rather than missions (85%?), how can we justify this?

To me, it seems that funding full-time ministry staffs is due to laziness, or the desire to avoid hurt feelings. Why don't we see more churches that have the elders on a preaching rotation and expect them to work a normal job like the rest of the congregation? Surely given the number of men who pastors have endorsed as qualified to attend and graduate seminary, we can spread the ministry load (not just preaching).

Again, I recognize this is a golden (no pun intended) calf for many since our paychecks are how we provide for our families, but I cannot see how we as American Baptists will be able to one day stand before God and justify spending so much on ourselves. I don't see how hypothetical congregant could justify paying a tithe to the local church, knowing that only one of the six elders is doing 98% of the work. Why not spread the load and make ministry "service" rather than a "job"? I would bet we would also see far less pastoral burnout as well.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Why do you assume that America isn’t a mission field? And why do you assume that being a pastor isn’t a full time job worthy of full time pay?

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## LongWar

Bill The Baptist said:


> Why do you assume that America isn’t a mission field? And why do you assume that being a pastor isn’t a full time job worthy of full time pay?


Can you point to anywhere in America where a church isn't within driving distance? The gospel has been preached here. Why are we spending so much to re-preach it when there are many parts of the world that haven't been reached?

Regarding your second question, as a capitalist, I believe the market will determine the value of an individual's financial worth, so in that sense being a pastor is a job worthy of full-time pay. As someone who wants to be financially responsible with the church's tithes though, can you tell me why one paid pastor is of more value to the congregation than four unpaid splitting the work?

... I'm not trying to debate or attack. I would like to hear why some people, especially those in full-time, paid ministry positions feel that it is justifiable, given the plethora of qualified Christian men, let alone seminary graduates.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

LongWar said:


> Can you point to anywhere in America where a church isn't within driving distance? The gospel has been preached here. Why are we spending so much to re-preach it when there are many parts of the world that haven't been reached?
> 
> Regarding your second question, as a capitalist, I believe the market will determine the value of an individual's financial worth, so in that sense being a pastor is a job worthy of full-time pay. As someone who wants to be financially responsible with the church's tithes though, can you tell me why one paid pastor is of more value to the congregation than four unpaid splitting the work?
> 
> ... I'm not trying to debate or attack. I would like to hear why some people, especially those in full-time, paid ministry positions feel that it is justifiable, given the plethora of qualified Christian men, let alone seminary graduates.



Well there’s a lot more to it than just preaching once a week. I preach three times a week, plus deal with counseling, visitation, overseeing operations of both the church and our 250 student Christian school. Could this be spilt up among several unpaid people? Probably, but it’s doubtful they would be able to provide cohesive leadership to such an organization.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Edward

LongWar said:


> knowing that only one of the six elders is doing 98% of the work.



Where did you come up with that number? Although I have a pretty good guess where you pulled it from....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## LongWar

Edward said:


> Where did you come up with that number? Although I have a pretty good guess where you pulled it from....


Obviously a generalization. Not all Baptist churches have six elders.


----------



## B.L.

LongWar said:


> I have been reading quite a bit in favor of bi-vocational ministry lately...



Can you share what you've been reading on bi-vocational ministry? I'm interested in learning more. I'm of the opinion an increasing number of men will need to serve in this capacity in the future, not so much by choice but by necessity.


----------



## ZackF

I noticed much ambiguous language and an overall lack of citations for these so-called observations. Is your complaint contemporary baptist ecclesiology? What is your biblical support for unpaid(ish) staff doing the preaching?


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

Some observations brother:

1. Acts makes it pretty clear that the elders are supposed to be devoted to the Word and sacraments. They had to give up waiting tables to devote themselves to the Word. For this reason I don't think teaching elders should have multiple jobs.
2. The bible makes it clear that a pastor should make his living off the gospel. The pastor feeds us spiritually and in return we feed him physically.
3. The church's only function isn't to preach the gospel then move on. We need the gospel every week, and we need to be fed consitantly every week. 

I know what you're trying to say, but I don't think there's an easy answer.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Your signature says you are a Reformed Baptist.

I am also a Reformed Baptist.

Our Confession of Faith, the 26th Chapter, has the following to say on the topic:

10.____ The work of pastors being constantly to attend the service of Christ, in his churches, in the ministry of the word and prayer, with watching for their souls, as they that must give an account to Him;* it is incumbent on the churches to whom they minister, not only to give them all due respect, but also to communicate to them of all their good things according to their ability, so as they may have a comfortable supply, without being themselves entangled in secular affairs; and may also be capable of exercising hospitality towards others;* and this is required by the law of nature, and by the express order of our Lord Jesus, who hath ordained that they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. 

This seems fairly contrary to the "bi-vocational Pastor as preference" idea.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 5


----------



## Jack K

We spend money to pay an honorable salary to full-time, well-trained pastors because we realize the ministry of the word is of great value. You wouldn't ordinarily want your surgeon to be one of a bunch of part-time, trained-at-home guys, would you? Of course not, because you value highly capable surgery. Well, highly-trained doctors of the soul are much more valuable.

Now, the point about supporting missions is a good one. If the American church gave to the Lord's work at the levels it is capable of giving, and if men were willing to go, we could also supply most of the developing world with well-trained pastors. We absolutely should be doing this at the same time that we supply ourselves with pastors.

But the idea that we would prefer to make do with less is a bad one for anybody.


----------



## kodos

LongWar said:


> I recognize this is an emotional topic for many, especially those who "make their living off the gospel" as many authors put it.



By "many authors", are you speaking of the Lord?

"Even so *the Lord has commanded* that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:14)

Reactions: Like 10 | Amen 5


----------



## User20004000

LongWar said:


> I recognize this is an emotional topic for many, especially those who "make their living off the gospel" as many authors put it. I have been reading quite a bit in favor of bi-vocational ministry lately and wanted to ask why, in an over-saturated ministry environment we tolerate funding so many full-time pastors, let alone church staffs (who tend to be the spouses of "influencers". deacons, or other elders, from what I've seen). Most reformed Baptists advocate for having a plurality of elders, and while the number of churches in America is shrinking, just the SBC seminaries are churning out over a thousand graduates each year, not to mention many more from independent seminaries. Given the disproportionate amount of money that we as Americans keep in domestic ministry rather than missions (85%?), how can we justify this?
> 
> To me, it seems that funding full-time ministry staffs is due to laziness, or the desire to avoid hurt feelings. Why don't we see more churches that have the elders on a preaching rotation and expect them to work a normal job like the rest of the congregation? Surely given the number of men who pastors have endorsed as qualified to attend and graduate seminary, we can spread the ministry load (not just preaching).
> 
> Again, I recognize this is a golden (no pun intended) calf for many since our paychecks are how we provide for our families, but I cannot see how we as American Baptists will be able to one day stand before God and justify spending so much on ourselves. I don't see how hypothetical congregant could justify paying a tithe to the local church, knowing that only one of the six elders is doing 98% of the work. Why not spread the load and make ministry "service" rather than a "job"? I would bet we would also see far less pastoral burnout as well.



"make their living off the gospel"

I’ll pass on that tenor of that remark.

“I have been reading quite a bit in favor of bi-vocational ministry lately and wanted to ask why, in an over-saturated ministry environment we tolerate funding so many full-time pastors...”

Because what the Galatians need to hear isn’t what they need to hear in Corinth.

“Given the disproportionate amount of money that we as Americans keep in domestic ministry rather than missions (85%?), how can we justify this?”

Justify what? Please be specific.

“Why don't we see more churches that have the elders on a preaching rotation and expect them to work a normal job like the rest of the congregation?”

Rarely do Ruling Elders know their English Bibles let alone the confession they vow to uphold. I’m now settled three office. In the PCA I’ve heard modalistic prayers; a defining of justification as “a fancy word for a change of heart”; a denial that we can have infallible assurance of salvation; affirmation that covenant children join the church upon credible profession; an address to the lost that “Jesus died for you” - all of these by ordained ministers!

Shall I provide a litany from the unschooled elders? It’ll make your blood boil.

“I don't see how hypothetical congregant could justify paying a tithe to the local church, knowing that only one of the six elders is doing 98% of the work.”

Five of the six don’t get paid and ministers should earn what the top professional in the parish earns, lest we undervalue the ministry of the Word. What, we keep them poor and God will keep them humble?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Herald

LongWar said:


> I'm not trying to debate


Actually, you are.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## JimmyH

My pastor preaches a morning and an evening sermon on the Lord's Day. He mentioned to me once, years ago, that it takes him 8 to 10 hours to prepare a sermon. I was quite shocked. I don't know what I thought, maybe just whip something up the night before. So I googled the question of how long an average, if there is such a thing, sermon should take to compose.

Here is a thread I started on the question a couple of years ago. John MacArthur takes up to 32 hours. Other well known pastors vary, some more, some less. All but a couple take at least a day's work, if not more.

Add to that my pastor is frequently ministering to individual members and families. If it ain't one thing, it's another. I've found, since I've been a deacon, that his plate, in terms of pastoral work, is quite full, in addition to his feeding the flock on the Lord's Day.

The years in seminary, hours of study, and dollars to finance it, are another thing I might mention, although that goes back 20 years. Suffice to say he couldn't do the job he does for the congregation if it was an avocation rather than a vocation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## StephenMartyr

RWD said:


> a denial that we can have infallible assurance of salvation



For every believer? I know that's debatable.

Isa 50:10 Who is among you that feareth the LORD, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the LORD, and stay upon his God. 

Psalm 88 in particular

I'm just saying though. Not trying to start another argument in here. The rest were indeed weird enough.


----------



## StephenMartyr

As for this main discussion, I'm surprised no one has said anything about the possibility of pastors or elders working_ as well as_ preaching. Paul did.

Co 9:13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
1Co 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
1Co 9:15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.


Act 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;
Act 18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome: ) and came unto them.
Act 18:3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.
Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.


Act 20:33 I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.
Act 20:34 Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.
Act 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.


I don't know...just a thought.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

StephenMartyr said:


> As for this main discussion, I'm surprised no one has said anything about the possibility of pastors or elders working_ as well as_ preaching. Paul did.


The question is not about the lawfulness of ministers being bi-vocational. That is something I think all of us would say is at times necessary and lawful. What we're debating is the lawfulness/propriety of having fully supported vocational ministers, to which the OP expressed an objection.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## User20004000

StephenMartyr said:


> For every believer? I know that's debatable.
> 
> Isa 50:10 Who is among you that feareth the LORD, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the LORD, and stay upon his God.
> 
> Psalm 88 in particular
> 
> I'm just saying though. Not trying to start another argument in here. The rest were indeed weird enough.


 
My claim was that I’ve heard it denied that “we can have infallible assurance of salvation.”

You responded with, “For every believer? I know that's debatable.”

The prospect of infallible assurance is available to every believer. That’s plain Westminster standards. It’s available to all who “truly believe.”

“yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, *may in this life be certainly assured that they are in a state of grace*, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.* This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith*, founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God: which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.”

I realize that’s debatable but what isn’t?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

*Some thoughts:*

(1). First, the statistics:

"Fewer than two-thirds (62.2 percent) of churches in the United States have a full-time pastor, according to the 2015 Faith Communities Today survey. That’s down from 71.4 percent in 2010.

Median Sunday attendance dropped from 105 people to 80 during the same time, and the median annual budget fell from $150,000 to $125,000."
(Faithcommunitiestoday.org)

See also: https://baptistcourier.com/2016/11/bivocational-ministry-new-normal/ "Bivocational Ministtry is the new normal" the article reads. 


(2). Second, yes, the American church is very wealthy. Unfortunately, they use the funds for buildings and stages/audio equipment and programs and not pastors and missionaries.

(3). Third, most US churches are shrinking or under 100 members. The large megachurches are rolling in money. But many small churches struggle.

(4). Even if there is a plurality of elders, there is often only 1 man normally preaching each week. This man needs to be supported.

(5). The stat is not really that 85% goes to domestic ministries instead of missions. The stat is more like 98%, and only 2 cents for every dollar goes to missions. "Of every dollar given to a Protestant church, the average amount that goes to overseas missions is two cents." https://world.wng.org/2005/10/who_gives_two_cents_for_missions 

Also, I've never really heard of churches giving their excess money to help other poor churches to pay their pastors. This should also be considered a worthy ministry. Even in association of churches, this seems rare among the baptists. 

(6). It seems to never fail, as soon as a church grows a little bit, they usually do not add missionaries to support, nor do they save the money, but, instead, begin a new expensive church expansion project. 

(7). I've heard of many churches paying for their musical band, or their "music minister" - this seems a waste. I suppose they think it all evens out since music draws a crowd sometimes and those added folks then give more money. But it seems odd to pay someone to "worship" - it seems a little mercenary. Many churches seem bloated with paid staff, sometimes up to 8-10 at bigger churches. 

(8). Many churches don't seem to save any money. They spend what they get. 

(9). Many churches will call a pastor and say things like "We can't pay you much..." and pay him very poorly for years. If a pastor were to ask for more, he'd be labeled as unspiritual, etc. There seems to be a culture of stinginess in some churches. https://www.christianpost.com/voice/how-not-to-compensate-your-pastor.html

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange

RWD said:


> I’m now settled three office.



Does my heart good, Ron! Does my heart good!

Why? Because I am a clerical elitist? No. Because I do not think that a man should essay to be a preacher of the Word (a minister of Word and Sacrament) without the gifts and calling for such.

I've known and worked with many fantastic ruling elders. They were fit to govern, engage in church administration, to discern theologically, to watch over the life and doctrine of the minister, to visit, counsel, pray with and for the flock, etc.

But they were not gifted and called to be preachers. That is no mark against them, but that is an additional gifting and calling that teaching elders have that ruling elders do not. And thus it is not given to them week in and week out to enter the sacred desk and to proclaim without fear or favor, "Thus saith the Lord!"

Truth be told, there are enough ministers who evidently shouldn't be there, who don't seem to be able to preach their way out of wet paper sack. We don't need more men entering into the sacred desk who have no business there. We need rather to be praying for God to gift and call men who really can preach the Word. We need to support these men in seminary as we examine them and discern such.

And we need to pay them an honorable wage so that they can live reasonably among us and proclaim the glorious riches of Christ. Here is the fourth question asked of our congregations when ordaining and/or installing a man into ministerial office: "And do you promise to continue to him, while he is your pastor, that worldly maintenance which you have promised, and whatever else you may see needful for the honor of religion and his comfort among you?"

Some might prefer that it work some other way. But we can't, by a mere exercise of our will, make all other church governors fit pulpiteers. Only the Lord can gift and call. We, in the seminary and the church, can only work to hone the gifts that He has given and to confirm that call.

We can question how we do everything in our churches and wonder if x or y wouldn't be better. There's always a place for making sure that our practices are biblical. There's also a need not to dither but to get on with the work to which He has called the church (and our historic understanding of it): to gather and perfect the saints until the end of the world. If churches imagine that they can go about this task by having men neither gifted nor called to be ministers to perform the central task of preaching, they are sadly deceived.

Let's get on with the work to which he has called us, whether in the office of minister, elder, deacon, or general office of believer. This is how the church, in dependence on Her Lord, goes forward.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 3


----------



## User20004000

Alan D. Strange said:


> Does my heart good, Ron! Does my heart good!
> 
> Why? Because I am a clerical elitist? No. Because I do not think that a man should essay to be a preacher of the Word (a minister of Word and Sacrament) without the gifts and calling for such.
> 
> I've known and worked with many fantastic ruling elders. They were fit to govern, engage in church administration, to discern theologically, to watch over the life and doctrine of the minister, to visit, counsel, pray with and for the flock, etc.
> 
> But they were not gifted and called to be preachers. That is no mark against them, but that is an additional gifting and calling that teaching elders have that ruling elders do not. And thus it is not given to them week in and week out to enter the sacred desk and to proclaim without fear or favor, "Thus saith the Lord!"
> 
> Truth be told, there are enough ministers who evidently shouldn't be there, who don't seem to be able to preach their way out of wet paper sack. We don't need more men entering into the sacred desk who have no business there. We need rather to be praying for God to gift and call men who really can preach the Word. We need to support these men in seminary as we examine them and discern such.
> 
> And we need to pay them an honorable wage so that they can live reasonably among us and proclaim the glorious riches of Christ. Here is the fourth question asked of our congregations when ordaining and/or installing a man into ministerial office: "And do you promise to continue to him, while he is your pastor, that worldly maintenance which you have promised, and whatever else you may see needful for the honor of religion and his comfort among you?"
> 
> Some might prefer that it work some other way. But we can't, by a mere exercise of our will, make all other church governors fit pulpiteers. Only the Lord can gift and call. We, in the seminary and the church, can only work to hone the gifts that He has given and to confirm that call.
> 
> We can question how we do everything in our churches and wonder if x or y wouldn't be better. There's always a place for making sure that our practices are biblical. There's also a need not to dither but to get on with the work to which He has called the church (and our historic understanding of it): to gather and perfect the saints until the end of the world. If churches imagine that they can go about this task by having men neither gifted nor called to be ministers to perform the central task of preaching, they are sadly deceived.
> 
> Let's get on with the work to which he has called us, whether in the office of minister, elder, deacon, or general office of believer. This is how the church, in dependence on Her Lord, goes forward.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



I’ll take it one step further, Brother. I’m persuaded that the reading of the Word is the ministry of the Word. So, I’d prefer that only ministers read the word in congregational worship (and preferably the minister who is going to expound the text). One clarification. I’m real fine with responsive reading, but I find that’s more akin to congregational worship given the full blown participation responsive reading contemplates.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

RWD said:


> I’m persuaded that the reading of the Word is the ministry of the Word.



Certainly, the first part of WLC 156 teaches that public reading is restricted and the structure of the questions suggest the integral link between public reading and preaching of the Word. I also agree that is to be distinguished from responsive reading. In my view, this all needs to be recovered and our contemporary innovations haven't proven a blessing. 

Q. 156. _Is the Word of God to be read by all?_
A. Although all are not to be permitted to read the word publicly to the congregation, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves, and with their families: to which end, the holy Scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages.

Q. 157. _How is the Word of God to be read?_
A. The holy Scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very Word of God, and that he only can enable us to understand them; with desire to know, believe, and obey the will of God revealed in them; with diligence, and attention to the matter and scope of them; with meditation, application, self-denial, and prayer.

Q. 158. _By whom is the Word of God to be preached?_
A. The Word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted, and also duly approved and called to that office.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Romans922

I'm surprised on this thread full of ministers that no one has mentioned the most relevant verse on this subject repeated throughout the Scriptures, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain."

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Smeagol

Alan D. Strange said:


> gifting and calling that teaching elders have that ruling elders do not.



Have you known any REs who do have the desire and gift?

If you had such, what would you do? Allow them to exhort from the pulpit or lead a sabbath school? Would you encourage them to go to seminary and your congregation to support the training?

Just looking for insight.


----------



## LongWar

B.L. McDonald said:


> Can you share what you've been reading on bi-vocational ministry? I'm interested in learning more. I'm of the opinion an increasing number of men will need to serve in this capacity in the future, not so much by choice but by necessity.


The book that I have found to be the most impactful and direct on the subject is BiVo by Hugh Halter. 

Thank you to those who replied thoughtfully instead of in anger. Jimmy, Steven and Pergamum, thanks for your posts, they were very informed and helpful... Everyone else, as I have seriously offended some over this, I'm going to leave it alone going forward. This might have been a wiser question to ask the seminary rather than the pastorate.


----------



## Romans922

LongWar said:


> The book that I have found to be the most impactful and direct on the subject is BiVo by Hugh Halter.
> 
> Thank you to those who replied thoughtfully instead of in anger. Jimmy, Steven and Pergamum, thanks for your posts, they were very informed and helpful... Everyone else, as I have seriously offended some over this, I'm going to leave it alone going forward. This might have been a wiser question to ask the seminary rather than the pastorate.



Brother,
I'm not sure anyone was offended at you personally, but rather that you haven't really considered certain things or that you are putting pastors, in some sense, through a stereotype into a box.

Further, you are here accusing elders of anger (sin) by implication. Are you sure this is a humble approach? Perhaps it is they gave you a straight forward answer, and you have not liked their answer and you take that as anger towards you. Isn't that a possibility?

After all, Sean who is a reformed baptist pastor (which you call yourself a Reformed Baptist) gave you the Confessional answer that you ought to agree with. But have you interacted with him?

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

LongWar said:


> Everyone else, as I have seriously offended some over this, I'm going to leave it alone going forward. This might have been a wiser question to ask the seminary rather than the pastorate.


Why would you say anyone was seriously offended? I haven't seen that in any of the posts in this thread. Some disagreed with you and argued their position. That isn't a reason for you to say they were offended. This is a board made up of confessionally Reformed members. That means virtually none would hold the view you espoused in your opening post. You may not have known that. But this discussion has made that clear. There is nothing wrong with you bringing up the question for discussion. But you should be prepared for people to disagree and push back on your arguments. It's not a bad thing. It's actually very beneficial for your growth and maturity.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

I'm surely not offended in any way. I try to exercise as much charity and grace as I can, brother. We all need it.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Grant Jones said:


> Have you known any REs who do have the desire and gift?
> 
> If you had such, what would you do? Allow them to exhort from the pulpit or lead a sabbath school? Would you encourage them to go to seminary and your congregation to support the training?



Grant:

Great questions. My answer to Q.s 1, 3, and 4 is "yes." Furthermore, I have done something along these lines with a variety of men who've manifested ministerial gifts. My answer to Q. 2 is "the sort of things that you suggest here and other things like it."

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Alan D. Strange said:


> Grant:
> 
> Great questions. My answer to Q.s 1, 3, and 4 is "yes." Furthermore, I have done something along these lines with a variety of men who've manifested ministerial gifts. My answer to Q. 2 is "the sort of things that you suggest here and other things like it."
> 
> Peace,
> Alan


Maybe you can PM me as not to derail, but what is a practical route for a sole income family man with an established secular career, who wishes to serve the Church in preaching? I hold the three office view myself.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

LongWar said:


> Thank you to those who replied thoughtfully instead of in anger



My dear brother:

Good pastors (Christopher and Andrew, immediately above) have already assured you that you are not correct in alleging "anger." I wholeheartedly agree with them. My answer came from wanting to set forth what I believe to be the proper understanding of the ministry, who should be preaching regularly, and the support that such deserve. 

My commitment here long antedated any comments that you've made here. I've given my life, in no small measure, to this commitment. I am published in several places arguing for the importance of ministerial gifting, calling, and training. 



LongWar said:


> This might have been a wiser question to ask the seminary rather than the pastorate.



I was answering in both capacities: as a pastor of thirty years and a seminary professor of twenty. You've thus, proverbially, killed two birds with one stone! 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

Alan D. Strange said:


> I was answering in both capacities: as a pastor of thirty years and a seminary professor of twenty. You've thus, proverbially, killed two birds with one stone!




Point of Order from PETA “feed two birds with one scone”.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 4


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

Grant Jones said:


> Maybe you can PM me as not to derail, but what is a practical route for a sole income family man with an established secular career, who wishes to serve the Church in preaching?


I think through being ordained as a RE, then exercising that gift when needed or asked.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

I can act offended if it gains me any leverage in our next debate.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Pergamum

p.s I'd like to ask the Mods to please force Grant to remove his Cheeto-Chicken Sandwich avator. It is making me stumble in a serious way.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Smeagol

Pergamum said:


> p.s I'd like to ask the Mods to please force Grant to remove his Cheeto-Chicken Sandwich avator. It is making me stumble in a serious way.


It will be changed after I eat it, it’s currently riding in my passenger seat as I type this on the way home.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Grant Jones said:


> Point of Order from PETA “feed two birds with one scone”.



I'll impersonate a moderator here: "Your point of order is not well taken, chicken-Cheeto breath." 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Pergamum

Grant Jones said:


> It will be changed after I eat it, it’s currently riding in my passenger seat as I type this on the way home.


PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

Grant Jones said:


> It will be changed after I eat it, it’s currently riding in my passenger seat as I type this on the way home.


Let me know if it's worth it. KFC is right by my house.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J.L. Allen

Pergamum said:


> p.s I'd like to ask the Mods to please force Grant to remove his Cheeto-Chicken Sandwich avator. It is making me stumble in a serious way.





Pergamum said:


> PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!



This math isn’t adding up.


----------



## jw

Pergamum said:


> p.s I'd like to ask the Mods to please force Grant to remove his Cheeto-Chicken Sandwich avator. It is making me stumble in a serious way.


Sharpie it out.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Edward

RWD said:


> ministers should earn what the top professional in the parish earns



I disagree. No preacher should be paid $5 or $10 million a year. Something along the lines of 'the average of those with like education' would be closer to the mark. A pastor should be able to expect to live consistently with the bulk of the congregation. If you want a preacher that's going to be one of the two most highly paid folks in the room, you might be more comfortable at a church that embraces a prosperity 'gospel'. 

And be sure to factor in the tax favored perks.


----------



## py3ak

Sir Fred Catherwood held that ministers should be paid double the average income of the congregation. I think that reflects a very strong sense that the ministry needs to be respectable, and that respectability comes with a certain price tag.


----------



## B.L.

py3ak said:


> Sir Fred Catherwood held that ministers should be paid double the average income of the congregation. I think that reflects a very strong sense that the ministry needs to be respectable, and that respectability comes with a certain price tag.



Not a hard position to hold when your father-in-law happens to be Martin Lloyd-Jones! Lol. 

All joking aside, what do you mean by the ministry needing to be respectable and that respectability comes with a certain price tag? Can you expound on that thought some more?


----------



## py3ak

I think Sir Fred really means _able to be respected_, but understands that in terms of a hierarchical social system. He wants ministers to be able to avoid the problems of genteel poverty. In a society with fairly formal markers of class stratification, cheap boots, for instance, might mean you are living beneath the position you ought to occupy -- and that is disgraceful. If rank had its privileges, it had also its obligations that were very inconvenient for those with straitened incomes. That kind of thinking is all over Jane Austen and Anthony Trollope.


----------



## Pergamum

Edward said:


> I disagree. No preacher should be paid $5 or $10 million a year. Something along the lines of 'the average of those with like education' would be closer to the mark. A pastor should be able to expect to live consistently with the bulk of the congregation. If you want a preacher that's going to be one of the two most highly paid folks in the room, you might be more comfortable at a church that embraces a prosperity 'gospel'.
> 
> And be sure to factor in the tax favored perks.


Good point.


----------



## User20004000

Edward said:


> I disagree. No preacher should be paid $5 or $10 million a year. Something along the lines of 'the average of those with like education' would be closer to the mark. A pastor should be able to expect to live consistently with the bulk of the congregation. If you want a preacher that's going to be one of the two most highly paid folks in the room, you might be more comfortable at a church that embraces a prosperity 'gospel'.
> 
> And be sure to factor in the tax favored perks.



Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I certainly overstated my position. I hope my point wasn’t lost.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

RWD said:


> Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I certainly overstated my position. I hope my point wasn’t lost.



Rats! I was rushing to be the pastor of Ron's church, and on session with him, looking forward to the first congregational meeting where they set my salary! 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 5


----------



## Pilgrim

LongWar said:


> Why don't we see more churches that have the elders on a preaching rotation and expect them to work a normal job like the rest of the congregation? Surely given the number of men who pastors have endorsed as qualified to attend and graduate seminary, we can spread the ministry load (not just preaching).



Although I'm certainly no expert on them, I think this view of elders is most commonly found in the Plymouth Brethren tradition, and perhaps the Open Brethren tradition in general. (Some who are in this tradition eschew the Brethren label and might also deny that their practices are part of a "tradition.") The early brethren like Darby, Newton, Tregelles and others were often former Anglicans who were educated at places like Oxford and Cambridge. The movement seems to have devolved into anti-intellectualism as well as anti-Calvinism a generation or two later, with elders tending to have little formal theological education, if any. I'll leave it to someone else to examine in detail whether or not this understanding of the teaching ministry has anything to do with that, or if it was simply the fact that they thought that the rapture was imminent and that such education was unnecessary under those circumstances.

Others may have different experiences, but the bivo pastors I've known generally don't have any formal education beyond a Bachelors degree or Bible College. That is probably changing though with bivo becoming more prevalent. (That's not to denigrate such men. I've known some who have no more than a high school education who are quite well read and who read widely, while I've known some seminary educated men who have practically never read anything more than what they read in seminary and practically never read anything outside of their own tradition.)

Regardless, the OP's suggestions are contrary to both historic Baptist and Presbyterian understanding, as has been shown here. And I'll "pile on" and say that I didn't see anyone who was angry. Sharp disagreement should not necessarily be equated with anger.

Also keep in mind that the 2nd London Baptist Confession was written in 1677, a time when Baptists were largely underground due to the persecution of nonconformity in the Restoration era. Yet the wording indicates that they expected ministers to basically be "full time." (The confession is called the 1689 because after the "Glorious Revolution," which resulted in greater religious freedom, the Baptists gathered together to affix their names to the confession.)

Most Baptists reject the distinction between teaching and ruling elders that three office Presbyterians make. And with that, they think that all elders should be "apt" or "able" to teach. (If not, in my opinion such a man may be eminently gifted to be a deacon but not an elder. I've seen too many elders who are really unable to teach in any context, even one on one. I've seen some who are really not capable of teaching Sunday School beyond reading something straight out of a book, and who lacked the knowledge and discernment to see what is wrong with various heresies.) With that in mind, I saw a FB post by a SBC professor who stated that all of the elders in his church generally have to preach once a year or so and that they are really not "apt to teach" if they cannot do that.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## User20004000

Alan D. Strange said:


> Rats! I was rushing to be the pastor of Ron's church, and on session with him, looking forward to the first congregational meeting where they set my salary!
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



Hysterical!


----------



## ZackF

I’ve understand bivocational ministers to be a unfortunate necessity at various times and places. Hats off to men who labor that way. To overstate that calling has no biblical warrant.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

This is a good thread. 

I was bi-vocational at my former church and as I'm sure most bi-vocational ministers will tell you there is no such thing as "part-time" labors in the congregation to which you are called. You often end up working two full-time jobs. 

It is a difficult proposition, especially for a man with a young family. However, one way to ensure the success of the arrangement is having elders in the church who are willing to step-up to the plate and do a little more, most importantly, with visitation.


----------



## Jo_Was

LongWar said:


> Can you point to anywhere in America where a church isn't within driving distance? The gospel has been preached here. Why are we spending so much to re-preach it when there are many parts of the world that haven't been reached?



This is an interesting thread. I just wanted to chime in on this note:

I grew up in a suburb of Tucson, Arizona, where it already took 30-35 minutes to get to the nearest grocery store. The closest churches were iffy (and in fact my family settled for a fundamentalist Pentecostal church with ~10 people mostly above the age of 60 excepting me and my siblings). In my adulthood when I visited home from school, I would go to a Reformed church 45-50 minutes away. That area is sparse in churches in general because it's sprawled so much land-wise, but it's even harder to find more conservative, and especially Reformed congregations. There are some, not knocking them at all, but it's not like there's a church on every street corner--and even if there is, you might have to do a double take first.

It's hard to be serviced by the shepherding care of a church when you are so far removed from its congregants or leadership. I know we don't bat an eye today at people driving even an hour to church, but I think that's a trend that may point to other issues in how we perceive and understand the duties involved in church life. It's hard to function as a body when the body is so disconnected. And I can definitely say that not living in the Bible belt and then living in the Bible belt now...there is an inequity of concentrations of good churches. There are still places in the US that just do not have as good an access to solid, biblical churches. 

Visit the Southwest, or somewhere like Appalachia, and you see how great the distance is between areas, or how poor socioeconomic areas are most often plagued by "church deserts" or not having a "meat" church diet and instead only serve "milk," and many people do not, in fact, have transportation to church. Even in cities--there are church "deserts", especially in the wake of the trend of people for a time moving out of the city toward suburbs and leaving defunct or poorly tended churches in their wake. I love seeing the work of the RPCNA congregation thriving in the midst of Atlanta. You would think, "It's a city, they should be fine" but in fact many do not have good or reliable transportation and couldn't just "go to church." How many fun stories I've heard of Pastor Frank Smith in his train conductor's hat picking up members to bus them to worship.  I am always encouraged hearing of the fruit of that labor, that these areas have not been forgotten and assumed to "be fine" when they are not, and they are lacking.

America is very much still a mission field.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 2


----------



## Pergamum

I think we should write another post about whether America is really a mission field. It is not. We have a church in every town, some sort of Christian church. Christian radio. Free access to bibles in our language. To say America is a mission field is to divert focus from true mission fields such as India and and the Middle East.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Pergamum said:


> I think we should write another post about whether America is really a mission field. It is not. We have a church in every town, some sort of Christian church. Christian radio. Free access to bibles in our language. To say America is a mission field is to divert focus from true mission fields such as India and and the Middle East.



It is a mission field in the sense that there are millions of lost people. Just because there are lots of churches and ministries doesn’t mean much because most of them don’t actually preach the gospel. I don’t think it helpful to create this false dichotomy between so-called true and false mission fields. We would do well to remember that our Lord began his ministry at home.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 6


----------



## Edward

LongWar said:


> Can you point to anywhere in America where a church isn't within driving distance?



What do you consider driving distance? 100 miles? 200 miles?

You appear to be someone who hasn't traveled much.


----------



## Jo_Was

Bill The Baptist said:


> It is a mission field in the sense that there are millions of lost people. Just because there are lots of churches and ministries doesn’t mean much because most of them don’t actually preach the gospel. I don’t think it helpful to create this false dichotomy between so-called true and false mission fields. We would do well to remember that our Lord began his ministry at home.



Indeed. There are certainly many African churches and Asian churches right now who are sending missionaries to us who think we are very much a field of mission.

Also, I brought up Appalachia and and the Southwest, particularly in thinking about rural areas where there really are not churches present, or if there are, they are vestiges from pioneering days. Visiting a Native American reserve or parts of Appalachia feel just as disconnected from society as being in some developing or underdeveloped countries. Access to normal teaching and education and communications is not necessarily available, much less of the Christian variety.

But perhaps this is topic for another thread.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ZackF

Jo_Was said:


> Visiting a Native American reserve or parts of Appalachia feel just as disconnected from society as being in some developing or underdeveloped countries.



Isn’t that a thing though? Many of these communities take pride in such disconnectivity and maintain high distrust of outsiders. Sure they make take some provisions, but unless one is prepared to join the community it’s very difficult to get anywhere ministry wise.


----------



## Tom Hart

ZackF said:


> Isn’t that a thing though? Many of these communities take pride in such disconnectivity and maintain high distrust of outsiders. Sure they make take some provisions, but unless one is prepared to join the community it’s very difficult to get anywhere ministry wise.


In Canada at least, I've heard of Korean missionaries being more welcomed on the reserves than whites. Not a not of bad blood between Natives and Koreans.


----------



## JTB.SDG

LongWar said:


> Can you point to anywhere in America where a church isn't within driving distance? The gospel has been preached here. Why are we spending so much to re-preach it when there are many parts of the world that haven't been reached



If you stop preaching the gospel here, you won't have any missionaries to send abroad in 20-25 years. Why does it have to be one versus the other?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

JTB.SDG said:


> If you stop preaching the gospel here, you won't have any missionaries to send abroad in 20-25 years. Why does it have to be one versus the other?


Until He comes, “All the World Needs All the Gospel Always.” Let this be our rule.


----------



## Pergamum

There is a very unequal distribution of gospel ministers throughout the whole world. If a normal American city has 40 churches and even if only 20 are true churches, that is still more than entire regions overseas. If all the world needs the Gospel, we are doing a poor job if we keep the vast majority of these resources to ourselves and then act as if these are not enough while the rest of the world starves. 

Imagine two kinds of starving people: (1) A truly starving person who would trek for hours for a piece of bread, and (2) An Anorexic who starves even though bread is within reach. 

Americans are spiritual anorexics.

With person would you like to give bread to?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Pergamum said:


> There is a very unequal distribution of gospel ministers throughout the whole world. If a normal American city has 40 churches and even if only 20 are true churches, that is still more than entire regions overseas. If all the world needs the Gospel, we are doing a poor job if we keep the vast majority of these resources to ourselves and then act as if these are not enough while the rest of the world starves.


You talk about it like it's something that we all got together and decided on. I guess I missed that meeting. Brother, Christ's Kingdom in this world is completely decentralized. And I think that's a good thing. There are a host of circumstances and factors underlying the current distribution of Christian churches, pastors, evangelists, and missionaries. Playing the blame game on such a complicated issue is naive. Accusing all Western Christians and churches of just being uncaring and stingy is as unkind as it is unhelpful.


----------



## Pergamum

C. M. Sheffield said:


> You talk about it like it's something that we all got together and decided on. I guess I missed that meeting. Brother, Christ's Kingdom in this world is completely decentralized. And I think that's a good thing. There are a host of circumstances and factors underlying the current distribution of Christian churches, pastors, evangelists, and missionaries. Playing the blame game on such a complicated issue is naive. Accusing all Western Christians and churches of just being uncaring and stingy is as unkind as it is unhelpful.



You don't have to get together and decide to do the easiest option. It only takes planning and intention to send some folks to the unreached in India or Sumatra or the Middle East.

Hard things just don't get done by themselves. Unless there is intentional drive, people end up graduating seminary and pastoring in the same state or town or region, not working among the Kurds or Pashtuns.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Pergamum said:


> You don't have to get together and decide to do the easiest option. It only takes planning and intention to send some folks to the unreached in India or Sumatra or the Middle East.
> 
> Hard things just don't get done by themselves. Unless there is intentional drive, people end up graduating seminary and pastoring in the same state or town or region, not working among the Kurds or Pashtuns.


And I am immensely grateful for all of the hard things I see churches doing to bring the gospel to these parts of the world. Do I desire it to be greater? Of course. But I am also grateful for the men who go to seminary and spend their lives laboring in the state or town they grew up in. Thinking about that as being any less noble and God-honoring as service in a foreign country is wrong.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

C. M. Sheffield said:


> And I am immensely grateful for all of the hard things I see churches doing to bring the gospel to these parts of the world. Do I desire it to be greater? Of course. But I am also grateful for the men who go to seminary and spend their lives laboring in the state or town they grew up in. Thinking about that as being any less noble and God-honoring as service in a foreign country is wrong.




One cannot help but see 40 churches in a small US city, and then NONE in a circumference of 3 day's walk overseas, and not regret it at least a little. 

SPREAD THE WEALTH! If our domain is the whole world, why is 90% of the wealth and training limited to one or two regions?


----------



## JTB.SDG

Pergster,

I think this is a very delicate and also a pretty complicated issue. Your desire to see the nations reached is fantastic. I think you should do your best to word it in the most helpful way possible, realizing that things could be taken the wrong way (IE, so are you saying I'm not following God's call for my life just because God happened to call me to minister in the States?) I don't think you're saying that, am I right? But it could come off that way.


----------



## Pergamum

JTB.SDG said:


> Pergster,
> 
> I think this is a very delicate and also a pretty complicated issue. Your desire to see the nations reached is fantastic. I think you should do your best to word it in the most helpful way possible, realizing that things could be taken the wrong way (IE, so are you saying I'm not following God's call for my life just because God happened to call me to minister in the States?) I don't think you're saying that, am I right? But it could come off that way.



The Church as a whole is to have the mind of Christ. If the stated will of Christ (right before he ascended) was to go into all the nations with the Gospel, and we are not doing it, then we don't really have the mind of Christ. 

Sure, God will call many if not most men to stay in their own countries. But I wonder if this is really a call or just staying by default. Most seminaries DON'T really train people to become missionaries or really persuade them well to consider it as a possibility. Put plainly, most seminaries and bible schools are focused on producing US pastors with little thought of missions. This is a problem among the Reformed. 

If the pastor is young and healthy and can go to a more unreached area, then why not? 

And of the few who want to go out, many of those cannot get adequate support. I know an OPC guy right now who is subsisting on 1/4th of his needed support in a very hard field and will have to return stateside to find new support, and he's been on the field for more than 2 decades doing good work.


----------



## Pergamum

There are about 350,000 evangelical churches in the US alone. There are about 7,000 people groups that are unreached. If every evangelical church sent ONE missionary, there'd be 50 missionaries per unreached missionary group just from the US. Other countries are also now sending out missionaries. 

BUT...we just aren't sending. Almost EVERYBODY is "Called" to stay in the US. How strange. 

This recent study shows that 51% of church-goers don't even know about the Great Commission: https://www.barna.com/research/half-churchgoers-not-heard-great-commission/ That might have something to do with the poor showing. We just don't prioritize missions.


----------



## JTB.SDG

Pergamum said:


> The Church as a whole is to have the mind of Christ. If the stated will of Christ (right before he ascended) was to go into all the nations with the Gospel, and we are not doing it, then we don't really have the mind of Christ.
> 
> Sure, God will call many if not most men to stay in their own countries. But I wonder if this is really a call or just staying by default. Most seminaries DON'T really train people to become missionaries or really persuade them well to consider it as a possibility. Put plainly, most seminaries and bible schools are focused on producing US pastors with little thought of missions. This is a problem among the Reformed.
> 
> If the pastor is young and healthy and can go to a more unreached area, then why not?
> 
> And of the few who want to go out, many of those cannot get adequate support. I know an OPC guy right now who is subsisting on 1/4th of his needed support in a very hard field and will have to return stateside to find new support, and he's been on the field for more than 2 decades doing good work.



Can I push back a bit?

First, the US was one of the "distant nations" when Jesus gave the Great Commission. The Great Commission isn't: "Leave your home country to go to another country." It's "Go to all nations." The US is one of those nations.

You questioned the calling of those laboring in the States. Can I do the same? What if God's calling YOU to a MORE unreached place? How do I know YOU'RE not just staying by default? I wonder if you are. Aren't there more tribes more unreached than yours? What's up with the comfort issues/laziness? Why do you continue to just stay in your tribe where you're comfortable and know the language now? Seems to me it's time to move on to a less reached place.

Pergster, I believe in the need. Note: I am a "Christian Worker" working in the largest UPG in the world. I don't presume that means God is calling my friends in the States to do the same thing. Maybe He's not. Is there a great need in many places? Yes. Does that also include the US? Is there a deep growing need for gospel ministry in the US as our culture radically changes? Yes. Is there more of a need in other places? Probably. Does that mean I should hold my missionary status with a somewhat haughty condescending tone and talk like I know everyone's motives and most of them are disobeying God? No.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Pergamum said:


> The Church as a whole is to have the mind of Christ. If the stated will of Christ (right before he ascended) was to go into all the nations with the Gospel, and we are not doing it, then we don't really have the mind of Christ.


The exhortation to "have this mind in you which was also in Christ" (Phil. 2:5) was given to encourage the persecuted Philippian church. They were to see their own suffering in immediate connection with Christ's suffering. Does the text have implications missions and evangelism? Of course. But equating having the mind of Christ with becoming a foreign missionary is a potentially harmful misreading of the text.


----------



## Pergamum

JTB.SDG said:


> Can I push back a bit?
> 
> First, the US was one of the "distant nations" when Jesus gave the Great Commission. The Great Commission isn't: "Leave your home country to go to another country." It's "Go to all nations." The US is one of those nations.
> 
> You questioned the calling of those laboring in the States. Can I do the same to you? What if God's calling YOU to a MORE unreached place? How do I know you're just staying by default? I wonder if you are. Aren't there more tribes more unreached than yours? Why do you continue to just stay in your tribe where you're comfortable and know the language now. How do you know it isn't time to move on to less reached places?
> 
> brother, I believe in the need. Note: I am a "Christian Worker" working in the largest UPG in the world. I don't presume that means God is calling my friends in the States to do the same thing. Maybe He's not. Is there a great need in many places? Yes. Is there a deep growing need for gospel ministry in the US as our culture radically changes? Yes. Is there more of a need in other places? Probably. Does that mean I should hold my missionary status with a somewhat haughty condescending tone and talk like I know everyone's motives and most of them are disobeying God? No.



If the mosquitos in this tribe don't kill me, I'm willing to go someplace else.

There is no haughty condescension. Don't pretend to be the tone police. Many missionaries also have bad motives. It's cheaper to live in SE Asia, after all.

My conviction is that Reformed churches in the US are not doing all they can to send missionaries. I can send you the syllabi of several Reformed seminaries that virtually teach nothing on missions. In life we do things we are serious about. Folks start businesses. They train and get black belts. They mobilize countries and win wars when it matters to them. And we'll send missionaries and support our US pastors...if it matters to us.

Listen, there is no denying that Western culture (and the Western church) lacks seriousness when it comes to the task of the Gospel. Either at home...or abroad.


----------



## Pergamum

C. M. Sheffield said:


> The exhortation to "have this mind in you which was also in Christ" (Phil. 2:5) was given to encourage the persecuted Philippian church. They were to see their own suffering in immediate connection with Christ's suffering. Does the text have implications missions and evangelism? Of course. But equating having the mind of Christ with becoming a foreign missionary is harmful misreading of the text.



What were Christ's last orders to the Church? Nobody is saying every single Christian must become a missionary. But having the mind of Christ means the Church as a whole has the mind of Christ. His priorities must be our priorities (in the corporate sense). Therefore, we'd expect a fair amount of ordained servants NOT to live in the same state and region as they were ordained.


----------



## JTB.SDG

Pergamum said:


> I'm willing to go someplace else.


I'm assuming that's the exact answer the great majority of those laboring in the States would give about missions. And I don't see it as a wrong answer.


----------



## Pergamum

JTB.SDG said:


> I'm assuming that's the exact answer the great majority of those laboring in the States would give about missions. And I don't see it as a wrong answer.



Why don't they go then?


----------



## JTB.SDG

Pergamum said:


> Why don't they go then?


Why don't YOU go? To somewhere MORE unreached? If you're willing?


----------



## Pergamum

JTB.SDG said:


> Why don't YOU go? To somewhere MORE unreached? If you're willing?



It'd be nice if the native believers could actually read the bible first. Only a few can read well. We tried to go to the neediest place we could find. 

What are the metrics of leaving? How do you define reached? I have discussed the next steps with my wife and India or Turkey or the Middle East has come up. Or another tribe further south.

But surely you see that the USA is a difference of KIND and not a difference of DEGREE when it comes to the metrics of being reached. A few poorly clad illiterate tribal believers and folks taking communion who have eaten human flesh in the past versus an unbelieving guy passing 3 baptist churches every morning on his way to work in the US is not the same. One has access and availability. The other does not. One is a spiritual anorexic; the other is truly starving due to lack of bread.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Pergamum said:


> If the mosquitos in this tribe don't kill me, I'm willing to go someplace else.


You've missed the point entirely. 


Pergamum said:


> Therefore, we'd expect a fair amount of ordained servants NOT to live in the same state and region as they were ordained.


There are a so many holes in your logic it makes carrying on this discussion difficult. Most of your broad conclusions rest on very slender premises. I love you sincerely and am thankful for your zeal for Christ's Kingdom. But I think you are overly confident in your understanding of the matter. You are unnecessarily critical of others' motives (of which you have no real knowledge) and too dismissive of those urging you to be more careful in your speech.


----------



## Pergamum

C. M. Sheffield said:


> You've missed the point entirely.
> 
> There are a so many holes in your logic it makes carrying on this discussion difficult. Most of your broad conclusions rest on very slender premises. I love you sincerely and am thankful for your zeal for Christ's Kingdom. But I think you are overly confident in your understanding of the matter. You are unnecessarily critical of others' motives (of which you have no real knowledge) and too dismissive of those urging you to be more careful in your speech.



I've said nothing of other people's motives. I am looking at the results. We have lots of churches and lots of money, but few missionaries. 

Perhaps you think you master this subject more than you actually do.


----------



## Pergamum

JTB.SDG said:


> No one else could teach them to read?
> 
> I think the kind/degree distinction is artificial. It's always somewhere along a sliding scale is it not? Who cares about being "poorly clad"? So now being among those who are physically poor is higher up the totem pool of being radical for God? And those who are illiterate? And tribal? And that they used to be cannibals? Who cares? We all had our different pasts from which God called us out of. Why is theirs more spiritual than the ones other countless pastors are working with in a thousand other cities, who maybe have 10% truly evangelical believers in their contexts instead of 1%?
> 
> It just comes off arrogant man. I leave the question on the table for you, just like you leave it on the table for whoever in the States. It's not fair of me to presume you are disobeying God. And it's not fair for you to presume that of others either.




It is not arrogant to prioritize need.

It is a healthy discussion. If you had 1,000 seminary graduates healthy and ready to go anywhere, it'd be foolish to send them all to Atlanta Georgia. Sure, people are gonna scream that Atlanta, Georgia's got needs, too, and a soul in Atlanta, Georgia is just as precious as a soul in Thailand. BUT, I would have to grieve if 1,000 graduates went to Atlanta and not a single one went to Thailand. How many Christian radio stations, how many churches, how many bible schools,, how many fellow Christians, are within a mile of you in Atlanta? How many among groups such as the Northern Thai?

So yes, I think there needs to be a "triage" of graduates. We should encourage them to go out if they can and if they are willing. If they state that they are "called" to stay home...well then, who can argue with that.

Here is a map for you: https://www.pewforum.org/religious-...eGhReQ27A1LW8FdzTGmwsxkfbQr6igVMzW4MQwKrPyMpM

The Joshua Project classifies > 10% Evangelicals as "Significantly reached," between 2-10% as "Partially reached," and less than 2% in various categories of unreached, with more than half of the world population of the world living in the < 2%.

Well, the map shows the percentage of Evangelical Protestants in the U.S. by state, data from Pew Research Forum. It ranges from 52% in Tennessee to 7% in Utah. 

So there are metrics of needs. There are objective standards by which to judge priorities. There are numerical indicators to give us (albeit an imperfect) picture of where we should be concentrating our troops.

I think we ought to prioritize need. Our money and our energy goes towards our priorities. In the West many pastors are bi-vocational and the number of overseas missionaries decreases each year. This shows the priorities of the West. There is no arrogance to say our priorities (and even the priorities of churches) are wrong. We are luke-warm at best. I suppose it could be said that churches are not sending missionaries overseas because they are battling abortion in the US, but not really....only a few US churches are even doing that.

I just talked to a brother heading to Europe where the rate of evangelical or Reformed Churches is less than 2%. Good on him. More men could and should do that, I think. That is not arrogance, but the facts. We should spread ourselves out so that nobody is too far out of earshot of the Gospel.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Pergamum said:


> I've said nothing of other people's motives.


But you have.


Pergamum said:


> And we'll send missionaries and support our US pastors...if it matters to us.


Assigned Motive: Missions doesn't matter to us.


Pergamum said:


> We just don't prioritize missions.


Assigned Motive: Missions is not a priority.

Painting with such broad brushstrokes is untrue, unhelpful, and unkind.


----------



## Pergamum

C. M. Sheffield said:


> But you have.
> 
> Assigned Motive: Missions doesn't matter to us.
> 
> Assigned Motive: Missions is not a priority.



Forget about motive, we can tell priorities by budgets and numbers and time spent. I have no idea about the motives, but the numbers and budgets tell me a definite story, as well as seminary syllabi and sermon topics.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Pergamum said:


> Forget about motive


I will if you'll stop assigning them.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Pergamum said:


> Forget about motive, we can tell priorities by budgets and numbers and time spent. I have no idea about the motives, but the numbers and budgets tell me a definite story, as well as seminary syllabi and sermon topics.


I can't think of a major evangelical seminary without a missions program. The six Southern Baptist seminaries all have them and talk about virtually nothing else. Growing up in the SBC, missions and evangelism were always the most important thing. And that's still true today. And I think it's true for most evangelical churches. Of the three Reformed Baptist seminaries that I know of (one of which I am a board member) a considerable amount of time and energy is put into foreign programs. I've been around evangelicalism a long time. I have my criticisms of their theology and practice of missions. But I can't say I have ever encountered an apathetic attitude towards missions. So I just don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Pergamum

Back to the OP:

The distraction started when I expressed reservations about America being called a mission field. Well...okay...but there are over 300,00 churches in the USA. That is 6,000 per State if divided equally. Call it what you want, I guess. I've yet to drive more than an hour or two in the US without some access to the gospel. Even a Gideon's Bible in a hotel room drawer is more than some whole tribes have. 

David (Longwar) stated in the OP, "but I cannot see how we as American Baptists will be able to one day stand before God and justify spending so much on ourselves..." This part I agree with. We don't prioritize our funds for the kingdom of God largely in America. We give out of our excess mostly. 

But then David seems to push for bivocational pastors as the answer (more elders splitting the work as a service instead of a paid job). It is there that I disagree. 

I believe the better answer is to try to get these bi-vocational guys supported full-time so they can focus on their full-time calling full-time and not have to work. We should normally expect to see one man preaching most of the time. I've attended a church with 4 elders in rotation every week and there is no continuity (and no true equality in gifting, one man was the gifted preacher while the others were elders). The preacher should have been supported so he could have focused on preaching. Instead, all the guys had to work and they preached every 4th week on a different topic. 

I think that US churches have enough money to support their pastors well and also send more foreign missionaries.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I can't think of a major evangelical seminary without a missions program. The six Southern Baptist seminaries all have them and talk about virtually nothing else. Growing up in the SBC, missions and evangelism were always the most important thing. And that's still true today. And I think it's true for most evangelical churches. Of the three Reformed Baptist seminaries that I know of (one of which I am a board member) a considerable amount of time and energy is put into foreign programs. I've been around evangelicalism a long time. I have my criticisms of their theology and practice of missions. But I can't say I have ever encountered an apathetic attitude towards missions. So I just don't know what you're talking about.



Concerning seminaries and mission programs:

Here is what I have gathered. The Baptist ones generally do better.

"The top ten largest evangelical/reformed seminaries (by number of full-time equivalent students) all have missions programs: Liberty, SBTS, SWBTS, SEBTS, Fuller, Asbury, MBTS, Dallas, NOBTS, GCTS. This shouldn't be a surprise -- larger schools have more resources.

#11 is Regent University, which does not, the next four are TIU/TEDS, Biola/Talbot, RTS, and Gateway Baptist (formerly Golden Gate), which all have missions programs. #16 is Westminster Philly, which used to have a missions program, but does not have one anymore."

To the best of my knowledge, "none of the Reformed seminaries have a mission program anymore. It looks like RTS still has one resident mission faculty member in Jackson, but dropped their mission program. Covenant Seminary lost their resident faculty member. Greenville Presbyterian has one missions residential faculty member. PRTS, RPTS, MARS, Knox, Erskine, New Geneva have none. 

...despite not having a missions program per se, Covenant Seminary was known for a while as a seminary with a strong missions ethos." 

I hope the stats has changed above since the last time I checked. It could be possible also that a "missionary ethos" is included in every class rather than having a separate missions track or course. 

I've also read that most of US missions pastors have no long-term missionary experience, but I can't find the statistics (a mission professor told us this in class). 

Sorry for the distraction...back to the OP now..


----------



## JTB.SDG

Pergamum said:


> Concerning seminaries and mission programs:
> 
> Here is what I have gathered. The Baptist ones generally do better.
> 
> "The top ten largest evangelical/reformed seminaries (by number of full-time equivalent students) all have missions programs: Liberty, SBTS, SWBTS, SEBTS, Fuller, Asbury, MBTS, Dallas, NOBTS, GCTS. This shouldn't be a surprise -- larger schools have more resources.
> 
> #11 is Regent University, which does not, the next four are TIU/TEDS, Biola/Talbot, RTS, and Gateway Baptist (formerly Golden Gate), which all have missions programs. #16 is Westminster Philly, which used to have a missions program, but does not have one anymore."
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, "none of the Reformed seminaries have a mission program anymore. It looks like RTS still has one resident mission faculty member in Jackson, but dropped their mission program. Covenant Seminary lost their resident faculty member. Greenville Presbyterian has one missions residential faculty member. PRTS, RPTS, MARS, Knox, Erskine, New Geneva have none.
> 
> ...despite not having a missions program per se, Covenant Seminary was known for a while as a seminary with a strong missions ethos."
> 
> I hope the stats has changed above since the last time I checked. It could be possible also that a "missionary ethos" is included in every class rather than having a separate missions track or course.
> 
> I've also read that most of US missions pastors have no long-term missionary experience, but I can't find the statistics (a mission professor told us this in class).
> 
> Sorry for the distraction...back to the OP now..


It's a valid point for sure, Pergster. Sorry for getting off my rocker a bit. I apologize. Appreciate you.


----------



## Pergamum

JTB.SDG said:


> It's a valid point for sure, Pergster. Sorry for getting off my rocker a bit. I apologize. Appreciate you.


Same here, brother. I understand what you are getting at and they are valid points. God bless.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist

It is my firm conviction, that salary for full time church staff and pastors be equal to the median family income of their particular congregation. I would also award pastors an additional 10%, based on the difficulty of their calling. Additionally, all full time pastors should be paid equally. I do not believe in awarding the senior pastor a higher salary.

I believe pastors should live in the area they serve and among the people they serve. Pastors should not be broke, neither should they be living at levels far above the typical family in the congregation they serve. If 90% percent of your congregation drives a Focus and lives in a lower income area, you should probably drive a similar vehicle and live in a similar area. Unfortunately, I have seen a few pastors pull up in an escalade ( or similar) when the lot is full of compact cars. Even if the pastor can afford it, you have to be aware of the message you might be sending.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Reformed Apologist

LongWar said:


> Can you point to anywhere in America where a church isn't within driving distance? The gospel has been preached here. Why are we spending so much to re-preach it when there are many parts of the world that haven't been reached?
> 
> Regarding your second question, as a capitalist, I believe the market will determine the value of an individual's financial worth, so in that sense being a pastor is a job worthy of full-time pay. As someone who wants to be financially responsible with the church's tithes though, can you tell me why one paid pastor is of more value to the congregation than four unpaid splitting the work?
> 
> ... I'm not trying to debate or attack. I would like to hear why some people, especially those in full-time, paid ministry positions feel that it is justifiable, given the plethora of qualified Christian men, let alone seminary graduates.


 
Brother,

Why do you assume that someone is saved just because they show up on Sunday? Have you seen what's happening in our country? We need churches and evangelist now more then ever. If we are not careful, we may just wake up one day and find that Christianity has been outlawed.


----------



## Edward

Reformed Apologist said:


> I would also award pastors an additional 10%, based on the difficulty of their calling.



Tax advantaged allowances should cover that 10%. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417


----------



## Reformed Apologist

Edward said:


> Tax advantaged allowances should cover that 10%. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417


You may be right, I had forgotten about that.


----------

