Why should today’s pastors have different priorities than Paul’s?

I think that it is clear that he is setting the example for the church in general and not for those who do ministry vocationally. I also think it is clear that in the early church there were those who did do ministry vocationally and that they were paid by it, based on the scriptures that I sited in my earlier comment.

That is just my initial reaction to reading it, maybe more study will shed more light, what do you think?

“In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”

We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right.”

If we use this as an example, even Paul, as the missionary, refused to be a burden and worked and toiled while he was there … and who in Thessalonica was the head pastor or had a paid position? It doesn’t seem that anyone did … the implication is that everyone should work at a job for what they eat, and Paul did not point out any exceptions here, which I find interesting.

Again, I’m not totally against paid positions in the Body … I mainly feel that they are not generally supported by scripture and unwise for a variety of reasons which I could address on a later post …

Peace.

Second, I also agree that there were specific purposes for giving in the New Testament. However, that said, I also believe that giving can and should go to support people in full time ministry, like myself. Granted that there is not provision in the New Testament for a “Student Minister”, but within that position I am fulfilling the Biblical role of Pastor, Teacher, etc. and I am actively making disciples. Also, as a full time “minister” I act as a local missionary to my community. So, if giving should go toward missions, doesn’t that count?

The Bible is also clear in expressing that those who preach the gospel can (and arguably should) make their living in this way (1 Corinthians 9:14, 1 Timothy 5:17-18). Therefore, I would assume that part of the money given to the New Testament Church did, in fact, go to provide for the monetary needs of the Apostles.

This idea would be completely in line with scripture and with the apostles actions. After all, the Apostles created the role of deacon so that they would not have to worry about smaller matters and could focus on the study and teaching of God’s word. So, it seems safe to assume that they didn’t work other jobs in order to provide for themselves or their families.

I’m not trying to be argumentative here, I’m just trying to point out something that I think went overlooked.

I genuinely agree with most of your ideas. And, though you may not agree with me in all of my thinking, from this side of the “full-time-ministers” fence, I can tell you that it is essential that some people serve in a full-time compacity and that others serve as tent makers like Paul did.