Should Elders (or Pastors) Be Financially Supported?
Some feel it's best for elders or pastors to be bivocational. What's the scriptural view?
When I was a young guy beginning to serve as a pastor and teacher, I became impressed with some nontraditional ways of understanding the nature and ministry of the church. I grew more and more critical of the “institutional church,” thought we all needed to go back to meeting simply in homes as the early church did, and felt the church elders should all be “tentmakers” (that is, self-supporting financially) as, I understood, the apostle Paul was. After a lot more, and deeper, study of Scripture, some of these views have been confirmed (for instance, team pastoral leadership of the church); some have been challenged (such as my incorrect understanding of the “house churches” in the first few centuries), and all have come into greater focus and biblical balance.
God led me to a wonderful church that was much more traditional and institutional than I would have preferred. And he used this church to teach me some humility in how I evaluated other churches. This “traditional,” “institutional” church was profoundly grounded and permeated by in-depth, intensive study of God’s Word, their discussions about God and how to faithfully be the church were both theologically rich and practically relevant to everyday life, and their ministries and outreach were spiritually vibrant and effective. All this in a church I could have easily dismissed as traditional and institutional.
We’ve been examining the biblical teaching of team pastoral leadership for a few weeks now, and I’ll write more soon about the actual size of the early churches and how they met together. But what about the question of whether elders or pastors should be financially supported? We’re going to start with what we can clearly determine from Scripture, we’ll briefly look at speculative claims made about supporting elders or pastors, and then we’ll see if there’s any benefit to supporting elders or pastors.
The example of Paul
We’ll start with Paul because this is where these discussions invariably start. Those who’ve been paying attention to my last few posts will be quick to note that Paul’s ministry (with the very possible exception of his time in Antioch before his first missionary journey) was not that of a local church elder, but of an apostle of Christ—an itinerant missionary, evangelist and church planter. So it’s helpful for us to see how Paul can serve as an example to church elders or pastors, but we need to be careful about applying any principle that would be distinctive to him as an apostle.
Why is Paul often central to these discussions? Because he’s associated with being a “tentmaker.” What’s a tentmaker? This word is used in two different ways. We know from Scripture Paul was skilled in the trade of tentmaking, as were Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:2-3). (Scholars tell us it was unlikely Paul carried with him the extensive tools and supplies to set up a full tentmaking business on his own. He likely either did “tentmaking handyman” work such as repairing people’s tents, or worked for other tentmakers such as Priscilla and Aquila.) So this word can mean a literal tentmaker.
But it’s the second, metaphorical meaning that’s more significant to us. Through this tentmaking trade, many understand Paul to have financially supported himself in ministry, even rejecting the intended financial support of churches. Supporting oneself in ministry by working has become known as “tentmaking” (especially in the context of foreign missions).
So, did the apostle Paul support himself financially in ministry? Or did he receive support from churches for his ministry? The answer to these questions is . . . yes. Paul supported himself in ministry and refused support from certain churches . . . sometimes. And Paul received financial support from churches, devoting all of his time to ministry . . . sometimes. So this isn’t as easy a question as some might think. We need to know when Paul received support, when he refused it, and why.
Where do we see Paul receiving support? Let’s look at a few passages:
Was I wrong when I humbled myself and honored you by preaching God’s Good News to you without expecting anything in return? I “robbed” other churches by accepting their contributions so I could serve you at no cost. And when I was with you and didn’t have enough to live on, I did not become a financial burden to anyone. For the brothers who came from Macedonia brought me all that I needed. I have never been a burden to you, and I never will be.
2 Corinthians 11:7-9
We’ll return to this passage to discuss why Paul wouldn’t receive support from the Corinthians. But notice that in one of the very passages where Paul refuses support from one church, he’s accepting support from other churches.
Let’s look at another passage:
As you know, you Philippians were the only ones who gave me financial help when I first brought you the Good News and then traveled on from Macedonia. No other church did this. Even when I was in Thessalonica you sent help more than once. I don’t say this because I want a gift from you. Rather, I want you to receive a reward for your kindness.
At the moment I have all I need—and more! I am generously supplied with the gifts you sent me with Epaphroditus. They are a sweet-smelling sacrifice that is acceptable and pleasing to God. And this same God who takes care of me will supply all your needs from his glorious riches, which have been given to us in Christ Jesus.
Philippians 4:15-19
This passage shows that Paul received support from the Philippian church on multiple occasions, he commends them for these gifts, and even describes these financial gifts as God taking care of him.
And after Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul spent all his time preaching the word. He testified to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.
Acts 18:5
Earlier, I referenced Acts 18:2-3, where Paul worked as a tentmaker with Priscilla and Aquila. But just a few verses later, immediately after Silas and Timothy arrive, Paul devotes all of his time to evangelism. Why? The strong implication of the text (and the overwhelming consensus of Bible scholars) is that—comparing this verse to references in the letters to the churches—Silas and Timothy brought with them financial support from churches in Macedonia. This support allowed Paul to devote all of his time to ministry.
I am planning to go to Spain, and when I do, I will stop off in Rome. And after I have enjoyed your fellowship for a little while, you can provide for my journey.
Romans 15:24
Perhaps I will stay awhile with you, possibly all winter, and then you can send me on my way to my next destination.
1 Corinthians 16:6
Do everything you can to help Zenas the lawyer and Apollos with their trip. See that they are given everything they need.
Titus 3:13
Paul not only received financial support for his ministry from the churches, he anticipated it for himself and for others in apostolic ministry. The casual, frequent mention of this kind of support seems to indicate this was routine for the New Testament churches. Of course, we have a greater example of supporting those in ministry (and receiving support) in Jesus himself.
Soon afterward Jesus began a tour of the nearby towns and villages, preaching and announcing the Good News about the Kingdom of God. He took his twelve disciples with him, along with some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases. Among them were Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons; Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s business manager; Susanna; and many others who were contributing from their own resources to support Jesus and his disciples.
Luke 8:1-3
Did Jesus support himself and his team in ministry by working, refusing support? No, he did not.
So what do we see so far regarding the example of Paul? Paul often received financial support for his ministry (and his team) from churches. He even expected the participation of the churches in this way. In receiving support, he was following the example of Jesus. Paul was perfectly willing to work and support himself when necessary, but as soon as he had the financial means to do so, he discontinued his tentmaking and focused exclusively on his ministry. We can see already that Paul had no general principle against receiving financial support. To claim he did would be contradicting a great deal of Scripture. In quite strong words, Paul establishes the rightness of this kind of support:
What soldier has to pay his own expenses? What farmer plants a vineyard and doesn’t have the right to eat some of its fruit? What shepherd cares for a flock of sheep and isn’t allowed to drink some of the milk? Am I expressing merely a human opinion, or does the law say the same thing? For the law of Moses says, “You must not muzzle an ox to keep it from eating as it treads out the grain.” Was God thinking only about oxen when he said this? Wasn’t he actually speaking to us? Yes, it was written for us, so that the one who plows and the one who threshes the grain might both expect a share of the harvest. . . .
Don’t you realize that those who work in the temple get their meals from the offerings brought to the temple? And those who serve at the altar get a share of the sacrificial offerings. In the same way, the Lord ordered that those who preach the Good News should be supported by those who benefit from it.
1 Corinthians 9:7-10, 13-14
Notice Paul doesn’t just present this as some kind of practical, cultural or traditional right of someone in ministry, but as a principle found in both the Old Covenant law of God and the direct instructions of Christ. But—as doubtless many of you are saying out loud as you read this!—this strong affirmation of the support of workers in ministry is found in a larger passage where Paul is insisting he will not receive such support from the Corinthians. We need to be careful here. We can’t so prioritize Paul’s refusal to receive this support from the Corinthians we nullify a principle established by Christ himself (and demonstrated in a number of other passages in the ministry of Paul). But we also have to understand why Paul was not, in this case, availing himself of this support from the Corinthians. We need to understand what Paul was doing in a way that honors both the principle and Paul’s refusal, seeking the harmony of Paul’s approach.
Why did Paul sometimes refuse financial support?
Knowing Paul sometimes refused support and sometimes accepted it helps us dig a little deeper to understand why. (Just as we have to understand why Paul dismissed the importance of circumcision—but then required Timothy to be circumcised. Or why he sometimes quietly slipped out of town, but other times insisted on an official apology.) We need to first remember the nature of his ministry. A key aspect of Paul’s apostolic ministry was evangelism, taking the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who had never heard it. Does this have something to do with why he refused support? Let’s look at the passages where Paul would not be supported in his ministry, and see if we find a pattern:
Don’t you remember, dear brothers and sisters, how hard we worked among you? Night and day we toiled to earn a living so that we would not be a burden to any of you as we preached God’s Good News to you.
1 Thessalonians 2:9
In the same way, the Lord ordered that those who preach the Good News should be supported by those who benefit from it. Yet I have never used any of these rights. And I am not writing this to suggest that I want to start now. In fact, I would rather die than lose my right to boast about preaching without charge. . . .
What then is my pay? It is the opportunity to preach the Good News without charging anyone. That’s why I never demand my rights when I preach the Good News.
1 Corinthians 9:14-15, 18
Many of you are already picking up the pattern of the wording in these passages. What was Paul doing? He was preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ. Are these passages describing his ministry to the churches? No, it’s describing evangelism, the proclamation of the gospel to unbelievers. (All the Greek words for “preach” in these passages describe evangelism, not teaching or “preaching” in church.) So from whom did Paul always, without fail, refuse to receive support? From unbelievers!
Why was this such a big deal? Because it was common in the Greco-Roman culture of that day for people to offer to share about a new religion for a price. You had to pay to hear them present their “good news”! (And they could become quite wealthy from the profits.) This is why Paul is adamant that “I would rather die than lose my right to boast about preaching without charge,” why he insists on “the opportunity to preach the Good News without charging anyone.” This is why he says in 2 Corinthians 2:17:
You see, we are not like the many hucksters who preach for personal profit. We preach the word [or message] of God with sincerity and with Christ’s authority, knowing that God is watching us.
And why he writes in 2 Corinthians 11:7-11:
Was I wrong when I humbled myself and honored you by preaching God’s Good News to you without expecting anything in return? I “robbed” other churches by accepting their contributions so I could serve you at no cost. And when I was with you and didn’t have enough to live on, I did not become a financial burden to anyone. For the brothers who came from Macedonia brought me all that I needed. I have never been a burden to you, and I never will be. As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, no one in all of Greece will ever stop me from boasting about this. Why? Because I don’t love you? God knows that I do.
And notice again that Paul was receiving support from other churches at the same time he was refusing support from the Corinthians. So we can’t say Paul had some general principle of not receiving financial support. He adamantly refused to be paid to evangelize by those he was evangelizing! (Jesus and his disciples were in a very different context of taking the good news of the kingdom to the covenant people of Israel.) We see this principle confirmed by the apostle John:
Dear friend, you are being faithful to God when you care for the traveling teachers who pass through, even though they are strangers to you. They have told the church here of your loving friendship. Please continue providing for such teachers in a manner that pleases God. For they are traveling for the Lord, and they accept nothing from people who are not believers. So we ourselves should support them so that we can be their partners as they teach the truth.
3 John 1:5-8
So—drawing from Scripture—what can we glean from the example of Paul? We should never charge (or accept payment from) any unbeliever for the privilege of sharing the gospel with them and helping them become a believer! Those serving in ministry should be willing to work when necessary to support themselves and others. But when financial support is available, it’s generally better to devote themselves completely to ministry.
What about elders or pastors?
So what does all this mean for elders or pastors? Should they be financially supported? Many, somewhat ironically, will now distinguish between the apostolic ministry of Paul and the role of the pastor or elder in the local church, and conclude it was legitimate to support Paul in ministry but not local church elders or pastors. We should note this is mere speculation. And it’s curious speculation when Paul himself wrote:
Those who are taught the word of God should provide for their teachers, sharing all good things with them.
Galatians 6:6
It’s true this passage doesn’t explicitly speak of financial support (although most scholars agree that’s what it’s talking about), but it does seem to show a certain support of those who regularly teach believers, which is a primary responsibility of elders or pastors of a church. Does Paul address this anyplace else? As a matter of fact, he does.
Elders who do their work well should be respected and paid well, especially those who work hard at both preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You must not muzzle an ox to keep it from eating as it treads out the grain.” And in another place, “Those who work deserve their pay!”
1 Timothy 5:17-18
Okay, so let’s unpack this a little bit. The NLT above says certain elders should be “paid well,” while other translations render this “are worthy of double honor.” So, some say, this is just honoring leaders for their service, and it has nothing to do with any remuneration. But we run into some problems pretty quickly with this interpretation.
First, Paul follows this command with two references, one quoting the Old Testament law (Deuteronomy 25:4) and the other quoting Jesus (Luke 10:7). Jesus was speaking of hospitality and support for those taking the good news to the towns of Israel, and Paul had previously used the Deuteronomy passage to establish the rightness of supporting people in evangelistic ministry (1 Corinthians 9:9). Now we see Paul applying both of these references—and the principle of supporting people in ministry—to local church elders or pastors. It’s hard to read “Those who work deserve their pay!” and insist this can’t mean a salary for a pastor!
This becomes even more difficult when we see the way this word “honor” is used earlier in this same chapter for the widows of the church: “Take care of any widow who has no one else to care for her [1 Timothy 5:3].” The word translated here “Take care of” is the same word used in 5:17 for “paid well” or “double honor.” Some translations read here “Honor the widows” and others render this “Support the widows.” It’s clear from the following verses this was regular, financial support of these widows, not an occasional “honorarium,” and I can’t recall hearing anyone argue otherwise. The word in 5:17 is—in context—speaking of similar regular, financial support. The NET gives us a helpful footnote for this word:
The word honor here carries the double meaning of respect and financial support. This Greek word can imply both senses, and both are intended in this context.
So does this mean a church is supposed to financially support all of its elders? No, that’s definitely not what the text says. It specifies certain elders, and then focuses this even more. First, it highlights the elders who “do their work well” (NLT), “direct the affairs of the church well” (NIV), or “provide effective leadership” (NET). This doesn’t mean the other elders are serving poorly. But there will be some elders who will be able (for whatever reason) and eager to serve with greater commitment of time and attention. They will pour themselves into their ministries in a way some others won’t (or can’t). So because they’re especially doing their work of pastoral ministry well, they’re worthy of being financially supported in their service to the church.
Among these elders or pastors who are noticeably effective in their ministries, Paul gives particular focus to those who devote themselves to, “work hard at,” or “labor at” studying and teaching Scripture. He feels these elders or pastors are especially deserving of financial support. This is in complete harmony with his repeated emphasis on the vital importance of the teaching of the church from Scripture, making sure the body is well-fed from the Word of God. Notice the text speaks of elders (plural) who serve in this way. So this isn’t referring to the “senior pastor” of the church. But it's also not talking, necessarily, about financially supporting a large number of elders or pastors in each church.
Some would protest the churches at that time couldn’t provide regular support for a few elders or pastors in each church this way. But there’s no clear passage from Scripture that establishes such constant, universal poverty for the churches then. This is merely assumed by some. It also might be helpful to note the “house churches” of the early centuries weren’t 10 or 20 people crammed into a living room. These were actually “villa churches” that could comfortably seat up to 150 people. This may change some of our assumptions about the early churches.
But didn’t Paul support himself the whole time he was in Ephesus, and call the Ephesian elders to follow his example by not receiving financial support? This also is assumed by some. The 20th chapter of Acts includes Paul’s farewell words to the elders of the church in Ephesus. It’s a wonderful passage that’s rich with insights, especially for elders or pastors. But is the above assumption correct? Let’s look at the relevant section of this chapter:
“I know that false teachers, like vicious wolves, will come in among you after I leave, not sparing the flock. Even some men from your own group will rise up and distort the truth in order to draw a following. Watch out! Remember the three years I was with you—my constant watch and care over you night and day, and my many tears for you.
“And now I entrust you to God and the message of his grace that is able to build you up and give you an inheritance with all those he has set apart for himself.
“I have never coveted anyone’s silver or gold or fine clothes. You know that these hands of mine have worked to supply my own needs and even the needs of those who were with me. And I have been a constant example of how you can help those in need by working hard. You should remember the words of the Lord Jesus: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
Acts 20:29-35
I’ve highlighted some key sentences that are most often discussed with this topic. So what can we know for certain from this passage? Paul spent three years with them in Ephesus. And for these three years he (according to this translation) was constantly watching and caring over them, even in tears. Some translations say he “instructed” them. Most say he “never stopped warning them.” Warning them about what? In the immediate context it’s clear he was warning them about false teachers coming into the church, or even rising up from their own group. So far, so good.
Paul later reminds them he worked to supply his own needs and the needs of the team-members who were with him. Have we seen this before in the other passages we looked at? Yes. Did Paul supply his and his team’s needs the entire three years he was in Ephesus? We don’t know. He could have, but the text doesn’t say. He could just as easily have done the same thing he did in Corinth (Acts 18:5) and worked until he received support from somewhere else. All we know is he did work to supply his own needs and those of his team in Ephesus. But we could say the same thing about Paul in Corinth. The text doesn’t give us any more context. The fact Paul worked to supply his needs is not a new revelation—we’ve seen it before. But the claim he did this the whole time he was in Ephesus is going beyond the wording of the text, it’s adding detail not found in the text. We certainly can’t use this assumption as a basis for ignoring or re-interpreting all the other passages we’ve looked at!
And what was the specific example he intended to provide for the Ephesian elders? Paul himself told them. This translation says “of how you can help those in need by working hard.” Most translations say something like “by working in this way we must help the weak.” So let’s think about this? Was Paul’s ministry one of working to financially provide for the material or financial needs of others? Does he emphasize this anyplace else? Was he primarily an example of relief ministries today? No, he was not. What was the primary way Paul and his team were helping people? By sharing with them the gospel of Jesus Christ, and helping the new believers form thriving church communities!
Remember the words Paul heard in the vision of the Macedonian man (Acts 16:9): “Come over to Macedonia and help us!” And for what kind of help was the man asking? Material help? Financial help? No. Paul and his team concluded “that God was calling us to preach the Good News there.” This is what Paul did. This was his focus and constant priority. This is the primary way he helped people.
And what’s the pattern we’ve already seen in the ministry of Paul? He refused to receive support from the very people with whom he was seeking to share the gospel. Why? We could quite easily say because they were still “weak” or “in need.” He was protective of them in the same way one would be protective of a brand new sapling one is planting. And being driven to protect these potentially new converts to the faith—even if it required working—is the example he’s providing the Ephesian elders. This way of reading this passage fits the immediate context, is in complete harmony with the approach of Paul we see consistently everywhere else, and doesn’t try to turn all the other passages on their head to make them fit unsubstantiated assumptions about this one passage.
Wisdom issues: What’s best for the churches?
So does this mean every church without exception should support multiple elders or pastors? Of course not. This would be a harsh, legalistic insistence when some churches may not be able to do this, at least right away. But we need to be careful to not take our personal speculations and exceptions, and allow them to become a de facto prohibition (or at least strong discouragement) from supporting certain elders or pastors—when the Word of God teaches us to support certain elders or pastors!
Some would say it’s allowable for churches to support certain elders or pastors, but it’s most beneficial for the churches to have elders or pastors who support themselves by working full-time. But we need to tread very carefully here. Who is the one who said the churches should support certain elders or pastors? God. And what scriptural basis do we have for saying it’s best for churches if we don’t do what he said to do? Certainly not the example or teaching of Paul or any of the other apostles. (We just went through that.) So this essentially amounts to us saying we know what’s better for the churches than God does!
The discussion really should end with that, but many have expressed concerns about supporting elders or pastors. Some of this is based on romanticized notions of the house church that aren’t warranted by Scripture, history or current reality. By the way, I write this as a former elder of a house church, and someone who once wrote advocating for house churches. (I would encourage you to read some of the current writing of Steve Atkerson, who has also come to hold very different views about house churches than he once did.)
Some attribute rigid institutionalism, traditional practices and even the decline of the American church to the financial support of pastors (despite the fact churches have been supporting pastors for a very long time). They offer stories of cold, formal churches that pay pastors, and vibrant movements of churches who do not. But this kind of anecdotal evidence is difficult to verify, and can cut both ways. In our area, there’s a fellowship of Christians who meet in a home and their elders all work to support themselves. And in this home meeting, they line up the chairs in rows, and the unpaid elder preaches from a lectern at the “front” of the living room!
On the other hand, we’re a church who meets in a rented facility, and who fully supports one pastor and partially supports another. And we’ve sought for years to do things in sometimes nontraditional ways to more faithfully be the church—including not sitting in rows. (In fact, our prior meeting place felt very much like a large living room.) I know of quite a few churches who have been willing to go against church tradition to be more faithful to what God is calling them to be and do as a church—churches that have paid pastors. We need to make sure our preferences don’t become prejudices that cause us to unfairly judge other churches. And we need to be careful to not establish our own, new, rigid traditions based on assumptions we have about the early churches—especially if our new traditions are actually in opposition to the Word of God.
Are there dangers in supporting pastors? And has this kind of support been abused? Of course. Just as there are dangers in having an organized, regularly gathering church instead of just meeting randomly with other Christians when we feel like it. And there are dangers with the churches having formally appointed leaders instead of everyone simply doing whatever they think is right. Have organized churches and formal leadership in the churches been abused? Yes, often! So do we respond to these dangers by just meeting other Christians haphazardly at Peet’s Coffee, and by rejecting the idea of appointed leaders? No, we don’t. Why not? Because we follow Christ’s design for his church, and realize that he feels any potential dangers from these things are warranted.
There are dangers and potential abuse to just about everything worthwhile in life. This doesn’t cause us to fearfully reject anything that might involve potential danger or abuse. We can’t be faithful to Scripture and live this way. The question is: What did Christ tell us to do in the church? Some would protest that the money used to support pastors could be used for benefit in other places. But—again—we do not presume to second guess what Jesus has deemed appropriate and beneficial support of pastoral leaders for his church.
Some feel this kind of pastoral support leads to a clergy/laity distinction with emphasis on a senior or lead pastor. But this is ignoring the countless churches who support certain pastors but who have a thoroughly biblical eldership with no senior or lead pastor. (And there are a great many small churches who don’t support their pastor—but there’s no question he’s the senior pastor!)
The Plymouth Brethren are a church tradition known for elder leadership, with no senior pastors. But the last few decades a great many of the Brethren assemblies have begun financially supporting certain of their elders. Instead of leading to decline or to rampant institutionalization, this has contributed to many of these churches becoming more vibrant and effective. Alexander Strauch served his entire ministry in a Brethren assembly, and he wrote the classic book Biblical Eldership that strikingly propounds church leadership by a team of elders or pastors. (God powerfully used this book to introduce to a great many Christians the biblical teaching of elder-leadership of the churches.) In this book he carefully explains, from Scripture, why certain elders should be financially supported, especially those who dedicate themselves to teaching the Word of God.
One revealing complaint is that churches supporting pastors is not an effective way to fulfill the Great Commission. I think what they mean by this is evangelism, although this is only the first part of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20). But this exposes a serious confusion of categories. Where do we fulfill the evangelism aspect of the Great Commission? We fulfill this part of the Great Commission as we go into the world, right? How do ordinary Christians do this? By—whenever we’re given opportunity—sharing the good news of Jesus with our family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, fellow students, etc. The evangelism part of the Great Commission is what we’re to fulfill in our everyday lives as we go out from the church—it’s not what we do in the church.
And what does the New Testament show over and over again to be the purpose of the gathered church? The edification and spiritual formation of the people of God. This is why the central responsibility of the elders or pastors is to make sure the church is well-taught, trained and equipped through the teaching of the Word of God—which is also mentioned in the Great Commission, by the way! We need to be passionately committed to both evangelizing people in our societies, and to the growth in knowledge and wisdom, and the spiritual maturing, of the people in our churches. The more scripturally and theologically rich and deep Christians are, the more they’re equipped to share the gospel of Christ in a way that’s scripturally and theologically rich and deep. The problem is much of the “gospel” shared with people is trite and superficial at best because that’s what many Christians are getting at church.
We’ve all known churches and movements that started off filled with evangelistic zeal, never to get around to the work of substantive, systematic discipling of Christians through in-depth teaching of God’s Word (which is, again, part of the Great Commission). This is a problem with some house church or mini-church movements, and it’s a problem with many megachurches, who are often a mile wide and an inch deep. Many of these churches de-emphasize the need for deep, comprehensive scriptural teaching. And so their people are spiritually stunted and malnourished. Because they de-emphasize this kind of teaching, many of these house church or mini-church movements also reject the need for supporting teaching elders or pastors.
A frequent complaint I’ve heard over the years regarding elder-led churches is that the teaching is inadequate. Many people in these churches feel they’re not being scripturally fed. Sometimes this is due to a mistaken idea the elders must all take turns teaching the whole church. So the church has elders who aren’t gifted at teaching large groups (sometimes obviously ungifted) teaching right along with those who are. This can be painful both for the people in the church and for the elders who are forced to serve in ways in which they’re not gifted.
But even when a church does have an elder or pastor (or two or three) who are gifted at teaching Scripture, some churches will seriously inhibit the effectiveness of this pastor’s teaching by not providing him the time needed to be prepared as a teaching pastor. (And often the pastor isn’t provided with necessary training to begin with.) Sure, they might manage to eke out enough time to be able to do a simple Bible study, the equivalent of what people might receive in any small group study. But the standard for teaching Scripture to the people of God as a church elder or pastor should be much greater than that. This kind of teaching is inadequate for the gathered church, and people are right to feel dissatisfied with it.
You may have noticed the photo at the beginning of this post. This is a familiar sight to anyone who’s served as a teaching elder or pastor. Many of us now do a lot of this work on computer—but that just makes more resources available! As someone entrusted with teaching God’s Word to his people, I can’t just give my unique personal “insights” of the section we’re studying. And I can’t just teach straight from John MacArthur’s commentary (or whoever). I have to understand the different views Bible scholars have on the passage in question and why, and have a clear idea which interpretation is correct and why.
If we’re studying the book of Romans and we reach Romans 9, I need to understand what this passage meant to the people in the first century. This actually requires much more work for us now because we have to deal with huge differences of language and cultural context that weren’t an issue for them back then. If we don’t rightly understand their original context and understanding of the passage, we won’t rightly understand the passage now.
I need to not only understand Romans 9, but how this chapter fits into Romans 9-11, and how this section fits into the flow of the whole letter to the Romans. And how this section fits into the rest of Paul’s letters. And how this section fits into the rest of the New Testament. And how this section fits into the whole canon of Scripture. I can’t just draw a few simple life lessons from Romans 9 and give these to the people (because I don’t have time to properly understand the deep theology in Romans 9). This isn’t being faithful to the calling to teach God’s people his Word. I can’t just teach a simple lesson I manage to draw from Romans 9. I need to know Romans 9, and then teach from that biblical knowledge and wisdom.
But it doesn’t end here. To do this right, I need to have a clear understanding of the theology of Calvinism, Arminianism, variations of both, where they differ, and why. I need to understand how church history relates to our understanding of this section of Romans. I need to be up-to-date on recent, relevant books and articles on these views, which means I’m regularly reading from other pastors and scholars. I need to be aware of any new teachings or controversies affecting the church, or any new apologetic challenges.
Again, it’s not enough for me to simply be prepared to teach a lesson from a weekly passage of Scripture. I need to be prepared as a teaching pastor, prepared to provide teaching on any of this as it’s needed to strengthen and edify the church. And I have to be ready to do this with every passage of Scripture (or any topical question), week by week, month by month, year by year, regardless of what theological issue or controversy it touches on. A teaching elder or pastor isn’t simply a Bible study leader, they’re a kind of “resident theologian,” providing a bridge between the wider church and the people the elder is personally called to teach and pastor. They need to be aware of what’s happening in the scholarly world, and be able translate this to ordinary Christians so they can be well-equipped.
To not merely present a superficial message or lesson, but to be thoroughly prepared as a teaching pastor requires a great amount of time. There’s no way around this. So one of a few things will happen. A church can support a teaching pastor (or pastors) so they can serve faithfully and effectively. If a church can’t or won’t support a teaching pastor, then he’ll have to take that time from somewhere else—which will likely mean taking it from the time he would ordinarily spend with his wife and children (or with non-Christians in his community). This may be necessary for a period of time, but it’s unhealthy longterm for the pastor, his family, and the church. A pastor who serves this way will also likely have to limit the amount of time and energy he can commit to a secular career, hampering his ability to provide a good income for his family.
More frequently today, a pastor won’t even try to serve in this way, and the people in the church won’t be fed spiritually, and equipped and trained, the way God intends. Instead, maybe these pastors will focus entirely on evangelistic ministry. It’s easy to get people excited about evangelism, and it doesn’t require the same kind of “laboring in the Word” that teaching Scripture does. This might even result in a rapid expansion of “churches.” (We see this in some of the mini-church movements today.) But ultimately these won’t be churches of believers being thoroughly discipled and spiritually formed, biblically grounded in the deep truths of God’s Word.
I’ve been a bivocational elder/pastor and one who’s supported financially. So I can speak realistically about both. If I had not been financially supported, I wouldn’t have been anywhere near as effective as I’ve been in teaching Scripture, and I wouldn’t have accomplished what God has allowed me to accomplish. Many of you have been very encouraging about the book I just published (and I appreciate it). But if I were still serving bivocationally, I wouldn’t have written this book. And I wouldn’t have been able to devote the time necessary for writing this post. (When I see how long this post has become—maybe that’s not such a bad thing!)
Here’s the bottom line: God has taught us in his Word to provide support for especially committed, effective elders or pastors in our churches, especially those who devote themselves to being effective students and teachers of Scripture. This is part of God’s design for the church, just as team pastoral leadership is part of God’s design for the church. If we don’t follow God’s design for his church, the church will suffer, and it won’t be as healthy and vibrant as he intends it to be.
It’s an unbelievable honor to be used by God to strengthen and edify his church through the teaching of his Word. And I’m so thankful to my church families who have graciously freed me to serve the church this way. As long as God allows me, I’ll strive to effectively teach, train and equip the people of God, helping us all grow closer to God, deeper in the faith, and more faithful as followers of Jesus Christ.
Related posts:
Why We Don’t Have a Senior (or Lead) Pastor
Challenges to Team Pastoral Leadership
What Do Elders (or Pastors) Do?