This post is directed toward my conservative, moderate, and liberal brethren. Please read carefully and answer accordingly.
After reading a dialog between Praxeas and Growingpains, I've decided to add my input. I've encountered various situations where congregants were in desperate financial need, and were over-looked by their pastor. Folks, I'm not talking about brethren whom constantly seek financial assistance from the church, but I'm talking about folks whom have never sought financial assistance. I'm personally acquainted with a sister that was facing eviction from her apartment, and was denied financial assistance from her pastor. It surprises me that these very pastors will jump to a round of golf, hunting, and\or other recreational activities without hesitation, sadly while their congregants are financially needy.
I've encountered various excuses why some pastors are non-employed, and the most popular response being "what if a saint needs me while I'm at work?" Readers, please understand what I'm about to state. For this reason precisely saints are more dependent on their pastor than God. Don't misunderstand me, I believe every man/women needs a pastor, but the problem lies when the congregant dials their pastor's number before petitioning an omnipotent immutable God! Many saints have failed reaching new spiritual dimensions, all due to their pastor's pastoral-ship.
Undoubtedly, certain pastors enjoy pastoring congregants who possess a pastoral dependency mentality. Many pastors draw their security from these types of congregants, and in doing so, these pastors build themselves a cankered pedestal and transform themselves into dictators. Also, congregants with this mentality are rendered more susceptible to pastoral manipulation (e.g. do what I say and not what I do leadership). In regards to pastors and employment, Paul clearly expressed his opinion on the matter:
Acts 20:
33)
I have never coveted anyone’s silver or gold or fine clothes.
34) You know that
these hands of mine have worked to supply my own needs and even the needs of those who were with me.
35) And I have been a constant example..........
2 Thessalonians 3:
7) For you know that you ought to imitate us......
8)
We never accepted food from anyone without paying for it.
We worked hard day and night so we would not be a burden to any of you.
9)
We certainly had the right to ask you to feed us, but we wanted to give you an example to follow.
10) Even while we were with you,
we gave you this command: “Those unwilling to work will not get to eat.”
Whether our role is an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and/or teacher, I find those callings a privilege rather than an occupation. Paul's calling was an apostle while his occupation was a tent builder. I understand evangelist travel from church to church, city to city preaching the gospel. However, Phillip (
Acts 21:8) traveled city to city preaching the gospel as an itinerant preacher, preaching the gospel to non-evangelized or non-church existing locations. So why does the role of a current evangelist consist of traveling from church to church? Why does the role from an ACTS evangelist differ from our modern day evangelist role?
Threaded Mode
