To pay or not to pay? That is the question.

In our group on Tuesdays we are studying Ephesians. This week we were in the beginning of the fourth chapter. Specifically the verse that says (ph) "to some were given to be pastors, to others prophets, to others evangelists, to others teachers," etc. Nowhere in that passage, or anywhere else that I've found, does it say that out of that group the pastor is the most important role. Now I've kinda had that thought in my mind my whole life. When I was a kid and my Dad was still doing concerts, he used to share an example about the fact that God gave us all a job to do. Even down to the janitor, every job is just as important as the next. You know, the whole "parts of the body" analogy from Corinthians. Each part has a purpose. No part can do the job that is another parts job. The body only works when all parts are doing their own job. It all makes perfect sense. But why don't we really believe that?

What I mean by that question is why do we place the pastor as the number one person within a church? I know we need leadership and all that; but is the pastor actually supposed to be the leader? I don't find that written anywhere. The pastor is the one that shares his heart and the Word of God with the 'members' of the body. I find no reference to a pastor being a do-all-end-all. But yet that's what happens in most every church. With all the talk about the hand being no more important than the ear, why do we make the pastor the head? It's gotten so bad in some churches that if you cut off the head the body would die. You know what I mean?

One of my brothers threw out an interesting question on Tuesday along this same vein: Is it right that we pay pastors? A paid pastor is set up to be supported by a church. As being [most of the time] the only paid person in the church, their 'job' is to be the head of all things. The church expects it b/c they are paying him. And why shouldn't they? To give you have to get something in return. The fact that even suggesting a no-pay pastor is just ludicrous and stupid. But is it really? Without name-dropping, there are some denominations that don't pay their pastors. The pastor has a 'day job' and is only responsible for doing the preaching on Sunday. The members of these churches, as well as their leaders, do what we would consider the rest of the pastor's role. Visiting the sick, office work, setting up meetings, etc. Those churches are thriving and growing and are in no danger of crashing without a pastor at the helm. So the arguments that people immediately throw up against this concept fall on deaf ears to these organizations. Is there something there we should take a look at?

There is a lot more to this idea than I can fit into one post and I promise to write more soon. But this is enough to get people talking and thinking.