Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Church businesses …


Recommended Posts

  • Members
29 minutes ago, E Morales said:

Thank you for replying and I am happy everything is working well in your church with your husband leading by example. But I personally do not believe that the churches should not be in the pastor or pastors, financially controlled. let me explain, a church should not be paying to the pastors rent, house or light bill, telephone bill, taxes, cell phone, anything that you and I as a normal person would pay as a citizen.  I believe that the church which is the members, should not pay for anything at all, for the Pastor but let me say this also, the pastor is worthy of his wages and should be paid very well for what he does. Not the church paying his personal bills. If the pastor is getting paid well, the church does not need to pay for all the other things and more that I mentioned above.

Gifts are welcome like a car, that you mentioned or a well deserved vacation trip with his family. 
 

I would love my job to pay me minimum wage, and that they would pay all and everything else for me. But this will be breaking the law by not paying Taxes.

I think it's up to every church, as autonomous bodies (cells) within the body of Christ, to decide for themselves how they will pay their pastor, not on some preconceived notions that somebody has. Each body is free to decide for themselves how to pay their pastor, whether it's just paying him a salary, or giving him other perks. I know in the Missionary Baptist church we were in, the pastor to $300 per week salary, but the church also paid for his electric, water, insurance and phone. We had many members who didn't like this arrangement because the pastor would run off from the house leaving all the lights on, or would leave the water running to fill the above ground pool in the back yard, or would increase the auto insurance rates through auto accidents. It got to be where several members left. They basically had no say in what was going in their eyes because many of the men who were deacons were either related directly or indirectly to the pastor, and they would always vote to support his being there and his pay/perks. Still, it was the churches decision. The members didn't fight to overturn this...instead they just walked away and went elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BrotherTony said:

I think it's up to every church, as autonomous bodies (cells) within the body of Christ, to decide for themselves how they will pay their pastor, not on some preconceived notions that somebody has. Each body is free to decide for themselves how to pay their pastor, whether it's just paying him a salary, or giving him other perks. I know in the Missionary Baptist church we were in, the pastor to $300 per week salary, but the church also paid for his electric, water, insurance and phone. We had many members who didn't like this arrangement because the pastor would run off from the house leaving all the lights on, or would leave the water running to fill the above ground pool in the back yard, or would increase the auto insurance rates through auto accidents. It got to be where several members left. They basically had no say in what was going in their eyes because many of the men who were deacons were either related directly or indirectly to the pastor, and they would always vote to support his being there and his pay/perks. Still, it was the churches decision. The members didn't fight to overturn this...instead they just walked away and went elsewhere.

Yes, every church does has its own way on how too, but Pay/Perks are ways of not paying their fair part of taxes. Also controlling the pastors in my humble opinion.

Edited by E Morales
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
12 minutes ago, E Morales said:

Yes, every church does has its own way on how too, but Pay/Perks are ways of not paying their fair part of taxes. Also controlling the pastors in my humble opinion.

Still, that is between the church and the pastors. If the people of the church want it that way, it IS the church THEY attend and help shape policy on. So, it shouldn't be a problem to you at all since it really doesn't affect your life or the church you attend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
24 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

Still, that is between the church and the pastors. If the people of the church want it that way, it IS the church THEY attend and help shape policy on. So, it shouldn't be a problem to you at all since it really doesn't affect your life or the church you attend.

I remember many years ago I worked for a carpet store and the customer asked to sell person, which one do  you think I should get, and the sales person told her ma’am it is easy for me to spend your money. And it is easy, is it my problem you ask, yes it is if I am paying ties and offering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 minutes ago, E Morales said:

I remember many years ago I worked for a carpet store and the customer asked to sell person, which one do  you think I should get, and the sales person told her ma’am it is easy for me to spend your money. And it is easy, is it my problem you ask, yes it is if I am paying ties and offering.

You've never clarified whether it was your church or not. So, is it? Seems you have a lot of negative feelings about the church if it is. Have you ever considered that the problem may well be you, and not the church? Not judging, just asking. It's a fair and reasonable action considering the threads you've been posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, BrotherTony said:

You've never clarified whether it was your church or not. So, is it? Seems you have a lot of negative feelings about the church if it is. Have you ever considered that the problem may well be you, and not the church? Not judging, just asking. It's a fair and reasonable action considering the threads you've been posting.

Everything is okay no problem with my church or yours. Things I notice through out the years and have seen. It take many years for members to see sometimes, the right and wrongs, not only in their life, but in the church. Have a nice weekend

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, E Morales said:

Everything is okay no problem with my church or yours. Things I notice through out the years and have seen. It take many years for members to see sometimes, the right and wrongs, not only in their life, but in the church. Have a nice weekend

Not a problem, @E Morales. You have a fine weekend as well. 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 9/29/2021 at 6:42 AM, PastorMatt said:

Would you say it is more prevalent down south than up north, or about the same?

I would say it is very common all over based on where the Pastor went to college

On 10/2/2021 at 5:42 AM, E Morales said:

Thank you for replying and I am happy everything is working well in your church with your husband leading by example. But I personally do not believe that the churches should not be in the pastor or pastors, financially controlled. let me explain, a church should not be paying to the pastors rent, house or light bill, telephone bill, taxes, cell phone, anything that you and I as a normal person would pay as a citizen.  I believe that the church which is the members, should not pay for anything at all, for the Pastor but let me say this also, the pastor is worthy of his wages and should be paid very well for what he does. Not the church paying his personal bills. If the pastor is getting paid well, the church does not need to pay for all the other things and more that I mentioned above.

Gifts are welcome like a car, that you mentioned or a well deserved vacation trip with his family. 
 

I would love my job to pay me minimum wage, and that they would pay all and everything else for me. But this will be breaking the law by not paying Taxes.

The difference is that the IRS has specific rules for clergy. A Pastor doesn't have to pay any taxes on anything part of a housing allowance,  which covers a lot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Pastorj said:

I would say it is very common all over based on where the Pastor went to college

The difference is that the IRS has specific rules for clergy. A Pastor doesn't have to pay any taxes on anything part of a housing allowance,  which covers a lot

I have two questions, why do churches get in the business of providing benefits packages, like a home to live, free rent, auto, pay their smartphone, gas, travel and more, to preachers. I am not taking about regular things like vacation time, healthcare, but everything else.

Why don’t churches just pay only a well and fair flat rate salary to the pastor or preachers, nothing else.  
 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, E Morales said:

I have two questions, why do churches get in the business of providing benefits packages, like a home to live, free rent, auto, pay their smartphone, gas, travel and more, to preachers. I am not taking about regular things like vacation time, healthcare, but everything else.

Why don’t churches just pay only a well and fair flat rate salary to the pastor or preachers, nothing else.  
 

Thanks

Because, AGAIN, it's up to every AUTONOMOUS church to decide for themselves what to pay their pastors. It's not up to us on a virtual board to try and dictate their terms to a possible or present pastor. I don't agree that pastors shouldn't have more than just a salary, no matter how large it is, UNLESS THE CHURCH agrees and said pastor/candidate agree to those terms.

Edited by BrotherTony
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
17 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

Because, AGAIN, it's up to every AUTONOMOUS church to decide for themselves what to pay their pastors. It's not up to us on a virtual board to try and dictate their terms to a possible or present pastor. I don't agree that pastors shouldn't have more than just a salary, no matter how large it is, UNLESS THE CHURCH agrees and said pastor/candidate agree to those terms.

So you will prefer a package over a fair salary. Package $25,000 a home to live in and a car to use, over salary of 70,000 a year. Okay, not bad for a small church. Don’t get mad brother Tony, I’m just trying to figure things out here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, E Morales said:

So you will prefer a package over a fair salary. Package $25,000 a home to live in and a car to use, over salary of 70,000 a year. Okay, not bad for a small church. Don’t get mad brother Tony, I’m just trying to figure things out here.

For starters, that's not what I said. I stated, and ti should be pretty clear, it's up to the CHURCH...AUTONOMOUS...to set the terms. I don't believe it's up to us to set their terms. We, if we're members of said church, can voice our opinion in the business meeting, and the church as a whole has to make the decision. Personally, I believe that pastors in a church of a good size should be giving their pastors more than a salary, unless that salary is sizeable enough to cover some of the costs he would incur. Remember, he IS an EMPLOYEE of the church, though he is paid to be it's shepherd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The IRS allows clergy to declare any amount of their salary as a housing allowance as long as they spend that amount and it was declared in the church business meeting or notes.

This saves the pastor thousands of dollars and in Many churches allows the pastor to be full-time, rather than having to work.  You have to look at the full compensation package to understand what a member of the clergy is being paid 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

So regarding taxes...pastors actually can be exempt from paying taxes if they so desire. There is an exemption form to fill out. Most ministers take advantage of this, which is quite legal and moral, AND up to the individual pastor and church.(heh -thanks, Pastorj...I was saying some of this same stuff so I deleted since you put it so succinctly.

As to "benefit packages" - why on earth should a church NOT give their pastor benefits, IF THAT IS HOW THEY WISH TO SPEND THEIR MONEY?  The money our members (and true of every individual, local church) give is for THEM to decide, not for anyone outside of the membership (even if someone is regularly attending and gives money, if they aren't members they have no say).   

I think mayhap some of your thoughts come from the mega-churches and the pastors who are living a life of luxury at the expense of their members. This is indeed an issue, and I think has contributed to the idea that all pastors are greedy. But as has been said several times, the pay that any individual church decides to give to the pastor they've asked to come lead them is up to that individual church. Many churches do provide housing, but it is part of the salary. Many churches pay electric bills, etc. But it is also part of the salary. Not actually a "benefit."

I know that our members, as few as they are, would pay my husband a great deal more than he is being paid, and they would do much more (I forgot that two years ago they instituted a gas allowance...not a lot of money, but it has been a great help to us) for him (and me by extension) if they could. Very small in numbers but very big in heart and generosity, that is our church.

(Oh, @E Morales, your comment about smartphones reminded me - our church pays for my phone bill. I had been without a phone for several years after we moved here, but some of the ladies were concerned about getting in touch with me - even though we have a landline. So they brought it up in one of our meetings and the entire church voted to take care of it. That is a benefit for me, for sure. And it is only because I'm married to the pastor. And I greatly appreciate it. I don't consider it overdoing, nor do the members.)

Churches are not cookie cutter. In other words, they are all different. In size, in scope. Pastors have different personalities. The areas of churches are different (some areas are very open to attending church, others - like ours - don't see the need at all because, well, they can have church out in the beautiful scenery we have here...yes, we have been told that a multitude of times). And the fact that they are all different is really a wonderful thing. A pastor who is less of a "plodder" than my husband would get discouraged in an area like ours and likely leave.  Etc.

And that difference includes the money of the individual churches and how said money is budgeted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

So regarding taxes...pastors actually can be exempt from paying taxes if they so desire. There is an exemption form to fill out. Most ministers take advantage of this, which is quite legal and moral, AND up to the individual pastor and church.(heh -thanks, Pastorj...I was saying some of this same stuff so I deleted since you put it so succinctly.

As to "benefit packages" - why on earth should a church NOT give their pastor benefits, IF THAT IS HOW THEY WISH TO SPEND THEIR MONEY?  The money our members (and true of every individual, local church) give is for THEM to decide, not for anyone outside of the membership (even if someone is regularly attending and gives money, if they aren't members they have no say).   

I think mayhap some of your thoughts come from the mega-churches and the pastors who are living a life of luxury at the expense of their members. This is indeed an issue, and I think has contributed to the idea that all pastors are greedy. But as has been said several times, the pay that any individual church decides to give to the pastor they've asked to come lead them is up to that individual church. Many churches do provide housing, but it is part of the salary. Many churches pay electric bills, etc. But it is also part of the salary. Not actually a "benefit."

I know that our members, as few as they are, would pay my husband a great deal more than he is being paid, and they would do much more (I forgot that two years ago they instituted a gas allowance...not a lot of money, but it has been a great help to us) for him (and me by extension) if they could. Very small in numbers but very big in heart and generosity, that is our church.

(Oh, @E Morales, your comment about smartphones reminded me - our church pays for my phone bill. I had been without a phone for several years after we moved here, but some of the ladies were concerned about getting in touch with me - even though we have a landline. So they brought it up in one of our meetings and the entire church voted to take care of it. That is a benefit for me, for sure. And it is only because I'm married to the pastor. And I greatly appreciate it. I don't consider it overdoing, nor do the members.)

Churches are not cookie cutter. In other words, they are all different. In size, in scope. Pastors have different personalities. The areas of churches are different (some areas are very open to attending church, others - like ours - don't see the need at all because, well, they can have church out in the beautiful scenery we have here...yes, we have been told that a multitude of times). And the fact that they are all different is really a wonderful thing. A pastor who is less of a "plodder" than my husband would get discouraged in an area like ours and likely leave.  Etc.

And that difference includes the money of the individual churches and how said money is budgeted. 

Thank you for sharing your experience and as I mentioned above I am glad everything is working well which I believe can be done right. But if I was a member of your church I would prefer to pay you and your husband a well and decent salary, so you can choose where you want to live, what do you want to drive, and even save money for your retirement. Independent Baptist preachers don’t need to live a poor life, I’m not saying you are poor, I’m just saying you have the right to send your children to college too. I believe by giving you a small benefit package can keep you and your family from progressing in life. Even as something simple as to move, you won’t be able to save enough money. This is not in all the cases, like if yours you are satisfied 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators
9 hours ago, E Morales said:

Thank you for sharing your experience and as I mentioned above I am glad everything is working well which I believe can be done right. But if I was a member of your church I would prefer to pay you and your husband a well and decent salary, so you can choose where you want to live, what do you want to drive, and even save money for your retirement. Independent Baptist preachers don’t need to live a poor life, I’m not saying you are poor, I’m just saying you have the right to send your children to college too. I believe by giving you a small benefit package can keep you and your family from progressing in life. Even as something simple as to move, you won’t be able to save enough money. This is not in all the cases, like if yours you are satisfied 

Our church does not pay our housing...we take care of that. We chose - via God's leading - where we live. We also choose what we want to drive. We have another vehicle that hubs drives mostly (the car the church bought is for church use or emergency use if our van is down). If you were a member of our church you could have voted against buying the car, but you would have been the only one. lol

We aren't poor nor are we rich. God takes care of us, and my hubs gets a sufficient salary from the church. And we are progressing fine in life...monies/gifts/benefits from the church have nothing to do with our progressing in life. And as to our children - our son is in his 30s and paid his own way through his education, like we did. I'm sorry, but I don't agree that it's a "right" to send our children to college via the church paying "enough" money for someone to do so. IMO, that's overreach of pastoral pay.  Kids need to get jobs, save money, and pay their own way. Yep, I'm one of those hardnosed people (not to say we wouldn't help our ADULT child in college if need be - but most certainly we would never pay the way and allow said ADULT child to slough off working and paying his/her bill - that is teaching them to be irresponsible, and that is unbiblical).

Any pastor who goes into the ministry with $$ on his mind should just not go into the ministry. God provides for His servants. Yes, the laborer is worthy of his hire, and he should be paid if it's possible. Not all times is it possible, and so God works things out different ways (some with pastors getting a second job, some with other churches supporting until the church can be indigenous).  I think it's nice that you would like to provide a pastor with sufficient income to pay for everything they want, but that isn't true even of a secular job.  Money is only a means to an end. And not always available. Trusting God works much better...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
12 minutes ago, HappyChristian said:

Our church does not pay our housing...we take care of that. We chose - via God's leading - where we live. We also choose what we want to drive. We have another vehicle that hubs drives mostly (the car the church bought is for church use or emergency use if our van is down). If you were a member of our church you could have voted against buying the car, but you would have been the only one. lol

We aren't poor nor are we rich. God takes care of us, and my hubs gets a sufficient salary from the church. And we are progressing fine in life...monies/gifts/benefits from the church have nothing to do with our progressing in life. And as to our children - our son is in his 30s and paid his own way through his education, like we did. I'm sorry, but I don't agree that it's a "right" to send our children to college via the church paying "enough" money for someone to do so. IMO, that's overreach of pastoral pay.  Kids need to get jobs, save money, and pay their own way. Yep, I'm one of those hardnosed people (not to say we wouldn't help our ADULT child in college if need be - but most certainly we would never pay the way and allow said ADULT child to slough off working and paying his/her bill - that is teaching them to be irresponsible, and that is unbiblical).

Any pastor who goes into the ministry with $$ on his mind should just not go into the ministry. God provides for His servants. Yes, the laborer is worthy of his hire, and he should be paid if it's possible. Not all times is it possible, and so God works things out different ways (some with pastors getting a second job, some with other churches supporting until the church can be indigenous).  I think it's nice that you would like to provide a pastor with sufficient income to pay for everything they want, but that isn't true even of a secular job.  Money is only a means to an end. And not always available. Trusting God works much better...

I'm so thankful that my wife and I decided years ago that should I ever pastor a church, I would also work a full-time job as well. I know many bi-vocational church pastors, and they do a wonderful job. I know of very few who don't take their pastoral duties seriously. Some ARE in the ministry for money, and this is disconcerting to me. But, these types seem to be few and far between. I know when I used to fill in for churches when they were in need of a pastor, I would turn my pay back over to the church, either to a missions program or to the youth program if the church had one. Upt until 21 years ago when I had to go on disabilty, I worked a full-time job with any pastoral duties I had. I've never regretted it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 12 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

    • Bro. West went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Nathan Mosel earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Bro. West earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Bro. West went up a rank
      Rookie
    • SureWord went up a rank
      Experienced
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Bro. West  »  BrotherTony

      The original question by Brother Tony was about Peter being wrong in Acts two. Peter is responsible only for the light God gave him at that point. Later God gave him more light as in Acts 10. He is not the only one to have this happen Apollos (Acts 19:1-7) He was re baptized, why because he did not reject more light given to him.
      Cornelius was another who went by the light that he had, but when Peter spoke to him he received that light, in fact Peter may have received light himself not only about the gentiles, but that the Holy Spirit was given before baptism. (Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Act 10:47) This is different than Acts 2:38.
      My main point is that the book of Acts is a book of progressive revelation and to rest your doctrine now on Acts two will produce damnable heresies. I know this first hand as being a member of the “Church of Christ” in good old Tennessee as a youth. I could of died and went to hell. Here in Indiana we have plenty that place the plan of salvation in Acts two. No, I am your Brother and not a MR. West, that is if you believe what Peter said again: For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 1Pe 3:18. This is the ministry of reconciliation spoke by Paul.
      So let me “TROLL” on out of here. Yours Brother West.
       
       
      · 5 replies
    • farouk  »  Rebecca

      Hi Ms @RebeccaGreat new avatar; so does the rabbit have a name?
      · 1 reply
    • farouk  »  Salyan

      Hi @SalyanInteresting avatar picture there; so does it refer to the Shield of Faith (Ephesians 6), perhaps?
      · 2 replies
    • farouk  »  trapperhoney

      Hi @trapperhoney; great header verse from Acts 20.24! I've thought a lot about that verse in the past...
      · 2 replies
    • farouk  »  John Young

      Hi @John Young Great photo of you guys! (your wife?) I've been away a long while from this site but came back recently...
      · 1 reply
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...