Barna research: A Rapid Decline in Pastoral Security

Aaron wrote:

Respect is important, but I never believed I was owed more respect than the truck driver in the pew.

Aaron, the truck driver and everyone deserves respect if they are serving the Lord, but I have to disagree with you. I believe the Scriptures clearly teach that elders, and particularly elders who work hard at preaching and teaching (presumably what we call pastors) are told to be given double honor (respect). If such is the case, a pastor should certainly not discourage his flock from obeying this Scripture. You should expect your flock to follow the Scriptures, including this one, IMO.

I Timothy 5:17-20 is very relevant to this discussion, and I feel like it has been lost in this discussion:

Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

This “double honor” may play out as remuneration (as implied in the text), but I don’t think it refers to ONLY remuneration. For some, perhaps the use of the title “pastor” before one’s name is a way to show honor, for others, not; or as a double vote on the elders’ board. Those are attempts to apply the principle of double honor; whether we agree with the attempts or not, the motive is good and is something church members should pursue in a balanced way (we have seen the cult of personality destroy churches when leaders are not just honored but practically worshipped and people are more excited about their pastor than they are Jesus).

On the other side of the equation, besides added respect, they have added accountability. James also makes a similar point, though not necessarily addressing only pastors (teaching elders) in James 3:1,

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

Ed, I can’t deny you may be right.

It may be that the point there is a contrast between elders who excel vs. elders who, as we say in the workplace, underperform.

A couple of commentaries I found interesting, though they don’t clearly argue for my pov.

The commendation Paul directed for the dutiful elder was “double honor.” The term “honor” does not refer merely to an honorarium, but the failure to give proper pay would imply a lack of honor. The idea of “double” may refer to the double portion the oldest in the family received (Deut 21:17). It probably consisted of the twin benefits of honor or respect and financial remuneration. The fact that pay was at least included shows that those who gave leadership to spiritual affairs could expect financial support from the church (cf. 2 Cor 11:8–9; Gal 6:6).

Lea, Thomas D., and Hayne P. Griffin. 1, 2 Timothy, Titus. Vol. 34. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992. Print. The New American Commentary.

Those who performed their functions well were worthy of “double honor.” Since the word for “honor” (timē) was used in the sense of a price paid for something, it has been suggested that here it might be translated “honorarium” (BAG). But that raises the problem of “double”—double what was paid to the widows, or double what the other elders received? The NEB has: “reckoned worthy of a double stipend.” Williams softens it a bit perhaps by translating it “considered as deserving twice the salary they get.” Bernard’s suggestion is helpful: “Double honour, i.e. ample provision, must be ensured for them; diplē is not to be taken as equivalent to ‘double of the sum paid to widows,’ or in any similar way, but without any definite numerical reference” (p. 85). Perhaps we should allow both “honor” and “honorarium,” as Paul may have intended both.

Highest honor is to be given to “those whose work is preaching and teaching”—literally, “those laboring in word and teaching.” Some have found here a distinction between ruling elders and teaching elders. But this is doubtful. Probably it means that some elders gave themselves to preaching and teaching in addition to their regular duties. Such was the case with Stephen and Philip as deacons (Acts 6–8).

Earle, Ralph. “1 Timothy.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Ephesians through Philemon. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 11. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981. 380. Print.

In any case, I think it’s inherent in the concept of respect that one of its forms—maybe it’s most common form—is role related. That is, if I have a meeting with a judge, I call him Your Honor. If I meet with a U.S. President, whether he’s Joe Biden or Ronald Reagan doesn’t matter; I call him Mr. President.

But neither of these is meant to say “what you do has ultimately more value to God than what I do.” Even less does it imply “You are a superior class of human being.”

So we probably agree more than it may have seemed. There is respect of tone and interaction with the office/role and this is how we value its place in the scheme of things. In the case of the local church, it’s how we value its place in God’s design for the body.

But—I paraphrase—can the foot say to the eye, am I worth less because I’m not an eye? It’s an important job. In practical terms, it’s a more important job than vacuuming the sanctuary. Is it in eternity, though? And should the elder who rules well think he is worthy of double honor as a human being? I don’t think that’s the point. He’s not a better human. We are attaching value to his work. (But I think it’s the diligence there that makes the value higher, ultimately, not the role.)

Aaron Blumer wrote: In any case, I think it’s inherent in the concept of respect that one of its forms—maybe it’s most common form—is role related. That is, if I have a meeting with a judge, I call him Your Honor. If I meet with a U.S. President, whether he’s Joe Biden or Ronald Reagan doesn’t matter; I call him Mr. President.

Yes, that’s what I was getting at by “respect for the office.” It definitely applies to pastors, and as you mention above, I would use those titles as well — even with President Biden, for whom I have no personal respect. He’s the president, and I would address and treat him as such.

The godliest pastor I've been blessed with over a long period (almost 20 years), always went by his first name only and would refer to himself that way. If folks called him "Pastor (Last Name)" or "Pastor", he would certainly respond. He was humble that way.

There is a biblical injunction to esteem those in spiritual authority. I take that to be about renumeration (vocational spiritual leaders), prayer for them, and otherwise being both easy to shepherd while also personally vigilant. Ultimately, congregants need to be following the scriptures and follow Christ. Sure, Paul says imitate me as I imitate Christ, but Christ is the one to focus on.

The notion of "they should call me Pastor ..." disturbing and a long way from the humility of Christ. The tenor of Paul's writing in 1 Cor 3-4 is encouraging. It wasn't about him, his apostle title, etc.. It was about this terribly flawed local assembly submitting to Christ and finding their identity in Him.

The godliest pastor I’ve been blessed with over a long period (almost 20 years), always went by his first name only and would refer to himself that way.

John, if that is his preference, that is what you should do. What is wrong, IMO, is to refuse to call a pastor, “Pastor Tom” if that is what he prefers. I know physicians that preferred to be called by their first names, too. But, unless directed, I respect them by referring to them as “Dr. So and So.” Okay, I don’t say “so and so.” I use their name :)

As far as humility goes, humility is seen by focus. By that, a man can be proud that he is humble enough not to be called by an appropriate title because he is so humble. Lots of fake humility in the Christian world. It is a sin to be arrogant, and it is another sin to lie about being arrogant. The test is focus. A proud person wants attention and focus, even if the attention is about how humble he is. So, IMO, humility and titles bear no correlation. A humble man can choose either, and so can a proud man.

You mentioned his example of humility, and that is great (if it permeates his life). Humility is so undervalued, IMO. Consider James 4:6, But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

Wow. If we want God to be especially gracious to us, we need to cultivate humility. But real humility goes way beyond tokens, but comes from an accurate assessment of ourselves before God compared to His holy character. Pride sneaks into our lives in so many ways. We are cutting ourselves off from that additional grace if we are proud. Arrogance and pride are insidious sins, often masquerading as anything from conviction to concern for others. I try to remind myself of Jeremiah 17:9a, “The heart is deceitful above all things…” That includes my heart, too! So I am glad you appreciate humility; it is something we need to value more than many of us do, I think.

I think the concept of success (particularly in ministry) is difficult to define. Isaiah was successful (even though the result of his ministry was to harden the hearts of the Jewish people). Jeremiah was successful, and he ended up in a stinking pit.

This book was a huge help to me when I was a young pastor: https://www.amazon.com/Liberating-Ministry-Success-Syndrome-Hughes/dp/1…

Matt, I want to read that book. It sounds similar to "The Honest Guide to Church Planting" that I recently read.

I was actually planning to comment along those lines as I was reading through the other comments. I fear that our culture has redefined the role of pastor even though the scripture has a clear definition for us:

Eph 4:11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,

Eph 4:12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

(NASB)

That is primarily done through the teaching and preaching of God's word accompanied by prayer. Today, however, a pastor is expected to be a program director and an entertainer/salesman who gets the people in the door. If a pastor is free to teach the word of God and not worry about how many people are there- if he is free to regularly share the gospel without feeling pressure to manipulate decision- if he is free share the truth of God's word without pressure to conform to a political ideology, then pastoral ministry is very fulfilling. I am ministering in a very small church. Some would walk away from such a small ministry thinking it was not big enough and might even call it a failure, but this is one of the most rewarding things I have done in my life. We are a small but unified group and the people are growing spiritually and so am I. I call that success and it brings amazing fulfillment. I wish we would teach our next generation of pastors that success is equipping the saints for the work of the ministry no matter how few those saints might be. If you pastor a church with hundreds of people and it is growing but those people are not being equipped for the work of the ministry, the world will still call that success, but it cannot bring the same fulfillment as fulfilling the Biblical mandate of what a pastor is supposed to do.

Let us encourage men that it is a high calling to pastor a small congregation, even if it means having to be bi-vocational to do it. We are the only church in a town of about 1000 people and we get to shine a light and minister to people throughout our community- even those who never come into our church building. It is our job to do the work of the ministry as we go out of the church and live our lives. Too many pastors are expected to be coordinators of ministries so that the congregation can check a box and say ministry is being done by our church instead of coming to church to learn how to live like Christ so that they are better able to minister to those around them. Our people need to know God's word and how it applies to our lives so they can help their unsaved neighbor answer the hard questions in their lives.

I can see why pastors would be frustrated if they were directed away from their Biblical calling to do busy work that just made their congregations feel better about themselves.

First Timothy 5:17-20 isn't about titles or double votes on the elder board. The passage itself tells us what "double honor" means = financial remuneration. This is consistent with what Paul says elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 9, Galatians 6, etc. Titles came much later when the church started establishing ecclesiastical hierarchies.

Those who insist on being called Pastor X need to check their ego at the door. Those young pastors who insist that their way is the best / right way just because they are a pastor also need to check their ego at the door.

I just celebrated my first year as the teaching elder at my church. I'm still bi-vocational at this point, but Lord willing I will transition into full-time pastoral ministry at the church this year. When I was speaking to the elders before they brought me before the church, we had several conversations about my title. I told them that I didn't want the title "senior pastor." I told them I believe that title belongs exclusively to Jesus Christ. The pastor I'm replacing is retiring after serving the church for over 30 years. His title was senior pastor. I have no desire to ever have that title. "What about lead pastor?" they asked. I told them I prefer either teaching elder or teaching pastor.

When I introduce myself to visitors and guests, I tell them I am one of the four pastors at our church.

Some of this, I admit, is a reaction against the pride and spiritual abuse I've either witnessed myself or read about from guys who think the title pastor or senior pastor means they "cast the vision," they "run the show," and that the other pastor/elders are just there as their advisors. They will say they believe in elder plurality and shared authority among the elders, but that is only true as long as their vision, their decisions, and their preferences are followed.

I want nothing to do with that mentality or philosophy of ministry. My desire has been this first year to help our people view me firstly and primarily as their brother in Christ. That is the relationship that is primary. That means I'm not above them or below them, but serving alongside them fulfilling Ephesians 4:11-16.

T Howard wrote:

First Timothy 5:17-20 isn’t about titles or double votes on the elder board. The passage itself tells us what “double honor” means = financial remuneration.

I Tim. 5:17-20 is not about titles or double votes. What I said was that these things were attempts to implement or apply the principle of these verses, and I think they are reasonable attempts to do so, IMO. But that is a matter of opinion. The point is that Christians are commanded to doubly honor elders who work hard at preaching and teaching, and that teachers who teach the whole counsel of God will instruct their students to doubly honor teaching/preaching elders. Whether misguided or not, most Christians do not even give thought to doubly honoring teaching elders. Yet the Word commands it. Ignoring Scripture in the name of humility is an arrogant thing.

Nowhere does the passage say that double honor means ONLY financial support. I think most commentators will agree with me (as Aaron pointed out) that this is one specific way to grant double honor. It could mean that this is all that is meant, but it reads a whole lot more like a principle with two specific applications. One is financial support, the other is special care when elders are accused.

Those who insist on being called Pastor X need to check their ego at the door.

I agree that those who INSIST on this have a problem. But not those who prefer it, which is different. A lot of false humility is common here, IMO, which is nothing but ego in disguise.

I just celebrated my first year as the teaching elder at my church. I’m still bi-vocational at this point, but Lord willing I will transition into full-time pastoral ministry at the church this year.

Congratulations on your service, and may God bless you. And may the people of your church grant you double honor, as is commanded. I have just retired from 43.5 years of full time ministry myself. You have a challenge. It is more difficult now than ever to be a faithful pastor.

I would caution you, though, pride and arrogance seeps from facades within ourselves, of which we are often unaware. Being proud of being humble or being unashamedly proud are both equally evil. We need sober self-judgment, as Paul admonishes us in Roman 12:3, “For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.”

Ed Vasicek wrote: Nowhere does the passage say that double honor means ONLY financial support. I think most commentators will agree with me (as Aaron pointed out) that this is one specific way to grant double honor. It could mean that this is all that is meant, but it reads a whole lot more like a principle with two specific applications. One is financial support, the other is special care when elders are accused.

Ed, verse 18 makes clear as to what verse 17 means. The grammar is clear. The OT citations are clear. Double honor = financial remuneration. Now, if a church wants to do more than that to show their honor, that's fine. But, this passage doesn't require it and doesn't speak to it. As I said before, this passage basically teaches the same thing Paul writes in Galatians 6:6.

Please note, my response to this is based on interacting with a pastor who interpreted "double honor" in 1 Tim 5:17-18 to mean other elders should defer to the senior pastor's vision, leadership, and decisions. Basically, "double honor" means the senior pastor runs the show. So, he was using your same interpretive approach to the passage---"Nowhere does the passage say that double honor means ONLY financial support"--- to then say it also means other elders should defer to the senior pastor's leadership, decisions, etc.

And, that's NOT what this passage teaches at all.

For what it’s worth, @ T Howard: the commentaries are generally not so dogmatic about the passage. Most I’ve looked at so far lean toward compensation but also see it as more than that.

I do think, though, both the compensation and the ‘more than that’ there have to do with the diligence of the elders in view, not so much with the fact that they are elders. There are those who ‘rule well’ specified, and by implication, those who don’t. The spirit of it is certainly clear: those who do good work should be honored for it in some tangible way. Otherwise, we’re saying “excellence in this work doesn’t matter.”

@Ed-Vasicek and everyone else, yes, this fellow, and I observed and interacted with him in varied situations over many years and his humility was genuine. And what he focused on and drew attention to was the real tell, as you observed. Agree also that the greatest marker of humility is not thinking about oneself (C.S. Lewis's famous quote).

In principle I don't have a problem with calling a pastor "Pastor Tom" or whatever. What concerns me is that he's thought about it that much and thought it important enough to communicate to his congregation. It kinda bugs me that it would bug him if someone didn't use the proper title.

Lastly, having spent decades in business, small companies to very large ones, and in a couple of non-profits, only academia and churches seem make a big deal of titles, at least in the U.S. of A. Even many layers below the guy at the top, everyone simply used first names and no titles. If some called the CEO by "Mr./Mrs. Last Name" they would say "just call me Tom". Academia - maybe makes sense because of age differences. But the practice in the church strikes me as odd. Even the deal about honoring the office more than the person seems like a stretch. In business we all knew "Tom" was the CEO, but we didn't need to call him "CEO Tom" to show respect. Lots of folks say "but you would call the President of the U.S. of A. with his title." True, but that's a man-made institution. May somehow in my Southern U.S. upbringing I missed some of the rationale behind this that would make it carry over to the church.

Aaron Blumer wrote: For what it’s worth, @ T Howard: the commentaries are generally not so dogmatic about the passage. Most I’ve looked at so far lean toward compensation but also see it as more than that.

Aaron, while I appreciate what you're saying, Paul does not indicate that there is "more than that." He certainly doesn't tell us what the "more than that" would be. However, what Paul does clearly state (not just imply as Ed asserts) based on his grammar and his OT citations is that double honor means financial remuneration.

One commentator (Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles, TNTC, 119) writes: "Attention is next focused on the officials of the church with special advice about their remuneration. There is no doubt that honour should be understood in this sense, in view of verse 18."

A second commentator (Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, NIGTC, 232) writes: "As in Lk. 7:7 and Heb. 3:3, the meaning of ἀξιόω is “consider worthy, deserving,” with the verb followed here and in Heb. 3:3 by the genitive specifying that which one is worthy of. Paul’s choice of this verb may have been influenced by the saying of Jesus, ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης (Mt. 10:10; Lk. 10:7), which Paul quotes in v. 18. τιμή is used here in the same double sense as the related verb was in v. 3, i.e., “honor, reverence,” but more particularly in the sense of “honorarium” or “compensation,” as v. 18 makes evident with its reference to wages. διπλοῦς refers to this double sense of τιμή and has the meaning “double,” i.e., “twofold,” both “honor” and “honorarium.”

A third commentator (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, WBC, 306) writes: "The elders who were following his instructions and doing a good job not only were worthy of the peoples’ respect but should also be paid for their work (“double honor”). He will continue in v 18 with his reason: workers should be paid. This was Paul’s general rule (1 Cor 9:4–6; cf. Rom 13:7) although he himself often chose to earn his own living (cf. 1 Cor 4:12; 2 Cor 11:7–9; 1 Thess 2:9; cf. 2 Thess 3:7–9; Acts 18:3)."

So, while I hear what you and Ed are saying about "more than that," you have to read into the text what the "more than that is" because it's not there. And, if you have to read into the text, then that opens us up to all kinds of "more than that," much like my pastor friend was doing. His "more than that" would be just as valid as your's or Ed's "more than that" because it's not based on the text but your own imaginations.

So, for that reason, I would limit Paul's command here to what he clearly states: financial remuneration. Like I said earlier, if the church desires to do more then that's up to them to decide. "More than that" should not be demanded, expected, or taught from this passage. And, this passage certainly shouldn't be used to demand / expect deference to the senior pastor's "vision casting," leadership, or preferences.

I don’t disagree that the term is used in this sense in the passage.

What we have here is a reasoning issue. A word ‘used in this sense’ is not necessarily a word ‘excluding all other senses.’ If you’re prepared to make a case that Paul’s point is “give them more money but don’t feel any additional respect for them,” it would be interesting to see that.

But you’re aware I think that words have semantic ranges and meanings can be primary, secondary, tertiary even in a single usage. Paul could have simply said “give them more money” but chose to use a word that always has the connotation of honor attached to it.

I agree that he means to say compensate them better. But ultimately the passage doesn’t make sense unless the reasoning there is “they have done better work and we should show that we value that by rewarding it.”

I’ll quote a larger chunk of context to show the flow a bit better (ESV)…

¹⁴ So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. ¹⁵ For some have already strayed after Satan. ¹⁶ If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows. ¹⁷ Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. ¹⁸ For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” ¹⁹ Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. ²⁰ As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. (1 Ti 5:13–20)

So we don’t just have axiow in the passage. We also have it sandwiched between references to the quality of their work. There’s a sort of parallel contrast between widows in general vs. widows indeed in the previous verses. The ‘compensation’ is not without reference to the category the person is in, either by their work or their circumstances.

Then Paul continues with some additional special treatment for elders: “do not admit a charge…” He’s working through groups of people in church life and clearly identifies some specialness for each of these groups. He certainly isn’t saying widows are special but elders are not or that excellent elders are no different from the rest.

Aaron, thank you for the interaction and for the context of the passage. I agree that words have a semantic range of meanings. That said, the context controls and determines the meaning of the word. Said differently, you can't make a word mean something that the context doesn't allow. I know you and Ed understand and know this.

So, the question is, how does Paul want us to understand the words and the phrase διπλῆς τιμῆς ἀξιούσθωσαν in the immediate context of 1 Tim 5:17-18 and in the broader context of elders found in 1 Tim 5:17-22? Does Paul have a specific meaning or understanding that he wants to communicate, or are we free to impose another sense or meaning to his words that is not explicit in the text?

Aaron Blumer wrote:

What we have here is a reasoning issue. A word ‘used in this sense’ is not necessarily a word ‘excluding all other senses.’ If you’re prepared to make a case that Paul’s point is “give them more money but don’t feel any additional respect for them,” it would be interesting to see that.

But you’re aware I think that words have semantic ranges and meanings can be primary, secondary, tertiary even in a single usage. Paul could have simply said “give them more money” but chose to use a word that always has the connotation of honor attached to it.

If Paul didn't write what he did in verse 18, you would be correct that we have no explicit statement as to what Paul meant in verse 17. We could import any number of senses and meanings. However, Paul makes his meaning clear and explicit in verse 18 by his grammar (i.e. γὰρ in context communicates the grounds, reasons, and justification for Paul's command in verse 17) and by his Scripture citations (explicitly referring to remuneration for one's labor). In fact, I don't know how Paul could say it any more clearly than how he says it in verse 18.

So, yes, Paul is simply saying, "Pay the elders who rule well, particularly those who labor in the Word, financial compensation for the work they do for the congregation." This is also what Paul says in Galatians 6:6 and in 1 Cor. 9:7-14. If I would paraphrase, I'd say, "Honor well-ruling elders, especially those who preach every Sunday, by compensating them for their labor and time." In other words, double honor = honor expressed through honorarium.

I'm puzzled as to why we feel the need to add another sense or meaning to what Paul explicitly states (not implies) here. What keeps you and Ed from accepting what Paul says at face value? What other honor does Paul even hint at in vv. 17-18? Are we free to just import our own senses or meanings into this passage?

To be more practical, would it be wrong if someone argued from this passage that διπλῆς τιμῆς ἀξιούσθωσαν implies that a man should be given a specific title, a double vote on the elder board, or unconditional authority to lead the church? Why or why not?

So, yes, words have a semantic range of meanings. But contextual boundaries most of the time limit that range and exclude certain options. My argument is that the context, Paul's grammar, and his Scripture citations in verse 18 do that very thing here.