Thoughts on Shepherds and Hirelings

There are those who are adamant about the necessity of the bi-vocational elder/pastor. They base their argument in the abuses of the televangelists and the financial empires of the mega-churches, who heap wealth upon their leaders in appreciation and glorification of their highly visible and widespread noteriety. While the practices of these institutions are objectionable, there is a scriptural truth that demands attention: those who lead are to be supported by those who are led.

In John 10, Jesus warned the Pharisees that a hired hand is not a shepherd. He describes a scenario in which a wolf threatens the sheep, and contrasts the actions of the hireling with the response of a true shepherd. Naturally, a good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep, and a hired hand runs away, because he cares nothing for the sheep. There is a danger in hiring a shepherd who has no regard for the welfare of those under his care. Those who seek to be led and cared for must be aware of this condition and test those whom they call to the office of pastor (i.e., shepherd), to verify the existence of a sacrificial affection for the body of Christ at large, and more importantly, the resident body of believers entrusted to them. If this can be discerned, then those who would appoint or affirm the appointment of such a man are obligated to work to see that his needs are properly addressed.

In his treatise to the Corinthians (1 Cor 9:9-14), Paul makes the case for materially supporting those who preach the Word and labor in the work of the Church. Using the model of the Old Testament priests, he advocates a similar dynamic wherein the ministers of God were fed and clothed by the offerings and sacrifices of His people. He goes so far as to state that this is a right that might be claimed by one in his position (v. 15). In his instructions to Timothy (1 Tim. 5:5), he instructs him to give these men a double portion of anything that is distributed to the people. He reminds the Galatians (6:6-10) that they are required to take care of those who instruct them.

Scripture also exhorts the shepherd to great care. Hebrews 13 indicates that those who are in positions of authority will be held accountable for the condition of those in their care. Revelation 2 and 3 are indicators that the messengers of each local church are taken to task based upon the spiritual state of the bodies they led. And for good reason. The condition of the flock is proportional to the benefit a shepherd will receive in return for his work. For more on this, see Proverbs 27:23-27, which outlines some of the reasons for properly tending the sheep.

So how do we respond to the disparity between the financial state of various churches? Is every church in a low position the result of poor shepherding? Is it proper for the pastor of a mega-church to claim success in his vocation and live ostentatiously while his fellow pastor from the small body across the street struggles to pay his bills? Is it right for one man to grow fat and surfeit himself upon the expectations of his congregants while another grows thin and weary in well-doing because he ministers to the poor, who will always be among us? What judgement is the first man eating and drinking upon himself each day, and especially as he approaches our Lord's Table (see 1 Cor. 11) in an unworthy manner for lack of discernment of the condition of the Body of Christ? Paul warns Titus that there are those who will preach the Gospel for dishonest gain in association with fleshly excesses (Titus 1). We would do well to remember Paul exhortations concerning the members of the body, and the requisite concern each part should have for the other (1 Cor 12:25).

So what form and quantity of support should be provided to a minister of the Gospel? The first believers had all things in common, and distributed their wealth according to the needs of each one (Acts 4).Those who fear the Lord lack no good thing (Psalm 34:10-11). The righteous eat to their heart's content (Proverbs 13:25), yet are called upon to be content with food and clothing (1 Timothy 6:8, Hebrews 13:5) and whatever state they find themselves in (Phillipians 4:11-12). If each man is giving what he has determined in his heart to give, not grudgingly or under compulsion (2 Cor 9:7), and the widows and orphans are being looked after with regularity (James 1:27), then a suitable portion should also be delivered to God's minister, just as the priests received a part of the sacrifice that was proportionate to its size and purpose (Deut. 18:1ff).

A congregation should not withold blessing from its minister, nor should it smother him in wealth to its own destruction. Neither should the pastor be a burden to his parish, lest he live well at the expense of hungry sheep. It is incumbent upon those who would bless to know the needs of their shepherd and be attentive to them, and for those in authority to be both gracious and prudent in the acceptance of those gifts. A loving congregation who "forces" a pastor to receive their gift may be doing his humility an injustice, just as a false humility on the part of a pastor would be doing his congregation harm.

While scripture supports the bi-vocational model (Acts 18:3), there is a more persuasive argument for the reciprocal nature of the material relationship between a pastor/elder and his congregation. If he is neglecting them, they will become diseased and disorganized, and will not be equipped to yield the beneficial components that pour from the fountain of an effective ministry. If he is properly instructing and caring for them, he should rightly expect to glean the fruits of his wise and diligent stewardship. It is to this end that both sheep and shepherd should be striving - to the glory of God.