The practice of hiring “professionals” to lead our congregations needs to be re-thunk.

Because the focus of Jesus Christ’s disciples coming together in fellowship to worship was never meant to revolve around the continual authority and influence of just one mortal man.

However, if you’ve never seriously contemplated what Christ’s Body, or ἐκκλησία [ê-klā-see’-âh] is actually supposed to look like or how it’s supposed to function, then the question of what the Bible says it’s should be probably never crossed your mind.

But that doesn’t alter the Biblical premise that pastoring is a gift—not an office.

And salaried pastors simply don’t fit into the Biblical model of what Jesus intended for His congregations. The apostle Paul recognized only three distinct offices in Christ’s congregations for men to hold: Elders, Deacons and our only High Priest, Jesus, who presently sits at the right of the Lord God interceding for us 24/7/365. [see also: 1Tim. 3:12-13; 5:17-19; Heb. Chapters 7-10]

So what’s the big deal? Why would the traditional “church” model we see today be a problem?

As a social forum for fellowship and the means to organize and carry out good works in the assembly and community, it wouldn’t seem to be.

But the Biblical model has a stated purpose.

The people of His Body were meant to minister to and build themselves up (Eph. 4:11-16), choosing elders from among themselves to both demonstrate and oversee teaching, encouragement, healing, exhortation and the often arduous one-on-one discipleship making process among themselves. [see also: 1Tim. 3, 2Tim. 2]

And, for the most part, they should have the gift of pastoring [or shepherding] in order to do that effectively.

What we see instead today is more of a spectator event—quite often a literal corporate structure with a spiritual CEO and subordinate officers training the willing participants.

An unfortunate consequence of that model often creates an environment by which the salaried corporate leadership becomes highly susceptible to compromising both the potency and the veracity of God’s word for the sake of pride or the desire to sustain a particular standard of living commensurate with that salary.

1Cor. 9:14 is often cited to justify a salaried pastorship to lead congregations, often mistranslated to read that the Lord directed those who proclaim (or preach) the good news are “to get their living” from the good news.

But the original Greek text does not imply that.

Literally (and in context) it suggests that those who preach the good news are to LIVE by (or by means of) the good news. 

The apostle Paul was instructing the Corinthians themselves to practice what they preach because they were all meant to proclaim it, not designate that responsibility and privilege to anyone who might seem more qualified.

For if I profess Christ, then, by definition, I’m a “professional” disciple.

My dad wasn’t a tall guy and his feet weren’t that large.

So, being able to fill his shoes would probably never have seemed to be a challenge—if indeed I’d ever thought about it at all. I actually don’t remember.

But wouldn’t that be a goal for every young man? Or should it depend upon whether a father’s character warrants the effort? Perhaps the Lord God Himself has given us a clue:

“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.” [Exod.20:12; Matt.19:18] [my emphasis]

[Hebrew Masoretic Text: כָּבַד (kabad) or כָּבֵד (kabed) to be heavy, weighty, or burdensome; Greek Septuagint: τιμάω (tî-mâ’-ōh] to honor, to value]

Note that the ancient Hebrew manuscripts suggest that, to honor something or someone, it’s necessary to carry a heavy burden. It was a coveted responsibility, and an effective way of using grammar to convey emphasis to the action of the verb.

But how interesting that the parallel Greek definition seems to add to that an element or reciprocity for the verb action. Value. To honor a mother or father doesn’t just bring value to the honoree.

It brings both honor and value to honorer as well, such as “…prolonged days in the land.”

As sons, we fill our fathers’ shoes by emulation if we’re so inclined. But the command is to honor. Period. That initially shifts honor from the Father to our father—who [hopefully], in turn, shifts it right back to Him from Whom it originally came. That’s a valuable model to remember.

We also fill our Heavenly Father’s “shoes” by actually making an honest effort to “walk” in the same type of sandals His Beloved Son did.

They’re pretty big.

But I think growing into them is the plan.

There’s a lie that flies in the face of Biblical literacy.

It insists that the Lord God has yet to somehow restore His nation Israel, complete with a physical temple, housing what is already a defunct Levitical priesthood in order to re-establish an insufficient practice of animal sacrifices—all of which either challenge or seriously distort the veracity of a new covenant our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ has made with the world and died for to bring to fruition.

That’s not to say God has no plan to deal with His people through whom He first chose to reveal Himself. [see: Rom. 11] But if anyone claims to be overly enlightened about the details, I’d grab the salt shaker.

Because salvation and inheritance have always been about belief—not lineage. [see: Gal. 3; Heb. 8:7-13]

So the best line of defense against false teaching is to study the Bible inductively. Because, If I’m doing that, I force myself to focus on the texts which accurately convey what the good news is actually all about and who it applies to.

And, in the process, I’m able to recognize a phrase that confirms God’s need to establish a new covenant. The apostle Peter said:

“For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” [Ac. 2:39] [my emphasis

And, using the exact same word in his letter to the congregations in Ephesus, the apostle Paul described exactly how Jesus Christ eliminated every distinction between Jews and Gentiles when He fulfilled that promise originally given to Abraham:

“…remember that you were, at that time, separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now, in Christ Jesus, you who formerly were far off, have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.” [Eph.2:12-16] [my emphasis]

[μακράν: (mâ-crân’) far, far off, at some distance]

The Greek adverb μακράν was idiomatic in the sense that it was clearly recorded in an inclusive context, suggesting also to describe a non-exhaustive time frame, and referring not just to all people then, but also to all people even now. It defined a new creation— a distinct category of people for whom the promise has been made available to with further clarification about to whom it was originally made. [see: Rom. 2:28-29]

Today, we live in a time “far off” from that of ancient Palestine.

Yet Scripture is clear. The Lord God’s New Covenant places everyone on an equal footing before Him. There’s no longer a distinction:

“There is not Jew nor Greek, there is not slave nor free [man], there is not male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are of Christ, then you are [the] seed of Abraham—heirs according to promise.” [Gal. 3:28-29]

If I insist that our nation was formed upon Biblical principles, I’m defining history accurately.

But when its moral fabric continues to unravel, it’s tempting to try to tighten the tourniquet to stop the bleeding at any cost. And the most proven method of trying to force moral clarity on a man is to raise his bar for acceptable conduct while, at the same time, suppress his inherent need to make choices for himself.

And that’s when a theocracy begins.

[theocracy: a system of government in which priests [or jurisdictions] rule in the name of God or a god.]

We tend to envision the bondage of theocracies with women in burkas or mandated prayer sessions five time a day. But the ramifications transcend borders and ideology.

Because we might also establish theological hurdles in our congregations, denying “membership” in the Christ’s ecclesia [Body] without signatures or public declarations of belief and compliance. Or perhaps we welcome contractual partnerships [like 501C-3’s] with unlawful taxing authorities to ease the burden of compliance.

We might even demand the observance of corporate prayer in public institutions rather than encourage willful participation.

But wherever theocracies are enforced, eventually, we somehow arrive at the ridiculous conclusion that righteousness [through Jesus Christ, for example] cannot lawfully exist in the absence of some form of jurisdictional allegiance. And that’s when the framework of genuine faith begins to collapse.

Because freedom is lost when faith is regulated.

The foundation of any serious relationship with Jesus Christ is formed upon the principle of choice. For without having the latitude of free will, the result of any decision made lacks both substance and sustainability.

When that inherent desire to self-determine is either surrendered or preempted, its value is severely compromised—if not squandered completely.

If the wheels of choice fall off the wagon of faith, relational pretense litters the trail.

That’s a loaded question for sure.

Because many are quick to point out, of course, that “salvation” isn’t earned but freely given. But then, after the ground rules for its definition are established, it becomes very clear that a few things have to happen first. [see: Eph.1:13-14]

And one of the most profound examples of what it actually takes to “be saved” can be found in a Bible passage that’s often referred to as “The Thief On the Cross.” [Lk. 23:33-43]

A synopsis is as follows: Two criminals were crucified with Jesus. One says, “C’mon Jesus! You’re the man! Save Yourself!” The other one says, “Knock it off. He didn’t actually do anything wrong. We’re the only one’s that should be here.”

But here’s where it gets interesting.

It’s probable neither were practicing Jews, having any extensive knowledge or anticipation of being resurrected from the predicament of death in the future based on the Jewish Writings and Prophesy. But perhaps they’d heard bits and pieces of a rumor, because, while one mocked the idea, the other one bought it—lock, stock and barrel.

It’s likely also that, in the minds of the Rabbinical Priesthood or other factions of the “religious” ruling class, he didn’t have the necessary credentials to inherit the promise given to Abraham in order to be included in any form of their redemptive remedy. He also probably wasn’t a duly baptized “member” of any congregation.

But he believed Jesus. And he pleaded for mercy:

“…Jesus, remember me whenever You might come into Your kingdom!” [Lk. 23:42]

He didn’t know when and where that might be. And, apparently, he didn’t care. But Jesus did assure him that he would be with Him when that happened.

“Truly I say to you this day: You shall be with Me in paradise.” [Lk. 23:43]

[παράδεισος: (pâ-râ’-day-sôs) a place of blessedness, from the base meaning of garden]

I can’t logically import any traditional, preconceived premise into the interpretive process of any text—Biblical or otherwise.

And, in the same way, I can’t bring anything to the cross except my belief.