Table of Contents
Mitch Burks- Hireling 4-10-03
Mitch Burks- Hireling 4-22-03
Joey_Zarnsy__8-9-04
Joey_Zarnsy_8-19-04
Ken__1/4/08
Ray__12/6/08
Mitch Burks- Hireling
4-10-03
From Mitch to Mark
Smith}
In a message dated 4/9/2003 10:27:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,
"Mitch" <> writes:
Mark,
First I do not believe our organization was found in the results of a Google
search for "paid preachers" or "located preachers" as we do not use those terms.
So I think we are initially dealing with falsehood on your part. If you show me
a un-retouched screen shot of the Google search you did and it includes our
organization then I will change my view of your credibility.
Your information and beliefs have nothing to do with what our church does in the
community. Every paid person on our staff freely did their job as a volunteer
before they were ever released from the need to work a 40 hour a week job to be
on staff here. Our pastor and founder gave over $70,000 of his own money to
begin the work here, so your information does not apply to him. Now, our
information applies to you! Even though you reject Jesus, He still has not
rejected you.
Mitch
*************************
From Mark Smith to
Mitch}
Hey Mitch;
The google search I did WAS how I came across your email address. Your church
may have had a link on one of the pages google led me to.
Regarding paid preachers, all that should matter to you as a Christian is that
it is WRONG according to your own New Testament. The fact that all your
professionals started off as volunteers, or that your minister invested his own
money in the business does not matter one bit. If a band of professional thieves
started off as volunteers AND their leader invested $70,000 in the business of
thievery, would THAT somehow make their thievery OK??? Of course not.
Bottom line- your organization is in clear violation of clear New Testament
teachings. Read my book.
---mark smith
*************************
From Mitch to Mark
Smith}
You are wrong Mark, believe it or not, just plain
wrong in your assumption. Read these scriptures from my "own New
Testament".
Mark Smith here} I'd like to
point out first how he has totally dodged my every rebuttal of every single
point he made in his email to me.
- In the first email he raised a point about the
Google search engine. I answered it. He ignored my answer.
- In the first email he raised a point about all
their hirelings starting off as volunteers. I shot it down. He ignored my
answer.
- In the first email he raised a point about the
chief hireling investing money in the business. I answered it. He ignored
my answer.
This is a common disease among Christians. They
practice "drive by debating" wherein they spew out several points at the
Atheist, then when the Atheist has taken the time to thoughtfully counter
said points, they never slow down long enough to answer said counterpoints
and instead spew out even newer points. This game can go on as long as the
Atheist' patience lasts, for eventually the Atheist realizes he's wasting
his time answering points only to have his answers ignored and newer points
thrust in his face to answer.
Paul an apostle commands that preachers be
"honored" or paid for what they do.
1 Timothy 5
17. The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy
of double honor, especially those whose
work is preaching and teaching. 18. For the
Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,"
and "The worker deserves his wages." (emphasis added)
1 Corinthians 9
7Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a
vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not
drink of the milk? 8Do I say this merely from a human point of
view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? 9For it is written in
the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain."
Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10Surely he says this
for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman
plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing
in the harvest. 11If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it
too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12If
others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we
have it all the more?
13But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with
anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. Don't you
know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and
those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14In
the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should
receive their living from the gospel. (emphasis added)
The early church was already "taking care of"
their pastors so they could devote their lives to the ministry, and Paul did
not condemn it, he condoned it and told then he was worthy of the same
compensation. In fact it is quite powerful that he says "the Lord" has
commanded what YOU say is wrong!! Huh, go figure. It is in black and
white that my being compensated by the local church body for 50+ hours of
labor a week, including preaching is not only ok, but accepted and condoned
by the Lord and Paul the apostle. As a Christian who am I going to believe
and whose command am I going to follow? Not yours Mark. In fact
I have no need to read your book, because I have read and believe THE
Book.
Mark Smith here} Well, what can I
say! In my book "Fire The Clergy" I have already covered in detail every
single verse from the Hebrew and Christian scriptures on the topic of hired
preachers (including the two Mitch briefly mentions), as well as all of the
early church fathers. Yet Mitch isn't going to even read my book. In my book
I explain 1st Corinthians 9 in its entire fullness and context,
unlike Mitch who just decided to use a few verses. Yet Mitch isn't going to
read my book. In my book I explain 1st Timothy 5, but Mitch isn't
going to read my book. And if Mitch isn't going to bother to read my book
where I've already taken the time and effort to counter his false
interpretations of these verses, why should I expend even MORE time here
writing stuff he'll equally ignore, as has been his habit so
far???
You know, it's really hard trying to have a
discussion with someone who won't even read what he claims to be talking
about. I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion with Mitch about my book
"Fire The Clergy", yet it is a book that Mitch is proud to have never read.
With Mitch being a Fundy, I bet there are ALOT of books and topics
that Mitch has never read or done research into, books and topics he is
proud to have kept himself ignorant of. In fact, I bet Mitch is really good
at keeping himself ignorant about alot of things- because he knows that
ignorance and being a Fundy go hand in hand. Besides, if the leader of the
blind were to suddenly open his eyes, my goodness, all the blind Fundies
following Mitch might avoid all the ditches they currently fall into.
It appears Mitch suffers from one of the symptoms
common to Fundies and pig-headed people in general; that is, "don't bother
me with the facts, my mind's already made up." They take great pride in
having thick skulls, skulls that are impervious to new and better ideas.
They are more than happy to think that at age 10 they somehow stumbled upon
ALL the truth in the universe and therefore have no more need to learn a
damn thing more. Mitch has spent maybe an exhaustive 5 minutes of research
on the topic, reading from a book he already agrees with, to get an answer
he knows he'll already agree with, to counterpoint a book he DOESN'T agree
with and will never read in the first place.
You know, back when I was in the Church of Christ,
before I bothered holding discussions with Jehovah Witnesses I spent weeks
reading and studying and underlining their books, learning their arguments
and how to counter them. The same goes for my discussions with Mormons. I
would never even consider the audacity of attempting to hold discussions
with religionists without first having read at least ONE, if not several, of
their books. I guess the level of scholarship in the churches today has sunk
to the level of most people's diet: fast food, and fast theology. I'd like
to point out to everyone reading this that this minister Craig, who teaches
others what to think, won't even take the time to learn a topic himself, yet
he'll take the time to condemn it sight unseen. Such is Fundy theology.
Imagine Craig giving a sermon about the Mormons. Craig won't read a damn
thing any Mormon has ever written, yet he'd have the chutzpah to try to
teach others about it. I pity his poor flock.
> Bottom line- your organization is in clear
violation of clear New Testament teachings. Read my book.<
Bottom line- Not according to the book we use to
do what we do for God! Read The Book!
Mitch Burks- Hireling 4-22-03
I am not attempting to cover all the wrongness in your book. Just
the attitudes on your website. For the record I am not a "preacher".
I direct the technology of our organization, 40 hours during the week,
Sunday not included.
Right off? You are hypocritical.
Frustrated With Christians?
Are you frustrated with hard-headed Christians while
talking or doing cyberbattle on the Internet? If so, and you care to reach your
cold-hearted Christian friends and neighbors with the truth, but don't have the
patience, skills, or years of Bible study needed to do so, then
please
help support this web ministry by sending in a much-needed donation. Not all of
us can fight the good fight, but we all can write a check to help those that do
so. Christianity needs to be cut off at its theological base- to be pulled
out by its roots. If you value what I'm doing here, if you think this is
something of worth you'd like to see stick around, then please help me so I can
help them. Donate today- Make checks out to Mark Smith and mail to the
address below.
You ask for money to do what you do! But
according to your beliefs it is wrong for the clergy to be paid for what they
do. Hypocrite. Maybe people value
what the clergy does and are willing to pay them for their time! I have
clearly shown you this is Scripture. Regardless of how YOU interpret what
Paul says, he accepts and condones paying (releasing the minister from secular
work) it in the Bible.
Mark Smith here} Uhhhh, in case you
haven't noticed it, I am what is called an "Atheist". That is, I don't believe
in your gods and I certainly don't believe in your book of superstitions
called "The Bible". Therefore, it doesn't apply to ME that your book says do
this or don't do that. I am not the Christian- YOU are. You are the one who
should be most concerned that your church and preacher is violating the Bible
THEY (not me) claim to follow. All the "do's and don'ts" are for you, not me.
If I want to ask for some small compensation for the massive amount of time
and effort I put into this site, I will do so, regardless of what the Book of
Mormon, Koran, or The New Testament says.
Read your book...its still wrong. On every single point you attempt to
make, every single commentary you attempt to give, and your assumptions are
STILL wrong. Of course there is truth mixed in because you do quote the
Bible. So there is some truth quoted in your book. Of course why
should I be surprised it is wrong? You set out to prove what
Mark
"knows he'll already agree with"!! You write with a "don't
bother me with the facts, my mind's already made up, type
of writing. "This is a common disease among Atheist. Atheist
are the worst kind of discriminatory bigots. You want to be right, fact
is, you are desperate to be right and all you want to do is argue. You
believe there is no God, fine! But you argue with such anger towards me if
I believe there is a God(and I do). You work with every fiber of your
brain to prove me wrong in my BELIEF! Why is that? You call yourself
a freethinker. But that is a lie, you have simply made up your mind to
believe there is no God and condemn me for believing there is! How does
that make you free thinker? Why is it wrong for me to BELIEVE there is a
God? I personally have not challenged your right to believe there isn't.
But you challenge my right to believe God's word as I read, study and
interpret it. his false interpretations of these verses
What makes MY interpretation false? You get to decide that? Dude, you are
even close to being qualified for that. Just more of your
atheistic bigotry! Its a good thing you haven't decided to use your
bigotry against , say, the homosexual community! You might be run off the
internet, possibly even out of town! Oh I forgot your "intolerance" only
runs toward the group of society that "believes" in God, not any other group
with "beliefs" as any other might chose to believe in. Everyone has rights
except the one who believes there is a God, right?
Mark Smith here} Well, he claims to
have read my book. He's not too specific as to the what's and why's of what he
thinks is wrong. More "drive by theology". Let's see... I have read YOUR
book also- the Bible. As you feel about my book, I feel about yours: "On
every single point you attempt to make, every single commentary you attempt to
give, and your assumptions are STILL wrong." Not
very specific, eh?? Yeah, I read your Bible. It's all wrong. Every single
point. It's wrong and I'm right. Mark said it, I
believe it, That settles it.
You are an atheist right? Right? Then if the Bible is not God's
true word, why use it as an argument against God? Don't you have any of
your OWN material? Oh yeah, its MY book so you are using what it says
against me? Dang, I should have guessed, I am cut to the heart.
all the blind Fundies following Mitch might avoid all
the ditches they currently fall into. 1st off atheist, by your own
beliefs this subject is none of your business. So, why is it you are
involved? Where did you get your feelings hurt that you are so angry?
Maybe you must have been a "hireling" and became a "fireling" so you are angry
and lashing back at those that you now disagree with. Do you have a valid
reason? Really who is it you are trying to help? The congregation I
serve?!? Sorry, but I think, nay, I believe not. But then
again I do not have the right to believe right?
why should I expend even MORE time here writing stuff
he'll equally ignore Amazing
point!!!!!! You just equally
ignore and declare as wrong 10 individuals or groups that spent more than
decades studying and translating the Bible and you are hurt because you spent
hours writing your book and I wouldn't read it. If I am
pig-headed
then atheist you must be a really big cry baby to complain so about that fact.
I can equally
ignore/dismiss (and I have, especially after
reading it) your assumptions as quickly as you
equally
ignore/dismissed (and you did) these men's
years of study, (some of whom were not even paid preachers) and not be wrong or
pig-headed. Sheesh, all you want to do is
argue, even with the scholarly dead.
I bet there are ALOT of books and topics that Mitch has
never read or done research into, books and topics he is proud to have kept
himself ignorant of. In fact, I bet Mitch is really good at keeping himself
ignorant about alot of things- because he knows that ignorance and being a Fundy
go hand in hand. You are just so
prideful that you have read the Bible. It is said that Saddam Hussein
had his generals and men watch Blackhawk Down
so he could use those tactics against our country. So you read your
enemies tactical plan, big freaking deal, so did the Iraqis! Atheist, you
don't know me or where I have been or what I have read. You just want to
incite and argue. Nothing more, nothing productive. Who's keeping
himself ignorant here? You! You pick an area of interest, do some
lopsided study, and then attempt to incite people who disagree to argue about
it. Simple fact is, a belief is a
belief. It is a matter for the heart also, not just the head. Some
of us are fortunate enough to have a "feeling" about beliefs that goes beyond
the "thinking".
Mark Smith here} BINGO!!!! Now we
get to the heart and soul of why Christians in general are fact-resistant.
They have a force field around their brains called "feelings" that mere facts
just bounce off of. Yes, I am sure your beliefs go WAY beyond "thinking"-
that's one of my major points- Christians are BRAIN DEAD.
And yes, you HAVE, as you put it, gone "beyond
thinking". You and a whole lot more people. I saw Filipino Christians on the
TV on Easter day, getting nailed thru the hands to a cross, and others beating
their backs bloody. Then a few days later I saw Shiite Muslims beating their
backs bloody, and slicing their heads open with small swords. Yes, all of you
religionists have gone WAY the hell beyond thinking. You've all gone into the
realm of The Brain Dead.
Maybe you have a feeling about your atheism and you
just know it is right. More power to ya! But just because you
cannot change my mind does not make me ignorant. You are much like the
Minister of Information in Iraq. Standing outside the Palestine Hotel
saying the Americans were not within 50 miles of Baghdad when they were within
the city limits! Just because you say it does not make it
true. But maybe because you say it, you believe it. He
seemed too. You have ONE point of view, only one. I have many.
Now really who is the ignorant one?
They practice "drive by debating"
to counterpoint a book he DOESN'T agree with and will
never read in the first place YOU started by sending me an email
under false pretenses. Now when I don't follow your rules...wah, wah, wah.
then when the Atheist has taken the time to thoughtfully
counter said points What you really mean is then
the atheist thinks of another angle to ARGUE.
This game can go on as long as the Atheist' patience lasts, for eventually the
Atheist realizes he's wasting his time answering points only to have his answers
ignored and newer points thrust in his face to answer.
Trust me!, the non-atheist enters the argument already realizing he is wasting
his time. It is just a courtesy to respond.
because he knows that ignorance and being a Fundy go hand in hand A
greater percentage of non-atheist become atheist than the converse.
So what does that tell you about all the accusations you are making about myself
and Fundies being pig-headed and
ignorant! That in fact you and your atheist
peer group do not have a franchise on free thinking or open mindedness.
They take great pride in having thick skulls, skulls that are impervious to new
and better ideas You might not even hold any stock in free thinking once
you have become a atheist. Seems to me you are this thick skulled one.
Mark Smith here} Hey Mitch, is it I
who am out trying to change people's minds with emotional appeals, soft sad
songs, ranting and raving pulpit antics, and boo-hoo tear-jerker church
services? No! That's you guys! I'm the guy presenting the facts, and nothing
BUT the facts. That's why you can't handle it-
you've been soaking in the church bullshit so long that every scent that
passes your shitty upper lip into your nose now SMELLS like shit. What? I
gotta sing a song and make you CRY before you'll pay attention to my facts???
Mitch has spent maybe an
exhaustive 5 minutes of research on the topic A,
Duh! I live the topic. Once again you don't know what you are
talking about. First a book, now information on a website. You are
relentless with your misdirected criticism. Boy talk about
pig-headed and ignorant!
You know, back when I was in the Church of Christ,
Is this where you got hurt? Is all this to lash out at them?
minister Craig Or Craig? You quote a Church of Christ apologist, James A.
Harding, in your book. Isn't it funny you would use anything or anyone
just to make your point? Even those you must vehemently disagree with?
I would not use your book to make a point against your beliefs, although I am
using your own words in this email so our verbiage will be on the same level.
Mark Smith here} No Mitch, you
would not use my book to debate my book with me- that makes too much sense.
Rather, you will use... nothing! Aha! Brilliant tactic! "I'll just start
typing away and the holy spook will magically direct my fingers. Don't have to
think or reason, just type type type..."
Mark Smith here} I'd like to point
out first how he has totally dodged my every rebuttal of every single point he
made in his email to me.
- In the first email he raised a point about the
Google search engine. I answered it. He ignored my answer.
I ignored your lame "rebuttal" which was a childish "Oh yes I did too find it
on Google"...but you did not PROVE you found it on Google. So why address it
when YOU dodged giving a proven answer? You STILL have not proven that you
found my website using the words "paid preachers"
or "located preachers". Because I have done the
search and our organization does NOT come up. So this entire dialogue is
based your lack of scholarly integrity from the beginning.
- In the first email he raised a point about all their
hirelings starting off as volunteers. I shot it down. He ignored my answer.
You were only being argumentative. i.e.. non-productive.
The "Church" was established in Acts, to spread the Gospel and care for the
poor, and regardless of all the "bad" people and "bad" churches you are
railing against it does not make you right. Our church was established to do
those two things by people who did not get paid to do it. As time has gone
on, the congregation which you accuse us of "fleecing" has consented to pay us
so that we can do what we do full time. They put their money into the
ministry and stay with the ministry on their own accord. No one forces them,
in fact we do not "pass the plate" in an attempt to "garnish" their wages for
our own benefit. All this simply does not matter to you are as not interested
in doing "good" thing, just proving your assumptions.
- In the first email he raised a point about the chief
hireling investing money in the business. I answered it. He ignored my answer.
Answered above...he is actually being paid his own money.
You know Mark, you are intelligent, probably socially aware, evidently
studious. Could there not be another topic in the Bible that
Fundies
are not doing well or at all that you could crusade against that would
benefit more people for a greater good. Something like:
Love for Enemies
Matthew 5:43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your
neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your
enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be
sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the
good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If
you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax
collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers,
what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be
perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Now that would be worth stirring up the Fundies
over. I might even read the book without being asked.
Joey Zarnsy 8-9-04
Subject: Re: Fire the Clergy
Date: 8/9/2004 2:56:31 AM Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
Well, first off, I just want you to know that, although I disagree with a lot of
what I’ve seen on your site, that in no way means I will be rude or
disrespectful. If in any way I do offend you rudely, let me know, and I’ll try
to correct my behavior. Also, please do not get the impression that I’m arguing
simply for the sake of argument. I read/listen to everything objectively, and
actually analyze it before I agree/disagree. I hope I don’t give the impression
that I’m just being a “flaming fundie.” I only say all of this in advance
because several other atheists I’ve discussed with (including my little
brother), have accused me of such things, and misunderstood me. I’ll also warn
you that I tend to rant sometimes, as I’m not terribly good at organizing my
thoughts, so I say it as it comes to me. Therefore, this will be a long email.
Mark Smith here} Thanks
for the warnings :)
That all being said, let me go through your “Fire the Clergy” essay. Overall, I
agree with some of the conclusions you draw, except for the fact that you’re
misunderstanding what Scripture’s saying. This is leading you to a few
misconceptions. While I do agree, and cannot deny, that many people purporting
to be serving the Lord are indeed greedy, I disagree with anyone saying anyone
asking for money in the name of the Lord is a fraud. Perhaps your examples are
too extreme. Yes, preachers and
evangelists that live in $multi-million homes, and drive cars that cost more
than the average college education are overdoing it. This however, does
not mean that there are not those who accept (note I didn’t say “take”) money
from givers and apply it properly.
Mark Smith here} You are
expressing a feeling common among the laity, that it's right for preachers
to get paid, but wrong to pay them too much. This sounds very much like the
following: it's ok for a whore to get paid for getting laid, but it's wrong
for her to get paid too much. Or, it's ok for a man to swindle his neighbor
out of $100, but not $1,000.
This is the point: whatever makes it feel wrong to
you for small violations, should also make it wrong for big violations. I
hope this helps clear up the moral ambiguity.
“Whoever gives to the poor will lack nothing. But a curse will come upon those
who close their eyes to poverty.” -Proverbs 28:27
“Then a poor widow came by and dropped in two pennies. ‘I assure you,’ [Jesus]
said, ‘this poor widow has given more than all the rest of them. For they have
given a tiny part of their surplus, but she, poor as she is, has given
everything she has.’” -Luke 21:2-4
God obviously is a God of compassion toward the poor. He may not have given an
explicit mandate to the church, saying, “Every time you worship, you’d better
bring your money, and fork it over to the guy preaching.” Even though He didn’t
say that literally, it’s pretty obvious that God would want His church to act in
a loving way to the poor, and for His followers to take joy in giving, rather
than receiving.
If done in a holy manner, the offerings go to the church’s funds, which are to
go to holy causes. It is neither evil
nor greedy for some of those funds to go to church staff. They have to make a
living somehow. In my church, my pastor receives a decent salary, and
benefits, too. By no means does the entire budget go to him (I know, I attend
the business meetings, and vote on passing the proposed budget).
Mark Smith here} That is
what happens at your church, but that is NOT what the Bible approves of in
churches. I spent 30 or 40 pages going over in small detail scripture after
scripture showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the ONLY people in
Christianity authorized to get paid for preaching were the Apostles. Unless
you can go thru my entire essay and show me with facts and evidence where
I'm wrong, my thesis stands, regardless of how many churches (such as yours)
go against clear New Testament teaching.
You quoted Harding as saying, "The pastor is not a necessity. He is a fungus
growth upon the church, the body of Christians, dwarfing its growth... and until
the church gets rid of him it will never prosper." I disagree. Although a church
can survive without a central leader/preacher/mentor/etc, it would be quite
against a church’s interests in prospering to not have a leader.
Is it not best to have someone preaching
the word and leading the church that has an expert understanding of it and does
it as his or her choice of work? Who better than a man or woman that has made a
career out of leading a church? Paul writes to Timothy and tells him what
a church leader should be like, so Paul himself agrees a church needs a leader.
I find it hard to believe that God would want the leaders in His church to not
any financial means of feeding their families. In 1 Timothy 3:3-5, Paul lays
down some of the requirements for the character of elders and deacons in the
church:
Mark Smith here} But
Harding is right. When there's a bureaucrat available to do the work normal
people used to do, guess what? Normal people stop doing (and learning) the
work. Imagine which congregation would be stronger: one in which members are
expected to get up and present an intelligent and thoughtful message several
times a year, or one in which all that's "left to the professional" and the
members just sit back and get entertained. Imagine it this way: if you
hire a maid to follow kids around all day to pick up their messes, soon
they'll forget entirely how to do it themselves. Practice makes perfect, and
lack of practice makes one mediocre. I've spent time in both kinds of
churches- trust me, the ones with the full time preachers are "fat and lazy"
compared to the type Harding describes.
“He must not be a heavy drinker or be violent. He must be gentle, peace loving,
and not one who loves money. He must manage his own family well, with children
who respect and obey him. For if a man cannot manage his own household, how can
he take care of God's church?”
How can one manage a family at all, let
alone well, if he has no income? A pastor/preacher/clergyman/etc should receive
some of the church’s funds, for support, both for self and family.
Mark Smith here} Well,
maybe if he had a J-O-B like everyone else, then he'd HAVE some
income! Paul was very specific about leaving an example that preachers
should work secular jobs to support themselves, and that ANY one in the
church that REFUSED to work a secular job should be left to starve to death:
"if ANY will not work, neither let him eat."
“Let them try this experiment: stop paying the preacher. See how long he sticks
around being unpaid like the Apostle Paul…Tell him he can still preach, but in
addition to his preaching he’ll have to get a real job like the Apostle Paul
did.”
You say that preaching is not work. Although I’ve never preached regularly, or
in the sense of leading a Sunday worship service, I have tried sharing the Good
News with people, and being a mentor to younger believers, and comforting my
brothers and sister in Christ. It’s not exactly easy. It requires effort and
care. It’s tough work to do all that one-on-one, so how much more trying is to
do so for an entire congregation every week? To devote your life to leading a
church means that you can’t have another full-time career. It’s far too time-
and energy-consuming. The preacher’s salary is helping to support his or her
family, and it’s a gesture of appreciation for all the pastor does.
Mark Smith here} Yeah, and
what does THAT have to do with what the Bible allows or doesn't allow? You
know, I've noticed during your whole email so far, you really don't have
anything from the New Testament to back up what you're saying. All you're
doing is saying it seems to you thus and such. With as little use for the
New Testament that you show, maybe you should just throw it away and make up
your own do's and don'ts.
Don’t fall into the common misquote of 1 Timothy 6:10. Paul doesn’t say that
money, itself, is the root of all evil. Paul says, “For the love of money is at
the root of all kinds of evil…” Needing or even wanting money is not evil. Money
is important. God doesn’t mean that people should stay away from money. Money is
required to keep resources in proper balance (take an entry-level economics
course if you don’t believe me). It’s not until you come to depend on money for
happiness, rather than survival and support of others, that sinful greed has
victimized you. You use the quote from the Amplified Bible to claim that Paul
directly prohibits making preaching a “means of livelihood.” The passage says
this:
“...who imagine that godliness or righteousness is a source of profit [a
moneymaking business, a means of livelihood]. From such withdraw.”
Paul is indeed saying that people who think that they be “righteous” to make a
profit, or to get rich, or to earn a living, are to be rebuked.
The point he’s making is that a desire
to be rich (to have lots of money) is sinful, not the desire to have money.
Other translations help to clear up Paul’s meaning. The NIV says, “...who think
that godliness is a means to financial gain.” The NKJV says, “...who suppose
that godliness is a means of gain.” “They think religion is a way to make a fast
buck,” says Peterson in The Message. The whole point Paul is making is that one
should not have the wrong motives for doing the job,
not that one should not be paid for
doing work.
Mark Smith here} Uhhh,
excuse me, but the text says quite plainly that to turn one's religion into
a "means of livelihood" is WRONG. The Bible is saying that ANYone that tries
to make money (a little or a lot doesn't matter) from their religion is
WRONG. Paul could not have been clearer than that. You are 100% opposite of
what the Bible commands here.
Note also that, in the Amplified Bible, the phrase, “means of livelihood” is in
brackets. The preface to the Amplified Bible states this: “Brackets [ ]
contained justified clarifying words or comments not actually expressed in the
immediate original text, as well as definitions of Greek names.” So Paul himself
did not use that phrase, or the Greek equivalent of it. I admit my skill in
looking up Greek is limited, but from what I’ve found, the Greek word translated
to “source of profit” in the Amplified, actually better
translates to “source of gain” or
“gain.” Paul is warning against the motive of amassing of riches for being
“righteous.” It’s source of gain (as in getting more for yourself), not
source of support, not source of work. I again must emphasize the fact that a
righteous preacher will not keep a horde of cash. He’ll only take so much as to
equal a reasonable salary.
Mark Smith here} Again,
you seem to think that it's ok to steal a little, just don't steal alot,
when the Bible clearly says don't steal at all. If your preacher gets paid
ten cents or ten thousand dollars a week, the principal is all the same.
Which reminds me of an old joke. George Bernard
Shaw (famous Atheist) was at a dinner party. He turned to the woman next to
him and discussed prostitution. He asked her if she'd go to bed with him for
a million dollars, and she said of course. He then asked if she'd do it for
$5. She got pissed and said "What do you think I am!!!" To which he replied,
"We've already established WHAT you are. Now we're just quibbling over the
price."
WHAT a preacher is who gets paid for preaching is a
spiritual whore. YOU are just quibbling over the price.
You include many quotes of Paul
rebuking things like “peddling the Word,” and “making a profit” from God’s work.
I find it very possible that he may be referring to not only fellow Christians,
but maybe he was primarily speaking of the Jewish authorities. They were
infamous for twisting God’s words, His works, and His will to their own gain.
I haven’t really thought of that until now, and haven’t studied that
possibility very much, but I still find it a distinct possibility.
Mark Smith here} Yes, I
have included "many quotes". That's call R-E-S-E-A-R-C-H and something else
you've very little experience with, D-O-C-U-M-E-N-T-A-T-I-O-N. Maybe you
should try it sometime.
You know, I busted my ASS for more than a year back
before I turned 18 just doing research and documentation for the original
Fire The Clergy. I wanted to make sure that my conclusions were correct, and
properly backed up in case anyone disagreed. You know what? I WASTED MY
TIME!!! I could have saved alot of time and done what every single Christian
has done with my essay for the past 30 years: just spout off feelings, facts
be damned. It would have been soooooo much easier:
"FIRE THE CLERGY: You
know, I haven't really thought this through, and I haven't studied, but
I feel that preachers shouldn't be making a profit off the blood of
Jesus. I mean, wasn't that what Judas did with the 30 pieces of
silver??? And like, wasn't that wrong? THE END."
Another thing you’d do well to realize, is that
a pastor, etc does more than simply talk
for an hour to the congregation every week. Take my pastor, for example.
Pastor Ken preaches, yes, but it’s not his sermons that I think of when I think
of how much of a good leader he is. It’s the strong relationship he has with
God, and how that relationship overflows into all of his other relationships.
It’s the “extra-curricular” activities, such as teaching a 4-week class on what
baptism really is (I’m part of a Baptist church) and a week-long program for
Kindergarteners and 1st graders to learn about the Bible. It’s the character he
always plays every year for Vacation Bible School to make the kids laugh. It’s
for being an integral part of major decisions made about how our church
operates. It’s the good advice and mentoring he shares with me and other young
adults. It’s his natural charm and humor. When my church pays him, it’s not
because he asks for it. It’s because we, the congregation, pass his salary
through the budget. I don’t know about those churches in LA, but the small
portion of my money that goes to my pastor isn’t a wage for talking for an hour
every week. It’s for him being a leader, all for the glory of God.
Mark Smith here} You know,
this is getting VERY tiring. I'm waiting for you to tear into my arguments
and documentation- I'm waiting for you to actually at least TRY to answer my
arguments, and all you keep giving me are you damn FEELINGS about this
and about that. Not to be offensive, but your feelings don't matter worth a
rat's ass if there really IS a god up there somewhere. What matters is you
have "studied to show thyself approved" and have learned what his rules are
so you don't piss him off.
Your personal thoughts and feelings do NOT, in the
balance scale of intellectual discussion, have much weight. I'm sure alot of
Catholic priests could give you personal feelings on how good it makes them
feel to take their dicks and ram them up the assholes of little boys, how
they don't really see this as being wrong, and how they think this actually
pleases God. How is all your meandering chatter any more substantial than
theirs???
Now to comments about the members of committees that have worked (and they, too
work, very hard) to translate manuscripts of Scripture into readable English
being selfish, greedy, power-mongerers, out for nothing but money and a way to
stay away from real work, with their “useless theology degrees.” For one, I
refer you to this link (virus-check it if you’re paranoid), which explains the
challenge of a translator that is on one of those committees.
Preachers (again, if they’re obeying Christ’s commands) don’t tell congregations
to give money because they want more of it, or because they want to avoid
flipping burgers. Christ commanded us to give to the needy. True, some
people could (and do) sinfully use this as a way to get rich, but those people
are wrong in doing so. I agree with you 110% that people who fraudulently use
God’s word to obtain personal riches, should be rebuked, and be asked to step
down from leadership. This in no way means that all preachers are inherently
greedy liars.
Mark Smith here} Well,
maybe if they had a real JOB, they wouldn't BE needy in the first place! The
way your "reasoning" is working, a bum could park himself on the doorstep of
your church, and because he's NEEDY, you'd feel obligated to pay him a
weekly salary from now till Christ returns.
Also, about the whole “Only Apostles should be paid” thing, the word “apostle”
isn’t exclusive to the Twelve and other people mentioned in the NT. The term
isn’t meant to be an exclusive, specific group of people in the early church.
The word itself literally means, “a messenger sent out.” Simply by knowing the
definition, a person that learns and understands a teaching of Jesus, is His
disciple. Once they spread that knowledge and understanding, they become a
messenger, one that has been sent by Jesus to spread the Good News. I repeat:
anyone that spreads the gospel for the
glory of God in Jesus Christ is an apostle of Christ.
Mark Smith here} Ohhhh, I
see. Thank you for presenting ALL the evidence (i.e. zero) for that claim. I
was foolish and actually spent time documenting my findings on Apostleship.
Gee, I could have saved myself all that work and just pontificated like you.
You know, you may just as well have written me a two word email and it'd
have the same intellectual weight: "you're wrong!". Judging from your
email address, you're a student at a state run university in Illinois-
didn't they ever teach you how to do research???
In a nutshell, many of your conclusions about preachers violating and twisting
scripture might be accurate, but their premises (i.e., all preachers are out to
get rich) are false. If they were all to be out for quick riches, then I’d be
completely with you in trying to oust them. However, they are all not.
You have quite a bit of scripture behind
you, but you seem to misunderstand its true meaning a bit, and take
certain translations of words and phrases differently than they are intended to
be. If your definitions and premises were corrected, then you’d make a pretty
darn good Christian preacher yourself. If you were, I’d even consider paying you
to do full-time ministry at my church. ;)
Mark Smith here} Yes, I
try to back up my claims with things called SCRIPTURE and reference books.
You should try it sometime, instead of just spouting off. The depth of your
email here is what I would expect from a drunk Christian at a bar, just
shooting from the hip.
I’ll conclude this ever-growing response (since I’ve been at it for a few hours;
it’s past 4:30 AM right now) that has grown to an essay itself, by emphasizing
the truth that an open-minded person would not let the actions of imperfect
followers to turn you away from the perfect, living God. Christians have done
many, many evil things, many of them even being in the name of Christ, but only
besmirches their credibility (and holiness) as Christians. It does not, in any
way, make Christ or His teachings, or His sacrificial death, or His triumphant
resurrection any less real or reliable. If I claim that A Catcher in the Rye
made me want to kill the president, does that at all change the book’s truths,
than if I said it made me want to be kind to my little sister? My choices and
claims change nothing about the truth. I don’t create truth, and neither does
anybody, including greedy preachers that have stolen money to get some
bling-bling. I again realize how sad it is that they have done so, but I urge
you not to consider following Christians, or Christianity. I urge you to be open
to the possibility of following Christ Himself. He took no money for selfish
purposes. He commanded us not to. That tells us what’s right in the issue.
Besides, if you don’t like how the church isn’t running itself the way God
intended, then I challenge you to join the church and help us to fix those
problems.
I give you many thanks if you’ve trudged through this rambling of mine. I hope I
haven’t in any way offended or insulted anybody. If I have, it was not my
intention. I now end this essay-istic response. Good day. God is with you.
Mark Smith here} Joey- my
final advice to you- before you waste anyone's time with your "rebuttals"
PLEASE take some classes in critical thinking, debate, and logic. If you're
goal is to rebut my massive research which proves that only the early
Apostles were to get paid, at least have some facts behind what you say. WE
DON'T CARE what your feelings are. We really don't. We care what the facts
are, and those facts had damn well be backed up by solid reference material.
As you are right now, you'd be laughed out of a courtroom.
Joey Zarnsy 8-19-04
Subject: RE: Fire The Clergy up on web
Date: 8/19/2004 8:16:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
From:
Reply To:
To: JCnot4me@aol.com
CC:
BCC:
Sent on:
Sent from the Internet (Details)
I wasn't aware that I was testifying in a court of law...
The entire reason I didn't quote much
Scripture, is that you did that yourself. You're misunderstanding what
Scripture is what I was saying, so it's not the quotes that I need, it's to help
straighten out what meaning is behind what Scripture you quote.
You're right, I haven't spent years and years researching this topic. I
commend you for all the time you've spent working on the things you have on your
site. I'll admit I'm not excellent with presenting my arguments at times. Yes,
I'm a student at the University of Illinois, and yes, I've been taught research
before. I wasn't aware I was doing a homework assignment. Forgive me for
expressing my thoughts.
Mark Smith here} So what
you're admitting to is that an Atheist, who doesn't even HAVE a vested
interest in your religion, actually does a better job at Bible study than a
Christian such as yourself. One would think that people who are betting
their life on a religion being true would spend more time learning their own
religion.
Forgive my lack of Scriptural evidence and explanation. I'll try to
put more in this time. Believe it or not, I actually did read the entire article
of yours. Very well put together. I disagree with your conclusions and your
reasoning, though. I believe that, based on what I've read in Scripture, that
not only is it not wrong to pay church leaders, but that it is encouraged to pay
them. Paul discourages them from asking for money they don't need (thus being a
burden), but not for them receiving it. Example: If I ask my mom for money all
the time, I'm being a burden. A son shouldn't do that to his mother. If my
mother offers me money when I need it, and I accept her offer, I'm not being a
burden. Likewise, if a church offers a salary to its leaders, then it's ok for
the leaders to accept that money, since they need it for food, drink, and
shleter.
This is more than just conjecture on my
part. I've come to these beliefs because I've read and understood Scripture.
Mark Smith here} THIS is
from the Bible? Then please, give me the BOOK, CHAPTER, AND VERSE for this.
I just can't wait to see the depth of your Bible "study" where you come up
with THIS.
Back in the old days of the Tabernacle, in the OT, God commanded that
the preists be given a portion of the sacrifices, since being a preist was their
main duty in life, and they were unable to do other work to make a living.
"The LORD commanded that the Israelites were to give these portions to the
priests as their regular share from the time of the priests' anointing. This
regulation applies throughout the generations to come." -Leviticus 7:36
Although the actual sacrifices are no longer necessary, the concept of
those doing work specifically for the LORD receiving a portion of the given
items is not new. God had commanded them to give Him sacrifices, but God also
wanted some of it to go to the preists. Now I'm not saying that we're to give a
breast and a right thigh of a dead animal to our church leaders. I'm merely
showing that giving to leaders has been around ever since the days of roaming
the desert.
Mark Smith here} If you're
trying to show that people whom Biblegod has AUTHORIZED to get paid can get
paid, that is NOT the issue. The issue is this: WHO in the Bible WAS
authorized to get paid for their preaching??? Is it anyone who stands up in
public and quotes a verse, or are there qualifications one must meet??? You
are avoiding this obvious point.
Also, let's look at 1 Timothy
5:17-18 (I know you quote this in your original essay, but just hear it
out. I'll get to what you said about it in a bit.):
"Elders who do their
work well
should be paid well, especially
those who work hard at both preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, 'Do
not keep an ox from eating as it treads out the grain.' And in another place,
'Those who work deserve their pay!'"
Mark Smith here} Uhhh,
excuse me, but THAT is nowhere in the New Testament. What did you do, make
up your own translation or find a very liberal paraphrase that ignores the
Koine' Greek??? As I pointed out in my essay, the ACTUAL text says they
should be worthy of "double honor". The New International Version puts
1st Timothy 5:17 this way:
The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of
double honor, especially
those whose work is preaching and teaching.
How you transformed "double honor" into "should be
paid well" should make even a Houdini jealous, and as I pointed out in my
"Fire The Clergy" there is no justification or reasoning to justify this
mistranslation.
Another thing that just came to mind: if YOU are
saying that they should be "paid WELL" then why all the crying in your
previous email about they should NOT be paid well- that they should just
make enough to get by on??? Which is it? Ahhh... but you're a Christian, so
naturally you're going to want it ANY way that best "wins" you the argument.
Sorry, I forgot that it's only us Atheists that have to be consistent and
logical. My mistake.
And this is the clincher: IF this is what the verse
ACTUALLY was saying- if it was saying to PAY the elders of your church- then
99.999% of ALL the Christian churches (your included) are in direct
violation of this verse, and you (if you REALLY believed the verse was
saying this) can immediately start paying your church elders $50 a week- and
if you don't have the money, go get a job at McDonald's. Now that it's going
to cost you some money, maybe even getting a job at McDonald's, do you
REALLY believe that's what the verse is saying??? I didn't think so.
Paul there quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7, respectively. The
Deuteronomy passage has no other context; it stands alone, but is pretty
self-explanitory. It is wrong to put even an animal to work, and not give it
some compensation for its toils, so how much more is it wrong to ask the same
from our fellow man? If you put an animal to work, and don't feed it, it won't
work very hard the next time, since it has nothing sustaining it. Same goes for
church leaders. Even the ancient Levitical preists were given some form of
payment. The passage in Luke 10 is where
Jesus
sends out His disciples to go to other cities and preach the
coming of the Kingdom. He says, in verses 5-7:
"When you enter a
house, first say, 'Peace to this house.' If a man of peace is there, your peace
will rest on him; if not, it will return to you. Stay in that house, eating and
drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move
around from house to house." (emphasis added)
Mark Smith here} And what
WERE these people Jesus was speaking to, that Jesus himself personally SENT?
Remember, the Greek word "apostle" means "one sent" and Jesus
HIMSELF just sent these people... hmm, let me think... I know! These people
were A-P-O-S-T-L-E-S, by definition even, who, according to my premise, were
authorized to get food and drink for their preaching, which is exactly what
you'd expect if my premise is true, and which is what you see here, so I
guess you yourself have proven my premise is true- thank you!
And seeing how you must have FORGOTTEN my premise-
the one you're supposed to be responding to, here's a reminder:
The New Testament teaches that only Apostles
had the right to be paid by the church
for their preaching.
This is a great example, because Jesus is sending out disciples to preach for
Him, and encouraging them to receive food, drink, and shelter from the people to
whom they minister. We still do that today. We use a medium of currency more
heavily now these days, but it's still the same idea. A church is giving money
to its leaders for food, drink, shelter, clothing, etc.
I will agree with you, that anybody who
gets rich from money from a church, is sinning in doing so.
Mark Smith here} Well, you
are NOT agreeing with me for that's not what I have ever said! YOU are the
one who is saying that they can get paid, just not well paid, and I am
saying this: that's the moral equivalent of "it's ok for a thief or swindler
to steal or cheat money from people, just as long as they're not very good
at it- as long as they don't steal or swindle enough to be well off."
And I'm still waiting for your book-chapter-verse to justify such a goofball
idea.
Now, about Paul saying widows should not burden the church. This apparently was
an issue in that church at the time, so Paul addressed it. Not everything Paul
(or anybody else, for that matter) says is an instruction to all people for all
time. Some of his warnings are aimed at
a specific audience. Much of it can be applied to us today, but not everything
can be.
Mark Smith here} Which
leads to an interesting side question: if software companies have the smarts
to be able to revise their software every few years to better match the
needs of their clients, WHY IS YOUR BIBLEGOD STILL STUCK ON CHRISTIANITY-
VERSION 1.0 ??? All of the crap in your Bible that no longer applies-
that's like leaving in all the instructions for DOS 3.2 in a current owners
manual for Windows XP. Why, if he really existed, is your Biblegod so damn
STUPID as to be doing this??? Have you thought that maybe it's because he
DOESN'T exist??? Think about it.
He's talking about young widows that aren't very needy that tried to get help
from the church, thus burdening it. He's not saying he doesn't want widows to
recieve from the church at all. He's talking about young widows that could help
themselves and let the church help those that are actually in more desperate
need. This isn't as much of an issue these days, as I don't see many young
widows begging a church for money, when they could simply remarry.
Also, about the word "time." Yes, it is translated as "honor" is most uses. It
does make sense to use it in its other (yet similar) usage in 1 Timothy 5:17.
Paul quotes 2 verses, as we already looked at. Both can refer to both honor and
money. The ox should be fed, and it should be respected for its work, and
treated well overall. The disciples were to receive food, drink, and shelter,
but also honor and peace. Jesus communicated that the people with whom they
stayed were to be peaceful people. The disciples were to leave immediately if
they weren't received peacfully. So it
makes sense that both honor and money could be the meaning in 1 Timothy 5:17.
The elders should receive a fair wage, and also the respect of everybody.
Respect and honor alone won't put food on their tables or keep them warm at
night. Jesus knew this, Paul knew this.
Mark Smith here} You know
what? Until you start giving book-chapter-verse for these ASSUMPTIONS of
yours, I see no reason to waste time responding. I could sit here at the
keyboard and speculate about this or that just like you- it's easy to do-
it's lazy. I've done actually RESEARCH and DOCUMENTATION for my essay "Fire
The Clergy", and I did it all at an age younger than you are now. I want to
deal with your FACTS and FIGURES- not your FANTASIES and SPECULATIONS. Do
you actually HAVE any facts???
On the same note, it's also prudent to know that times are very different now,
than they were back then. We can't do exactly what the early church leaders did,
because we're not them, and we're separated by over 2 milennia and halfway
across the world. Now, we can still hold the same values, and the same
doctrines, but some things have to change. What I'm getting at, is not only is
giving to leaders still important, but maybe even more important today than it
was then. I say this because we live in an age of specialization in which people
with other jobs don't have as much time to give to ministry. All Christians are
to minister to someone, but church leadership, with chuch numbers being so
amazingly high, requires much more time and energy than it used to. Thus, the
workers are earning more wages, due to their higher comittments.
Mark Smith here} Again,
all nice and good, but where or WHERE is your "book-chapter-verse" for these
SPECULATIONS??? If you're saying that your religion is obsolete, I agree.
But if you're NOT saying that, you need to back up these claims.
Now, Paul himself may have opted not to
receive any wages, as you point out very well. It seems he only accepted
what he absolutely needed (i.e., food and such, probably).
Paul decided not to risk being a burden. Paul also opts to stay single
his entire life. Now, it's not wrong to
get married, is it? No. Any church leader can opt to not get paid at all,
if they like, but they'd better be ready to find money to live some other way.
Mark Smith here} Paul
specifically said that the REASON he declined getting paid for his preaching
(which pay, by the way, he was entitled to) was to LEAVE AN EXAMPLE to
everyone else (and that would include your PREACHER) that
they were NOT to get paid for THEIR preaching, but rather get a REAL job
like Paul himself did. Paul is VERY specific about this, to the point of
being condescending, but I see by your lack of understanding that maybe he
didn't "condescend" enough.
As to "it's not wrong to get married, is it?" I
guess you've never read Paul in 1st Corinthians chapter 7, where yes, Paul
says do NOT get married as the world is about to end. I'll leave you to
guess if Paul screwed up concerning marriage, or screwed up concerning when
the world would end, or screwed up on both. Bottom line: Paul screwed up in
his theology.
I'm in no way, in arguing this case to you, saying that all people who have a
job with the church be paid. What I should have mentioned in my initial response
is that I believe very much that most churches I've seen or heard of, have way
too many paid "leaders." I think those that spend almost all of their time
growing the church should be paid, but I also think that there shouldn't be too
many of these leaders. Depending on the size of the church, it may not be
necessary for all of the full-timers to be there. Some should branch off and go
somewhere where they are more needed. They need to go find a church that's
under-staffed. Again, it depends on the size of the church, but I think a
full-time pastor, maybe an associate pastor/youth pastor, and maybe a few more
positions, such as a secretary, if the church has an office. Heck, if you have a
janitor, pay them, too. Other than that, I don't see a need for anybody else to
receive a wage, based on what Scripture says about who should receive wages. If
the church is exceptionally large, then maybe turn one of the mentioned
positions into a team. Maybe you need several associate pastors/youth pastors,
if you have thousands of people in your church. Maybe multiple
preachers/pastors.
Mark Smith here} Jesus H.
CHRIST!!!! It's times like when I read paragraphs like the above that I am
GLAD that when I WAS a Christian, at least I was a Christian in the Church
of Christ, where we at least PRETENDED to follow what the Bible said
concerning church government. Shit! You're not even making a pretense at it!
You just got all these ideas of your own concocted out of thin air- Bible be
damned. I might as well be debating the Bible with a Buddhist.
What I'm getting at is that if Paul of Tarsus were alive today, I seriously
doubt that, knowing what the world is like today, he'd think that it is a sin
for church leaders to receive some money for their work. I think he would be
appalled at how much some receive, and how many people in a single church
receive them. Paul many times refers to the church as the body of Christ. There
are many parts. A body definitely needs food, does it not? It needs to breath,
right? The church is the same way. It needs some input. Only then can it
properly give any output.
Mark Smith here} Again I
request it: book, chapter, verse. Or are YOU the modern prophet who
has come to lay down new revelation for how the church should be run??? As
long as you're making up rules and regulations for Biblegod's church, why
don't you include some fun things, like topless ushers, and how about bikini
contests on Wednesday nights??? Why not! As long as you're IGNORING 100%
what the Bible says regarding almost EVERYTHING, what's to stop you???
When it all comes down to it, though, as long as the congregation is giving
willingly, then even if it were sin for the leaders to recieve money, that sin
would be on their hands. God will right all wrongs in the end. So, if people
want to trust that it's a good thing to give money to their church every week,
then why does that bother you? If the leaders are obtaining the money
fraudulently, then they will get what's coming to them. Everybody knows exactly
what'd happen if no church leaders were paid. Many would leave. Not because
they're greedy (well, some may be), but because they'd have no means of making a
living. Most, if not all, churches would crumble. God did not tell Christiansto
form churches just so that they could suicidily not take care of themselves.
You can pick on me for not having a work needing a long bibliography all you'd
like. Just because I haven't taken
classes on critical thinking or logic, that doesn't mean that I can't read and
understand Scripture. Did Paul need an education to understand it? Did
the 12 disciples need college degress to understand Jesus? No, they only needed
to open their ears and listen. Granted that some Scripture requires some
knowledge of the culture of the time it was written, but you can understand most
(if not all) Scripture simply by openly reading it, with an open heart and mind.
Heavy study can strengthen your understanding of what you learn, but you can get
the intended points just with what's in your Bible.
Mark Smith here} Uhhh, not
to be rude, but trust me on this one: you DO need these classes and you DO
need to study the Bible because if this email is any indication, you don't
know Jack Schick about either.
On a side note, I'd like to suggest you read I Don't Have Enough
Faith to be an Atheist. It's a book by Frank Turek and Norm Geisler, in which
they provide a lot of evidence (objectively) for the truths (scientific,
philosophical, and logical truth) of Christianity. Since you seem to be a fan of
evidence backing up a point, I think you'd find it quite educational. It starts
with the question of truth in general, and makes its way all the way to what
Jesus taught about the Bible. It helped me to get rid of most of my doubts about
the reliability of Christianity's claims. Peace be with you, as God is always.
Ken 1/4/08
Thanks for the article, "Fire the Clergy."
It was great!
I noticed that it was done back in the early
70's. It appears that you really put a lot of effort into this study.
Thanks for a good job.
I do have one question or request. I am
presently working on starting a website concerning unbiblical
authoritarianism
and spiritual abuse that is rampant in the
church today. It should be ready in about another month or two.
Would it be OK to use your article on this
site? I'm not sure at this point how extensively I will use it,
but definitely large chunks will be taken.
Also, some of the "language" will be "cleaned up" here and there as well.
Would you have any problem with this? I hope
that it will be OK to use.
I'd appreciate it very much!
Thanks again!
Ken
Ray 12/6/08
I just want to tell you how much I enjoy your paper on "Fire the Clergy".
To know that it was done over a years time by an 18 year old is indeed
incredible. I will pick it up and read it again and again when I grow
discouraged by the commercialization of religion in the country and the
world.
Again, you have done an exemplary job, but yet "thou lackest one thing"
to more securely nail the coffin down on PAID PROFESSIONAL POACHERS IN MY
PULPIT (P.P.P.I.M.P.). I Corinthians 9:6 paraphrased, (Paul speaking):
"Are Barnabas and I the only ones required to work for a living? Here, Paul
gets preaching and working as far apart as the east is from the west. Even
in Paul's era, the WORKLESS WONDER WIMPS IN MY PULPIT (W.W.W.I.M.P.) were
doing their "gig" (gain is godliness) routine.
I count a dozen times in the New Testament, Paul said he was to be an
example to his brethren. He was after all, the one who said, "If any man
won't work, neither shall he eat." Any religious person who does not have a
REAL job should starve. Again, preaching is as far as you can get from the
real world experience where you punch a clock or are answerable to a boss or
a demanding public. The workplace is the place where you let your light so
shine before men. You can't do this in a "church" where other sinners fawn
over you and curry your favor, and you are exalted as a demi GOD (but really
a dummy god)! Do you think you can express I Corinthians 9:6 in a sharper,
more vivid way, to contrast the difference that exists between preaching and
work, which are two differently distinct entities and must be respected as
such by the infidel bypocrites of pulpitry (I.H.O.P.).
P.S. - To your credit, you do say work and preaching are not the same,
but didn't use I Corinthians 9:6 to verify this. Just fine tuning your fine
job.
Sincerely,
Sinner
|
Contact Information
Set Free!
Orange County,
CA
Email:
JCnot4me@aol.com Web
Page
JCnot4me.com
NOTICE: Any and all emails sent to SET FREE become the
property of SET FREE to be used or displayed upon the web site of
SET FREE however SET FREE decides, but don't worry, your email
address will probably be deleted. Views contained in SET FREE
represent the views of the authors. No implicit approval by SET FREE
is to be assumed. |
