Responses to Fire The Clergy
[ Homepage ] [ Up ] [ Next ]      Set Free Table of Contents          What's New

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

 

 

 

 

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}

Subj: Re: Hired Preachers???  Date: 4/10/03 5:57:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:   To: JCnot4me@aol.com Sent from the Internet (Details)

Mitch Burks- Hireling 4-22-03

Subj: perfume over fertilizer  Date: 4/22/03 8:02:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:   To: JCnot4me@aol.com Sent from the Internet (Details)

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.

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