Understanding the Statement �Pastors Should Have Double Honor'

Pastors are men of God, called primarily to preach the Gospel of Christ. They are important to the cause of Christ. However, as I have noticed, the statement �pastors should have double honor� is often used loosely and erroneously. This article sets to put things into perspective to reinforce the authority and position of pastors through pulling out the brier. 

General Rule

Proposition of Fact A: Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. 1 Timothy 5:17

Negation of Proposition A: Elders that do NOT rule well are not worthy of double honor.

Having said so, there are two kinds of pastors: 

• a.       Rule well. 

• b.      Do not rule well, just rule.

Pastor (a) should receive double honor. No buts. No ifs. No questions. 

Pastor (b) should not receive double honor. But Pastor (b) should receive honor. Honor is innate for man. Respect for human dignity is for all, pastors or not, even priests and imams. No difference. 

Pastors that do not rule well should not expect the same treatment as those who rule well. The latter receives double honor for a job well done. The difference between the two is as wide as the Pacific. For pastors who do not rule well to expect double honor is preposterous. Absurd, even.

Authority and Influence

Proposition of Fact B: Pastors are anointed by God; given by God. Jeremiah 3:15

Negation of Proposition B: Pastors are not anointed by God; not given by God. 

Having said so, there are two kinds of pastors (using this criterion): 

• a.       God given; anointed by God

• b.      Anointed by no one, given by no one

The anointing of the Lord is very important because it provides the pastor legitimate power. (There are five sources of power: expert, referent, legitimate, coercive and reward. While legitimate source of power was demonstrated by Christ through direct statements of being the Son of God, Christ did not use the same to gather people. Disciples of Christ follow Him because of His personal source of power � referent to be exact.)

As much as most pastors can only cite their legitimate source of power for members of the church (local assembly) because most of them don�t have the referent power to be admired or the expert power to be considered, Jeremiah 3:15 has been used strongly, even to the point of cultic application. 

Pastor (a) should be respected as an anointed man of God. That�s the rule. But for Pastor (a) to qualify for �double honor� you must return to Proposition of Fact A. 

Pastor (b) should be respected, as a man. Human dignity applies.

Attitude toward Those Who Fail to Meet These Two Propositions

Question: How do we do that the pastor is anointed by God or not? 

You will know the tree by its fruits. Matthew 7:16. It means you know the pastor by the body of his work.

Number of people? God is not for numbers, silly. 

Size of building? Absurd, appearances are not for God. 

Direction of ministry? Yes

Let us not go to argumentum ad hominem. They will not work. Let us just consider the body of work of the pastor. 

Question: Can we really know and judge well? 

There is no definitive checklist. 

Question: For pastors who do not fall on the category of being anointed by God? (You will be the judge of this matter.)

Respect the person, as a human being. 

Question: For pastors who are anointed but are not ruling well? 

Respect is necessary. Psalm 105:15 demands: Do not touch God�s anointed even if you think he is not ruling well. 

Clear line of view: The admonition should not be interpreted as a form of censorship that a person cannot talk about the pastor. As long as the topic or subject is within the bounds of truth, it should be allowed. Do not slander or accuse false witness of the anointed pastor, who is not doing well, else you will go against Psalm 105:15. 

Reasoning: God is not a God of censorship. God is a God of truth; the truth that sets a person free. God does not even censor the sins and mistakes of David. For pastors to use Psalm 105:5 not to hear any argument, complain or stories from people is just plain usage of the word to suit one�s agenda. 

Best action: Tell the person. Matthew 18:15. If you can�t follow the best action, talking about the pastor is not gossip if it is the truth, not understatements nor exaggerations. Gossips are rumors; they are not true in the first place. Let�s not confuse them. 

Conclusion

All those who use the title �pastor� or any other word that applies should be respected, regardless of their anointing or actions. They are all human beings. While respect is earned and not demanded, even the slightest respect must be accorded to all human beings. 

But for those who are anointed by God and ruling well, double honor should be given. The respect you and I give to a person must be doubled for the man of God.

Absolute Morality Does Not Change When Christians Support Death Penalty

Absolute morality is what we, Christians, believe. The Bible provides a comprehensive understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Absolute morality means that killing is wrong or raising kids even if you don't have money is right. When we say absolute it means the difference of black and white, with nothing in between. It is the fight of right over wrong. You can't play in the middle.

Why are (most) Christians supporting the war on drugs of President Duterte? Or why are we (a rejoinder) supporting death penalty?

The rule: Thou shalt not kill. This is the absolute of the Bible.

On death penalty:

Statement: Absolute morality demands for a punitive justice system. This is not retribution or vengeance, but the wheel of justice working in a manner best suits in an imperfect world. (Why imperfect when God made it perfect? Better ask Adam and Eve.)

Clause: Death penalty must only be applied on heinous crimes. Heinous crimes classify those acted against persons with the intent to destroy or harm them.

Question: Is drug pushing or usage heinous?

Yes. Drug crimes are against persons. When one peddles drugs, he understands that his action may harm another person. As much as he understands and knows the effects of drugs, it is intentional crime.

But drug using, why include that?

A drug user at the stage four or acutely dependent on drugs inflict harm on others, not just physically but also emotionally and mentally.

Question: But killing is wrong, based on absolute morality of the Bible.

The law is absolute. It provides a background for morality. But when you break the law, punitive justice applies. The absolute morality of the Bible won't work without its punitive clauses.

When one commits murder or rape, death penalty is justice system at work for absolute morality. It is not to undermine absolute morality, but to reinforce or strengthen the case for absolute morality.

Otherwise, when there is no punitive clause, the absolute morality is nothing but a tiger with its sharp teeth. People would be imposing their own moral standards and beliefs. Why be afraid to do so when the absolute morality of the Bible has no police power?

Question: Is it wrong to support death penalty? Are we Christians having double standard? Are we leaving the fundamentals of absolute morality and espousing the concept of relative morality?

The answer to all these is NO.

By supporting death penalty we hold dear the standards of the Bible that life is sacred and that killing is morally and biblically wrong. That by supporting the same we are shouting to the world the need for people to follow the absolute morality of the Bible, or face the punitive demand of justice.

Don't tell me God is love so why the punitive justice. You are asking for a parent to discard rebuke and discipline because he/she loves his/her child.