NAR Constitution section 5 article 6

This section is for discussing the Northwest Front, its mission and projects.

NAR Constitution section 5 article 6

Postby sicsemper » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:54 pm

Howdy,

I'd like to ask for explanation of this portion of the proposed constitution. It reads:
Article VI. No citizen or resident of the Northwest American Republic may accept any monetary emolument, fee, gift, or anything of value for performing the function of a priest or minister of religion.


What does this entail? Would the state involve itself if my church was paying my pastor?
Believing the Bible to be God's word, I have a mandate to support my pastor for his job (1 Timothy 5:17-18, Galatians 6:6, 1 Corinthians 9:14) and so it would be sin to not do so. I am not meaning to invite inter-religious debate, or argue what the correct understanding of these passages is, but only to point out that this is the dominant and historically orthodox view in Christianity.
In application, this article seems to be in conflict with article 3 of the Bill of Rights securing freedom of religion.

One of the last few re-broadcasts of RFN featured Harold giving an interview on the Deanna Spingola show, and he touched on this topic for just a moment. Hearing from him, the intent seems to be in keeping power from subversive entities (more clearly in the case of lawyers, article 7). Is there a different way to accomplish this intent?

I am a baptist. I do not believe my clergy have special power in offering sacraments that are related to my salvation. My pastor's primary job is teaching what the Bible says. What is the ethical difference between this and the job of a schoolteacher, or the job of a podcaster?

I appreciate your work and the longsuffering you show, especially with the more tedious questions and complaints. My condolences for the loss last year.
sicsemper
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: NAR Constitution section 5 article 6

Postby AJs » Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:04 pm

I'll probably just re-run the show where I dealt with this issue from a more-or-less Christian point of view. If that doesn't help out, I'm not sure what will.


A. W. Donner

AJ...
AJs
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:37 am

Re: NAR Constitution section 5 article 6

Postby sicsemper » Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:52 pm

AJs wrote:I'll probably just re-run the show where I dealt with this issue from a more-or-less Christian point of view. If that doesn't help out, I'm not sure what will.

Thanks, I'd be happy to hear it. If you'd rather tell me which archived episode speaks on the topic I can just listen to it myself.
sicsemper
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: NAR Constitution section 5 article 6

Postby AJs » Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:44 am

http://northwestfront.org/2015/05/radio ... 14th-2015/

7:43 to 8:15 covers clergy

As for the professional clergy ban. Being a man of the cloth is supposed to be something you do out of a sense of duty to God or the Gods or to God and the folk, whatever once you start bringing money into the equation corruption sets in. If you work for a living there is simply less time to get involved in things the clergy have no business being involved in; and you attain a much greater sense of connection with your folk. Since you are truly one of them. Not someone who exists out side of or above normal society.

While not trying to get into a debate, but to simply show a different view point. I personally prefer the Douay–Rheims Bible, The New Testament portion was published in Reims, France, in 1582, rather than the New International Version (NIV) first published in 1978. Or The King James Version (KJV) published in 1611.

For instance:
1 Corinthians 9:14 New International Version (NIV)

14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.


1 Corinthians 9:14 King James Version (KJV)

14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.


1 Corinthians 9:14 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

14 So also the Lord ordained that they who preach the gospel, should live by the gospel.

1 Timothy 5:17-18 New International Version (NIV)

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 Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”[b]


1 Timothy 5:17-18 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

17 Let the priests that rule well, be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine:

18 For the scripture saith: Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn: and, The labourer is worthy of his reward.


1 Timothy 5:17-18 King James Version (KJV)

17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

18 For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.


Further I would direct you to this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAuU7GTj9ik it is very informative. Speaks about, the Kike influenced Scofield Bible; which is the dominant and historically orthodox view in Christian-Zionism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el79zWid1ZI Truth about Zionism - Scofield Reference Bible also very good but longer.

Hope this helps?

AJ...
AJs
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:37 am

Re: NAR Constitution section 5 article 6

Postby andydonner » Mon Apr 29, 2019 10:42 pm

While AJ's link is a good one, the episode we replayed last week was the episode I referred to. Was it or was it not helpful?
A. W. Donner
User avatar
andydonner
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:09 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: NAR Constitution section 5 article 6

Postby sicsemper » Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:18 pm

andydonner wrote:While AJ's link is a good one, the episode we replayed last week was the episode I referred to. Was it or was it not helpful?

Hi Andy, sorry I didn't get back to this thread right after the broadcast.

At 11:55 you give the short answer that the reason behind the ban on paid religious workers is "because of what they're capable of". You point out that the existence of churches won't be made impossible by the ban, and you discuss that many pastors are lazy or zionist; and do "nothing at all" for their salary.
You say at 14:40 that the only churches which will be affected are megachurches, and so the net result of the ban is that there will be no celebrity pastors, which is clearly a positive effect (agreed, if that were the case).

This was a helpful answer to see your rationale, but it was not a persuasive one.

How did you reach the conclusion that only megachurches would be affected? If anything, megachurches would be most able to continue as usual under a paid pastor ban because the celebrity pastor could find revenue elsewhere. You might be surprised to know that America's most infamous megachurch pastor Joel Osteen takes $0 in salary from Lakewood, his income is from book sales.

The episode did not quite address the concerns I raised. Like I said, I and most of Christianity today and historically view supporting the local pastor as an obligation from God. Again, what is the relevant difference between compensating this man for teaching me the bible or compensating a different man for teaching me history? Consider for the sake of argument a bivocational pastor receiving $6,000/year for his role as pastor, because there really is one.
The Northwest baptist convention reports salaries. Visit compstudy.lifeway.com and select "Northwest". There is some baptist preacher in the northwest receiving $500 a month at his rural church of 1-24 people. As it stands, this section of the constitution would make this illegal activity.

If the objective is to guard against zionism or subversive megachurches, then I suggest the article be rephrased in a way that doesn't infringe on religious liberty. I understand that this is just a draft and this obviously has no effect on the primary concern right now of the northwest imperative.

Thanks again

AJs wrote:Being a man of the cloth is supposed to be something you do out of a sense of duty to God or the Gods or to God and the folk, whatever once you start bringing money into the equation corruption sets in. If you work for a living there is simply less time to get involved in things the clergy have no business being involved in; and you attain a much greater sense of connection with your folk. Since you are truly one of them. Not someone who exists out side of or above normal society.

Thanks for finding another quotation of Harold on the subject. I think this makes it more clear that the objective is avoiding corruption, but it's fallacious to say that compensation necessarily brings corruption. It would be improper for the state to enforce such a position upon the churches in the nation.
sicsemper
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: NAR Constitution section 5 article 6

Postby AJs » Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:25 am

To revisit this FIVE MONTHS LATER

Harold wrote "Being a man of the cloth is supposed to be something you do out of a sense of duty to God or the Gods or to God and the folk, whatever once you start bringing money into the equation corruption sets in. If you work for a living there is simply less time to get involved in things the clergy have no business being involved in; and you attain a much greater sense of connection with your folk. Since you are truly one of them. Not someone who exists out side of or above normal society."

Follow the spirit of what he wrote.

I feel that this would deserve more time, IF you were here out of your pew and actively working here to provide a future for White Children. I would suggest a higher obligation to your god would be to preserve the Children of the White race and a future for them rather than the pocket book of a preacher at the present time.

So my question to you, why are you not here FIVE MONTHS LATER to speak with us face to face and actively working to provide a future for White Children?
AJs
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:37 am

Re: NAR Constitution section 5 article 6

Postby sicsemper » Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:53 am

AJs wrote:I would suggest a higher obligation to your god would be to preserve the Children of the White race and a future for them rather than the pocket book of a preacher at the present time.

These are not mutually exclusive. I explicitly already acknowledged the primary importance of the northwest imperative over this discussion in the post you're replying to.

AJs wrote:So my question to you, why are you not here FIVE MONTHS LATER to speak with us face to face and actively working to provide a future for White Children?

I'm finishing a master's degree so that I can find gainful employment in my field once I've arrived, as has been recommended on RFN. I've also just been married, which takes time and needs to be around family. We're planning our migration.
sicsemper
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: NAR Constitution section 5 article 6

Postby AJs » Thu Sep 19, 2019 2:40 pm

sicsemper
We're planning our migration.
I look forward to further discussion of this topic when you arrive face to face. Until then here is an article to chew on. https://lewayotte.com/2013/01/10/there- ... orselders/

The Life of Lew Ayotte

Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness. Fight the good fight of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called... - 1 Timothy 6:11-12

Home
Projects »
About
Contact

There is no Biblical Defense for Paid Pastors/Elders
2013.01.10 by Lew

I came to believe that there was no valid support or defense for paying the salary of a pastor or elder while I was at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. This was while I was training to become a vocational/paid pastor! It was through my experiences at the seminary and studying the scriptures that made me realize that just about everything we we do in “traditional church” cannot be defended or supported with the scriptures (try as we might). So, I have been inspired, by a conversation with my brother-in-law, to write about the misguided idea that pastors/elders should receive a salary. But before I start, let me say that I am not saying it is wrong or sinful to pay a man to teach you every Sunday morning, all I am saying is that this practice cannot be justified using the Christian Bible. I would also say that in most cases, paying the salary of a pastor/elder is quite often detrimental to the maturity and growth of the church.
1 Timothy 5:17-18

So, let us talk about the most popular verse use to support paying an elder, 1 Timothy 5:17-18…

Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

The ultimate question with this verse is what does honor mean… or in this case double honor. Many people equate honor with wage, the laborer deserves his wage and the elder deserves his wage too. Which does not really make sense. In essence, what Paul is saying here is “Elders are worthy of double honor, just like oxen are worthy of their grain, and laborers are worthy of their wage.” We cannot rightly say that elders are worthy of their wage because laborers are… not unless you are prepared to say that elders are worthy of their grain too. You see, elders are not oxen and they are not laborers, they are elders! (technically, an elder could be a laborer, if they got real jobs to support themselves and their families)

You may be inclined to say that elders work at least 40 hours a week and are on-call 24 hours a day , 7 days a week! Surely that is a job and quite labor intensive. And yes, I would agree with you, but that is not an elder’s job, no where in scripture can you defend the practice of making eldership as employment. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any description of an elder that prescribes the job requirements of a modern day pastor. An elder is someone who has simply been recognized as being mature in Christ, not someone who gets paid to perform certain duties.

There is another fundamental problem with associating the term “double honor” with “wage” in this text. If we read a few verses from before, 1 Timothy 5:3…

Honor widows who are widows indeed

You see, just a few lines above where Paul talks about double honor he says that widows are worthy of single honor. If we are confident that double honor is the same as a laborer’s wage, then all the true widows in your church should get half the salary that your senior pastor makes (and half the grain).

I have not heard anyone, ever, suggest that we need to pay a widow an annual salary. So what does honor mean here? Well, the Greek words for honor (τιμἁω / τιμἡ) is used in both verses to literally mean, “respect.” In other words, the godly people in the church deserve respect, especially if they teach and preach — and the widows should be respected too.

We should also consider a few verses that come after 1 Timothy 5:17-18, namely, 1 Timothy 6:1…

All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.

If double honor means that we should pay our elders a salary, then logically speaking, slaves should pay their masters a salary, right? And yes, this is the same Greek word τιμἡ used in 1 Timothy 5:17-18. It truly does not make sense to say that Paul meant “honor” as one meaning in between two other uses of the same word. Not to mention, how could a slave pay their masters a salary at all? Unless of course these slaves were paid, which may be historically accurate, why would they then be required to give all that money back to the person who paid them?
1 Corinthians 9:14

Let us move onto the next verse, 1 Corinthians 9:14…

So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.

Well, this is pretty damning evidence, is it not? No, not really. Let us consider the some of the context surrounding the verse, 1 Corinthians 9:9-18 (bolded to illustrate my point)…

For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.” God is not concerned about oxen, is He? Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar? So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.

But I have used none of these things. And I am not writing these things so that it will be done so in my case; for it would be better for me to die than have any man make my boast an empty one. For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel. For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me. What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.

You have to realize, Paul (the author of this letter) repeatedly says that although they have the right to receive money for their work, they did not pursue this right. They did this so they would not hinder the gospel. Oh, and there is also an often ignored smoking gun in this verse. Do you see it? This verse has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with pastors or elders! This is about missionaries. Paul was not an elder or a pastor, he was a missionary. He was travelling from town to town as a missionary spreading the good news of Jesus Christ. Now, I would be the last person to argue that we should not support missionary work, but Paul here says it is ideal for a missionary to find their own work and support themselves! But we cannot deny the fact that in this context, those who proclaim the gospel get their living from the gospel is talking about people who are leaving their home town and travelling far away to share about the Christ. In other words, these are people who would, in any normal situation, have a hard time finding employment and supporting their own physical needs.
Galatians 6:6

The next verse is pretty weak, Galatians 6:6…

The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him.

I am not even sure how this verse can be used to support paying someone a salary. Especially considering how the verse continues, 6:7-9…

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.

In other words, if you teach the word (sow), you can expect to reap spiritual blessings from that work. This has nothing to do with money, I think many people out there who share the gospel can speak to the blessings they have received from the people who they have shared with or continue to disciple.
Philippians 4:14-19

The last verse that is commonly used to support paying a pastor/elder is Philippians 4:14-19…

Nevertheless, you have done well to share with me in my affliction. You yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone; for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs. Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account. But I have received everything in full and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God. And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus.

We still have to deal with the same smoking gun as above, Paul is a missionary, not an elder/pastor. But yes, apparently the Philippians supported Paul when he was going through a rough patch, and he considered it a blessing. Though he did not seek the gift, he is glad that their graciousness will profit the Philippians. I would also like to point out that this is not a salary, it is a gift of support they sent Paul while he was away. In other words, this verse does not support paying a pastor/elder a salary!
The Old Testament Priests

Many people look to the Old Testament priesthood as an example or model of how we should support our pastors and elders. There is one hugely fundamental problem with this concept though. We are all priests, we have direct communication with God, we do not need to go to a human to have our sins overlooked. The priestly system was setup in a certain way for a certain time. And that whole system was ultimately fulfilled through Jesus (thankfully).
Final Thoughts

Of the four verses I talked about today, the only one that has any direct bearing on elders is 1 Timothy 5:17-18. If there were a verse to support paying a pastor a salary, it would be that one. Unfortunately, it does not… it cannot! The fact is, the church system is not meant to function the way that it does, the way that requires one or a few men to teach every Sunday, to be on-call 24×7, to be the only people who visit the sick in the hospital, the men who sets the vision for the church (as if God did not already do that 2,000 years ago), etc. The church should function in a way that we all share in the responsibility of discipling one-another, we should love one-another, we should visit one-another and help one-another. This responsibility should not, MUST NOT, fall on one man (or a few men). Earlier I said that paying a pastors salary was detrimental to the maturity and growth of the church. What I meant was this, when we pay a man to do the stuff that we should be doing, we fail to grow. Sure, we might learn something every now and then as we mindlessly sit in our pews, but that is not growing or maturing. We grow spiritually when we learn how to give up our own wants and needs for those around us. That is extremely hard to do when we think that paying a mans salary to do those things for us is what God wants from us. With all that said, let me leave you with a few quotes from the scripture that do support the ideal of being unpaid…

For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. – 2 Thessalonians 3:7-10

What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel. – 1 Corinthians 9:18

I have coveted no one’s silver or gold or clothes. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my own needs and to the men who were with me. In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.'” – Acts 20:33-35

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. – 1 Peter 5:1-3
AJs
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:37 am

Re: NAR Constitution section 5 article 6

Postby andydonner » Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:27 am

sicsemper wrote:How did you reach the conclusion that only megachurches would be affected? If anything, megachurches would be most able to continue as usual under a paid pastor ban because the celebrity pastor could find revenue elsewhere. You might be surprised to know that America's most infamous megachurch pastor Joel Osteen takes $0 in salary from Lakewood, his income is from book sales.


Nope, not surprised. You'll note that he's not drawing salary as a religious leader and is therefore not in violation of the ban on paid clergy. Part of the NAR's handling of the subject of religion is that churches aren't tax-exempt and they'll need to pay tax on those huge, impressive structures they erect. That, combined with the need for said pastors to find work elsewhere will definitely affect the megachurch situation. Having spent nearly my whole life in church, I'm well aware of the reality that most churches under a couple hundred families (and that really is nearly all of them) can't actually pay their pastors much of anything if at all.

sicsemper wrote:Again, what is the relevant difference between compensating this man for teaching me the bible or compensating a different man for teaching me history?


You just stated the difference. His main concern becomes teaching history rather than politicking by way of religion. He'll have plenty of room on the side for religion, but it will end up being actual religion. This is something exactly that ended up happening in Freedom's Sons. Priests had to take teaching jobs during the day. Oh well.

sicsemper wrote:There is some baptist preacher in the northwest receiving $500 a month at his rural church of 1-24 people. As it stands, this section of the constitution would make this illegal activity.


Yes, it would. And it's precisely the intent. He would need to find something else to do to make up that money every month and his congregation would need to pick up his nonessential duties. This is precisely what I said in that broadcast and it's precisely the Party's position. That $500 a month might be a make-or-break thing for him, but it's not as if it really pays for what he does, so replacing it at the expense of doing other people's religious duties for them. The level of service such a congregation gets from their pastor might drop a bit, but all that does is run off the less dedicated congregants who weren't going to actually pick up some of the obligations of the church themselves.

sicsemper wrote:I suggest the article be rephrased in a way that doesn't infringe on religious liberty.


At no point is anyone's religious liberty going to be infringed. You can have your churches and you can have your pastors and you can have whatever religious activity you like and no one is trying to take that away. The worst that ends up happening is that churchgoers end up doing a lot of the things they were already supposed to have been doing instead of paying someone to do them on their behalf.

sicsemper wrote:It would be improper for the state to enforce such a position upon the churches in the nation.


That's purely according to the opinion of the churches. It is the opinion of dedicated, concerned White Nationalists with decades of experience each that it is improper for certain professions (only one of which is the clergy) must be reigned in or outright eliminated. In fact, even elected officials in the Republic would be constitutionally forced to do actually work during the day rather than what they do now. This requirement placed on churches isn't any different than the requirement placed on the government itself and saying churches aren't being treated fairly doesn't wash (and I suspect you know it.)

Another way of looking at this is that the rest of society isn't obligated to put up with what happens when churches pay people to religiously agitate all day rather than do actual jobs.

----------

And on a more personal note, the best pastors I've ever encountered were quite plain about the fact that anyone who wanted to could perform those roles passably. If a policy against paid clergy means someone is no longer willing to do the job at all, then they didn't need to do so in the first place and churches ought to be thankful we took care of that for them. The exact same thing could also be said of someone seeking elected office in the republic that doesn't want to actually do the work. They can't get in and if they do, they'll leave shortly thereafter.
A. W. Donner
User avatar
andydonner
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:09 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Next

Return to About the Northwest Front

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron