Do Local Churches "Hire" Preachers?

From time to time I hear strange language coming from some of my brethren, including preachers, who proclaim that they "speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where the Bible is silent". For example, it is not uncommon to hear talk about "hiring a preacher", or "interviewing for the job/position" at such-and-such a church. The reason I call this "strange language" is because I've failed to find anything in the New Testament that would justify such a notion or language, much less such a practice.

It is incumbent upon those who affirm a position to support it with scriptural proof and the only thing I've heard in favor of this practice of local churches "hiring" preachers is Lk. 10:7 (KJV): "...for the labourer is worthy of his hire..." But there are a number of things about this verse as applied to the idea of "hiring preachers" that we need to consider.

The Language

The verse does not say "the labourer is hired". This is what it would have to state (or something similar to it) if one is going to make a valid argument about someone being hired. The verse does say that the labourer is "worthy of" his hire.

The Word "Hire"

There are two things we need to notice about this word "hire": (1) It is a noun, not a verb. Nothing is said about an action engaged in ("hiring" someone) but of something received: "hire". (2) "Hire" is much like the word "study" in 2 Tim. 2:15 (KJV). Our English concept of "study" is much different from what the word meant when it was translated. In 1611 "study" didn't mean, "get out a book and read it" and it doesn't have this meaning in that verse today. Likewise, the word "hire" in Lk. 10:7 doesn't refer to entering into some contractual agreement between an employer and employee in which one receives payment for work done. The word translated "hire" (KJV and ASV) is "misthos" and in other translations and passages it is rendered "wages" or "reward", depending upon the context.

The Context

This context is dealing with instructions given by the Lord to the seventy. They were told that if they came to a home that was receptive to their message they were to remain there. If they were offered food and drink they were to accept it and then given the reason: "for the laborer is worthy of his hire". If this verse teaches anything about anybody being "hired" it would have to be the seventy. Nothing is said here about evangelists and this verse is never once applied to them. We are not at liberty to give to the word "hire" our common meaning and then just arbitrarily apply the verse to preachers.

But, this passage is quoted in the latter part of 1 Tim. 5:18: "For the Scripture says, `You shalt not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,' and, `The laborer is worthy of his wages'" (NKJV). This context is clear that the bishops in a local congregation are being spoken of (vs. 17). Now brethren, if Lk. 10:7 proves that preachers are hired (even though it's never applied to them), then its specific application to elders proves the same thing. Are we ready to affirm that elders are "hired" by the local congregation? Consistency would demand it if we apply Lk. 10:7 to preachers. The truth is, it proves nothing of the sort in regard to either group of men. The point in Lk. 10:7 is that the seventy were worthy of receiving "wages" because of the work they were doing. The same is true in regard to elders in 1 Tim. 5:18.

The Scriptural Concept

This concept that is found in Lk. 10:7 and 1 Tim. 5:18 is the concept I find in the NT in regard to preachers: a man has the right to be provided with wages in order that he might devote himself to the work of an evangelist (1 Cor. 9:1-14; 2 Cor. 11:8). But that is a far cry from "hiring" a man to do a job or fill a "position" and then treating him as if he were an employee of the local church. The "so much pay for so much work" concept is simply not in the NT.

Conclusion

Elders, or brethren in the absence of elders, don't "hire" men to preach and preachers are not employees of either the elders or the local church. This is more than just a problem of semantics. Terminology reflects concepts and concepts are generally translated into action. I'm afraid that the notion of preachers being "hired" by a local church is more ingrained in our thinking and practices than we realize. Insistence upon résumés (can applications for employment be far behind?), and treating preachers like employees with talk of vacation time, days off, office hours, etc., are concepts and practices foreign to the NT.

For some reason I have a hard time imagining Paul talking about "applying for the position/job" at Corinth by filling out and submitting a résumé (read 2 Cor. 3:1-3). And can you feature him going to "try out" and talking about being "hired" and discussing how much vacation time he would get? I realize that times and societies have changed since Paul lived and that some adaptation is inevitable. But brethren, it's dangerous when we use the language and methods of the business world and apply them to the things of Christ when that language and those practices do not reflect, and in fact are in contradiction with, scriptural concepts. And I'm greatly concerned that this is exactly what is presently being done among us due, in part, to the influence of perhaps well-intentioned brethren whose days are spent in the business world. But if the language and practice doesn't accurately reflect NT teaching, then we need to stop talking and acting that way. We tell our denominational friends to call Bible things by Bible names and to speak as and where the Bible speaks and we ought to do the same thing. It's just that simple.

When we talk and act upon the principle that preachers are employees of the local church and that local churches "hire" preachers to "fill a position", we need to find something in the NT to back it up. Since Lk. 10:7 isn't it brethren, where is it?

David Smitherman