contradictions
I found ten contradictions: seven clear ones, and three weaker ones. The biggest is that it says the preacher is not hired or paid, then lays out how to hire and pay him.
The file is the PDF called "Retracing the Scriptural Position of the Preacher and the Church". It has 27 slides, and it's by Brother Miracle Festus. The slide numbers I give are the ones printed on the slides.
First, the clear contradictions.
One. "Not paid", versus "must be given money".
On slide 22, it says we must drop the idea that the minister is paid or employed. On slide 21, it says support is "not payment".
But on slide 16, it says the church is "commanded to reciprocate materially", which means to give back in goods for his spiritual work. And, "that is not a favor, it is the responsibility of the Church". On slide 21, support is given "materially or financially", and "the command must be carried out". His work "brings about the support".
Why they clash: money that is owed as a duty, in return for work, is what "pay" means. The talk never says what makes it support, and not pay.
Two. "Not hired", versus a hiring process.
On slide 21, it says scripture does not let a church "employ a Preacher".
But on slide 23, it says, "The scripture provides a pattern and example to engage Preachers". Then it lists the steps. The church names its need, and should "seek for the God given service of a Minister". It looks for someone. Others vouch for "the Minister's character, faithfulness, usefulness". He "shows interest and desires to work with a congregation". The church receives him. And then, it must support him.
Why they clash: these are the steps of hiring someone, in church words. Slide 20's heading even says "Preacher Engagement". The talk never says how "engage" differs from "employ".
Three. "No must-have list", versus its own must-have list.
On slide 21, it says the idea that a preacher needs "certain listed qualifications which he MUST have" is not "anywhere in the scripture".
But slide 9 lists eight "Qualities of a Minister", each with verses. Slide 11 is headed "What he must do". On slide 13, elders and deacons need "qualifications", "examination", and "testing". And on slide 23, a church should pick men who are "apt to teach, faithful, of good report".
Why they clash: it rejects a list, then gives one. If it means school papers or diplomas, it never says so.
Four. Everyone preaches, but not everyone is a preacher. This is all on slide 6.
It says, "all are not Teachers, Evangelists, Preachers".
The same slide also says, "All are Ministers", and "all are called to preaching and evangelism". It says an evangelist, meaning a preacher who goes out to reach people who are not Christians, is "a Minister who is called by God to go about preaching the Gospel". It says a preacher is "one called and sent by God to proclaim the gospel". And it says, "Therefore a Preacher is a Minister, Evangelist and a Teacher."
Why they clash: follow its own definitions, and everyone is a preacher, an evangelist, and a teacher. That is exactly what it denies.
The "therefore" also does not follow. It comes from Paul being "a Preacher, Apostle, and a Teacher". By the same step, every preacher would also be an apostle.
Five. "Minister" means three different things.
On slide 6, it means every Christian: "All are Ministers", and "a Minister is simply a Servant".
On slide 14, it means preachers only, when it calls preachers "Ministers of Christ".
And also on slide 14, it means preachers, elders, and deacons, that is, the church's leaders and helpers: "the Ministers who are over the Church".
Why they clash: if all Christians are ministers, then everyone is "over the Church". Everyone has "the right to command, rebuke", from slide 10. Everyone must be "apt to teach", from slide 9, yet slide 6 says "all are not Teachers". And the church must give material support to every member, because slide 16 says "supporting the Ministers".
Six. "No structure, just partners", versus "rulers you must obey".
On slide 2, it says the church is not a "business enterprise or company or Government organization". On slides 5 and 20, it says the partnership "does not operate from organizational structure". It runs on "mutual responsibility", with each side "complementing the other".
But on slide 15, it says, "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive", naming the preacher, elders, and deacons. On slide 10, the minister may "command". And on slide 13, elders need "ordination", a formal appointment, plus "examination", and "testing".
Why they clash: rulers, obedience, and formal appointment make a structure. The talk says elders are "not a political office", but it never says how this is different.
Seven. "No New Testament example means not allowed", but only for some things.
On slide 4, it says the goal is to "recover the New Testament pattern". Two things are ruled out for having no example. Hiring, on slide 21, because there is no "direct command, apostolic example, or necessary inference". And retirement, on slide 25, because the New Testament gives no "command or example".
But on slide 24, it says, "Whereas reality may have changed but purpose remains, therefore every congregation ought to have a Minister serving with her." It gives no verse for this, and it admits that things were different then. And on slide 21, it lets support take any "congregational arrangements that is expedient", meaning any practical form.
Why they clash: the same test would rule out having one minister for each church. And "purpose remains" could just as well allow hiring.
The talk's own picture of a preacher is someone who moves around. On slide 6, he goes "about preaching". On slide 22, he "preaches round the world". And on slide 13, he is "sent", or "left in Crete", or "left in Ephesus", to set things in order.
Now, the weaker ones. The talk could answer these, but it doesn't.
Eight. God makes the preacher, versus the church makes him.
It says a preacher is "called and sent by God", on slides 6 and 22. It is "not a career choice", on slide 7. And on slide 21, the church supports "the one who already is a Preacher", and support does not "make him a preacher".
But on slide 23, a church can "look within her", find members who are "apt to teach, faithful", and by commendation, which means vouching for them, have them "take the ministerial service".
Why they clash: here, people pick the man. The talk never says how God's call shows, apart from the church's choice.
Nine. Its "of" examples point the other way. This is on slide 22.
It says "Preacher of our congregation" only names a place, not an owner, because "the Preacher belongs to God".
But its own examples include "Minister of Christ", "Minister of God", and "servant of God". Here, "of" means who they belong to.
Why they clash: in the same box, "Phoebe, servant of the Church in Cenchrea" is read as place only. The words have the same shape, but it reads them two ways, with no reason given.
Ten. Tychicus is both sent from outside, and found within.
Slide 13 says "Tychicus sent to Ephesus, Colossae", citing Colossians 4, verses 7 to 8. Slide 24 says he was "recommended to Ephesians". Both mean he came from outside.
But slide 23 lists him under "Look Within", meaning a church picking from its own members, and it cites the same verse, Colossians 4, verse 7.
One last thing, from outside the PDF. Some of the verses it cites also cut against it. For example, Second Corinthians 11, verse 8, which is cited on slide 21, has Paul say he took "wages" from churches.
Both ideas are in the file. The "moves around" idea is on pages 13 and 22. The "stays with one church" idea is on pages 23 and 24.
The preacher moves around.
Page 22, line 264: The preacher "preaches round the world" (Rom.15:20). He is not "a restricted employee/staff of a single congregation".
Page 13, lines 143 to 147: Faithful men "could be sent to go further sow in the field". The examples are Timothy, sent to Corinth, Philippi and Thessalonica, and Tychicus, sent to Ephesus and Colossae.
Page 24, lines 301 to 316: A preacher can leave one church to work with another. The examples are Titus going to Corinth and Apollos going to Achaia.
The preacher stays with one church.
Page 24, line 323: "every congregation ought to have a Minister serving with her to carry out duties of sound faith and sound doctrine."
Page 23, lines 286 to 287: A church sees what it lacks and asks for a minister. Or it picks one of its own members to take the role.
Page 13, line 149: "Titus left in Crete" (Titus 1:5). This is a preacher kept in one place.
How the author tries to fit them together.
Page 22, line 264: "Preacher of our congregation" only names where he is teaching "at the particular time". It does not mean the church owns him.
So in the author's view, a preacher can serve one church for a while and still be free to go elsewhere.
The file never says how long a preacher should stay. It also never says who decides when he leaves.
In this file, "complacency" means a lazy, comfortable, "not my job" attitude toward the gospel work. It comes from treating the preacher as a paid employee who belongs to one congregation.
The word shows up once, at line 278 (Page 22, "OWNERSHIP (OF)"):
"...getting rid of such tradition/mindset that the Minister is paid/employed to do the work strengthens the unity of the Church in the fellowship of the Gospel, than sustaining complacency."
What it points to, from the text around it.
The members sit back. If the church "employs" the preacher, members can think, "We pay him, so he does the work." Page 21 says the church's real duty is to support a preacher (1Cor.9:14, Gal.6:6), not to hire one.
Each congregation keeps "its" preacher. Phrases like "our minister" can turn into ownership, as if he were a staff member of one church only. The author says the preacher belongs to God and "preaches round the world" (Rom.15:20).
The opposite is shared work. The author sets complacency against "unity of the Church in the fellowship of the Gospel". That means everyone taking part in the gospel work together.
Note: The file never defines the word. This reading comes from the sentence and the sections just before it. The phrase "than sustaining complacency" is loosely worded. It most likely means "instead of keeping that complacency going".