Located Preachers

When we look at the New Testament way of spreading the Gospel we realize there were differences based upon development. When Christ sent out the 70 they were sent two by two. Based upon that one example we could conclude that is the only model. In Acts 15 it seems the same model was followed in sending letters to churches. Yet, in Acts 2 all the Apostles were together and in Acts 8 Philip the evangelist was alone.

So, we can't say one model is binding.

Having two working together would change the preacher/pastor idea. Since some men worked alone we can't create a singular model.

Also, as churches are developed in regions we can see changes in the way evangelists work. Philip preached in multiple cities in Acts 8, but in Acts 21 he had a house in Caesarea. He could speak anywhere, there were no restrictions, but he settled in a city. Before we make doctrinal decisions based upon one passage we must take them as a whole.

Those who are against located preachers tend to think evangelists are restricted to teaching non-believers, but Timothy was placed in Ephesus to correct teachings of those in the church. Timothy taught the church in Ephesus. Titus taught the church on the Island of Crete.

1Ti 1:3  As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 

Tit 1:5  For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 

The letters to Timothy and Titus were filled with instructions on setting up the church, so evangelists taught believers and unbelievers in different contexts. Titus had different work depending on the needs. He set up elders but also challenged false teachers. It seems both did things the local congregations were not mature enough to do, so Paul left them there.

A church does not have to have one preacher, even those with located preachers allow others to speak on different days, I know of no churches that restrict the pulpit to one person. On different days elders, deacons, and general members speak.

Some believe someone receiving money would be a hireling, something frowned upon in John 10, but remember Paul received support from various churches. Receiving support does not necessarily make you a hireling. Paul preached whether he received help or not, he was a bond servant and the help given him was Christ's funds as given by the church. He was grateful for help but it did not change who he worked for. One can receive support without it changing motives. It is possible to have money change motives, but it isn't proof a motive has been changed. Before making allegations one has to know the internal motive.

Keep in mind those against located preachers allow for the payment of missionaries, but do not consider them hirelings. Thus a double standard could be alleged. One paid is called a hireling while another is not. What's the difference?

I do not believe having a located preacher is useful unless he is better at evangelism and superior in teaching than what a church currently has, plus it frees up others to do other works. In my opinion some located preachers have been a detriment while others have brought stability and growth. It isn't necessary. It should be left to the judgment of the congregation and its needs. 

Since Paul left Timothy in Ephesus to correct some teachers, it is a case where established churches needed a stable man to deal with issues. In some cases a located, mature, preacher/evangelist with stature enough to deal with false teaching is sometimes necessary. Occasionally the located preacher becomes the false teacher, then someone with equal stature might be necessary to intervene or correct.

Located preachers often specialize in dealing with denominations, some congregations do not have such men to deal with baptist or catholic etc. In Titus he was commanded to rebuke a group sharply. To do that one must be aware of their doctrine. In areas where factions can tear apart churches an established/mature preacher can help deal with it.

 Tit 1:10  For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 

Tit 1:11  Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 

Tit 1:12  One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 

Tit 1:13  This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 

One verse often overlooked is the teacher office. This was given in Eph 4:10.

Pastors and teachers or pastoring teachers.

In Antioch they were referred to as teachers before Elders were ordained. They didn't stop being prophets and teachers after ordination.

Act 13:1  Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 

Some were gifted in teaching and they may not have been elders or evangelists. Some are gifted teachers and paying them to research more and spend time preparing is acceptable. We can have located teachers.

I would call some men located teachers vs located evangelists. It is just a matter of nomenclature. In Antioch all of these men were from outside of Antioch so they relocated there for several years. Three years at least.

Since all the teachers in Antioch were from out of town, they moved in from outside Antioch, it is appropriate for a congregation or a city to bring in outside teachers to help. There is no minimum or maximum of teachers that should be brought in. I wouldn't call all of them evangelists, they were referred to as teachers.