Hi Nick, Peter,
The issue as I see it is indeed not a black-and-white question of “pastor or no pastor?” but rather a matter of first things first and all things in their proper time. The institution of the pastorate in the modern development of it goes beyond the basic minimums that we see in Scripture. Having a pastor is not wrong per se, but having a pastor can be wrong for a certain stage of development in a church’s life. Having a pastor instead of elders is also wrong. The apostolic priority is upon elders and then something akin to a pastor may be appropriate at some point.

There is indeed a Biblical foundation for having a full-time paid pastor but not a Biblical requirement. If we want to look at the Biblical foundation or Biblical principles upon which a church might be justified in having a pastor, we need to look at what Paul says about elders. The issue of “pastor” and “elders” are intimately connected. There is no special clergy class in the church that is separate from the office of elder. Paul said that elders were to be appointed in all the churches (Tit 1:5) and one of the qualifications was “able to teach” (1 Tim 3:2). Apparently there were some elders who preached and taught more more than others, as Paul says, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.” (1 Tim 5:17). Some some elders taught more than others. Some probably have more of an interest and gift in teaching than others although all elders need to be able to teach to a certain degree. Paul says that believers should honor those who rule well, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. How is it that they should be honored? Paul continues, “For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” Do not admit a charge against an elder except don the evidence of two or three witnesses.” (1 Tim 5:18-19). The two forms of honor that Paul names specifically is monetary support and being careful not to jump to conclusions too quickly when someone accuses an elder of wrong doing. So, in the New Testament churches, it seems that some elders taught more than others and that giving monetary support to some elders was recommended by Paul, based on his understanding of the Old Testament and the words of Jesus. So, based on what Paul says, we could say that in the New Testament churches all the elders ruled and shepherded, but some took an additional burden of teaching. If a church wants to help a particular elder devote more time to teaching for the benefit of the whole congregation, it seems in line with Biblical principles to provide monetary support for that man. We might call that man a “teaching elder” to indicate that he teaches more than the other elders. Now in the development of the church over the years, the name “pastor” and other traditions have been added on to these basic Biblical foundations. Those developments over the course of church history can be debated as to helpfulness or appropriacy but that is another issue. My point here is that there is Scriptural foundation for the modern pastorate but that the further developments and traditions beyond the Biblical minimum need to be carefully examined for appropriacy given local circumstances. Nevius is not against having a pastor per se but is concerned that the modern Western form of the thing had been unthinkingly imported into new mission churches in China without discerning between Biblical principle and later developments. In so many words, Nevius says first things first. Elders first and then we’ll see about teaching elders (with or without remuneration) at some later date, as is appropriate and helpful given local conditions.