Should pastors have salaries?

I think much of it depends upon the conditions set by the church and pastor. If the church expects the pastor to spend 50 hours a week ministering to them, then they should pay him for his time.

On the other hand, our pastor and associate pastor are bi-vocational, and as such are paid, but mainly it almost covers expenses. I am pastoral intern and work a full time job. Finances are tight, but, God provides and we get by. The church has decided that they can not afford to help me pay seminary tuition. It's all good. God provides. I know God has called me to that position. He calls many to pastoral ministry. If the church wants part time pastor then perhaps he will not require pay from them. If they expect him to put in so many hours that he cannot otherwise support his needs then they need to provide for that. And it is not unreasonable to provide a set amount at a set interval. It can be very stressful (even knowing God will provide) not to know I can pay said bill on said day of the month.

 

That is why our pastoral staff are bivocational. Our pastor has been ministering for 54 years and has insisted on being bivocational all of those years.

 

As I have mentioned before, I am not opposed to bi-vocational ministries. I did that in one church that couldn't afford a minister. I worked as an architect and quite happily so. I do architectural work now in retirement, but for my own enjoyment, and still minister where I am required. That too is a joy.

The Plymouth Brethren have never entertained a paid clergy, even for preaching purposes, visitation and normal functions; wedding, funerals and baptisms.

There are several questions which come to my mind. One is the need for a servant to retire in this day and age. There are certain demands and things like medicare alone can be very expensive. We seem to live longer and some suffer more ailments. Then, there is the question of income taxes. It is much more economical and efficient to make regular contributions. Does the preacher declare ALL his income and record his expenses?

As a student, I was given an honourarium of $15.00 to preach on Sundays. I never claimed this as income at the time. After a few years, I was convicted on this matter and decided to make it right with the government. I had penalties to pay.

It would have been much easier if the church had made a proper payment and recorded it as such in their books and with the government.

In full ministry, my week was often 50-60 hours with services and preparation. This left little time for outside work. Perhaps I made myself busy because I had the time......maybe the church would have gotten along without all my hours.

Years ago, people cared more for the older preachers. Some were provided with housing and extras. Most, however, had to preach to earn a few dollars to pay their way. This is a very poor testimony, in my opinion. We say that God will provide for all our needs......True, and God also employs means,,,,,,such as pension plans and a regular income.

If money was my goal, there is no question that I would remain in architectural practice. Consider that the general rule in architecture is to charge 20 per cent of the total cost of building as a fee for services. Since I mostly worked with historical buildings, that fee was substantial, and one job paid far more in a few months that I ever earned for a full year in ministry.

Paul says that a "labourer is worthy of his hire," and translated to modern times that means a decent wage duly paid by the local church. It is not a wage for hours contributed, but rather for subsistence in this old world.

For those who choose to labour outside the church, God bless you. Had I wished for that, I might have remained with the Plymouth Brethren where I was pointed to the Lord in salvation.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I think that this is a similar tension to when we find Paul saying "faith alone" while James says "faith without works is dead." Compensating a pastor is a natural result of having a good minister. In this case it is more like "minister alone" vs. "ministering without pay is dead."

I, for one, and in my particular situation, strongly advocate salaries + benefits for pastors. I could not imagine asking a man to take that responsibility without compensating him in a consistent monetary manner.

A good pastor is is beneficial for a church on all levels. Whether it is taking the heat for problems within a church, marrying a couple or comforting the bereaved the pastor is the lifeline for many in the flock. He is on call 24 hours a day and needs to be strong in situations that weaken the affected believer. Even if there are a dozen members of his church in the hospital, Heaven forbid he not find time to call Sister Bertha Betterthanyou when she missed two Sundays in a row! While he may be a single vote in the church business meeting, out in the community among the other believers and non-believers he is the primary represenative for the church. Not to mention he has to come up with a sermon every week, Bible study on Wednesday nights, and funeral services which must be specific to each individual. With all of these duties I fail to see how he could possibly have time for a second job to support himself and his family.

His wife, who must also live on his salary, has just as many duties and only 1/4 of the recognition.

I just can not imagine expecting a family to fill that type of burdensome obligation without monetary compensation. As Jim pointed out, the 21st century requires financial stability and regularity if one is to purchase a car, a home, a college tuition, or any loan. A single trip to the hospital can leave a family financially crippled for generations. Lawsuits, children, home maintaineneces, the list goes on and on of heavy financial obligation in our times.

While there seems to be a vein of "he shouldn't be worried about the money part of it" from some, I contend that the church body should not be so worried about it either. You know, consider the lillies of the field and the birds of the air.

...and to be quite frank, I don't think I'd WANT the job! No matter how much a good minister is paid, he's underpaid.

 

As a Pastor if I'm in it for the money then I'm the biggest fool I know.

When I gave up my career and my wife gave up hers to go to seminary we were well on the way to a successful financial future.

The difference between our combined salaries and the compensation received from our first church was a decrease of over 85%.

I think the thrust of this discussion is perhaps misguided. Rather than asking if Pastors should have salaries why not ask what do you ask pastors to financially sacrifice in order to be your pastors?

 

Yes they should recieve a salary and raises and bonus, and prayers from thier members. My Pastor has always been "on call". I can call at 1:00 A.M. and say "Bill in the hosptal" or the kids and Pastor and /or Miss Priscilla will be there nothing flat. I'm the first to say have we given Pastor a raise? Does he need something? Which one of us aren't the first to drop a hint when we don't recieve that raise soon enough or that bonus? Pastors are often times I feel really under paid and deserve more for the time they put in and they deserve are respect for the hard job of balancing all of us together and keeping us focused on Christ. So the real question have you given your Pastor a raise this year.
Jeanne

[ January 16, 2003, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Living by Faith ]

 

Now and then mum tells me to go full-time...That is one thing I'll disagree with her on.

You name it, I'll do it, but try and pay me and you better be able to fight better than I can

Still "no"

Pete

 

Are we required to pay pastor's?
Maybe,maybe not.
But,just like tithing,if we give out of commandment,we have *no* reward.Such as paying a pastor,it should be our pleasure and priviledge to pay a man handsomly who has a calling,a burden and a passion to see the work of Jesus prospered.
Luke 17:9 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were *commanded* him?I TROW NOT.
It should be act of faith,or,if we did it not,we would robbing our own selves of peace and happiness in the service of the King!

 

I think that it really must be a matter of prayer. If a man is asked to be available to the members of the congregation 24/7 and is thereby unable to support his family by working, then he should be renumerated. On the other hand, if the church is a small mission like the one i am in, then the congregation needs to help minister more and allow the pastor to have time to have a "paying " job to support himself and family. Paul obviously was allowed time to earn a living, and when he was not able to do this, he was provided for by the churches.

 

That is a good point, there is certainley a role for the small churches.

We shold not be based on who does what, or even how it is done. Obviously a small group cannot support a minister, either should they. They can however move mountains just like anyone else.

 

I think it depends on circumstances, and reasoning behind the support. Big denominations can pay a pastor regardless of where he is, so that the Baptist Union GB can send a man almost anywhere.

We ourselves are a small church of 6 members, so I work in an undemanding job, and they pay the bills on my car (they bought it too, second hand). They would like to pay me so I can go full time, and I would like to go full time, to study more, but that is not a possibility.
God has provided the means that keeps everyone happy at the moment. Many of our ministers are "selfmade men" or professionals who don't need/want a church to support them, whereas some pastor churches big enough that they are supported.

peace in Him

 

1 Kings 17:4For thus saith the LORD God of Israel, The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail, until the day that the LORD sendeth rain upon the earth. 15And she went and did according to the saying of Elijah: and she, and he, and her house, did eat many days. 16And the barrel of meal wasted not, neither did the cruse of oil fail, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by Elijah.

A study of the above passage teaches that God takes care of those who take care of the man of God.

Shame on some of you, expecting your pastor to hold down a secular job, yet when you have a spiritual question, you expect him to drop everything and see to your needs. How many times has the pastor had to remain after church to counsel with some one who could have as easily found the answer through prayer and reading the Bible.

How many who think the pastor should hold a secular job expect him to show up at the hospital before you are even processed in?

How many disturb the pastor's meals with trivial questions? Or how about disrupting his sleep or when he may be studying?

The pastor is expected to be available 24/7 and some members can't even attend church regularly.

The pastor is to be available 24/7 yet some mebers chafe if he preaches past noon.

Yes, the pastor should receive a salary, as much as the church can afford. He is responsible for your souls and will answer to God someday for his stewardship.

How many of you would hold a job with no salary, and those advocating the pastor hold a secular job, would you work a second job to support your employer?

THINK ABOUT IT

 

OIC, looks like I got it wrong with 1 Peter 2:9, I guess it is just for the pastor...

Pete

 

THINK ABOUT IT ERNIE.

If the Church ran the way that God ordained, The pastor would be equal with the other offices of the Church (Evangalist, Teacher etc). Hence he would do an even share of the work.

Capatalist structure is the way of the Modern Church, not the way the church was planted.

Embrace Capatalism, Embrace the church salary system.

Embrace the Co-Operative system, embrace Gods Church.

 

... are you going to turn this into a discussion on the evils of capitalism?

Nevermind that in the context of the church (II Thes.), Paul says that if you don't work you don't eat.

Back to the discussion, so many preachers can't preach and can barely teach because of a lack of study time. If they are so concerned with another job on top of it, that is even less time.

The last thing a pastor should worry about how he will be able to support his family. Those who preach by the word need to live by the word.

What about the verses that Pastor Larry brought up?

 

The biblical description of hte pastor is one who is given charge. That is why one of his titles is "episkopos" meaning overseer. That is why one of his qualification is to "manage well his own own household for if he does not manage his own household, how shall he manage the church of God?" That is why often we are told that the pastor has charge over the flock.

The evangelist would certainly fit because the evangelist in Scripture is a missionary church planter, and therefore a pastor of the church he planted. The office of teacher also refers to the pastor and thus, you have the same deal.

It is true that everyone should be ministering but according to Eph 4:11-15, the pastor's job is to train the saints to do the work of the ministry. I always tell my people, It is not my job to do the work of the ministry; it is my job to train and equip you to do the work of the ministry. I agree we need to return to the biblical model. I don't believe that you have talked about the biblical model here.

Bottom line is that the pastor, in most cases, should be a vocational ministry and he should be paid from the gifts of the people. That is the biblical model and the biblical command.

It has nothing to do with capitalism. I don't even know why that is brought up here.

 

Lets see, at old old Church I was guitar player, Sunday school teacher, then young peoples Bible study writer/leader...

At old Church I was guitar player, Sunday school teacher/lesson writer, puppet script writer/operator, bus driver, few other projects, preached a few times...

Anyone got a calculator?

What's my back pay?

How much should I charge Church I attend now for doing Sunday school again?

Pete