Church budget unavailable: Stay or go?

Conformity to the world

We are in the midst of a deterioration of the congregational(biblical) form of church polity. We are LLCs with bylaws and accreditations by the State. We have traded the purity of the gospel for high-tech ear tickling evangelism--at baud rates.

What have we done with Jesus? He is still at the church door--knocking--trying to get back in. Or maybe He was never in.

Jude 3 is still in effect.

The world is overfilled with religion--most of it false.

Let us repent and do the first works.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Could you clarify who you mean by "we", please? Baptists worldwide? Baptists in America? Christians generally? I am sure every Christian and every true church will freely admit that they are far from what they should be, but "LLCs (Little local churches?) with bylaws and accreditations by the State" doesn't sound like any of the local churches I know.

 

LOL, Google this : Limited Liability Companies (LLC)

 

WE=churches who claim to be following Jesus' commission. This is a generalization perhaps; but it seems effective in the world of universal churchism and ecumenism--in the midst of which WE seem to be mired.

To be sure, I am a believer in the freedom of conscience. That does not mean everyone is correct regarding spiritual matters. Much of "Christendom" is preaching/teaching false doctrine to the unregenerated who are looking for a social/prosperity gospel to rationalize their worldly conformity. They do not want to hear about the depravity of man with the only remedy: the shed blood of Jesus.

The Holy Spirit still convicts of sin, righteousness and judgement to come--if WE would preach it without compromise. If we do not, He will get someone who will.

LLC=limited liability company(a curious blend of partnership and corporation--it still takes lawyers to sort through who might be accountable/ liable for what)--making such entities a business of sorts. This is perhaps an necessary expediency for some, considering the the size of their church plant, and the potential liability thereof. Perhaps LLC is another oddity from the colonies. Things were a lot simpler when WE met in caves preaching the gospel on pain of death. Did not Jesus say WE would be hated like Him? Perhaps WE like our creature comforts too much.

"Sell what you have, give it to the poor; come, follow Me" has not been rescinded.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

I disagree. That is too much responsibility on one person in a larger church. A larger church has a number of administrative tasks that often require the involvement of a staff administrator.

Additionally, in a larger church, the pastor will not have the time to focus on the ministry of the Word (the primary responsibility of the pastor) if he is expected to be at the beck and call of every church member. The pastor should be involved, but that doesn't mean that deacons cannot handle many of these issues. That, after all, is why deacons exist.

Also, some staff positions can be helpful. In a church with a large youth or children population, an age-graded minister can provide leadership in this area that a senior pastor would be unable to provide due to his other responsibilities. Sure, we can ask that a volunteer take charge, but for people with jobs, vacation time is limited, and therefore ministry time is also limited.

I'm not a fan of having the senior pastor make exorbitant sums primarily because I believe the church would be better off using the resources to find other ministries or to bring on another staff member (even if only part-time). I say provide a comprehensive compensation package that meets the minister's needs in a way that he does not feel financial strain. Depending on the resources of the church, for a full-time pastor, IMO, this should generally range from $35-90k, not including insurance. In areas with higher cost of living, then the numbers go higher. If a minister is living in a very affluent community, then the salary could be increased to reflect the higher average salary of the community.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see any reason for a pastor to make $120,000 or $150,000 or $200,000 unless the cost of living is very high in that area or the congregation is especially affluent. I say this even for mega-churches.

 

Well Salty, would you do the job for $50 a month? If not why not? How long would it take for you to begin feeling used and underpaid if you were the one cleaning the church? I pay a maid $50 A DAY and I help when she comes!

 

That's still being underpaid. As annsni mentioned, that's below minimum wage.

 

There's a saying in these parts about churches which think preachers ought not to mae much money since they're doing the Lord's work.

"Lord, you keep him humble and we'll keep him poor."

 

Generally, staff members aren't paid that much relative to senior pastors. You won't generally find a youth minister in it for the money.

Why are you so against full-time compensation? I'm not for making anyone rich off of the ministry, but it is reasonable for some staff members to be full-time. An individual's primary responsibility is to provide for his family. If you expect a minister to receive part-time pay, you better expect part-time ministry. That means that you won't have someone to lead mission trips, camp trips, etc. If someone has to have a full-time job outside of the church, the time is limited for ministry. If he has to work late, the church is going to suffer. If he can't get off for vacation during a critical time, then the church will take a back seat. Why? Bills still have to be paid. The scripture is clear that the the worker is worthy of his wages, so we cannot expect the equivalent of full-time ministry for part-time pay.


I'm not saying a church should spend more than they need to spend, but there is a difference between a church being unable to afford a full-time minister and a church being cheap.

Churches shouldn't strive to impoverish their ministers. You mentioned "BASIC" needs. Sure, if that is all the church can afford, that is fine. But shouldn't the church want to be a blessing for a minister who is serving faithfully? I'm not saying make them rich, but a church should provide a compensation package that allows them not to be concerned with providing for their family, to the best of the church's ability. Besides, who determines what is "basic," anyway?

And, for the record, churches don't typically compensate the average pastor at a level commensurate with their education. Sure, churches paying 6-figure salaries to pastors are keeping pace generally, but the average minister of a church running 150-200 on a Sunday morning is not being paid anywhere near what a similar education in another field would yield. It's not just college for many of these ministers; it's also 3 years of graduate-level education.

 

Don't let your experiences alter your judgment. Your current church sounds like it has major financial oversight issues. I, too, would question the wisdom of continuing to hire staff when the budget is already in bad shape.

That being said, that doesn't mean that having full-time staff is a bad thing. It simply needs to be within the church's means. I do think many churches get hung up on the "prestige" of having full-time pastors or staff members. It is ok to have bivocational ministers, and often it is the best way to work within budget limitations. However, it is not a model to be used as an excuse to be stingy.

I think bivocational ministry is a wonderful thing for those called to do it, but whether a minister is called to be a senior pastor, cthildren's pastor, etc. a minister is still worthy of his wages.