Church budget unavailable: Stay or go?

[Bro. James]

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

 

[David Lamb]

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.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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)

 

[Bro. James]

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

 

[Pleasant_Bill]

Amen!!!!! I'm in America and this stuff is foreign to me. I think that some has lost sight of what the scripture says:

No one member in the church is better than the next. The body should never be seperated.

Amen.

I am by no means a good follower of Christ but just because someone's getting paid to be at church doesn't mean they're a better person/Christian.

In the Church of England, organists and choirmasters get paid, but unless they work in a cathedral, it is unlikely to be anywhere near enough to make a living wage.

In my opinion, there's too many people making a living wage at church these days. There's no sacrifice and it's just a job to them. In some cases, these people they hire don't have a servant's heart and are outwardly miserable/anti-social. It's just a family member or friend getting 'hooked up' with a job. These same people will complain about lack of volunteers who have to work 40+ hours a week AND then give up their free time to serve the Lord. Get back to serving the Lord and not the dollar.

There should really be one full time employee making a comfortable (not meager or extravagent) living at the church and that's the Senior Pastor. And again, IMO he should be the one attending all the funerals, making hospital visits, attending the flock, etc....I'm not talking about someone's 97 year old granny but sick kids, cancer victims, etc. The admin stuff of the church (budget, hiring, firing, etc,) should be handled by the Leadership/Finance Team.

Let's quit making Sunday morning about production and more about Worship.

 

[StefanM]

Amen.
There should really be one full time employee making a comfortable (not meager or extravagent) living at the church and that's the Senior Pastor. And again, IMO he should be the one attending all the funerals, making hospital visits, attending the flock, etc....I'm not talking about someone's 97 year old granny but sick kids, cancer victims, etc. The admin stuff of the church (budget, hiring, firing, etc,) should be handled by the Leadership/Finance Team.

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.

 

[Salty]

I would like to address the thought of paying staff - other than pastor, ect.

In a church, I was recently in, we had a young man who was having a tough time financially. Now, we could have just come out and gave him money, but what we did, was to make him the church custodian - and we paid him $50 per month.

Thoughts?

 

[annsni]

I would like to address the thought of paying staff - other than pastor, ect.

In a church, I was recently in, we had a young man who was having a tough time financially. Now, we could have just come out and gave him money, but what we did, was to make him the church custodian - and we paid him $50 per month.

Thoughts?

Good idea - but I hope he didn't have to do a lot of work! Our custodian makes quite a bit more than that I'm sure but he works HARD. We're a big building and he not only cleans the bathrooms and vacuums the carpets but also sets up each of the rooms for whatever the need is. He's often there hours before anything happens then hours afterwards. He's also usually the first person anyone sees and is a great "front man" to the church. Our new custodian is a wonderful young man from Australia who just married one of our young women. So he now has a new family to support and we pay him well enough to be able to live here on Long Island.

 

[Salty]

Good idea - but I hope he didn't have to do a lot of work!

No- just a couple hours a week- and the church was right next door to him.

 

[menageriekeeper]

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!

 

[annsni]

No- just a couple hours a week- and the church was right next door to him.

Two hours a week for 4 weeks of the month is 8 hours. That's $6.25 an hour = less than minimum wage.

I like paying per job for something like that. "Bathrooms are $10 a week. Vacuuming and dusting would be another $10 a week" or something like that. This way if they want to earn more, they work faster and harder. It works out well for our barn! At our church, however, everyone is either salaried (the main fulltime workers) or hourly (secretaries, me, custodians, etc.). I don't think anyone but the teens make less than $10 an hour.

 

[StefanM]

No- just a couple hours a week- and the church was right next door to him.

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

 

[Tom Butler]

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."

 

[Pleasant_Bill]

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.

Great points. I don't expect the Senior Pastor to be at the beck and call of all the members but he should be there at the life changing/challenging times faced by his congregation. Heck, even just a phone call in most cases would be comforting.

I do agree that selectively people on staff is a good thing. I just don't think they should be paid as a full time employee. If you're called to work with children or lead Worship Arts, there doesn't need to be a full time paycheck in it. Did God lead them or did the $$ lead them?

Same with Pastors/Ministers. Yes, they may be college educated but paying Pastors the equivalent of what their education would warrant in the private sector isn't right. If they were called to Ministry, then as long as their family's BASIC needs are being met, there shouldn't be an issue of money raised. Besides, there are plenty of college grads in the unemployment line right now.

I know I seem a little militant on the subject of salaries but my church hiring ANOTHER Pastor while in the red AND several family members being given summer jobs while home from college has me SEEING red. The building renovation which was to occur (a seperate offering is taken up for that) is all but forgotten now. I guess those funds will help pay for the additional Pastor/family members summer jobs.

I would like to address the thought of paying staff - other than pastor, ect.

In a church, I was recently in, we had a young man who was having a tough time financially. Now, we could have just come out and gave him money, but what we did, was to make him the church custodian - and we paid him $50 per month.

Thoughts?

I really like that idea. A handup instead of a handout and the guy feels like he is earning what is given to him. Should happen more in today society with welfare.

 

[StefanM]

I do agree that selectively people on staff is a good thing. I just don't think they should be paid as a full time employee. If you're called to work with children or lead Worship Arts, there doesn't need to be a full time paycheck in it. Did God lead them or did the $$ lead them?

Same with Pastors/Ministers. Yes, they may be college educated but paying Pastors the equivalent of what their education would warrant in the private sector isn't right. If they were called to Ministry, then as long as their family's BASIC needs are being met, there shouldn't be an issue of money raised. Besides, there are plenty of college grads in the unemployment line right now.

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.

 

[StefanM]

I know I seem a little militant on the subject of salaries but my church hiring ANOTHER Pastor while in the red AND several family members being given summer jobs while home from college has me SEEING red. The building renovation which was to occur (a seperate offering is taken up for that) is all but forgotten now. I guess those funds will help pay for the additional Pastor/family members summer jobs.

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.

 

[Salty]

Two hours a week for 4 weeks of the month is 8 hours. That's $6.25 an hour = less than minimum wage.

I really like that idea. A handup instead of a handout and the guy feels like he is earning what is given to him. Should happen more in today society with welfare.

Actually he was doing it on a volunteer basis at first, and since he needed some extra dollars, the church, on my recommendation paid him the $50, as that was all we could afford. (that was 1/2 of what I was getting as pastor)

 

[annsni]

I do agree that selectively people on staff is a good thing. I just don't think they should be paid as a full time employee. If you're called to work with children or lead Worship Arts, there doesn't need to be a full time paycheck in it. Did God lead them or did the $$ lead them?

See, in our church, we've had people already doing the work and then we've gone ahead and hired them so that they do not have the distraction of having to earn money outside and they can do what they are doing even more. Oftentimes it starts out part time but then it does go full time if the position warrants it.

Same with Pastors/Ministers. Yes, they may be college educated but paying Pastors the equivalent of what their education would warrant in the private sector isn't right. If they were called to Ministry, then as long as their family's BASIC needs are being met, there shouldn't be an issue of money raised. Besides, there are plenty of college grads in the unemployment line right now.

A pastor should be paid the average of his congregation's individual incomes. Why should he only have his BASIC needs met and that's it? Shouldn't he be freed up from worries about money and at least be able to feed and clothe his family without dumpster diving? I'm not saying overpay him but if the average income of the congregation is $70,000, then why should he earn $40,000 and live in poverty? I'm sorry but that's just wrong. Pay a man for his work. Period.

I know I seem a little militant on the subject of salaries but my church hiring ANOTHER Pastor while in the red AND several family members being given summer jobs while home from college has me SEEING red. The building renovation which was to occur (a seperate offering is taken up for that) is all but forgotten now. I guess those funds will help pay for the additional Pastor/family members summer jobs.

Well, that's a different story. Your church is mishandling money and that's wrong but don't let it paint every pastor as living high on the hog and that you feel he should live in poverty now!

 

[annsni]

Actually he was doing it on a volunteer basis at first, and since he needed some extra dollars, the church, on my recommendation paid him the $50, as that was all we could afford. (that was 1/2 of what I was getting as pastor)

So it was more of a stipend or something - that's TOTALLY different.

 

[Pleasant_Bill]

A pastor should be paid the average of his congregation's individual incomes. Why should he only have his BASIC needs met and that's it? Shouldn't he be freed up from worries about money and at least be able to feed and clothe his family without dumpster diving? I'm not saying overpay him but if the average income of the congregation is $70,000, then why should he earn $40,000 and live in poverty? I'm sorry but that's just wrong. Pay a man for his work. Period.

I've posted several times that I believe as you do that it should be the median income of the congregation for the Pastor. Go back and reread my posts.

I want him getting his family's needs met (with extra $$ to make sure they're not living hand to mouth) but not so much that they're living above most if not all of the congregation's level.