Does a pastor with a M.Div. have less of a calling from God than one without? Would a pastor at a particular church have more responsibilities because he had a M.Div.? I think the answer to both these questions is No, so I think they should be paid the same.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Pastor compensation
- Thread starter freeatlast
- Start date
Does a pastor with a M.Div. have less of a calling from God than one without? Would a pastor at a particular church have more responsibilities because he had a M.Div.? I think the answer to both these questions is No, so I think they should be paid the same.
I do permantly live in Syracuse, NY. I have roots with the church in PA from several years ago. They currently need some assistance, and I have aggreed to be a "fill-in-pastor" until a full timer can be called. I suspect this could last 3-6 months. Could I end moving there, possible, but not currently in the picture.
Salty
Salty
freeatlast
New Member
I would have to disagree. I assume we are talking a starting salary, not what one should be making after the first year. Yes some pastors without a degree could make more then someone with a DR. but normally that would not be the case. It is simply logical that a more educated person could bring the congregation to a higher spiritual level. If he does not remove him. Its not about the calling. We have scripture to help tell us how to decide and we need to follow it.
1Tim 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
Notice not labor in visiting and politicking or making everyone feel nice. It is all about biblical understanding and usually that takes education as well as on going study and prayer.
If a church is going to require specific levels of education, the church should be prepared to compensate for it.
And on average, I do believe that an individual is going to be a better minister post-M.Div. than pre-M.Div.
I received some of my greatest learning from men who only had Bible College, as was the way, in my early days.
A pastor's wage should be measured by the congregation's ability to pay and have nothing to do with degrees.
A calling is a calling is a calling.
Cheers,
Jim
A pastor's wage should be measured by the congregation's ability to pay and have nothing to do with degrees.
A calling is a calling is a calling.
Cheers,
Jim
You asked, so, yes, you are crazy...imho. Take my comment in a good nature. It's between you and God. There is little pastoring you can do in that circumstance.
jonthebaptist
New Member
You have now applied a secular view to the picture. Some Roman Catholic priests hold doctorates, but I would rather have my father with a GED and 30 years of serious study who knows Scripture pastor my church. I would hope churches aren't paying based on the level of education.
freeatlast
New Member
Scripture does not agree with you.
freeatlast
New Member
That was not my suggestion. As usual you have miss applied my statements.
I don't agree with Jim on many of his positions, but in this case he is spot on. It is you that is putting faith in man made degrees over a Holy Spirit led man. It is you that thinks a man made degree is better than someone called by God. Scripture doesn't agree with Jim? Your "educated" interpretation of Scripture is the thing that doesn't agree. I've found that "educated" people are the most liberal in their beliefs. You've illustrated the point exactly.
GBC Pastor
New Member
freeatlast:
My jaw dropped when I first read this statement. Now that I have put it back in place, would you be willing to elaborate on this?
My jaw dropped when I first read this statement. Now that I have put it back in place, would you be willing to elaborate on this?
A pastor should be paid what he and the congregation can mutually agree on with no coercion. Period.
That said, I believe that the Scriptures clearly teach a plurality of elders AND that there is no "one elder to rule them all." No "senior" elder. A plurality of equal elders, and the ones who study and teach should be paid for this. The burden of church administration is spread lightly across them, and likely they have a secular job just like anyone else.
The "double honor" is actually referring to "two honors." It means that even though the elder may already be receiving one honor from his livelihood (secular job), he should receive an honor from the church for his actual work as an elder.
Paul said to "count them worthy" of receiving "double honor." He cited a law saying that someone who works should be paid for the labor. He compared this to not muzzling an ox. The idea was that just because the elder already had a livelihood did not mean that the people should expect to receive doctrinal teaching for free. They should count the elders worthy of "double honor" by paying them for this service whereby this compensation means that they receive a second honor because they work two jobs.
Where does the Bible say that being an elder of a church is a vocation distinct from "secular" vocations? This is an idea that came from the third and fourth centuries when the roots of the Catholic church came up with the "clergy" and "layman" dichotomy. A church elder is one who is determined to be spiritually mature, takes the extra burden of teaching doctrine, and should be paid reasonably for this service as a "second honor."
That said, I believe that the Scriptures clearly teach a plurality of elders AND that there is no "one elder to rule them all." No "senior" elder. A plurality of equal elders, and the ones who study and teach should be paid for this. The burden of church administration is spread lightly across them, and likely they have a secular job just like anyone else.
The "double honor" is actually referring to "two honors." It means that even though the elder may already be receiving one honor from his livelihood (secular job), he should receive an honor from the church for his actual work as an elder.
Paul said to "count them worthy" of receiving "double honor." He cited a law saying that someone who works should be paid for the labor. He compared this to not muzzling an ox. The idea was that just because the elder already had a livelihood did not mean that the people should expect to receive doctrinal teaching for free. They should count the elders worthy of "double honor" by paying them for this service whereby this compensation means that they receive a second honor because they work two jobs.
Where does the Bible say that being an elder of a church is a vocation distinct from "secular" vocations? This is an idea that came from the third and fourth centuries when the roots of the Catholic church came up with the "clergy" and "layman" dichotomy. A church elder is one who is determined to be spiritually mature, takes the extra burden of teaching doctrine, and should be paid reasonably for this service as a "second honor."
And we should return to walking about in sandals and long gowns as they did in New Testament times also. This way we could shake the dust off our feet as we enter a building.
The local church has two offices; pastors and deacons. Financial return fits into modernity and how the local church functions. What some suggest fits better into the Plymouth Brethren. They don't pay their "preachers" either and they all work out.
If a man is doing what is required of a local church, he is far too busy to hold down an outside job, as Paul did.
All the years I was in ministry, I had no trouble filling 50-60 hours a week. Sure wish we had computers back then. I can write and print out a sermon these days in two to three hours. That would save at least 30 hours. Maybe I could work at McDonald's part time and supplement the pastor's income.
Cheers,
Jim
PS. I am getting tired of this eldership nonsense. Pastors and deacons have served our 500 churches over the years.
All other workers are volunteers.
The local church has two offices; pastors and deacons. Financial return fits into modernity and how the local church functions. What some suggest fits better into the Plymouth Brethren. They don't pay their "preachers" either and they all work out.
If a man is doing what is required of a local church, he is far too busy to hold down an outside job, as Paul did.
All the years I was in ministry, I had no trouble filling 50-60 hours a week. Sure wish we had computers back then. I can write and print out a sermon these days in two to three hours. That would save at least 30 hours. Maybe I could work at McDonald's part time and supplement the pastor's income.
Cheers,
Jim
PS. I am getting tired of this eldership nonsense. Pastors and deacons have served our 500 churches over the years.
All other workers are volunteers.
It's amazing how people will denigrate pastoral pay, education, etc.
Some want an educated man. Some want a Spirit-filled man.
I want and strive to be both. The two aren't mutually exclusive. When we get that through our heads, we'll be better off. My dad had a 4th grade education, but was full of the knowledge of God as a voracious reader of the Word. He encouraged me to get all the formal prep I could.
As for pay, every church should strive to pay a man enough to free him from financial worries, allowing him to concentrate on the ministry before him. All elders engaged in vocational service should receive no less. This is a Biblical model and should be applied, rather than the corporate "well, what can we afford" model adopted by many.
Some want an educated man. Some want a Spirit-filled man.
I want and strive to be both. The two aren't mutually exclusive. When we get that through our heads, we'll be better off. My dad had a 4th grade education, but was full of the knowledge of God as a voracious reader of the Word. He encouraged me to get all the formal prep I could.
As for pay, every church should strive to pay a man enough to free him from financial worries, allowing him to concentrate on the ministry before him. All elders engaged in vocational service should receive no less. This is a Biblical model and should be applied, rather than the corporate "well, what can we afford" model adopted by many.
Just what I said Tom, with all due respect.
I think some have gone overboard on the two offices; pastors and deacons. I know that we read about some distinctions in the New Testament about elders, pastors, deacons and even bishops, but it still boils down to what we have had for centuries, pastors and deacons.
Cheers,
Jim
I think some have gone overboard on the two offices; pastors and deacons. I know that we read about some distinctions in the New Testament about elders, pastors, deacons and even bishops, but it still boils down to what we have had for centuries, pastors and deacons.
Cheers,
Jim
I thought of this post when I read this on a blog that I follow. BTW - It's an excellent blog for pastors/elders/church leaders. I'd highly recommend it.
http://briancroft.wordpress.com/201...t-flawed-way-a-pastor-evaluates-his-ministry/
Thanks, friend.
If what you're saying is that elders are pastors are elders, I can go there. I've never been much of one for an elder board driving a church any more than I'm for a deacon group driving the church with no congregational government. That said, I'd have to agree with Lloyd-Jones: congregational polity is not worth dividing over since Methodists, Presbys, etc can make convincing arguments from Scripture for their method. I'm staunchly Baptistic in my understanding of polity, but I'm not ready to divide brothers and sisters over it.