Should a pastor be full time or bi-vo

[nodak]

I don't want to go as far as should and oughts, but will share my experience.

Small churches we have been part of could only pay "supply". That is, they paid someone weekly to preach--usually the same man for years at a time. That meant those hospital at 2 a.m. visits, etc, were done by the deacons and the members of the congregation. They were strong, healthy churches.

I'll say this gently: the larger churches with a full time pastor were not so healthy. Part of it is just common sense. If your mortgage payment, or your car payment, or shoes and milk for the baby depend on you pleasing the congregation with what you say and attracting outsiders, you are in bondage and not as free to preach the Word fully.

I believe we should accord our pastors double honor. And I believe in giving financial remuneration. But just saying--the less money is involved, the more freedom to step on toes when they need stepping on.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Not being a pastor, but a preacher, I do not receive any wages from my homechurch, nor would I want any money from them. Our pastors do not receive wages from the church they pastor, but work throughout the week. I personally believe that the pastor should not receive a check from their church, but work a job and use the church money for other needs.

Agreed. I believe that is what Paul instructed the Elders to do in the early New Testament Church.

 

[Revmitchell]

It simply amazes me that some folks do not want to pay the preacher. Shame on all of them.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

:BangHead:

I don't want to go as far as should and oughts, but will share my experience.

Small churches we have been part of could only pay "supply". That is, they paid someone weekly to preach--usually the same man for years at a time. That meant those hospital at 2 a.m. visits, etc, were done by the deacons and the members of the congregation. They were strong, healthy churches.

I'll say this gently: the larger churches with a full time pastor were not so healthy. Part of it is just common sense. If your mortgage payment, or your car payment, or shoes and milk for the baby depend on you pleasing the congregation with what you say and attracting outsiders, you are in bondage and not as free to preach the Word fully.

I believe we should accord our pastors double honor. And I believe in giving financial remuneration. But just saying--the less money is involved, the more freedom to step on toes when they need stepping on.

This is pretty much in agreement with Paul when he said he would not take pay lest the Gospel be hindered.

 

[Mexdeaf]

It is interesting that no one has a problem with paying their mechanic, or their plumber, or even their baby-sitter, but the pastor should be kept poor and hungry so he will preach well. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Especially if you factor in the cost of a Bible college or seminary education.

I am bi-vo and I'll agree with Salty on this one.

Those claiming the Scriptures teach not to pay pastors are reading their own preferences into the Scriptures.

 

[annsni]

I wish my husband would go bivo but he just doesn't have the time and he is expected to give his time to the church. He gave up a 6 figure salary in order to be in the ministry. He's had SO many more disappointments, discouragements, hard days and tribulations since he did this than he ever did working in the public sector. And all this with less than 1/2 the salary. Yep - it's a GREAT deal.

 

[Salty]

I am bi-vo and I'll agree with Salty on this one.

You mean we finally agree on something!!:smilewinkgrin:
(Mex - send me an email)

How will he get any sleep if he is woken up at 2 am for a hospital visit.

Fundamentally, that isn't the pastor's job. IF there is any church office which more accurately would cover ministering to the sick etc....that would be the office of deacons.

Now I understand - its okay for a deacon to miss a day of work (and pay) to vist people in the hospital.....

Why aren't weddings for instance presided over by the Fathers of the household? That is the ideal scenario. Why do we EXPECT or require a professional "clergy" to perform ceremonies like weddings and funerals?

How about State/commonwealth law - most require an ordained minster to marry someone

Lets add to this - a missionary pastor - he is just starting a church - and has no deacons.....

 

[canadyjd]

I wish my husband would go bivo but he just doesn't have the time and he is expected to give his time to the church. He gave up a 6 figure salary in order to be in the ministry. He's had SO many more disappointments, discouragements, hard days and tribulations since he did this than he ever did working in the public sector. And all this with less than 1/2 the salary. Yep - it's a GREAT deal.

I'm hope he's had (and you as well) many more encouragements than discouragements...joyful fellowship rather than tribulations. It's always a great deal to obey God.

 

[John of Japan]

Lets add to this - a missionary pastor - he is just starting a church - and has no deacons.....

Hear, hear! Very few Japanese churches have deacons, even those pastored by Japanese. If the pastor didn't do it, the sick would not get visited.

The great majority of Japanese pastors have an outside job. This is not because they want to. They would love to pastor full time, but Japanese churches are usually too small to support a pastor full time. (150 years of Protestant missions, only 1/2 of 1.0% evangelical Christian.)

On another facet of the discussion, the distinction between missionaries and pastors is a false dichotomy. Every church-planting missionary is a pastor for the length of time he is planting the church. If he doesn't teach the Bible no one will. If he doesn't visit the sick no one will. If he doesn't counsel the hurting no one will. If he doesn't train people to evangelize no one will.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Now I understand - its okay for a deacon to miss a day of work (and pay) to vist people in the hospital.....

I don't understand what you are trying to prove here. First, I didn't say he had to "Miss a day of work"....Inexplicably, I have successfully worked a full day and somehow ALSO visisted someone in the hospital all in the same 24 hour period. It's a gift....I think I was exposed to some radioactive material which gave me super-powers when I was young. I don't know.

But the LARGER POINT was, that (and I think if you study the Scriptures about this) that as I said, IF there is an office of the Church whereing visiting and ministering to the sick is found.......that seems to fall more under the onus of deacons than pastors. I think that's a pretty reasonable statement.
Just because Churches have made a habit out of demanding that their pastors fulfill roles they often ought to be doing themselves, doesn't mean that to fix it you insist he not work outside of the church and then pay him extra money to do so.

How about State/commonwealth law - most require an ordained minster to marry someone

Yes and no. There are ways around that. You will notice I said "perform the ceremony"......fundamentally, all you usually need is a liscense and a notary of some sort. Also, it is customary to "tip" a minister who performs a wedding ceremony as well. And I agree with that practice. Attorneys can do it as well. The only thing an ordained minister HAS to do legally is sign the paper-work really.

However, I am speaking of a more ideal scenario. I don't think these State's should require ordained ministers for the task. It isn't Biblical. It springs from a tradition which I would argue is LESS than ideal.

Lets add to this - a missionary pastor - he is just starting a church - and has no deacons.....

I think all situations are different. I am merely becoming of the distinct opinion that churches are expecting pastors to do tasks that they shouldn't always have to do, and that a life-long "career-choice" of some essentially professional clergy is not necessarily the best tradition, nor strictly Biblical.

It may be un-avoidable in many circumstances.........but what I Don't think we should regularly see (and we do) is a monthly budget for a smaller church of say $6,500 with say $4,000 listed under "salaries" all of which is going to one person, and under "Missions" $350.00

Better IMO to make that about $2,500 "Missions" and $2,000 "salaries"......and start moving churches towards thinking bi-vo. Why might we see such a thing as the above? because you have gazillions of churches populated almost exclusively by blue-hairs who are perpetually sick, and they aren't exactly looking so much for a Spiritual "Leader" who's MAIN purpose is to teach and preach.....but they are hiring someone to run around and kiss their boo-boos. That's NOT the office of the bishop (strictly-speaking).

 

[jbh28]

Paul said they were worthy of wages and should receive wages. Being a pastor is a full time job. It's not just going up a couple of times a week to preach. Looking after the spiritual needs of the church, dealing with the sick(both elder jobs) can take a lot of time.

now of course the smaller the church, the less needs there are(and money) so many times a pastor will have to have a second job. Some churches have to have multiple elders just to be able to do everything that needs to be done.