Should pastors have salaries?

Jim1999 · Jan 12, 2003

On the call to ministry, there is an old saying, If you can do anything else beside being a pastor, then do it. This is a test of one's calling.

As an architect, I can easily draw in excess of $200,000.00 a year in earnings. As a pastor, the most I earned was $18,000.00 a year plus benefits and allowances. Not a bad trade0ff.

With a salary, I am not at the whim and fancy of a few church members who decide I am not worthy this week, Besides, if I am not doing what I am called to do, they can give me the sack on a moment's notice.

Far too many ministers in the past suffered the gates of debtor's prison, including the great Charles Haddon Spurgeon, according to reports.

God did not intend us to be beggars, but to be preachers, and one can best be this by putting the cares of the world aside.

Cheers,

Jim

Angie Miller · Jan 12, 2003

Yes all about faith and your call from God.
Our friends are leaving to go to a new church at which he will be the Minister. He is going from a VERY well paying job at Boeing to 23,000 a year. No benifits, but the house they are moving into is bought and paid for and the Church will pay 80% of their Utilities. The rest is up to them. But wow what an opportunity for all of them and what a blessing from God!
Love in Christ, Angie

Squire Robertsson · Jan 13, 2003

For me, the question is not if there is a line item for a pastoral salary in a church's budget. For me, the question is "is a salary a guarantied item". In other words, no salary no deal.

Ben W · Jan 13, 2003

The problem with churches is they pay only the Pastor a Salary. there should be no distinction between Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, Evangalists and Elders. All are proper offices within a church and should be treated accordingly. The biblical model is to take up an offering to support those who need it.

Tentmaker ministry is overlooked today. I feel that any pastor should be in some form of tentmaker ministry to "keep it real" This is not an insult to any Pastor, its my opinion that perceptions can change. No doubt modern Pastors earn their salary. However the church has moved away from the biblical model which means that all are to pitch in and help. If your church has a pastor who does every thing, then that is not right. Strictly speaking Pulpit Ministry is for the Teacher and the Evangalist. Pastoring is Shepherding.

There was a time when the Family unit worked together and the church did also. Industrial Capatalism broke up that unit. The dissapointing thing is that most churches have adopted an Industrial Capatalist Model by which to run their churches. This world is crying out for help. The churches that really desire to get back to that early Biblical model will blow the world apart with revival. People dont want Capatalism. We want a church that is real.

Pete · Jan 13, 2003

I guess someone has to be controversial on this thread...Being the most experienced at it I guess the job is mine again huh?

No. Everyone in Church is part of "a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light..." etc etc, not just one or two

Pete

RodH · Jan 13, 2003

I think a pastor should be paid a salary, at least enough to meet their basic needs. Having said that, I know several pastors who are paid very well to preach. I don't think they should expect to get rich from preaching the Word, but they shouldn't have to worry about how they are going to put food on the table either.

My dad, who pastors a small rural church (around 100-120 members), decided a number of years ago to do some substitute teaching at a local school during the week for some extra income. He was a high school principal before he started preaching so it wasn't something he wasn't qualified for. He had to stop because a couple members of the church got upset because they thought he should be totally free to do church business at all times. His salary wasn't much at the time and I thought their reaction was a little extreme.

That church did provide for our family in other ways than money. Because many of them were farmers, we were always getting fresh vegetables and meat. I also still have fond memories of fried chicken and pies that were brought to us when one of us was sick.

Pastor Larry · Jan 13, 2003

It seems like there is some confusion about what the pastor is paid for. The pastor is not paid to do the work of the ministry. Everyone is to do that. The pastor is paid to do his work of pastoring. If he has to work another job to support himself and family, then he cannot do justice to his responsibilities as pastor.

Some of you who do not believe a pastor should be paid still need to deal with 1 Cor 9 and 1 Tim 5. What do you say about them?

Refreshed · Jan 13, 2003

You've got a good point, Pastor Larry. The verdict is still out on this issue for myself, but I like the idea of a full-time pastor (which is what I have), who can pastor his congregation instead of working 9 to 5 everyday and still being asked to pastor his congregation.

Jason

Johnv · Jan 13, 2003

Pastors need to eat, send their kids to college, etc etc.

Congregations who refuse to pay their pastors and staff fair and adequate compensation for the services are guilty of "love of money".

rlvaughn · Jan 13, 2003

Johnv, as you have framed the statement - "Congregations who refuse to pay" - it is hard to say they are not guilty of love of money. But this question, as posed, is not about people "refusing," but rather about making a scriptural decision of whether or not stipulated salaries are according to the Biblical model. With that in mind, it is no more correct to say that a church who doesn't pay her pastor a salary is guilty of love of money than it is to say that a pastor who receives a salary is guilty of love of money. Both might be true, but it is incorrect to assume so.

jonmagee · Jan 13, 2003

Thats true

yours, Jon.

Testimony · Jan 13, 2003

My pastor received over $5000 per month (with a congregation of less than 100). There is such a thing as "fleecing the flock" and this is definitely the case. Our pastor DOES NOT visit the sick, (as he says it's not HIS JOB alone) nor does he take communion to the sick and shut-in - and to top it all off, his anniversary services (held annually) bring in an additional $20,000 - 25,000. Not bad picking at all for one who seeks to divide the church between the young and the old!!!

rlvaughn · Jan 13, 2003

The subject of pastors' salaries can sometimes be somewhat difficult to discuss. For one thing, it is, or at least can be, a highly emotional topic. Also, we often have very different presuppositions underlying our positions on the topic. A profitable discussion would really require going over that ground first. I have noticed several misconceptions about the position that a pastor should not have a salary - that it is motivated by love of money; that the 'salaried' preacher is free to preach the truth while the 'unsalaried' one is dependent on the good will of the people; that they have to have a salary from the church to eat, pay bills, put children through college, etc. But I can point to some churches that only give offerings to their pastors that give more money to their pastors than some churches of similar size and condition that pay salaries give to theirs - so it must not just be love of money. I can point to some salaried preachers that have comfortable positions and wouldn't dare mess it up, while also pointing to some unsalaried ones who preach their convictions to their church - so it must not just be one-sided as to which preacher might shade the truth to maintain 'the good will of the people.' I can point to some preachers that have never received a salary and yet have paid their bills, fed & clothed their children, and even sent them to college - and who might be said to have out-labored some men who had those things provided for them by their congregations. These are practical matters, and practical problems in the ministry reside on both sides of the "salary fence." They do not settle the question.

Pastor Larry has pointed out that certain scriptures need to be dealt with. Though he and I may not agree on the issue of salaries, we are in agreement that the scriptures need to be dealt with in order to understand and know whether pastors should be paid salaries. I would say though, that he (or anyone else) can't just throw I Cor. 9, Gal. 6, and I Tim. 5 on the table and say these are our scriptures, you need to deal with them. They are God's Word, and both sides must deal with them. There are some things that must be considered in these passages by those who support setting a salary for a pastor. Such as, in I Cor. 9:14, et. al. - where are pastors (elders, bishops, I use them as equivalent) found in the context of the passage. What does living of the gospel mean? How were the priests supported - salaries or freewill offerings? How does an apostle's refusal to use this right, but rather setting a model of self-support for elders (cf. Acts 20:34,35) fit your interpretation? Or in I Tim. 5:17 - if honor means a set salary, does double honor mean pay a double set salary? Have you considered that Timothy was in Ephesus and they had a plurality of elders? Did all of them receive a double salary? What about the possible division of labours of elders - elders that rule well, and elders especially who labour in word and doctrine? Or in Gal. 6:6 - does "all good things" inherently mean a set salary? If it means a "set salary" from the one taught to the one who teaches, does that include a salary to itinerant ministers, radio preachers, etc.? If not, why not? If so, who will set their salaries? The point here is that these passages are not as cut and dried as some might suppose.

rlvaughn · Jan 13, 2003

As I stated in the previous post, there are often some radical differences of approach to church & ministry among those who hold that pastors should be paid salaries, and those who hold that pastors should not be paid salaries (or, in a few cases, should not be paid). For example, for one the "ministry" is a full-time position, while to the other it is a part-time position (these terms may do as much to obscure as enlighten, but they are the common terms). In one approach, few could conceive of operating without a budget; in the other approach, few could conceive of why a church would need a budget. For one, the pastor is expected to fulfill numerous obligations; for the other, the obligation is teaching/preaching. Of course, there is also overlap along the range of ideas on this topic.

We also must be careful to not read our own practice back into the New Testament. The use of certain verses to support the salary system, IMO, does not take into account the commonality of things in the church at Jerusalem, the poverty common to the early churches, the plurality of pastors in these churches, the self-support not only practiced by Paul and others, but also given as a model to the elders, the fact that Paul's self-support was not an isolated incident, the difference between the function of apostles & itinerants and elders, and the pattern of local elders being raised up within the churches to serve those churches. I would also add that, though I'm sure neither side could prove satisfactorily to the other, it is highly unlikely that any support mentioned in the scriptures, received by the apostles and evangelists, would approach anything which we would recognize as a salary.

Though Paul proves the right of apostles and other traveling ministers to be supported by the churches, He chose not to use this right (I Cor. 9).
Paul chose to set a pattern for the elders to follow in their ministry (Acts 20:33-35) - not only to support themselves, but others as well.
Paul was setting patterns and examples that he expected others to follow (I Cor. 4:16, 11:1 cf. with Acts 20:35).

In a correspondence on this subject several years ago, I made this statement to another preacher, "There seems to be a deliberate tension in the scriptures - on the one hand exhorting churches to support the ministry, and, on the other hand, urging ministers to be self-supporting." I still think there is some truth in that statement, and believe the tension is why many good people can read the Scriptures on these matters and come to such different conclusions. One thing on which I think most of us could agree, though, is that churches concerned with how little they can give and pastors concerned with how much they can make are both contrary to the Scriptures.

Jim1999 · Jan 13, 2003

If conditions were the same to-day as they were in New Testament times, I might view pastoral fiscal support differently. This, however, the 21st century and the setting is quite different, culturally and functionally, and modern times demands modern means.

Please don't demand I wear sandals to preach the gospel. It is cold in the snow.

Cheers,

Jim

tyndale1946 · Jan 13, 2003

Don't forget that robe... Suit and sandals clash!... Brother Glen

Jeff Weaver · Jan 13, 2003

Bro. Robert

In your last post above, I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head. Must be that construction background of yours.

Of course we Primitive Baptists don't pay our ministers a salary. We do, however, contribute to their expenses of travel, etc. It is hard to know exactly what to do in some of these cases. Obviously some ministers or so called ministers are grossly over-paid (I'm think the Benny Hinn types here). Still others could use a helping hand and don't get it.

Best thing I know of to do is pray about it, and let your conscience be your guide. If your pastor is living in the lap of luxury and the congregation is driving 15 year old cars and eating pork-n-beans, maybe the church needs to change its priorities. If, however, the congregation is doing well, and the minister is driving a 15 year old car and eating pork-n-beans, maybe the could help out a bit more.

But as for me, God has always provided in one way or another, and I dont worry about it. I take no salary or money for expenses in the position I have now. I am physically disabled, and can not run the roads to do many of the things traditional pastors are expected to do. This is understood. When I was able to do those things, I was also had a very well paying secular job, and didn't need the money, and most of the congregation was on pensions, so I didn't take it then either. That all said, when your health goes, money goes quickly as well. There have been times that I could have used a helping hand, but someway we made it through.

Jeff.

rlvaughn · Jan 13, 2003

Jim, I would understand that your thoughts on applying 21st century methods to 21st century churches is meant to be taken seriously, while the sandals comment is on the lighter side. It is unfortunate, however, that many people cannot understand the difference between the position of the early church practice as normative and the idea of walking in sandals to a meeting house without electricity. I and others who take the position are as much to blame in failing to explain it as they are in failing to understand it. Let me attempt to put some thought together to explain the difference as some of us see it.

By the statement "New Testament (or early church) practice is normative" I mean that it lays down a model or standard. In my opinion, we find not only our theology of doctrine in the New Testament, but also our theology of practice.

1. All may not apply the idea consistently, almost all do apply it on occasion. For example, most Baptists would feel that it is necessary to form their church government after the New Testament pattern, despite the fact that no command says they must do so.
2. The call to New Testament practice as normative is not a call to return to the culture of the first century (lighting with candles, wearing tunics and sandals, traveling by foot, horseback & wagon, etc.), nor does it regard everything as practiced in the New Testament era to be binding or as being errorless.
3. The call to New Testament practice as normative recognizes that all the apostles expected the churches to practice was not couched in the language of command, but that they also clearly set examples they expected to be followed (1 Cor.4:16; 11:1-2; cf. v.16; 14:33; Phil.3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess.1:6-7; 2 Thess.2:15; 2 Tim.2:2).
4. The call to New Testament practice as normative looks for distinctive apostolic practices and patterns, that were (a) not just rooted in the culture of the day, (b) not just rooted in the religion of the day, (c) common to the churches [iow, not an isolated case], (d) rooted in and consistent with the teachings of the apostles.
5. The call to New Testament practice as normative is held to be generally binding by some (like myself), while others only hold that it is the most beneficial and more conducive to the carrying on of the work of the church.
6. The call to New Testament practice as normative questions why we would assume our methods are more effective than the apostolic pattern, and defers to the wisdom of the inspired apostles. Our question is not "why do we have to do it the way the apostles did," but rather "why do we want to do it some other way?"

This post is a digression from my previous two, but it considers some of the underlying presuppositions that form part of the foundation of arguing against setting salaries for pastors. If New Testament practice (as explained above) is not normative, there is very little point in discussing whether or not pastors should be paid a salary.

From my limited study of the Reformation, I would conclude that one of the main differences between the Reformers and the Radicals (such as the Anabaptists) was that the Anabaptists believed the apostolic practice was normative. I would argue also that much of what distinguishes Baptists from other Christian groups is not based on explicit commands, but is derived from implied conclusions and inspired examples. If New Testament practice is not normative, then perhaps Baptists are irrelevant.

Jim1999 · Jan 14, 2003

Brother Robert,

In response, I will take the liberty of quoting from the book, Grasping God's Word, Duvall and Hays, Ouachita Baptist University, a book on biblical interpreation.

"We are separated from the biblical audience by culture and customs, language, situation, and a vast expanse of time." p19

He then says, "our goal is to grasp the meaning of the text God intended." p21

And, proceeds to list 4 steps:

1. What did the text mean to the biblical audience?

2. What are the differences between the biblical audience and us?

3. What is the theological principle in this text?

4. How should individual Chritians TODAY apply the theoogical principle in their lives?

These are sound steps to follow in understanding God's word. The church must move ahead with the times, as it has done all down through history. The Baptist Church is not the same to-day as it was when I first started, and certainly not the same as when Smythe first started.

I would no more meet on a rooftop, as did the saints of the New Testament, than I would drive a camel down the main street of Tamworth to get to church.

There are principles which remain true because they are true. Then there are changeable principles. Changeable by time and custom and circumstances and history. One does not alter the financial records, because honesty is a timeless principle, but one does alter the methods of keeping the books recording those finances.

Either we remember the past and live now or we live in the past and forget now. We cannot have both or we fail history and we fail progress.

Cheers,

Jim

jonmagee · Jan 14, 2003

There seems to be 2 aspects to this:
1) position of Gods call

2) position of employment.

Some years ago I was conducting a ministry that was more itinerant than it is presently and therefore did not have a regular income. To make ends meet, I took on casual work delivering pizza's and dealing with people who were not aware I was an ordained minister. Yet, I soon discovered I was being asked questions etc. by these same people that would only make sense if they were seeking pastoral help. Why? It was not my employment! No, but irrespective of employment it was a call of God which He had gifted me for a purpose.

If God has called and gifted you for a purpose you will want to fulfill the call whatever the money. If not, are you really qualified to be employed in that position??

yours, Jon.

Should pastors have salaries?

Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

Angie Miller New Member

Squire Robertsson Administrator
Administrator

Ben W Active Member
Site Supporter

Pete New Member

RodH <img src ="http://humphrey.homestead.com/files/Rod

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter

Refreshed Member
Site Supporter

Johnv New Member

rlvaughn Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

jonmagee New Member

Testimony New Member

rlvaughn Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

rlvaughn Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

tyndale1946 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Jeff Weaver New Member

rlvaughn Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

jonmagee New Member

Useful Searches

Should pastors have salaries?

Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

Angie Miller New Member

Squire Robertsson Administrator Administrator

Ben W Active Member Site Supporter

Pete New Member

RodH <img src ="http://humphrey.homestead.com/files/Rod

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b> Site Supporter

Refreshed Member Site Supporter

Johnv New Member

rlvaughn Well-Known Member Site Supporter

jonmagee New Member

Testimony New Member

rlvaughn Well-Known Member Site Supporter

rlvaughn Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

tyndale1946 Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Jeff Weaver New Member

rlvaughn Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

jonmagee New Member

Squire Robertsson Administrator
Administrator

Ben W Active Member
Site Supporter

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter

Refreshed Member
Site Supporter

rlvaughn Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

rlvaughn Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

rlvaughn Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

tyndale1946 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

rlvaughn Well-Known Member
Site Supporter