Pastor's Compensation - Objective Standards?

First my views on some of the questions (without elaboration)

• Question: Should the compensation of two equally qualified / educated / experienced men be different based on the size of their family? Answer: In my view no.
• Question: Should the compensation of a man with an advanced theological degree right out of seminary be compensated more than a man who only holds a Bible degree but who has years of ministry experience? Answer: The man's experience trumps the inexperienced but educated newbie.
• Question: Should the man's compensation be based on his wife also working at the church in some capacity? Answer: The wife's work, whether at the church or outside of the church should be immaterial to the process

The multiple parallel approaches

1. Network with other churches of same size and doctrine in your area. What is their salary structure for their Pastor(s). (Relevance: location and Ecclesiastical community). Eg: Location: A Baptist Pastor in Bovey MN is not likely to need, require, or demand the same salary as a Baptist Pastor in Cherry Hill, NJ.; Eg: Size: A church of 33-50 (and there are thousands of churches that size are not able to and shouldn't be expected to pay the same salary level as a church of 500.
2. Research church salary guides.
3. Consider the mean salary of the non-vocational leadership team. If the church has 3 deacons and their average salary is $ 50K ... that is a helpful tool to build upon
4. Consider the previous year's budget. Build upon that. Tip to men going to a church: Ask to view the financial statements. If they only paid the previous Pastor some paltry amount, you are not likely to change that. (Caveat emptor)
5. Consider the man's needs. A newly wed couple with no children needs less than a man with 5 teenagers.
6. Consider the whole package: health care, housing, taxes, expenses, funds set aside for retirement, conferences, book allowance, etc.
7. Consider the scope of the man's responsibilities. A complex ministry structure (say with a school, other ministries) should translate into a higher salary.
8. Don't be cheap!
9. Be Biblical! 1 Timothy 5:17-18

I suppose they do "seem to contradict".

With regard to the first point: "Should the compensation of two equally qualified / educated / experienced men be different based on the size of their family?" I'm thinking of a multiple Pastor staff. I don't think that the larger family of one should demand (I use "demand" in an economic sense) a higher salary
.
With regard to the second point: I suggested the multiple parallel approach to build a compensation package. I qualified it with the word "consider". It's a fact that one's financial needs vary with life's circumstances and seasons. Example. We are empty nesters. When each child left the house our expenses dropped at each step (think auto insurance, clothing expenses, telephone expenses, water and heating bills (no more l o n g showers!), educational expenses)

I do believe that in one local church, that the salaries of "two equally qualified / educated / experienced men" should be essentially identical if they have the same responsibilities.

Updated: A team leadership approach by the governing board (the official organization that has the fiduciary responsibility for the congregation) should result in a wise & reasoned recommendation to the congregation.

This CT article is 10 years old but still has good advice (but the specific numbers are dated!)

http://www.christianitytoday.com/yc/2000/mayjun/3.22.html

You will notice how few pastors will participate in this discussion.

• Some Pastors need to more proactively dialogue with their boards to have a strategy to be paid appropriately. I'm not sure why lay (I hate that term) leadership would not want to see the Pastor appropriately paid in accordance with the teaching of Scripture.
• In some cases the will may be there but not the means. I know of a rural church where the entire church budget is only $ 20,000 per year. Even doubling that church's income, hardly leaves room for adequate pay
• Some church situations are ideal for tentmakers or for retired Pastors who have social security to help meet their total compensation needs
• In some churches, the Pastor's salary is unpublished. Not discussing the pros or cons of this, but it is difficult to take personal responsibility for a Pastor's salary if it is only known to the board.

A strategy is to have a trusted board leader (trustee?) be the Pastor's advocate.

Some of us hate to admit how little we make and we don't want to be perceived as money hungry.
Also, I pastor a small country church comprised of more retired people than working.
I am content to be bi-vo as long as the Lord keeps me here, but at 58 with numerous health problems it's beginning to be difficult.

I think we need to remember that the church is not a business, nor should it be run like one. We can use some methods from business to determine such things as a compensation package, but these methods need to be viewed through the lense of Scripture.

As I stated in my first post, there should be a thorough study of Scripture on this before attempting to come up with dollars. Why? Because even though Scripture does not give a set of instructions for setting compensation, it does give principles and proper attitudes towards compensating the pastor. For example, what needs of the priests was Israel supposed to supply? In I Cor. 9 and I Tim. 5, what needs of Paul and his companions were to be met if he did not refuse the provision? What is the general attitude towards the level of compensation...as little as possible or well compensated? And which side would you rather err on...paying too little so that the pastor is handcuffed, or paying more than sufficient and letting the pastor give back anything he thinks is too much??!!!

That being said, factors such as the pastor's living expenses, retirement, insurance, etc. should be used in setting a salary. Salary surveys can be used, but they can be misleading. For example, if the survey shows that pastor's are woefully underpaid, should we do the same? Also, what is the survey including in the figures? Do they include salary, housing allowance, insurance, retirement, etc.? Research needs to be done to make sure you compare apples with apples. Factors such as the size of the congregation, is there a school, size of the staff, etc. should also play into the salary. And I do believe the education level and years of experience should contribute. However, going back to Scripture, at a minimum, the needs of the pastor should be sufficiently (and more so in my opinion) met.

I do think you can make a case for this from Scripture. In I Cor. 9, Paul asks if he or his companions have the right to take along a believing wife. This is a rhetorical question he is asking. Why does he ask this? This is in the context of him defending his right to live by those who benefit from his labor. I believe he is also defending the right to the provision for his families needs. If you go to I Tim. 5, it speaks of muzzling the ox. It should not be muzzled because it needed to reach down and gain provision for its needs. What are the needs of the pastor? He has a responsibility to provide for his family. Do some have greater needs (bigger family)? I don't think I can stand up and dogmatically say that I Tim. 5 demands this, but I think I Cor. 9 builds a much better case on this.

Of course, Scripture does not address this, so I think the answer here depends. The one that has a higher degree and is right out of seminary possibly has expenses associated with obtaining that degree. Should the church compensate more for these expenses and for the increased knowledge and experienced gained in seminary? I believe it is a consideration and should probably require more compensation. However, the man with no seminary degree but has years of experience can be just as effective (for lack of a better term) due to his experience. You can make a case to paying him the same as the other. I personally think it depends on the person more so than the degree or the experience.

If she works, she is worthy of her hire.

Bottom line, I believe Scripture teaches to be generous in our provision for the pastor. Many believe double honor (I Tim. 5:17) to be double pay due to the context of the passage. Double what? We do not know so you can't be dogmatic there, but I would rather err on the side of paying too much than standing in front of God trying to explain why we kept him in the poor house and made him struggle! All this is predicated though on the assumption that the church can pay.

I'll end with a conversation I once had with a pastor. He said that money was always tight and always a concern. Certainly he put his faith in God that He would provide and He always did. But the lack of money was always a concern. Someone in his church gave him $500 as a gift. He made the comment to me that it was such a relief to be able to do his work as a pastor for several weeks without the worry about how he would pay the next bill. It freed his mind to focus on what God had given him to do. If we have the means, why would we not do this?

Ricky

Of course, if it's able. That's the whole point of Bi-vo pastors. My church pays me well for its budget but some weeks my salary is more than the offering. I can't live on what they pay and so I also work. I have no problem with that at all.

The latter - and Jim and Mike have done well in providing the reasons why.

I will PM you some additional thoughts later, but here in NY - especially the further away you get from NYC - there are a LOT of good churches that simply can't afford to pay a standard 'livable' wage. I know of two within an hour's drive [from where I'm at] who could not do so, and their priorities are paying the small staff that they have a livable wage. I wish that both BJU and NBBC [I can't call in NIU yet ;)] had stressed that in their classes, and had done a LOT more to emphasize the reality of churches that cannot pay a 'good' salary and the critical need for bi-vocational ministers. I think we may have talked about it in one class in six years' worth of schooling, and it was usually presented in a "this may happen to you, so be prepared" way.

I think I heard a statistic somewhere that 80% of all churches are less than 100 people. That's a MASSIVE amount of churches that [in all likelihood] can't support a full time pastor.

I agree with all of you. The issue comes when a church can support a pastor and does not. But you are right that there is a need for bi-vocational pastors.

Ricky

Why is it expected that pastoral salary be established on business principles? Why is it assumed the pastor should make as much as the average church member? God has promised to meet our needs. Your needs are not necessarily the same as mine, but God has promised to provide for our respective needs. It seems to me that salary based on need is closer to the biblical pattern than following the world's business cycle.

I think you hold the minority viewpoint on this one. I've heard one prominent leader say that the double honor standard means that churches ought to take the average of the church members and double it.

Becky,

Probably. I am not even at a third of that...LOL

Well, he'd be the only pastor I know of, except for possibly one, who would be.

I keep seeing the bi-vocational issue come up in this conversation.

The question that I have to those that are bi-vocational. How do you find time to adequately take care of your ministry and work 40 hrs a week? The way I see it, your job takes priority over the church ministry and the church ministry ultimately suffers and it is like a cycle that will never change unless the church grows to a level where you can be a full-time pastor rather than bi-vocational.

I am interested to hear your opinions on this...

I can't speak with any authority, but man, Mann, (sorry, ) your circumstances seem like burn out waiting to happen. I can't say I envy you, but I will say I admire you. May the Lord sustain you, brother.

He always does =).

I'm not bi-vocational ministry yet, but hoping that will change...Basically, it's all a matter of priorities. I squeeze in sermon prep when I can - on the way to/from work [limited in what I can do, obviously] - late nights, early AM's, weekend visits. The important stuff will get to me and the others will HAVE to be delegated to others...my time would be far too limited to deal w/ everything - and I shouldn't have to deal with everything that happens. I don't know what Mike's preaching load is like, but my situation [if it works out] is not going to be 3 sermons/week, which is a good thing. The church doesn't have that many services. Obviously, I'd prefer it be more, but it is what it is for right now. I can't give an account or steward responsibilities that the Lord hasn't given to me...all I can do is make the most of the opportunities that he entrusts me with. If this works out, great. If not, then I'll be disappointed, but the Lord will open another door.

Finally, I don't think it's automatic that double honor is double pay, and don't think I could preach that if I worked on that passage. There are other ways to show honor than in a paycheck.

You are right that it is not automatic, but neither is it automatic to assume that it does not mean double pay. Context points towards compensation, but then you have to ask "double of what pay?" Since this can't be answered from the passage, one really can't be dogmatic about it. But I believe context leans more towards pay than simply pay AND honor/respect. Either way, it certainly doesn't mean to pay them as little as possible as many churches like to do. I'd rather pay too much than too little.

Ricky

All Bible Colleges and Seminaries do not teach accurate expectations concerning "the ministry". Their professional approach does not prepare students for the real life situations in churches with regard to compensation. It's a pity, but one requirement for graduation for Bible College and/or Seminary should be a skill or education that one can use in the secular world to support his family and ministry other than an established church giving him (a stranger) a salary.

My opinion.

Derek Jung

Examples:

• Electrician
• Plumber
• Carpenter
• Expertise in some IT related area

All could be done part time and pay well.

Is there really a Biblical case that every single need/want of the pastor be provided by tithes and offerings? Seems to me that the standard for contentment is food and raiment. While I agree that each church should support their pastor, given the standard of living in the States, I don't think it is reasonable that a church by default be expected to provide housing, food, clothing, education expenses, healthcare... and that is the expectation of nearly every young preacher I have ever met- they seriously expect to walk into a church of 20-30 people and pull down $35,000 a year, and they get a case of the vapors if they are expected to get a job. And since they've grown up thinking they should 'live off the gospel', they may have multiple degrees in theology, but otherwise they are barely qualified to bag groceries and sweep floors.

To clarify- I do believe that the best case scenario is a church that grows to the point that it can provide for their pastor sufficiently so that he can dedicate himself wholly to shepherding- but it's like most young people starting out, who expect to have the standard of living of their parents, completely forgetting that mom and dad worked and saved for years to have a nice house or car or 401K. Those who have been called to full-time ministry should expect to be bi-vocational until such a time as their ministry can support them, instead of the other way around.

I personally think it irresponsible that young men don't have any trade that could support their family outside of full-time ministry. Parents should be doing better in this area, and also seminaries should play a pivotal role in preparing young men thoroughly for the realities of ministry instead of the best case scenario.

In conclusion and my opinion, a church is not an employer, nor can it really be compared apples to apples to any business model. While we can endeavor to be efficient in finances and operations, the definition of success for a church and a business are very different, so I think we should be cautious in any comparison of the two.

I guess it depends on what it means to live. We should all be content with food and raiment, but I think the biblical metaphor there is about the necessities of life, not clothes and food. Is housing, food, clothing, education, expense, and healthcare a part of what it takes to live? Most would say yes. Now, we might dispute the size of the house, the newness of the clothing, etc. But try having your family live in a tent, and see how you do ministry in America from that. Most places you couldn’t even do it because it would be illegal.

The "need/want" combination is a bit troubling. Certainly we could all get by on less than we do. Do we really need a car? No, people got by for thousands of years without them. Same thing with air conditioning, refrigerators, telephones, computers, etc. I realize you are not including those things in your mind, probably. But on what basis do you exclude them from "need"? Or from what the pastor should have? The reality is that we can all live on less than we do. But is that necessary to be a pastor? I don't think so.

If a church is unable to support their pastor, then he should be bivocational. But many churches are perhaps lazy in this area. Their pastor works; why should they step up to the plate.

As for an outside trade, I don’t think it is irresponsible not to have one. It is fine if one does, and it might be helpful in some cases. But irresponsible? That's pretty strong. For some, it makes it easy to cut and run when the ministry gets tough. They can say, "I don't need the grief of this church. I can plumb houses for a living or program computers." For others, it gives them an excuse not to work at the ministry very hard because their livelihood is elsewhere. So I think that is perhaps a bit misguided.

My comments should not be understood to support wrong conceptions of ministry nor to beat up on bivocational pastors. Quite frankly, I think most American church planters (and elsewhere if they can) should be bivocational at first, rather than spending 2 or 3 years to raise money for support. Foreign missionaries are different in that most can’t work in the country they go to. But it seems there is almost an attempt to make fulltime pastors feel bad. That may not be the intent, but it almost seems that way.

Again, I think you have some very practical arguments, but are they biblical? What does it mean that “those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel”? Paul's point in that passage is to compare businesses to gospel ministry. Again, if you object, it is not to me, but to Scripture.

Paul made the point in 1 Cor. 9 that a pastor/elder/Gospel preacher has a right to "fleshly" compensation. Then he strongly states that he has given up that right and will not take any gifts or compensation. This is the higher ground. This is Paul's example and higher challenge. Why not challenge young preachers to aim for this goal and prepare for it as well? You can sacrifice the Right to compensation for a greater ministry among the lost and saved this is how I understand 1 Cor. 9.

Pastor Jung

Hi all,

I actually agree with both Larry and Derrick. Let me first let you know where I am at. I have had the privilege of pastoring a small church for the last 10 years. The church pays me around 30,000 (including cash, pasornage and retirement). For several years, I have worked a couple of part-time jobs. I work midnights at a hotel one ngiht a week, so I can prepare a message while I am there. I am also a paid on call fire fighter as well as chaplain of the dept. I also work the before school care at my children's school. I am a firm believer in immersing myself in the community and my extra income jobs allow me to do so. My job schedules allow me to still prepare expositional messages.

While I think that men training for the ministry should do a good job of preparing their students for bi-vocational work, I think churches should also keep sacrificing for their pastor a priority. When Larry and I were at BJ, Bruce McAlister continued to keep the bi-vocational option in front of us. I am coming around to the idea that a church's first missionary is their pastor. While it is true the average missionary cannot work on their field, it is also true that the average missionary has higher support level many pastors. I am not saying sacrifice missionaries, I am saying that we need to provide for both.

The other thought that I know is true is this. A bi-vocational pastor who is in a job where he cannot do any churchwork while he is working, will not be able to prepare solid expositional messages and meet the demands of being a pastor. That my sound harsh, but it is true. There is no way that a man can work 40 hrs a week at a job and study 30 hours a week (Sunday AM, PM and Wed messages) and visit, and all of the other things. When I wasn't quad-vocational, I but in 60 hours a week consistantly at the church. I have continually worked 60-70 hours a week for most of my minstry. Not alot of us can keep that pace up over the long term.

Please, PLEASE don't pull that- "You aren't disagreeing with me, but with God" routine. Of course in America one's pastor should not be expected to live in squalor- but the problem I'm objecting to is that many young preachers are coming out of seminary expecting to walk right into a living wage in the full-time ministry, and that is not realistic. Even in the business world most men start out in entry level positions that may barely make ends meet, and it isn't unusual for men to work two jobs to support their families. My husband works about 55 hours a week, but still does jobs on the side to build our savings and pay for the 'little extras'.

My personal belief is that every man should have a fallback position in case his chosen profession goes belly-up. I don't see why it is harsh to consider it irresponsible not to plan for the future- the bad times as well as the good. Our family philosophy is that every child learns at least one additional trade, regardless of what their chosen vocation will be. I don't believe one can have too many skills, especially practical ones like those relating to home repair, new technologies, or accounting/business management. Not only do trades provide a net of sorts, but what man couldn't use the ability to do his own plumbing or electrical work or carpentry? What women wouldn't benefit from understanding finances, or how to do alterations? Doesn't the Prov. 31 woman have marketable skills? Why shouldn't a man as well, especially one who plans on being an example to the flock?

I completely agree with Scripture, and as Bro. Jung has pointed out, our premier example of a minister is Paul, who often worked to support himself. Paul gave both sides of the equation- churches should provide for their pastors, and pastors should be able to, regardless of their congregation's ability or spirit of giving, provide for their family. That reads to me like every pastor should be able to do what Paul did, even though, best case scenario, he shouldn't have do it of necessity.

I'm not being critical of those already in the ministry- to reiterate- my complaint, if you will, is that young men are not being prepared for the realities of ministry, and they have no fallback position. I don't think it appropriate for a man to choose not to learn a trade because the people in his congregation might say "Hey- he knows a trade, he should get a real job." If they do say that, there is a problem in that church that has NOTHING to do with the pastor knowing how to install furnaces or do income taxes on the side, and everything to do with a serious lack of Biblical understanding and Holy Spirit conviction in the hearts of the congregation.

I am not sure what I need to reconcile. My point is that bi-vocational is fine if necessary, but not expected. It was, as Paul said, the direction of the Lord that those who preach the gospel should live of it. You are the one who seems to object to full time pastors.

Why is this higher than what the Lord directed? I don't understand your reasoning here.

This is perhaps the most disturbing thing I have ever read at SI. Very troubling. I daresay that a preacher can barely know what the text actually says in three hours, much less work through the exegesis, the problem passages, how it fits into the rest of Scripture, how to preach it, and how to apply it. On rare occasions, "this can be done," but very rare. We should not be encouraging men to rush the process of listening to God in his word.

Derek,
I think you have taken a wrong impression of what Paul intended here. He chose not to demand support from the Corinthians. He did not give up support from other churches.

I'm not sure why but maybe the false teachers were abusing the Corinthians by demanding support and Paul chose to be different. I am sure that he was not offering a higher challenge to young pastors to ignore what he just taught.
Paul taught the Corinthians that they were to bless those who taught them spiritual things by providing their carnal needs.

As also the Galatians. Did you ever notice that the sowing and reaping passage is in context with supporting the ministers of the Word?

I completely, utterly, and totally disagree with you on this, Derek. Preaching is the main job of the pastor - to handle the Word of the Lord rightly. I understand time contraints - I'm Bi-Voc. too - but to shortchange sermon preparation for other things flips Acts 6:1-6 on it's head.

BTW, I don't know of any full time secular jobs where you work only 20-30 hours. Mine is 40, and I have an almost 2 hour commute [all told] one way to get to it.

Brother Mann,

Clearly the Apostle Paul teaches that churches should have a desire to give wages, support, and help to spiritual teachers, pastors, and missionaries. Believers should give to the ministry. The Bible clearly argues and exhorts concerning this practice. The "bi-vocational" point Paul makes, he does so by his example. But, Paul goes further in instructing the Corinthians in 2 Cor.. He states that he refused to demand wages or take wages from the Corinthians and states in chapter 11 that other churches gifts/support were received instead. He defends this practice of self-denial and sacrifice and states that he will continue to do things this way in his relationship with the Corinthians for good reason. My point is that a missionary, pastor, or teacher can be expected by God and determine in his conscience that he will not take any remuneration for ministry based on the same reasons given by the Apostle Paul. He felt this was both Biblical, Spiritual and necessary in the case of his relationship with the Corinthians. I am arguing that this is a valid model for ministry and those that minister should consider Paul's reasons and if so led do the same.

Pastor Jung

Brother Jay,

I will handle your statements from the last to the first. There are many secular jobs in which only 20-30 hours of work are done...not "full-time" but "part time". If you want to trade hours for dollars and committed to a vocation or view that this "full-time" then yes you will be working 40-50 hours a week there. If you want more time for ministry then find something that pays more per hour and requires less time. One suggestion, for aspiring preachers, pastors or teachers. Go back to school to become a dentist. After the schooling you could work 2-3 days a week and make enough money to easily fund your family and ministry. Four to five days a week of work and you could probably fund the entire church budget. Or become a medical doctor and open a free clinic at your church 1 day a week for outreach and evangelism, work 2-3 days, and then do ministry the remaining 3 days a week. Or become a lawyer they charge 200 to 300 per hour depending on the area. You only have to have accounts were you are billing for 2 hours a day on average to make alot of money. All of these positions take investment, hard work, intellectual ability and time but they are worth it. Or buy or start a small business. Lots more hours here but in the end if successful you will not have to work at all and the businesses will generate alot of money. I can give you many examples and testimonies.

Preaching and teaching is a main job of the Pastor (John 21). Handling the Word rightly and not lightly is important. I would disagree with you about the "shortchange" viewpoint though. I don't think you are shortchanging this activity by focusing three hours on one message instead of say 5 hours or 7 hours or 10 hours. If it takes you 5-10 hours to prepare a 30-60min message you may have too much to say. I doubt that the Apostles spent 10 hours preparation on a 30-45 min message, however this is just my speculation and opinion. I would hope that my team members would be efficient with their preparation time and that more time would be spent in impartation rather than simply preparation. 3 Hours preparation 45 min impartation and 5 hours of joint application. Preach and teach not only in Word but in Deed.

Ask yourself, how can I spend less time in sermon preparation and more time in imparting the sermon content to the flock not simply standing and preaching (necessary) but together implementing the message contents (doing evangelism training, prayer with the people, visitation, and helping the members). Reasoning and exhorting the lost takes alot of time. My concern is that we don't reduce the ministry to an academic exercise. Preparation is spiritual but need not take 30-40 hours a week of academic study. If you want to do that kind of ministry become a Bible college or seminary professor.

D. Jung

The Apostle Paul chose to work with his hands. Many pastors are relying on budgeted giving and receiving. It doesn't matter whether you budget for salary or urge the people to simply give designated gifts. If the money doesn't come in your stuck either way with less. I think that people will give what they want not what the pastor needs (this is just as subjective as what the people want to give). Pastors should have their expectations placed in God not in what the world's standard of living requires (evil world system). I am against the equating of the pastorate with a secular job, it is a higher calling and honor should be given to the pastor. However, the pastor ought recognize that in the spiritual battle for souls there will be the necessity to sacrifice and humbly set an example that does not rely on the giving of his people but simply on God.

I like the designated giving model, it may require more faith. That's a good thing.

D Jung.

So, are you saying that a pastor that receives a salary is not relying "simply on God"? Why do you assume that receiving a salary from the church is relying on the people instead of God?

I don't think anyone disagrees with you that there are times when a pastor should be bi-vocational or that they should be prepared to be bi-vocational if necessary. The problem is when you make statements that suggest it is the preferred method when it is only your opinion. Or when you make insinuations that pastors are not relying on God when they receive a salary from the church. You said that "honor should be given to the pastor" and I completely agree. But statements such as the one I quoted above are a slap in the face of pastors that do receive a salary from the church.

The fact of the matter is that Scripture says that the pastor has every right to receive compensation for his labor in the church. It is the responsibility of the church to provide this compensation (per Paul in I Cor. 9). Scripture does allow for the pastor (as Paul) to refuse the compensation. It is as simple as that. To say that bi-vocational is the preferred method and any other way is not relying on God is simply an opinion based on eisegesis of Scripture.

Please take this with all due respect for your zeal and conviction that God wants you to be a bi-vocational pastor. But the church needs to realize its responsibilities to the pastor and there are many out there looking for "excuses" to pay the pastor as little as possible or nothing at all. I don't think we should give them any further excuses, but should tell them exactly what Scripture says about the matter.

Ricky

DJung,

I would just like to add my own voice to what a few others have said.

I disagree that this should be considered the "higher ground." And I think one should be careful not to pit what Paul says here against his express teaching that churches have an obligation to pay pastors (such as in the passages already cited in this thread). I also think one should be careful not to take such comments by Paul out of the larger context of Paul's ministry, in which he clearly did receive financial support from churches. For example:

We should also remember that Paul adopted his strategy of forgoing his right to pay as a church planter, at which time he clearly received financial help from at least some other churches. We do not know that this was his practice all the time, however. It could very well be that while he was serving full time in an already established church - such as when he served for a time in Antioch (Acts 11:25-26; 15:35) - he did indeed receive compensation from that church.

My point is simply that we should not set one part of Paul's teaching and practice over against another as being some "higher way" when there is a better possible explanation and when we really don't have all the information at some points that we might need in order to correctly make such an assessment. And we should not try to make arguments that seek to set tent-makers or bi-vocational pastors up as somehow on a higher plane or more self-sacrificial in their ministry than pastors who are sufficiently paid so as to better focus their whole lives on pastoral ministry.

I am glad to see that you qualified you statements a little better here.

Keith