What Christians Owe Their Pastors
This article was first published in the Baptist Bulletin (September/October 2008) and appears here unedited. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Years ago a minister was called “the parson,” meaning “the person.” He was a VIP. He was honored as the preacher of the gospel, a molder of public opinion, and the conscience of the community. Not so today. A recently published survey revealed the most respected people in the average American community. Ministers ranked far down on the list, behind doctors, judges, psychologists, civic leaders, and police officers. Why?
No doubt the widespread sexual and financial scandals among members of the clergy have seriously affected the public opinion of them. Unfortunately, many pastors are mere puppets, moved by the whims of their parishioners. Some are controlled by a few strong laypeople, and others are “religious politicians” instead of prophets of God. Fortunate is the congregation whose pastor speaks “the very words of God” (1 Peter 4:11, NIV) and diligently leads the church.
We believe that the Bible words “elder” and “bishop” refer to and include the pastor (or pastors) of a local church. Each of these titles reveals a facet of his divine calling. As an elder, he is to provide mature, responsible leadership. As the bishop, he is to be the general manager, providing careful oversight of the Lord’s work. And as the pastor, he is charged with caring for and feeding the flock of God (Acts 20:28).
Such divinely commissioned leaders are important individuals in God’s sight—and should be in the eyes of every Christian as well. Our Lord places great importance upon the pastor-parishioner relationship. In fact, He expects every believer to voluntarily be under the leadership and teaching of a godly pastor. The Bible allows no exceptions.
Recently a pastor introduced some new members at the close of a morning service by saying, “We welcome you to all the privileges and responsibilities of church membership.” Responsibilities? What did he mean? While the pastor did not explain, the Bible does. According to the Word of God, every Christian is under divine obligation in at least three areas: intercession, remuneration, and submission.
Intercession
Paul wrote, “Brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may run swiftly and be glorified” (2 Thessalonians 3:1). He also commended the believers in Corinth for helping him through their prayers (2 Corinthians 1:11). And the writer of Hebrews exhorted Christians everywhere to “remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct” (13:7). Every pastor therefore needs, covets, and deserves the prayers of his people. Unfortunately, it is much easier to criticize a minister than it is to intercede for him. In fact, many preachers experience more trouble from within the body than from without.
During a pastor’s first year, he and the church experience a period of unusual harmony, a honeymoon of sorts. The congregation laughs at his jokes and comments happily about his personal mannerisms. They appreciate their pastor’s different kind of sermons, and they usually pray for him.
By the second year, some of his personality traits start to bug at least some members of the congregation. By then they have discovered that this man is not the wonder worker they thought him to be. Members no longer invite their friends to “hear our preacher.” The critical period of any pastorate is apt to occur during this year, especially if the new pastor has followed a minister of long-standing. In just this short time, it has become easier to criticize the pastor than to pray for him.
During the third year, some members actually despise their pastor. Whisper campaigns might begin, and sometimes petitions are circulated requesting his resignation. The only intercession for the pastor is the secret “prayer meetings” called to “pray over the problem.” This is one of the primary reasons the average ministerial tenure in America is three years or less.
We need to ask ourselves, “Have I really supported my pastor in prayer?” Jonathan Edwards once said, “If some Christians that have been complaining of their ministers had said and acted less before man and had applied themselves with all their might to cry to God for their ministers—had, as it were, risen and stormed heaven with their humble, fervent, and incessant prayers for them—they would have been much more in the way of success.” If you really want to fire your pastor, then intercede for him. You owe it to him.
Remuneration
Old Testament Israelites supported their priests in grand style through their tithes. So it should not surprise us that New Testament believers are reminded that the “Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:14). Paul commanded, “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. For the Scripture says, You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain, and, The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Timothy 5:17, 18). Believer’s Bible Commentary (MacDonald and Farstad) states that the word “double honor” means “worthy of respect because of his work, but also, if his time is devoted to this work fully, he is also worthy of financial help.”
Why shouldn’t ministers have an adequate salary? Yet consistently today, pastors are often in the lower income bracket, and some are scarcely getting by.
One of the problems, particularly in smaller churches, is that many individuals in leadership have little or no experience in management. They are usually on the receiving end themselves; therefore, they cannot understand why pastors need automobile and housing allowances, a retirement program, and medical and dental insurance. Yet most employees today receive all of these benefits, plus automatic raises and cost of living increases (often under union pressure), but not the pastor.
In addition, there is no monetary incentive program for ministers, as there is for others in managerial positions or for salespeople. One pastor remarked, “The less I do, the more I make!” meaning that the fewer miles he drives on visitation calls and the fewer times he takes a salvation or membership prospect out to lunch, the more money he has for himself and his family. This is unfortunate, but so often true. I assure you, your pastor will be free to do a better job if he is cared for financially. Your church will prosper, and your pastor will be thankful. You owe it to him.
Submission
In these days when liberty and freedom are distorted concepts, it is imperative that we get back to the Bible, which flatly states, “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive” (Hebrews 13:17). It is abundantly clear that in the formative days of the church, there were two primary divisions among God’s people: namely, those who led and those who were led. These same classifications are binding upon Christians throughout this age.
We recognize that all believers are “priests unto God” (Revelation 1:6, KJV) and that all share the same standing and privileges before the Lord. Yet a chain of command has been divinely established for the local church. It is absolutely essential for the proper functioning and well-being of the body. Therefore, believers must be loyal and must show respect for the men who have received their pastoral calling from Christ Himself (see Ephesians 4:11-12). To ignore or rebel against the concept of pastoral leadership is to despise the One Who appointed them.
The obedience demanded in Hebrews 13:17 refers first to the pastor’s teaching ministry. Kenneth Wuest translated this command as “yield yourself trustingly to their teaching.” To submit to a pastor’s faithful exposition and application of the Word is to obey God. However, the words “obey” and “submit” are not restricted in application to his preaching alone. God expects believers to respond to the pastor’s shepherding of the flock as well. Christians are to respect and respond to the wise leadership of their ministers as they would to the Lord Himself. Jesus said, “He who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me” (John 13:20). The apostle Paul exhorted the Corinthian believers to “imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1).
However, a word of caution is necessary. A believer is under no obligation to obey the pastor’s teaching if it is obviously at variance with the Bible. Nor is a believer required to submit to any decision or counsel that clearly dishonors the Lord or disobedient to His Word. Every pastor should therefore encourage his people to “test all things” and to “hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Paul commended the Berean believers for doing those very things with his teaching (Acts 17:11).
But for a person to withhold this Biblical allegiance to God’s man and to speak contemptuously against the pastor’s position of leadership is to despise a divine institution, because the appointment of a pastor is as much God’s doing as the appointment of the church itself. Instead, prompted by love, believers are to submit with the goal of honoring those to whom honor is due (Romans 13:7).
Pastors have a sobering, serious position under God. According to Hebrews 13:17, they are to “watch out for [believers’] souls.” This should be motive enough for any spiritually minded Christian to gladly respond to the Lord’s appointed leaders. According to 1 Thessalonians 5:12 and 13, believers are to “recognize those who labor among [them], and are over [them] in the Lord and who admonish [them], and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake.”
A second motive for believers’ correct response to leadership is that they will give an account to the Lord. At the Judgment Seat of Christ, pastors, or “God’s stewards” (Titus 1:7), will give a personal accounting of their ministry of teaching and leading (2 Corinthians 5:10). Diligent Christians can immensely help their ministers by cheerfully cooperating with them as they endeavor to follow “the Chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4).
Finally, Christians ought to gladly respond to godly leadership, because pastors will want to report “with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you” (Hebrews 13:17). God is highly displeased with insubordinate Christians; and they, too, will appear at the Judgment Seat of Christ, to “receive the things done in the body, according to what [they have] done, whether good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5:10). A godly, submissive spirit now will bring great reward in the future.
If your pastor is a God-called leader and is diligent in his work for the Lord, you owe him your constant prayers, your continued support, and your Christlike submission. To do less is to disobey God.
(Coming soon: What Pastors Owe Their Churches)
Roy E. Knuteson (PhD, California Graduate School of Theology) is a retired pastor who attends Calvary Baptist Church, Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin.
A great article with a couple of observations
Re:
About “automatic raises” …. GONE GONE GONE in the secular world (if you’ve been following the economic news). Not to say that a Pastor should not be adequately compensated!
Re 1 Tim 5:17-18, “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor”
Yup! Don’t bury the Pastor’s salary in the budget (like some general category called “Salaries and Administration”. If I’m accountable for my Pastor’s remuneration I need to know what it is. A church member can hardly be accountable for this command unless it is public to the membership.
Re:
One of the problems, particularly in smaller churches, is that many individuals in leadership have little or no experience in management. They are usually on the receiving end themselves; therefore, they cannot understand why pastors need automobile and housing allowances, a retirement program, and medical and dental insurance. Yet most employees today receive all of these benefits, plus automatic raises and cost of living increases (often under union pressure), but not the pastor.Frankly, (speaking of no church in particular), I’ve found that many Pastors have “little or no experience in management”. The housewife that pays the bills and balances the household budget often has more financial experience than some pastors.
About “automatic raises” …. GONE GONE GONE in the secular world (if you’ve been following the economic news). Not to say that a Pastor should not be adequately compensated!
Re 1 Tim 5:17-18, “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor”
Yup! Don’t bury the Pastor’s salary in the budget (like some general category called “Salaries and Administration”. If I’m accountable for my Pastor’s remuneration I need to know what it is. A church member can hardly be accountable for this command unless it is public to the membership.
Churches (particularly of the larger kind) need to leverage newer technologies such as:
- End stuffing envelopes for missionary prayer letters and putting a stamp on ‘em: Use [URL=http://www.mailchimp.com/ Mailchimp] or [URL=http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp] Constant Contact] instead. If my 90 year old mother can use email anyone in your church can too!
- Secretaries - don’t need them. I can think of countless examples in my company where there might be one administrative assistant shared among 60-70 employees. My own wife manages a team of more than 50 employees with a budget more than a million and has no secretary.
- Technology and servers: I don’t think any church needs a server or a server administrator. Use Google mail (can be branded to your own domain name) let “the cloud” manage your data
- Use financial tools like QuickBooks Pro - online. Do we really need Financial executives for churches?
- Have complex ministries like a day school: Use web based educational software.
- Print much less or none at all. I doubt copiers can be eliminated but the use of can be greatly reduced. I work in a fairly complex environment. I don’t even use a copier! Print to PDF. Publish on the web with a service like [URL=http://www.scribd.com/ Scribd] (there are others). Bulletins? I really doubt we need them. Display a slide or two in the lead up to the worship service. Communicate news via a blog or email marketing.
I can think of many smaller or newer churches that are doing these kind of thinks: Janz, Doug Roman, Greg Linscott, etc.
Make the back office efficient so that members have a sense that monies are being used wisely by the church
Pastors need to realize that not every church opportunity will be a fully paid opportunity. There is a church in out state MN that was running 25 …. now down to 13. Has no Pastor.
Note to the guy with 5 kids - this church will not be able to pay you a full time salary. If you are “called” there better have another plan to make ends meet
Note to the church mentioned: You may need to settle for a retired Pastor who is on SS. Or a bi-vocational guy.
Note to the starry-eyed idealist kid in Bible college who is called to the ministry. Many many Pastors are unpaid. One can lament it or bemoan it but it is a fact of life. Some are underpaid because the church just does not have the capacity to pay a guy a full time salary. Others because of carnality or other issues in the church. It may be that the church you are called to undertook a glorious building project funded with debt. That Pastor has passed that debt along to you! That debt will take precedence over your salary.
Note to the guy with 5 kids - this church will not be able to pay you a full time salary. If you are “called” there better have another plan to make ends meet
Note to the church mentioned: You may need to settle for a retired Pastor who is on SS. Or a bi-vocational guy.
Note to the starry-eyed idealist kid in Bible college who is called to the ministry. Many many Pastors are unpaid. One can lament it or bemoan it but it is a fact of life. Some are underpaid because the church just does not have the capacity to pay a guy a full time salary. Others because of carnality or other issues in the church. It may be that the church you are called to undertook a glorious building project funded with debt. That Pastor has passed that debt along to you! That debt will take precedence over your salary.
Hey Jim—
Why not write an SI article about good business principles for churches to use in order to survive the depressed economy? You had a ton of interesting things to say in your triple posts. A few thoughts…
About secretaries: While businesses may have trimmed these positions (and while they certainly avoid the antiquated label!), they still operate under a hierarchy of administrative tasks coordinated with salary level. Good companies still preserve the idea of entry level job positions for entry level tasks. How can churches and ministries adopt this idea?
About Jim’s note to the guy with 5 kids: I’ll take a double helping. My own view is that ministry compensation committees (and mission boards) essentially misunderstand the dynamics of a large family—regularly citing family size as a concern, but never quite embracing how large families look at the world in a fundamentally different way. Having made significant and deliberate choices in order to accommodate their larger family, they can (and do) live on the same salary as the guy with three kids. Their family budgets look quite a bit different than “normal” families—and most compensation committees can’t even begin to wrap their minds around the lifestyle differences. I think it is better to leave “family size” out of the formula when trying to come up with a fair salary amount.
Why not write an SI article about good business principles for churches to use in order to survive the depressed economy? You had a ton of interesting things to say in your triple posts. A few thoughts…
About secretaries: While businesses may have trimmed these positions (and while they certainly avoid the antiquated label!), they still operate under a hierarchy of administrative tasks coordinated with salary level. Good companies still preserve the idea of entry level job positions for entry level tasks. How can churches and ministries adopt this idea?
About Jim’s note to the guy with 5 kids: I’ll take a double helping. My own view is that ministry compensation committees (and mission boards) essentially misunderstand the dynamics of a large family—regularly citing family size as a concern, but never quite embracing how large families look at the world in a fundamentally different way. Having made significant and deliberate choices in order to accommodate their larger family, they can (and do) live on the same salary as the guy with three kids. Their family budgets look quite a bit different than “normal” families—and most compensation committees can’t even begin to wrap their minds around the lifestyle differences. I think it is better to leave “family size” out of the formula when trying to come up with a fair salary amount.
http://www.ecfa.org/Content/ECFABestPractices.aspx
Select “ECFA Best Practices - customized for churches”
A church member should be provided:
As a aside, we recently gave funds for Haiti Relief. We picked Baptist Haiti Mission because
[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generally_Accepted_Accounting_Principles] Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ] should be followed
Select “ECFA Best Practices - customized for churches”
A church member should be provided:
- Timing: Quarterly
- What:
- Income and expense statement
- Balance sheet
As a aside, we recently gave funds for Haiti Relief. We picked Baptist Haiti Mission because
- We purposed to give to a Baptist organization
- Their doctrinal statement was posted and is very close to our own
- They purposed to be financially transparent. On their website: http://www.bhm.org
- Also their 990 was open to public inspection at [URL=http://www.guidestar.com] Guidestar]
[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generally_Accepted_Accounting_Principles] Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ] should be followed
The functions of receipt of funds and spending of funds should be completely separate. In some churches the Financial Secretary is responsible for receipts and the Treasurer spending.
Every church should have an independent audit committee that reviews the books annually.
Advice to Pastors: Don’t handle church funds.
Expenses: There should be a clear expense policy and Pastors should follow this with timely (like 7 days after the close of the month) expense reporting (for reimbursable expenses)
Every church should have an independent audit committee that reviews the books annually.
Advice to Pastors: Don’t handle church funds.
Expenses: There should be a clear expense policy and Pastors should follow this with timely (like 7 days after the close of the month) expense reporting (for reimbursable expenses)
Don’t bury the Pastor’s salary in the budget (like some general category called “Salaries and Administration”. If I’m accountable for my Pastor’s remuneration I need to know what it is. A church member can hardly be accountable for this command unless it is public to the membership.I don’t agree with this. The church no more needs to know what the Pastor(s) makes than the Pastor(s) need to know what the attenders make. The elders and financial deacon(s) hold the purse strings and should evaluate the compensation, ensure adequacy/sufficiency, as well as accountability for the pastor(s) level of work. (seems like there was a monstrous thread on this topic the last time this article or type of article was published.)
As to new technologies…utilize them. BTW, there are very few “secretaries” anymore. We utilize an Office Manager/Executive Assistant model. This person splits time between basic office/communication duties for the church at large, and keeping the Teaching and Executive Pastors schedules together.
I semi-agree with the Quickbooks/No Need for a financial executive comment. However, this article and that response appear to focus on small churches with a “senior” pastor. I totally agree with most of these thoughts for smaller assemblies and individual pastors. There are a few more factors for larger churches with more pastoral and support staff. As our church has grown, I have begun to sense the need to have a person on staff, who among their duties, will handle the financials. It has outgrown a small time commitment and should not take away from my regular duties as XP. I think the threshold for this is roughly at $1M in annual budget. This would be laid across the complexity of ministries and size of staff, and such, but somebody on staff to look after capital resources would be recommended. I will still have a dashboard for macro level metrics, but financials shouldn’t hog a pastor’s time.
Overall, as a pastor, I agree with the article. On the flip side, I think pastors and church staff should perform at a very high level in exchange for compensation and the general benefits (meals, flexible schedules, direct/indirect gifts) that often accompany full-time Christian service. We expect our ministry staff to maintain a 50 hour work on paper with that often fluctuating up. We make this fact known to the body b/c we want them to know that while we invest heavily in staff salaries, there is an expectation of excellence and large amounts of work coming out of the staff. In this way, the body and the staff work together biblically. The leaders equip the body spiritually, the staff provides an efficient organization in which the church body can minister/serve and the body supports itself/leaders/staff through service and giving. (highly simplified, i know.)
a few notes on the financial stuff… don’t do technology if you are not going to do it semi-professional. A hokey “free” website is worse than no website at all. That is not to say that professional means hiring someone. Anyone with hard work and a little tech knowledge can learn how to utilize wordpress and other inexpensive programs to put out sharp webs (someone qualified ought to do an article on the do’s and don’ts of church websites). Just a comment, does anyone still use the yellowpages for advertising, dropping that like a hot rock was the best thing we have done. The only calls we got were individuals going down the list of churches and calling in order to get a handout.
A change of direction from the comment stream.
My experience becoming senior pastor of a small church was the opposite as the article spoke of. My first year was my roughest (the honeymoon lasted about 2 months) things have been progressively getting better, but one of the areas I still struggle with is balancing out leadership. I struggle with dear members who want me to dictate as leader, but I am opposed and refuse their advances to make decisions I think ought not to be made. For instance, some might want me to set a dress code for choir members or special music people. I care about how people are dressed but I will not legislate external dress codes for the church. It is a struggle at times, because those individuals look at that as me being a weak leader. Some want me to change translations while others would be fundamentally opposed to any kind of translation change and would no doubt leave the church (I am talking about good people, not trouble-makers). Both probably tend to look at my inaction on both sides as weakness, but really my inaction is based in conviction. It would actually be easier for me to be dictatorial and tell people what we are going to do with these secondary issues, but I fight my fleshly desire to revert to controlling and instead am convinced that I will give principles and let the Holy Spirit lead people. I guess what I am having a hard time saying is that I struggle over how much leadership is too much and how much is too little. I want the lead God’s people, but I want God’s people to be led of God. Any thoughts or discussion on this?
A change of direction from the comment stream.
My experience becoming senior pastor of a small church was the opposite as the article spoke of. My first year was my roughest (the honeymoon lasted about 2 months) things have been progressively getting better, but one of the areas I still struggle with is balancing out leadership. I struggle with dear members who want me to dictate as leader, but I am opposed and refuse their advances to make decisions I think ought not to be made. For instance, some might want me to set a dress code for choir members or special music people. I care about how people are dressed but I will not legislate external dress codes for the church. It is a struggle at times, because those individuals look at that as me being a weak leader. Some want me to change translations while others would be fundamentally opposed to any kind of translation change and would no doubt leave the church (I am talking about good people, not trouble-makers). Both probably tend to look at my inaction on both sides as weakness, but really my inaction is based in conviction. It would actually be easier for me to be dictatorial and tell people what we are going to do with these secondary issues, but I fight my fleshly desire to revert to controlling and instead am convinced that I will give principles and let the Holy Spirit lead people. I guess what I am having a hard time saying is that I struggle over how much leadership is too much and how much is too little. I want the lead God’s people, but I want God’s people to be led of God. Any thoughts or discussion on this?
http://coldfusion-guy.blogspot.com/2010/03/absolutes-convictions-opinio…
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-CZtVxNFsac/S6EzCmRPQFI/AAAAAAAACoc/itilGfLqu…
the image is from the article in the ESV study Bible.
Many fundamentalists have made convictions and opinions = absolutes. And some have no questions.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-CZtVxNFsac/S6EzCmRPQFI/AAAAAAAACoc/itilGfLqu…
the image is from the article in the ESV study Bible.
Many fundamentalists have made convictions and opinions = absolutes. And some have no questions.
[dmicah]Well, I disagree with your disagreement. The difference in the pastor not knowing what the attendees make is that he is not paying their salaries. Anyone who pays mine, or works in a position for my company where they work with payroll, etc., will know my salary. So does my manager. That’s the way it is. And do you think stockholders have no idea how much the CEO is being paid in salary and bonuses? They can find out, even if they have to dig for it.Don’t bury the Pastor’s salary in the budget (like some general category called “Salaries and Administration”. If I’m accountable for my Pastor’s remuneration I need to know what it is. A church member can hardly be accountable for this command unless it is public to the membership.I don’t agree with this. The church no more needs to know what the Pastor(s) makes than the Pastor(s) need to know what the attenders make. The elders and financial deacon(s) hold the purse strings and should evaluate the compensation, ensure adequacy/sufficiency, as well as accountability for the pastor(s) level of work.
Members are expected to give to ensure the pastor has a good working wage — i.e., they are paying his salary. Hiding that information from the members is a good way to either generate resentment or contribute to a spirit of things being hidden. Making all church financial figures open to all members lets them know where all church finances are going. That allows the members to understand the church finances and to exercise good stewardship, even if their ability to do anything about it is limited to things brought up at the business meetings. Even financial items that were recommended by the deacons or missions committee, etc., are brought up at a church business meeting for the members to approve. The NT says much about “the church” agreeing on things. Well, I can’t agree to something like “The deacons and financial officers have decided on a new salary for the pastor. We’d like a motion for approval,” when I know nothing about what is going on, or whether it’s even a raise or a reduction, etc.
On the flip side, if the pastor is not being paid enough, the numbers can shame people into realizing this, enough that they will do something about it.
Dave Barnhart
[Matthew J] I guess what I am having a hard time saying is that I struggle over how much leadership is too much and how much is too little. I want the lead God’s people, but I want God’s people to be led of God. Any thoughts or discussion on this?Well, I’m no pastor, but I’ve seen what has been done in churches when this kind of thing has come up (and I’m sure you’ve already thought of this) — a message or series of messages is preached on why things are done the way they are, etc. This can be a good use of topical messages, especially for a new pastor.
If you are against setting a dress standard for church functions, but people think you are “weak” for not giving to their demands, once you preach about it, they will understand your position, even if they disagree. And if it turns out that from your study of scripture, you find that it’s you that need to change your position, well then, that’s a good result as well.
When people are dealing with a new pastor who thinks differently from the way they do, and differently from the way their previous pastor did, it helps a lot for them to understand *why* the differences are there. You won’t get full agreement, but the members won’t be able to claim they don’t understand your position. If the members are truly interested in what the scripture says, and in being all Christ wants them and the church to be, then going back to the scriptures on some of these issues that come up is (IMO) the best way to handle it without coming off as a dictator or weak.
Dave Barnhart
[KevinM] Hey Jim—This is so true. The previous pastor of one church we served in had two kids and we had eight, but we virtually had the same salaries (ours was a couple hundred a month more). He worked a part-time job because the pay wasn’t enough, but we lived on the church’s salary package. Those with fewer kids can’t figure it out, but in all reality, sometimes we can’t figure it out! God just takes such good care of us. One church turned us down because they couldn’t get past our family size, yet their parsonage and salary package were considered more than adequate from our viewpoint.
About Jim’s note to the guy with 5 kids: I’ll take a double helping. My own view is that ministry compensation committees (and mission boards) essentially misunderstand the dynamics of a large family—regularly citing family size as a concern, but never quite embracing how large families look at the world in a fundamentally different way. Having made significant and deliberate choices in order to accommodate their larger family, they can (and do) live on the same salary as the guy with three kids. Their family budgets look quite a bit different than “normal” families—and most compensation committees can’t even begin to wrap their minds around the lifestyle differences. I think it is better to leave “family size” out of the formula when trying to come up with a fair salary amount.
If you look at my earlier post the context was a literal church in Minnesota.
http://sharperiron.org/article/what-christians-owe-their-pastors#commen…
That church’s proposed salary package is $ 1000 per month
I am not against Pastors with large families (my wife is the youngest of five). I don’t even consider 5 kids (a family of 7) particularly large
I was trying to make a point and perhaps I failed that “Not every church opportunity will be a fully paid opportunity “
http://sharperiron.org/article/what-christians-owe-their-pastors#commen…
That church’s proposed salary package is $ 1000 per month
I am not against Pastors with large families (my wife is the youngest of five). I don’t even consider 5 kids (a family of 7) particularly large
I was trying to make a point and perhaps I failed that “Not every church opportunity will be a fully paid opportunity “
To me the decisive factor there is how the church believes it ought to be governed. If it is strong on congregational rule, then the congregation must know what the salaries are. If it believes in a much stronger board of elders or similar forms of modified congregationalism, it is probably enough to leave that detail to the elders.
Not personally going to debate which of these models (if either) is “correct,” but pretty much congregations decide what they believe about these things.
Of course, the old Pastor=Czar model also requires no salary disclosure.
(Personally, I do not want to answer at the judgment for executing the responsibilities of a Czar. So I’m glad to be far, far below Czar status… and also happy to have my salary open to the congregation in the bargain)
Not personally going to debate which of these models (if either) is “correct,” but pretty much congregations decide what they believe about these things.
Of course, the old Pastor=Czar model also requires no salary disclosure.
(Personally, I do not want to answer at the judgment for executing the responsibilities of a Czar. So I’m glad to be far, far below Czar status… and also happy to have my salary open to the congregation in the bargain)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The church no more needs to know what the Pastor(s) makes than the Pastor(s) need to know what the attenders make. The elders and financial deacon(s) hold the purse strings and should evaluate the compensation, ensure adequacy/sufficiency, as well as accountability for the pastor(s) level of work.I used to think this way and then I encountered a situation where the elders were so intimidated by the pastor that they let “trusted” him to set his own pay. No one except the pastor and treasurer knew the pastor’s benefits and the treasurer, who was not an elder, assumed that the the elders had approved the checks that were being written. (Have you heard of private inurement?) The “our business and no one else’s” mindset was also the rationale that caused them to reject any attempt at having the books audited internally or independently.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Aaron Blumer] To me the decisive factor there is how the church believes it ought to be governed. If it is strong on congregational rule, then the congregation must know what the salaries are. If it believes in a much stronger board of elders or similar forms of modified congregationalism, it is probably enough to leave that detail to the elders.Aaron, that’s a solid point, and probably where dcbii and I disagree. I don’t think comparing a church to a publicly traded company is a direct analogy. The church is not a company nor are attenders shareholders. The collective church pays the bills, not any individual. Therefore the individual does not necessarily need to know the financial details. In fact, at our church we do not provide exhaustive details for any area of our budget. We break it into large tracts of ministry funding. There is no vote. But again, this difference is related to Aaron’s point. The church body must collectively trust its leaders to ensure accountability and reasonable compensation for its pastors. I don’t think it’s a huge thing to disagree over. To each church its own…
Not personally going to debate which of these models (if either) is “correct,” but pretty much congregations decide what they believe about these things.
[Jim Peet] Bulletins? I really doubt we need them. Display a slide or two in the lead up to the worship service. Communicate news via a blog or email marketing.Thanks Jim,
I could not resist adding to your comment on church bulletins/PowerPoint.
Regarding the latter, some are still “fighting the battle.” One pastor told me: “This is a fundamental church - we don’t use PowerPoint here on Sunday morning!”
Regarding bulletins, as I get out in churches, I see everything from programs comparable to something you would get at an NFL game to the poorest excuse for a paper airplane you have ever seen!
I learned a life-long lesson on church bulletins from the master-head usher who trained me as a teenager in the Lutheran church. One Sunday he pointed to a small block which had been left blank on the back of the church bulletins we were distributing and simply said, “That blank spot is a great way to preach the gospel.” ;)
(As an aside, I will make a deal with you: We can eliminate church bulletins and go all electronic if we also agree to eliminate “announcements.” I would really love to meet the first guy who got up one Sunday morning and decided, “You know what, I’m going to get up in front of that church and read the bulletin today!!” :Sp |( :tired: )
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Jim Peet] Churches (particularly of the larger kind) need to leverage newer technologies such as:I hope that our secretaries, network administrator, and business manager do not read this, because this is a direct indication of your opinion of their jobs.
- End stuffing envelopes for missionary prayer letters and putting a stamp on ‘em: Use [URL=http://www.mailchimp.com/ Mailchimp] or [URL=http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp] Constant Contact] instead. If my 90 year old mother can use email anyone in your church can too!
- Secretaries - don’t need them. I can think of countless examples in my company where there might be one administrative assistant shared among 60-70 employees. My own wife manages a team of more than 50 employees with a budget more than a million and has no secretary.
- Technology and servers: I don’t think any church needs a server or a server administrator. Use Google mail (can be branded to your own domain name) let “the cloud” manage your data
- Use financial tools like QuickBooks Pro - online. Do we really need Financial executives for churches?
- Have complex ministries like a day school: Use web based educational software.
- Print much less or none at all. I doubt copiers can be eliminated but the use of can be greatly reduced. I work in a fairly complex environment. I don’t even use a copier! Print to PDF. Publish on the web with a service like [URL=http://www.scribd.com/ Scribd] (there are others). Bulletins? I really doubt we need them. Display a slide or two in the lead up to the worship service. Communicate news via a blog or email marketing.
I can think of many smaller or newer churches that are doing these kind of thinks: Janz, Doug Roman, Greg Linscott, etc.
Make the back office efficient so that members have a sense that monies are being used wisely by the church
People do not read the slides…bulletins are printed reminders that people can refer to when they cannot remember what they saw on the slide.
Email - there are some people who do not own a computer and do not have an understanding of email. What are they supposed to do if they have made the choice not to own a computer or use email? Do we penalize them?
Just because your mom knows email and your wife does not have a secretary, does not mean the rest of the world should operate in your paradigm..
I thought that we left the cookie cutter mold behind (do as I do and do as I say)… so it does not matter what others are doing, as long as we are doing what is best for our ministry..
tlange… it’s OK. It’s just Jim’s opinion, among many differing ones.
Personally, I’d love to have a secretary, but that’s not likely to ever happen.
As for “a few slides” instead of a bulletin, a couple of drawbacks…
1- You have to have a good video projection system installed. Ours is still on a cart you roll out when you want to use it.
2- You can’t take it home and stick it on the fridge to remind you of what’s going on
3- Everybody has to be there in time to read the few slides, so you really have the same problem you would if you read announcements at the beginning of the service, only it’s done silently.
To Paul Scharf about announcements: at our church, they serve a few important functions
1 - getting word to the ones who just refuse to read a bulletin (every church has ‘em)
2 - announcing stuff that we forgot to put in the bulletin
3- telling folks, hey, read the bulletin
4- to use up time so the service doesn’t end too early and I don’t have to preach so long (kidding)
Personally, I’d love to have a secretary, but that’s not likely to ever happen.
As for “a few slides” instead of a bulletin, a couple of drawbacks…
1- You have to have a good video projection system installed. Ours is still on a cart you roll out when you want to use it.
2- You can’t take it home and stick it on the fridge to remind you of what’s going on
3- Everybody has to be there in time to read the few slides, so you really have the same problem you would if you read announcements at the beginning of the service, only it’s done silently.
To Paul Scharf about announcements: at our church, they serve a few important functions
1 - getting word to the ones who just refuse to read a bulletin (every church has ‘em)
2 - announcing stuff that we forgot to put in the bulletin
3- telling folks, hey, read the bulletin
4- to use up time so the service doesn’t end too early and I don’t have to preach so long (kidding)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Paul J. Scharf][Jim Peet] Bulletins? I really doubt we need them. Display a slide or two in the lead up to the worship service. Communicate news via a blog or email marketing.We have elderly that do not have Internet. We have college kids/singles who mostly ignore email (Twitter, maybe Facebook; mostly texting).
The bulletin is the ONE consistent means of communicating info to everyone who attends.
Our video system is still on a cart and used for special services. Small churches without the manpower and/or financial means to support full-time video systems and video announcements on Sundays rely on bulletins still. To do email, texting, Twittering, and then still set up a nice video announcement sequence for Sunday takes FAR MORE WORK for the pastor doing everything than simply putting together a bulletin and running off 30 to 40 copies (remember, small church).
At least they can be done well today. I look at ours from the early 90s and can’t believe the difference computers have made over the ole’ typewriter!
Finally, the order of service is followed and appreciated by our congregation. Folks know where we are in the service, the pages of hymns, text to hymns that are not in our hymnal (yes, we print choruses and hymn texts in the bulletin on occasion), etc.
I tried doing announcements on our web-site, but nobody read them.
I have no problem with a WELL-DONE and informative church bulletin. In fact, that is one tradition which I would probably be sad to see go away.
One little tidbit about bulletins: always make sure to print more than enough and distribute them liberally. I know one situation where the pastor always printed just a few LESS than needed and asked the ushers to give them out sparingly. REALLY bad idea.
As a pastor I always tried to give any leftover bulletins away during the week — to people who did not attend on Sunday, or even people in the community. (The former is very easy if you have a church mailbox system.)
Announcements are a different story altogether. I see nowhere where announcements fit in a “worship service,” anymore than they would be appropriate in a wedding or a funeral, especially if we want to talk about the regulative principle. If something just HAS to be announced, place it at the very beginning or the very end (when people can do something about it anyway) — PLEASE! :D
Ironically, many larger churches have done away with announcements, as some of them could take the entire service just on announcements if they tried. On the other hand, I have been in small churches where someone literally read the bulletin line-by-line or spent a healthy five minutes inviting people back to the evening service.
‘JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU FEEL INVITED BACK!!’ :Sp
One little tidbit about bulletins: always make sure to print more than enough and distribute them liberally. I know one situation where the pastor always printed just a few LESS than needed and asked the ushers to give them out sparingly. REALLY bad idea.
As a pastor I always tried to give any leftover bulletins away during the week — to people who did not attend on Sunday, or even people in the community. (The former is very easy if you have a church mailbox system.)
Announcements are a different story altogether. I see nowhere where announcements fit in a “worship service,” anymore than they would be appropriate in a wedding or a funeral, especially if we want to talk about the regulative principle. If something just HAS to be announced, place it at the very beginning or the very end (when people can do something about it anyway) — PLEASE! :D
Ironically, many larger churches have done away with announcements, as some of them could take the entire service just on announcements if they tried. On the other hand, I have been in small churches where someone literally read the bulletin line-by-line or spent a healthy five minutes inviting people back to the evening service.
‘JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU FEEL INVITED BACK!!’ :Sp
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Growing up in the Lutheran church, the pastor I had when I was a small boy used to put a word-for-word transcript of his sermon inside the bulletin. (As I remember it, only members got these “special editions” of the bulletin, as they were placed in each member’s church mailbox in advance of the morning services.)
That was a practice I never thought I would see again…until I served as a pastoral assistant in a larger, suburban Baptist church about 30 years later where the pastor did the same thing!
Dr. David Brown puts a sort of abbreviated transcript of his Sunday morning sermon in the bulletin faithfully each week, and many people follow along as he speaks.
(http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakerOnly=true&currSection=serm….^David^L.^Brown)
That was a practice I never thought I would see again…until I served as a pastoral assistant in a larger, suburban Baptist church about 30 years later where the pastor did the same thing!
Dr. David Brown puts a sort of abbreviated transcript of his Sunday morning sermon in the bulletin faithfully each week, and many people follow along as he speaks.
(http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakerOnly=true&currSection=serm….^David^L.^Brown)
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
I pastor a small church and this is how I handle to anouncements. We do use bullitens still and I give the anouncenments on Sunday Morning BEFORE the worship service starts. Our power point is hard wired in. That is actually pretty easy and economical for small churches to do. But I don’t use it for anouncements. I usually use it for my sermons (both Sunday morning and Evening). I would like to get to the point where I use the media in the following ways: While I would still print bulletins put the anouncements on PP and get rid of the anouncements during the Worship Service, put the words up on the screen for instrumentals (offertories), putting the Words up for choruses and even hymns on occassion, and continue with my sermon outlines.
I didn’t agree with everything Jim said, but he did make some good points. Sometimes we pastors are in a bubble, particularrly those who don’t do any secular work. At times, we are not sensative to real world applications.
I didn’t agree with everything Jim said, but he did make some good points. Sometimes we pastors are in a bubble, particularrly those who don’t do any secular work. At times, we are not sensative to real world applications.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
To Aaron’s list of projector drawbacks, add 4 - not everyone can read the screen.
Having better-than-average vision, it took me a while to grasp this, even after hearing from persons with the problem. How can they [U] not[/U] read the screen, I wondered. Do they need new glasses? Corrective lenses do not always restore vision to 20/20, especially for distance, and in our current economic conditions, an increasing number of persons are facing tough choices about purchasing new glasses with up-to-date correction.
Having better-than-average vision, it took me a while to grasp this, even after hearing from persons with the problem. How can they [U] not[/U] read the screen, I wondered. Do they need new glasses? Corrective lenses do not always restore vision to 20/20, especially for distance, and in our current economic conditions, an increasing number of persons are facing tough choices about purchasing new glasses with up-to-date correction.
As the quantity of communication increases, so does its quality decline; and the most important sign of this is that it is no longer acceptable to say so.--RScruton
[Brent Marshall] To Aaron’s list of projector drawbacks, add 4 - not everyone can read the screen.I’d suggest using only sans serif fonts (e.g. not Times New Roman) and no less than 18 on the size. Also, light text against dark(er) backgrounds—that combination is easier on the eyes. High contrast is easy to read.
Having better-than-average vision, it took me a while to grasp this, even after hearing from persons with the problem. How can they [U] not[/U] read the screen, I wondered. Do they need new glasses? Corrective lenses do not always restore vision to 20/20, especially for distance, and in our current economic conditions, an increasing number of persons are facing tough choices about purchasing new glasses with up-to-date correction.
Father of three, husband of one, servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. I blog at mattolmstead.com.
Announcements are a different story altogether. I see nowhere where announcements fit in a “worship service,” anymore than they would be appropriate in a wedding or a funeral, especially if we want to talk about the regulative principle. If something just HAS to be announced, place it at the very beginning or the very end (when people can do something about it anyway) -I do think it’s best to put them at the beginning… but if we believe in the regulative principle in that sense, why do we take up an offering? (cf. “that there be no gatherings when I come”)
Our worship service doesn’t actually “begin” until after the announcements. I even say “a few announcements before we begin worship” pretty often.
But Sunday PM they are often in the middle of the service with the offering. I don’t really see how it’s a problem in a less formal service. It isn’t interrupting anything. But a “break” in a service can be helpful to folks sometimes, even if it is an “interruption,” because physically we’re better able to focus sometimes if there is a change of pace.
This thread’s really wandered all over the topic map though, hasn’t it!
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron,
I agree.
I agree.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
Jim Peet’s kind words aside…
- We still print a bulletin.
- We rarely use powerpoint.
- We paper copy missionary letters and emails and place one in every church family’s church mailbox.
- We have 17 secretaries.
- I’m kidding on the last one.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
I have a secretary - his name is Jay. ;)
Seriously, we open our service with announcements [something I’d like to change eventually] , and they’re also listed in the bulletin for our late-comers.
Seriously, we open our service with announcements [something I’d like to change eventually] , and they’re also listed in the bulletin for our late-comers.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Stepping back (or up) a few posts….
1Co 9:4-6 ESV Do we not have the right to eat and drink? (5) Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? (6) Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?
Plus, considering the analogy of the ox in this same passage as well as I Timothy 5:18, the ox was allowed to reach down and get what it needed to sustain itself. Does the pastor’s need for sustenance only extend to himself, to himself and his wife, to the whole family as long as it is not more than two children, or the entire family?
Based on this, I’ve always been hard-pressed to throw the family out of the equation. However, I’m not so sure I can necessarily be dogmatic over it either. I’d rather err on the side of including them in the formula. Thoughts??
Ricky
[KevinM]Should family size be left out of the formula? Paul seemed to include the family (at least the wife) in the equation:
About Jim’s note to the guy with 5 kids: I’ll take a double helping. My own view is that ministry compensation committees (and mission boards) essentially misunderstand the dynamics of a large family—regularly citing family size as a concern, but never quite embracing how large families look at the world in a fundamentally different way. Having made significant and deliberate choices in order to accommodate their larger family, they can (and do) live on the same salary as the guy with three kids. Their family budgets look quite a bit different than “normal” families—and most compensation committees can’t even begin to wrap their minds around the lifestyle differences. I think it is better to leave “family size” out of the formula when trying to come up with a fair salary amount.
1Co 9:4-6 ESV Do we not have the right to eat and drink? (5) Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? (6) Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?
Plus, considering the analogy of the ox in this same passage as well as I Timothy 5:18, the ox was allowed to reach down and get what it needed to sustain itself. Does the pastor’s need for sustenance only extend to himself, to himself and his wife, to the whole family as long as it is not more than two children, or the entire family?
Based on this, I’ve always been hard-pressed to throw the family out of the equation. However, I’m not so sure I can necessarily be dogmatic over it either. I’d rather err on the side of including them in the formula. Thoughts??
Ricky
I’m for including. Though Kevin M.’s observations are consistent with what I’ve seen—large families have different values and budget differently—it still helps to get a bit more to help with all the feeding, clothing, medicating and educating. But the danger is that a church w/a heavily family-size factored formula will not even look at a pastor w/a big family, thinking “We can’t afford to support them,” and that would be a mistake. So… factor it, but factor it flexibly?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Just a question for those who favor factoring the family size into a pastor’s salary package. Do you do the same thing for staff—say an assistant pastor…music director…etc.? How about Christian school teachers? Do you have one salary figure for a single teacher…another for a married female teacher…another for a married male teacher, depending on how many children he has? Then, of course, don’t you get into legal trouble because of gender discrimination?
Admittedly this question isn’t so complicated when we’re talking about a small church that employs only a pastor, but (hopefully) small churches grow & the mindset established in these areas can be very difficult to change. In my opinion, it’ s much better for a church to establish the best level of remuneration possible. If a pastor’s family grows to the point where that’s not enough income, he’ll need to supplement that income somehow…or perhaps see that as a factor in leading him to another place of service. If a pastoral candidate looks at the offered salary package and realizes it’s insufficient for his family, he needs to seriously consider that as he decides whether he should go to that church. In other words, I favor an objective approach to establishing salaries rather than the subjective one.
Admittedly this question isn’t so complicated when we’re talking about a small church that employs only a pastor, but (hopefully) small churches grow & the mindset established in these areas can be very difficult to change. In my opinion, it’ s much better for a church to establish the best level of remuneration possible. If a pastor’s family grows to the point where that’s not enough income, he’ll need to supplement that income somehow…or perhaps see that as a factor in leading him to another place of service. If a pastoral candidate looks at the offered salary package and realizes it’s insufficient for his family, he needs to seriously consider that as he decides whether he should go to that church. In other words, I favor an objective approach to establishing salaries rather than the subjective one.
I would definitely say, leave the kids out of it. 1 Cor. 9:4-6 is speaking of a wife, not kids, and the principle relates to paying the pastor for ministry and paying him a reaonsable wage, not devising a payment plan based on the number of children.
Otherwise you have people against pastors with no kids, people against pastors with one kid, people against pastors with too many kids, etc., etc.
As Bryan says, this could quickly get you into legal trouble, and smacks of the old days when male teachers were paid more than female teachers. Those ideas are not driven by the Bible or the market, but “old-west, small-town” thinking.
Also, this is another good reason for churches to get out of the real estate business and sell their parsonages. (“We can’t have a pastor with three kids, we only have two bedrooms…”)
Otherwise you have people against pastors with no kids, people against pastors with one kid, people against pastors with too many kids, etc., etc.
As Bryan says, this could quickly get you into legal trouble, and smacks of the old days when male teachers were paid more than female teachers. Those ideas are not driven by the Bible or the market, but “old-west, small-town” thinking.
Also, this is another good reason for churches to get out of the real estate business and sell their parsonages. (“We can’t have a pastor with three kids, we only have two bedrooms…”)
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[BryanBice] Just a question for those who favor factoring the family size into a pastor’s salary package. Do you do the same thing for staff—say an assistant pastor…music director…etc.? How about Christian school teachers? Do you have one salary figure for a single teacher…another for a married female teacher…another for a married male teacher, depending on how many children he has? Then, of course, don’t you get into legal trouble because of gender discrimination?Bryan, there is a difference between the pastor’s salary and the others you mentioned because Scripture specifically addresses the pastor’s compensation. The others are not addressed other than in general (laborer is worthy of his hire). And since at least the wife is mentioned by Paul, it is tough for me to completely just throw it out the window for the pastor even though my business sense is screaming at me!!!! Scripture is the final authority on all things and my opinion is that you just can’t toss this out since Paul indicates some consideration for family members. I just can’t think of any other reason why Paul would bring it up, though I’m open to suggestions.
Assuming the position is to be financially compensated and the person in question depends on the salary provided to make his livelihood, I don’t see why you would not consider other positions in similar fashion to how you would a “senior” pastor, especially in the sense of is the package enough for the person in question to support a family. If the church has the means to pay a pastor more than he requires for basic necessities, I don’t think a church is required to pay each individual compensated by the church in even fashion. A church should not begin a salaried position without some thought as to how the person filling it will be able to provide for his own with the funds he is supplied with by the church. I see it as part of counting the cost. Creating a paid position in the church with that person visible in the community is a matter of public testimony. If he is unable to provide his basic necessities (assuming he is making wise choices), that speaks poorly for the cause of Christ. That being said, I do think that there are things that people in vocational ministry must be willing to do in order to make things work- especially in smaller settings. Resourcefulness is something very important- whether it is the willingness to work secondary employment (as many of the men who pastor around me here do- some nearly full time, and others more supplementary like paper routes), doing things to reduce amount of income required to spend (say, gardening and freezing/canning), or do without things that many take for granted (shopping secondhand clothing stores, for example).
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Paul J. Scharf] I would definitely say, leave the kids out of it. 1 Cor. 9:4-6 is speaking of a wife, not kids, and the principle relates to paying the pastor for ministry and paying him a reaonsable wage, not devising a payment plan based on the number of children.You may be right, but that really doesn’t explain why he brought up a wife? In other words, isn’t he saying that because someone is married, they have additional expenses that should be covered? John Gill says that the phrase “Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife” is to “show the right that he and others had, of casting themselves entirely upon the churches for a maintenance.” Matthew Henry said, “The apostle therefore plainly asserts he had a right to marry as well as other apostles, and claim a maintenance for his wife, nay, and his children too, if he had any, from the churches, without labouring with his own hands to procure it.”
The more I study this the more I am convincing myself!
[Paul J. Scharf] Otherwise you have people against pastors with no kids, people against pastors with one kid, people against pastors with too many kids, etc., etc.Actually, you’ll have people complaining no matter what you pay him, or who you get. So I’m not sure that holds much bearing on this.
[Paul J. Scharf] As Bryan says, this could quickly get you into legal trouble, and smacks of the old days when male teachers were paid more than female teachers. Those ideas are not driven by the Bible or the market, but “old-west, small-town” thinking.Wow! Ok. Paul, I started out asking questions here but think I’m convincing myself because of what Scripture says. It seems like most are spouting opinion here as opposed to looking at Scripture. This is one line item in the church budget that is specifically addressed in Scripture. Paul seems to indicate that the family should be a consideration. So are you saying that it should not be a consideration simply because it goes against business principles (the first quote above), because of what people would say (the second quote above), or because you consider it “old-west, small town” thinking? I’d rather stick with your namesake that was an apostle! Seriously, I just don’t see that what you are saying fits with I Cor. 9:5.
Quite frankly, this is not something I have given lots of thought too, but I do not see your argument as being very strong Biblically. I must confess that I have an uneasy feeling in the pit of my stomach when I hear the concept of paying the pastor based on the number of kids he has — unless you have something stronger than I Cor. 9.
If you follow that line of reason logically, then the pastor’s family could keep having or adopting more children and the church would continue to owe him more money. That seems to be more in harmony with the welfare-state mentality than the Bible.
What about a couple with no kids but responsibility to four aging parents? What about someone with special health needs? What about someone other kinds of expenses, etc.?
I agree with Kevin — the “I’ll take a double helping”-approach is not the way life works. If a guy can find a church which meets his needs for a family of seven, more power to him.
But I agree with Jim’s original point in post #3 — if you think you are going to leave Bible college with a BA and find a church to support a family like that, I have some swampy land filled with shallow graves to sell you 8-)
If you follow that line of reason logically, then the pastor’s family could keep having or adopting more children and the church would continue to owe him more money. That seems to be more in harmony with the welfare-state mentality than the Bible.
What about a couple with no kids but responsibility to four aging parents? What about someone with special health needs? What about someone other kinds of expenses, etc.?
I agree with Kevin — the “I’ll take a double helping”-approach is not the way life works. If a guy can find a church which meets his needs for a family of seven, more power to him.
But I agree with Jim’s original point in post #3 — if you think you are going to leave Bible college with a BA and find a church to support a family like that, I have some swampy land filled with shallow graves to sell you 8-)
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[RickyHorton]Actually, Ricky, the Scripture doesn’t really specifically address the pastoral compensation question…gives some principles to follow, to be sure, but there aren’t many specifics to go on or these questions would be a whole lot easier to deal with! Nevertheless, what I was getting at is that a church needs to determine a pastoral salary package that they can reasonably afford, and the pastor needs either to accept & live with it or find another place to serve. It ought to be assumed that a pastor will be married, but that will not always make a difference in the salary pkg. Let’s take an example. Let’s say First Indy Fundy Baptist Church is looking for a pastor. It’s annual budget is $65,000, of which $35,000 is earmarked as pastor’s salary and benefit package, out of which the pastor must provide his own housing. Candidate A is married and his 2 children are grown and gone out of the home. Candidate B is married with 2 toddlers. Candidate C is married with 8 children. Candidate D is widowed with 2 teens and an elementary age child. Candidate E is married, in his late 30s, and has no children. Candidate F is unmarried, fresh out of seminary. In my opinion, the church should not be expected to raise the salary figure for Candidate C, nor should it lower the figure for Candidates A, E, or F. If the $35k figure is the best the church can do, then that figure should stand regardless of the various family dynamics of the potential candidates.[BryanBice] Just a question for those who favor factoring the family size into a pastor’s salary package. Do you do the same thing for staff—say an assistant pastor…music director…etc.? How about Christian school teachers? Do you have one salary figure for a single teacher…another for a married female teacher…another for a married male teacher, depending on how many children he has? Then, of course, don’t you get into legal trouble because of gender discrimination?Bryan, there is a difference between the pastor’s salary and the others you mentioned because Scripture specifically addresses the pastor’s compensation. The others are not addressed other than in general (laborer is worthy of his hire). And since at least the wife is mentioned by Paul, it is tough for me to completely just throw it out the window for the pastor even though my business sense is screaming at me!!!! Scripture is the final authority on all things and my opinion is that you just can’t toss this out since Paul indicates some consideration for family members. I just can’t think of any other reason why Paul would bring it up, though I’m open to suggestions.
I realize some churches are large and wealthy enough that they don’t have to ask “what’s the most we can afford to pay?” Instead, they look at other factors in the community, etc. to determine a reasonable salary for a “professional” in their area. I don’t think, though, that very many of our churches have that luxury.
I think what churches need to avoid like the plague is the practice I observed in a large fundy church. Staff were offered positions at the lowest salary at which they would agree to come. The pastor would start very low, saying “this is the salary for the job” or even more deceptively, “this is what we can afford to pay you.” [Usually, of course, he was hiring a husband/wife team—woe be to the guy who didn’t want his wife to work!! The salary was never adequate for a sole bread winner…except for the pastor, of course!]. If the prospect accepted, done deal…the church got a staff member cheap! But if the prospect balked, he could negotiate for a higher salary. The pastor would go as high as necessary to get the person (assuming he really, really wanted him). Needless to say, the church had a strict policy about staff not discussing their salary with anyone! And, of course, the salaries were all lumped together in a budget line item. The info does get out, though, and hard feelings, low staff morale, etc. are inevitable. My earlier point is that just as it’s wrong for said pastor to handle staff hiring this way, it’s wrong for churches to handle their pastor’s compensation this way. Objective, not subjective.
A church ought to determine what a professional with equivalent education and responsibility makes in its area of the country. If a church did that, there would be no argument over income because most godly frugal families could live WELL within THAT salary no matter how many kids they had.
One church I heard of averaged the salaries of all its members and then doubled it—that was the pastor’s salary (“double honor”). They said it worked out well, because of retired individuals, college students, etc. in the mix so the pastor’s salary wasn’t as high as one might think. They found that this made sure the pastor was more than compensated for and also noted that their godly leaders used the finances and freedom it brought to minister to greater degrees in the church—actually investing much back into the ministry.
Of course, many churches are small and simply can’t afford over a certain amount, so what Brian said makes sense. They ought to have a high priority, though, on raising the salary as the church grows. It might be wise to have an “ideal” figure in mind to work toward even if they are not there; our church can’t pay us fully, but they have a stated budget goal that they hope to reach, even if not this year.
One church I heard of averaged the salaries of all its members and then doubled it—that was the pastor’s salary (“double honor”). They said it worked out well, because of retired individuals, college students, etc. in the mix so the pastor’s salary wasn’t as high as one might think. They found that this made sure the pastor was more than compensated for and also noted that their godly leaders used the finances and freedom it brought to minister to greater degrees in the church—actually investing much back into the ministry.
Of course, many churches are small and simply can’t afford over a certain amount, so what Brian said makes sense. They ought to have a high priority, though, on raising the salary as the church grows. It might be wise to have an “ideal” figure in mind to work toward even if they are not there; our church can’t pay us fully, but they have a stated budget goal that they hope to reach, even if not this year.
I wonder how many pastors who are following this thread consider their compensation adequate. Does your church provide you with a sufficient salary, housing allowance (or parsonage) and medical benefits or do you (or your wife) have to supplement your income?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
That’s the thing that throws this. Medically insuring one family has been a significant investment (as opposed to group situations as most businesses have). It remains to be seen how recent events change that. I know of one pastor in my area who works for that reason, primarily- he could afford to live on what the church provided him otherwise.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
There are some fairly inexpensive alternatives out there for medical coverage such as Christian group expense-sharing and traditional high-deductible HSA plans. But you have to be creative and willing to forgo coverage for every hangnail (the real purpose of insurance is to cover things you cannot, not to be a golden goose, that is why we are in this mess).
But you probably won’t find these on your first trip “downtown” to the red-brick insurance building 0:)
Sadly, from what I know of it, the new plan passed by Congress will be probably be destructive to these lower-cost market-oriented plans.
But you probably won’t find these on your first trip “downtown” to the red-brick insurance building 0:)
Sadly, from what I know of it, the new plan passed by Congress will be probably be destructive to these lower-cost market-oriented plans.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
My church does the best it can. But my wife and I supplement. When we came here , we had two small kids. Now we have 4 kids, the oldest is in high school. The church has seen some grouth but we are in a non trancient area. My income has gone up 25% in 10 years but our family needs have doubled (at least). But incomes in all walks of life have gone down or stayed the same. I saw a budget of a church about our size (a little bigger) and the package was about the same.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
Paul,
I used to be in one of those. They were worse than ANY insurance company that I ever had. I had been diagnosed with ulcers several years before i sought to work with this company. I had no problems with the ulcers and no further treatment (I had lost weight and that helped greatly). I had been with 3 insurance companies since and non asked about the ulcers. The “Christian Alternative comany wanted more documentaion to prove that I had no more problems. The diagnosing physician told them he had not seen me as did my other doctors i had in the previous 10 yrs. The company ridered me. Several months later I had a different stomach issue and needed tests. The test came back clear but the doctor noted my dormant ulcers were still there but not a problem. So the alternative company refused to cover ANYTHING (5,000 test). That is the only claim in 2 yrs i submitted to them. I dropped them immediately and went back to insurance. I am sure some of them are very good, but the one i was in was bad (even though it had a good reputation).
I used to be in one of those. They were worse than ANY insurance company that I ever had. I had been diagnosed with ulcers several years before i sought to work with this company. I had no problems with the ulcers and no further treatment (I had lost weight and that helped greatly). I had been with 3 insurance companies since and non asked about the ulcers. The “Christian Alternative comany wanted more documentaion to prove that I had no more problems. The diagnosing physician told them he had not seen me as did my other doctors i had in the previous 10 yrs. The company ridered me. Several months later I had a different stomach issue and needed tests. The test came back clear but the doctor noted my dormant ulcers were still there but not a problem. So the alternative company refused to cover ANYTHING (5,000 test). That is the only claim in 2 yrs i submitted to them. I dropped them immediately and went back to insurance. I am sure some of them are very good, but the one i was in was bad (even though it had a good reputation).
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
[Paul J. Scharf] Quite frankly, this is not something I have given lots of thought too, but I do not see your argument as being very strong Biblically. I must confess that I have an uneasy feeling in the pit of my stomach when I hear the concept of paying the pastor based on the number of kids he has — unless you have something stronger than I Cor. 9.You may be right. However, I presented Scripture (is that not strong Biblically 8~)) where Paul addresses at least part of the family when considering compensation, and I don’t recall you presenting any Scripture. Instead of reacting by the uneasy feeling in the pit of your stomach, go back to the text since it is the authority (don’t listen to what I say…I’m not the authority either). Why would Paul address the spouse if she wasn’t to be considered?
BTW, I’m not suggesting saying “for every kid you have, we will increase your salary by $10,000.” That’s not what Paul said in I Corinthians 9 either, but isn’t he addressing needs? Are the needs not greater with a larger family? How does this not mesh with I Cor. 9 and I Timothy 5?
Thanks,
Ricky
It may be helpful to remember that Paul had an apostolic ministry, not a strictly pastoral one. Yes, I realize he remained in one place sometimes for over a year. But generally, Paul’s was an itinerant ministry, whereas the pastor’s is fixed. Perhaps a more appropriate analogy, therefore, would be to compare Paul’s discussion re. deserved compensation in 1 Cor. 9 with the compensation due an “evangelist” or itinerant Bible teacher who comes to your church for a week(end). Compensation for such servants of the Lord can indeed vary based on individual need. For an example of this approach, see Titus 3:13. This logically differs from compensating the pastor who is a fixture in a local church, because trying to compensate him based strictly on “need” would be a royal pain. “Needs” change from one week to the next, one year to the next, and certainly from one season in life to the next.
The Biblical principles for pastoral compensation are found in 1 Timothy 5:17-18: 1) he is to be considered worthy of “double honor” (read “paid well in relation to his ministry context”); 2) he is to be paid by those he serves; and 3) he is to be considered worthy of every penny because that local church is his arena of labor. The same epistle that includes these principles anticipates the probability that a pastor will have a wife (3:2) and children (3:4). If a church consistently follows these principles and pays the pastor accordingly, there will be adequate margin in his income for dealing with the vicissitudes of life. Some weeks he’ll have more than enough to cover needs & he can sock some cash away. Other weeks a car breakdown will eat up that surplus and more. Some years will require extreme penny pinching…other years the pastor & his family can enjoy some special treats. When the kids are at home and in college, the family may be squeezed very tightly. Later years, the pastor and his wife can enjoy extras denied in the lean years. But throughout, the church’s guiding principles have primarily been 1 Tim. 5:17-18, not “how have the pastor’s needs changed?”
The Biblical principles for pastoral compensation are found in 1 Timothy 5:17-18: 1) he is to be considered worthy of “double honor” (read “paid well in relation to his ministry context”); 2) he is to be paid by those he serves; and 3) he is to be considered worthy of every penny because that local church is his arena of labor. The same epistle that includes these principles anticipates the probability that a pastor will have a wife (3:2) and children (3:4). If a church consistently follows these principles and pays the pastor accordingly, there will be adequate margin in his income for dealing with the vicissitudes of life. Some weeks he’ll have more than enough to cover needs & he can sock some cash away. Other weeks a car breakdown will eat up that surplus and more. Some years will require extreme penny pinching…other years the pastor & his family can enjoy some special treats. When the kids are at home and in college, the family may be squeezed very tightly. Later years, the pastor and his wife can enjoy extras denied in the lean years. But throughout, the church’s guiding principles have primarily been 1 Tim. 5:17-18, not “how have the pastor’s needs changed?”
[BryanBice] It may be helpful to remember that Paul had an apostolic ministry, not a strictly pastoral one. Yes, I realize he remained in one place sometimes for over a year. But generally, Paul’s was an itinerant ministry, whereas the pastor’s is fixed. Perhaps a more appropriate analogy, therefore, would be to compare Paul’s discussion re. deserved compensation in 1 Cor. 9 with the compensation due an “evangelist” or itinerant Bible teacher who comes to your church for a week(end)…The Biblical principles for pastoral compensation are found in 1 Timothy 5:17-18You cannot limit pastoral compensation to I Timothy alone. If you look further in I Corinthians 9 (verses 13 and 14) Paul tells who this passage applies to: “13Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.” So he is not applying it only to those with itinerant ministry. He is applying it to those that proclaim the gospel. Is this not a pastor as well?
[RickyHorton]Think of 1 Cor. 9:14 as being a big umbrella that covers “all who proclaim the gospel”: itinerant Bible teachers…evangelists…missionaries…pastors…. The very general principle for all these “proclaimers” is that they are to “live of the gospel.” In 1 Timothy, Paul clearly has pastors in mind—one segment of all those under the umbrella—and he’s simply clarifying the approach churches need to take in providing a “living by the gospel” compensation package for their pastor. Since he specifically applies these principles to “elders” in the congregation, it would be inappropriate to apply them to the Bible conference speaker you have in next month for a 3-day conference. The net effect of the 1 Timothy principles is that the churches are not to pay the pastor on a simple “need” basis, but on a much more generous “worth” basis. In contrast, the primary requirement in compensating the itinerant is to make sure his basic needs are cared for—and those needs will vary based on mouths to feed, travel expenses, etc. Incidentally, if for some reason a particular pastor’s “need” is greater than his “worth,” well, he’s got a real problem that he should not expect his church to solve for him.[BryanBice] It may be helpful to remember that Paul had an apostolic ministry, not a strictly pastoral one. Yes, I realize he remained in one place sometimes for over a year. But generally, Paul’s was an itinerant ministry, whereas the pastor’s is fixed. Perhaps a more appropriate analogy, therefore, would be to compare Paul’s discussion re. deserved compensation in 1 Cor. 9 with the compensation due an “evangelist” or itinerant Bible teacher who comes to your church for a week(end)…The Biblical principles for pastoral compensation are found in 1 Timothy 5:17-18You cannot limit pastoral compensation to I Timothy alone. If you look further in I Corinthians 9 (verses 13 and 14) Paul tells who this passage applies to: “13Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.” So he is not applying it only to those with itinerant ministry. He is applying it to those that proclaim the gospel. Is this not a pastor as well?
[BryanBice] Think of 1 Cor. 9:14 as being a big umbrella that covers “all who proclaim the gospel”: itinerant Bible teachers…evangelists…missionaries…pastors…. The very general principle for all these “proclaimers” is that they are to “live of the gospel.”
Wow!! I have got some big checks coming!! Where do I send the bill??? :D :D :D :D :D
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Discussion