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.

Discussion

Stepping back (or up) a few posts….
[KevinM]

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.
Should family size be left out of the formula? Paul seemed to include the family (at least the wife) in the equation:

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.

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…”)

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-)

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

[RickyHorton]
[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.
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.

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.

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.

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).

Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church