Pastor's Compensation - Objective Standards?

[T Howard] Matt, I was thinking the same thing. Mike, when do you get to date your wife or spend time with your kids (if you have any)?

We go out about once a week or get a pizza and a movie.

It’s too late for burn out. I’ve been doing this for 34 years.

I’d love to spend time with my children and grandchildren but the closest is 1100 miles away and two other daughters and families are 10,000 miles away on the mission field.

I will weigh in here. I think that the church basically has four areas of budget. Location/Facilities. Staff. Ministry expense at home. Missions abroad. If the church has a place to meet (because of past generations giving…building w/no debt), then the issue of budgeting could be greatly simplified. Have monies given (tithes and offerings) simply earmarked for gift to pastor or gift to ministry expenses (i.e. literature, program costs, or advertizing etc) or missions. The pastor is paid from the designated offerings. This is pure congregationalism and very Biblical. I would rent over buying a building (more efficient). Excess monies are not put in property because of this philosophy but are given to missions or ministry funds.

Bi-vocationalism. I have been bi-vocational for 25 years. I choose to be.

HOW WOULD YOU COUNSEL A MAN IN YOUR SITUATION IN HIS 30s / 40s with 4 KIDS STILL LIVING AT HOME?

Buy a business. Start a business. Work somewhere where you can get skills and experience to eventually buy or start a business. Then make a ton of money and retire if you want from the business.

Derek Jung

Church Planter / Pastor

California

6 Children under 12

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

My opinion.

Derek Jung

but I think it is an opinion that needs to be on billboards, T-shirts, bumper stickers, and perhaps we should consider hiring a sky-writer. I’ve yet to meet, in the 25 years since I began to attend and then graduated Bible college, met a young preacher that had realistic expectations of the demands of ministry or of how they would provide for their family.

Examples:

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

All could be done part time and pay well.

Derek,

It seems to me that your position seems to be inadequate due to the biblical teaching that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel. While being bi-vocational is fine for some, it is not necessarily the biblical way, and in fact, a strong argument can and should be made that a pastor should not be bivocational, given the biblical teaching to the church to provide for the pastor. As Paul makes clear, in every other field of life, people are paid for what they do … soldiers, farmers, even oxen. The pastor should be no different.

Bi-vocational seems, to me, to be a concession to a small church. I don’t see it as being a biblical way of life for the pastor.

Furthermore, to make the pastor’s compensation dependent on designated offerings does not seem a wise way to do it. Again, using Paul’s examples, no one serves as a soldier and gets paid by people designation on their taxes to pay a soldier with X of their dollars. No one grows corn and expects free will offerings at the grocery store to be designated for the corn grower. Such ad hoc giving does not seem to be a wise way to provide for ministry, particularly since people rarely know the needs of the ministry in full. A budget is laid out to help guide that process. And if you object to business examples, remember, the Holy Spirit is the one who inspired Paul to use them.

So while being bi-vocational is necessary sometimes, I am not sure it should be the goal of the pastor, given the biblical revelation on this matter. And I am not sure it should be held up as the biblical ideal. Revelation doesn’t seem to support that.

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

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

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

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

Axioms

• The Lord’s command: “Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:14)
  
  
• God’s people directed to provide for the laborer: “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 5:18)
  
  
• It is sinful to not provide for one’s own family: “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1 Timothy 5:8)
  
  
• Paul at times eschewed the right to be paid: “we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ” (1 Corinthians 9:12) at times plying a trade (Acts 18:2-4).

Observations

• There are hundreds of American (and undoubtedly many in other countries) churches unable to fully provide for a Pastor. (I personally know of a church (I know the Pastor) in central Wisconsin, where the entire church budget for the year is $ 22,000)
  
  
  • The options for these churches:
    
    
    • Give more …. I’m sure many can but there are limits to their ability!
      
      
    • Not have a full time Pastor.
      
      
    • Close the doors (conclusion … we are unable to function as a church!) (In my view this is the worst option!)
  • The option for the Pastors of these churches:
    
    
    • Suffer with less than an adequate income and violate 1 Timothy 5:8
      
      
    • Move on (but just delays the issue for that church!)
      
      
    • Take the Pauline bivocational approach
• The above being the case men ought to go into the ministry with eyes open about the realities of pastoral compensation
  
  
• Wise men ought to consider and prepare for the possibility of bi-vocational ministry. It’s not ideal …but it is realistic
  
  
• I’m not sure if this is true but I suspect it is: No one is telling men this when the enroll in seminary.

Is there really a Biblical case that every single need/want of the pastor be provided by tithes and offerings?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Larry…thanks for your thoughts.

Yes, if a man goes to a town or city and wins converts, disciples them, and sees fruit in the ministry through conversions he can expect them to be thankful since they are truly saved and maturing and he will see gifts given to support his Gospel ministry so he can live off of those funds if he so chooses. However, Paul was the most successful new testament Gospel preacher and he chose not to live off the gifts but provided an example of working with his hands and making the Gospel absolutely free of charge. So you need to reconcile the Pauline example and exhortation to his disciples in this matter. You can’t escape this Biblical reality. LIkewise if I go and candidate at a church and I love the Lord and the people, compensation can be nil and I will find a way to minister there and provide for my family with my hands and mind. The Lord will supply apart from His people just as surely as he supplies through his people.

THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF CHURCHES in AMERICA that have BI-VOCATIONAL pastors. Please wake up, not hundreds but THOUSANDS. The Southern Baptist Denomination published that 65% of all SBC churches in America before WWII had BIVOCATIONAL PASTORS. Only after WWII did this decrease to 35% of all SBC Churches having BIVOCATIONAL men. Now the current trend is reversing back to pre WWII times.

Derek Jung

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

Pastor Jung

[Susan R] but I think it is an opinion that needs to be on billboards, T-shirts, bumper stickers, and perhaps we should consider hiring a sky-writer. I’ve yet to meet, in the 25 years since I began to attend and then graduated Bible college, met a young preacher that had realistic expectations of the demands of ministry or of how they would provide for their family.

I had realistic expectations as a young Christian and young preacher. My expectations have not changed. I do not hold on to my RIGHTS to compensation, but willingly sacrifice to make the Gospel always without charge. To provide for my family I work. To provide for the church I work. God is good and supplies above and beyond our needs.

Pastor Jung

Saved in ‘82. Yielded to serve in ‘86. Church planting since then in Northern California. Median home price 500K for a 30 year old used 3 bed 2 bath house. By the way I have a BA, MDIV and half way through my DMIN. Did not use my education to support the family. Like, Paul I work with my hands and brain.

Hi all,

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

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

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

[rogercarlson] Hi all,

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

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

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

We need to teach and train men to complete an expository message in a maximum of 3 hours. Three messages 10 hours max. Visitation and evangelism another 10 hours. Work secular 20-30 hours. 10-20 hours with the family. This can be done. I used to write 7 messages a week. Now am down to 3-4.

Derek Jung

[Larry]

Is there really a Biblical case that every single need/want of the pastor be provided by tithes and offerings?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please, PLEASE don’t pull that- “You aren’t disagreeing with me, but with God” routine.

My point was only that you objected to comparing business and ministry in terms of pay expectations, but Paul did not object to the comparison. Paul used it. He compared the pay of a pastor to that of soldiers, farmers, and shepherds, all secular businesses which are expected to pay their practitioners to perform them. So when a pastor is paid a living wages that includes enough to feed, house, educate, care for his family, that’s not a problem. It’s not a business venture.

but the problem I’m objecting to is that many young preachers are coming out of seminary expecting to walk right into a living wage in the full-time ministry, and that is not realistic.

I don’t think that is unrealistic and I don’t think in the business world people start off in entry level position that barely make ends meet. But again that depends, as I say, on what it means to live.

I don’t see why it is harsh to consider it irresponsible not to plan for the future

You said that a person who didn’t have a back up job was irresponsible, and I think that is pretty strong. Being able to plumb, do electrical or carpentry or the like is fine. but I would stop short of calling it irresponsible if someone doesn’t know how to do it.

That’s all. I just think Derek really overstated his position and wanted to give an alternative.

Thanks Susan.

[quote ] So you need to reconcile the Pauline example and exhortation to his disciples in this matter. You can’t escape this Biblical reality.I am not sure what I need to reconcile. My point is that bi-vocational is fine if necessary, but not expected. It was, as Paul said, the direction of the Lord that those who preach the gospel should live of it. You are the one who seems to object to full time pastors.

Then he strongly states that he has given up that right and will not take any gifts or compensation. This is the higher ground.

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

We need to teach and train men to complete an expository message in a maximum of 3 hours. Three messages 10 hours max.

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

Derek,

You may be the exception. But I don’t know ANY pastor or layman that can do justice with most passages by only studying 3 hours. Unless, he is not studying and just resaying what others have said.

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

Pastor Jung

Derek,

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

2Co 11:8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.

I’m not sure why but maybe the false teachers were abusing the Corinthians by demanding support and Paul chose to be different. I am sure that he was not offering a higher challenge to young pastors to ignore what he just taught.

Paul taught the Corinthians that they were to bless those who taught them spiritual things by providing their carnal needs.

1Co 9:11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

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

Gal 6:6 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.

Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

Larry:My point was only that you objected to comparing business and ministry in terms of pay expectations, but Paul did not object to the comparison. Paul used it. He compared the pay of a pastor to that of soldiers, farmers, and shepherds, all secular businesses which are expected to pay their practitioners to perform them. So when a pastor is paid a living wages that includes enough to feed, house, educate, care for his family, that’s not a problem. It’s not a business venture.

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

Success in business is defined by productivity and profit in measurable and definable quantities. The ‘success’ of a ministry is not defined by those standards.

Of course, the principle of compensation stands, and I have not objected anywhere in this thread to churches providing for the needs of their pastor. What I am saying is that the expectations of men (and women) going into the ministry should be based on the real world. If the primary responsibility of every man is to provide for his family, then they should be trained in such a way that they are able to do so whether a church position can support them or not.

You said that a person who didn’t have a back up job was irresponsible, and I think that is pretty strong. Being able to plumb, do electrical or carpentry or the like is fine. but I would stop short of calling it irresponsible if someone doesn’t know how to do it.

It may be a strong statement, but I personally believe it wholeheartedly. And I did not confine the term ‘back up job’ to trades like plumbing or carpentry. Training children to have a marketable skill (or two or three) should be a goal of every parent, or why else do we bother educating them? We don’t teach kids just so they possess knowledge, but so that they can provide for themselves and others. One of the principles of compensation we teach our kids is that they are learning in order to be a benefit to others, and not just so that they can consume upon themselves. Why wouldn’t this be a vital lesson for a pastor-in-training?

I’ve known young men who were studying for and involved in ministries, supported by their parents, will not get a job because “God has called them to the ministry”, and yet they have car loans and credit card debt. With that attitude, what kind of leader are they going to be? IMO they will be the kind of pastor who does not understand the life of the work-a-day Joe. They’ll plan activities and launch ministries that take time, money, and energy, and then chastise their flock because their grand ideas are not being met by the congregation. Congregations are made up of families that have demands in their lives, and too many preachers who’ve never done anything in the secular world have no clue what it’s like to be immersed in the world every day, not be able to take a day off or call in sick, or not have taken a vacation in 22 years.

So like much else in life, it’s a two-way street. Churches who desire a full-time pastor should have as a goal the ability to support him completely, but men who have dedicated themselves to the ministry should be able to provide adequately for their families- and that means being able to do something that earns what they consider to be a livable wage.

[DJung] We need to teach and train men to complete an expository message in a maximum of 3 hours. Three messages 10 hours max. Visitation and evangelism another 10 hours. Work secular 20-30 hours. 10-20 hours with the family. This can be done. I used to write 7 messages a week. Now am down to 3-4.

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

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

Let me throw my hat in the ring as well to say that I completely disagree with several points djung has made. First, Paul did not refuse support from all churches. Someone else already provided Scriptural support for this so I will not belabor the point. Furthermore, Paul’s point in the passage was that those that labored in the ministry should be supported by those that benefit from it. It was his choice to refuse in some (not all) cases. The norm here would be for the church to provide for the pastor.

I also agree with others that cutting down on study time is the exact opposite of what should be done. Isn’t this why the office of deacon was created? Their whole purpose was to free the apostles to labor in the Word. Can a message be prepared in 3 hours? Sure, some are better equipped to do this, but in general you get a message that appears to be ill-prepared and contains a lot of fluff. I would much rather listen to a preacher that is well prepared and grounded in Scripture.

Scripture repeatedly supports the position that a pastor should be compensated by the church. I Cor. 9 is the only text that would say otherwise, and that option is only at the discretion of the pastor. Personally, I think it is a seriously bad testimony for a church to pay their pastor as little as they possibly can. Yet that is the case in “thousands” of churches across America. Certainly there are thousands of cases where church’s cannot fully support the pastor, yet paying the pastor should be their first financial priority if they seek to follow Scripture. If the pastor refuses it, so be it.

Ricky

[Mike Mann]

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

Pastor Jung

Derek,

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

2Co 11:8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.

I’m not sure why but maybe the false teachers were abusing the Corinthians by demanding support and Paul chose to be different. I am sure that he was not offering a higher challenge to young pastors to ignore what he just taught.

Paul taught the Corinthians that they were to bless those who taught them spiritual things by providing their carnal needs.

1Co 9:11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

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

Gal 6:6 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.

Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

Brother Mann,

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

Pastor Jung

[RickyHorton]

I also agree with others that cutting down on study time is the exact opposite of what should be done. Isn’t this why the office of deacon was created? Their whole purpose was to free the apostles to labor in the Word. Can a message be prepared in 3 hours? Sure, some are better equipped to do this, but in general you get a message that appears to be ill-prepared and contains a lot of fluff. I would much rather listen to a preacher that is well prepared and grounded in Scripture.

Ricky

My comment on message preparation has drawn the “ire” of the SharperIron faithful. It is evident that the current paradigm of Bible study and message preparation which is advocated by those on this site goes counter to my opinion. However, this comment was not lightly made nor my analysis of the 3 hour goal formulated apart from much thought, experience, and consideration. Perhaps we need a new thread here. I believe that message preparation breaks down into three components, observation, interpretation, and application. The grammatical, historical, contextual, literal hermeneutic is the methodology I believe and use in creating messages. Observation is done by prayerful reading of the Scripture multiple times. Interpretation or meaning of a passage is approached with the presupposition that there is one right meaning and the Lord wants us to discover this meaning in the Scripture. Application of the Scripture depends on right observation and interpretation and prayerful consideration of the context of the listeners. Most preachers today fall short in area three…Application. Some don’t do well in the first two areas either. Now, it is evident that many on this site believe that the more time spent on a message the better it will be. There was a time that I believed this but this is not taught in the Scripture. Additionally, it has not been my experience. My experience is that if I spend less than about 3 hours preparing a message it may suffer, but if I spend more than three hours preparing a message there are diminishing returns. There are a finite number of commentaries to read. Greek and Hebrew word studies and grammatical analysis yield help but don’t always add to a message. I think men should be exhorted to be efficient in their study and preparation so they can spend time in prayer, in the Word, and in doing the same in discipleship with their servant-leaders, in evangelism among the lost, and not isolated from everyone for 30-40 hours a week in study as if the ministry were simply an academic environment.

I have much more to say about this and “bible college/seminary” education and expectation.

D Jung

[Jay C]

[DJung] We need to teach and train men to complete an expository message in a maximum of 3 hours. Three messages 10 hours max. Visitation and evangelism another 10 hours. Work secular 20-30 hours. 10-20 hours with the family. This can be done. I used to write 7 messages a week. Now am down to 3-4.

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

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

Brother Jay,

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

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

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

D. Jung

[Jay C]

[Becky Petersen] Of course, I’m not exactly aware of what pastors make in general, or specifically, for that matter. But according to the formula Bob T. gave above, wouldn’t you be in the 60-100K range for salary plus benefits?

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

In my limited experience with compensation at other churches, fundamental churches (speaking for those in the West) generally compensate their pastors with much less money and benefits than new evangelical and liberal churches. My brother is a New Evangelical pastor and has been compensated much better than most men in fundamental churches. However, everyone adapts to their level of compensation and I think that most fundamental pastors I know of are content with their pay which says alot about their spirituality. 60-100K is not very much money in the Northern California Bay Area according to the world’s standards. However 90% of fundamental pastors don’t even make the 60K here. I think this is because generally their churches are smaller, their people are blue collar, and/or the expectation has been set low. However, in the average new evangelical church salaries could easily be set at 50-100K. I personally know of men that have turned down 150K plus because it wasn’t “enough” for them to come to serve as pastor. Kind of exposes expectations and motivations though.

D Jung

[Larry] Derek,

It seems to me that your position seems to be inadequate due to the biblical teaching that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel. While being bi-vocational is fine for some, it is not necessarily the biblical way, and in fact, a strong argument can and should be made that a pastor should not be bivocational, given the biblical teaching to the church to provide for the pastor. As Paul makes clear, in every other field of life, people are paid for what they do … soldiers, farmers, even oxen. The pastor should be no different.

Bi-vocational seems, to me, to be a concession to a small church. I don’t see it as being a biblical way of life for the pastor.

Furthermore, to make the pastor’s compensation dependent on designated offerings does not seem a wise way to do it. Again, using Paul’s examples, no one serves as a soldier and gets paid by people designation on their taxes to pay a soldier with X of their dollars. No one grows corn and expects free will offerings at the grocery store to be designated for the corn grower. Such ad hoc giving does not seem to be a wise way to provide for ministry, particularly since people rarely know the needs of the ministry in full. A budget is laid out to help guide that process. And if you object to business examples, remember, the Holy Spirit is the one who inspired Paul to use them.

So while being bi-vocational is necessary sometimes, I am not sure it should be the goal of the pastor, given the biblical revelation on this matter. And I am not sure it should be held up as the biblical ideal. Revelation doesn’t seem to support that.

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

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

D Jung.

Derek,

Before I worked any other jobs, I studied 30-40 hours a week and still did what you are saying. I put on average 60-70 hours a week at the church. I don’t think i was all that unusual. Even now, I work about 20 hours a week outside the church and I still but in about 50 hours a week for the church and one of my jobs (the hotel) I can writre one message here. I think you are still rare….even with what you say…the average expository messge takes longer than 3 hours. It sounds like you can do it but most guys cannot

[DJung]

However, the pastor ought recognize that in the spiritual battle for souls there will be the necessity to sacrifice and humbly set an example that does not rely on the giving of his people but simply on God.

D Jung.

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

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

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

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

Ricky

Ricky,

Well Said!

DJung,

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

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

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

NKJ 2 Corinthians 11:7-9 “7 Did I commit sin in humbling myself that you might be exalted, because I preached the gospel of God to you free of charge? 8 I robbed other churches, taking wages from them to minister to you. 9 And when I was present with you, and in need, I was a burden to no one, for what I lacked the brethren who came from Macedonia supplied. And in everything I kept myself from being burdensome to you, and so I will keep myself.”

NKJ Philippians 4:10-20 “10 But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at last your care for me has flourished again; though you surely did care, but you lacked opportunity. 11 Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content: 12 I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. 13 I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. 14 Nevertheless you have done well that you shared in my distress. 15 Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only. 16 For even in Thessalonica you sent aid once and again for my necessities. 17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account. 18 Indeed I have all and abound. I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you, a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God. 19 And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus. 20 Now to our God and Father be glory forever and ever. Amen.”

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

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

My point is that a missionary, pastor, or teacher can be expected by God and determine in his conscience that he will not take any remuneration for ministry based on the same reasons given by the Apostle Paul. He felt this was both Biblical, Spiritual and necessary in the case of his relationship with the Corinthians. I am arguing that this is a valid model for ministry and those that minister should consider Paul’s reasons and if so led do the same.

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

Keith

The Scriptures teach us that we should show honor to, and care for widows in the church. Then it shows us that whatever honor/care we provide for the widows, that Elders are worthy of double that honor. There is your objective standard. Want to know how much you should give to the Elders in your church? First find out how much is being given to the widows, and those in need.

I doubt you will ever hear about this from Pastors though. I wonder why…