Do pastors owe apologies for getting rich?

I don’t think Piper is the model for which we should strive. His is self-imposed, not something that was imposed upon him by the elder board.

Actually, I think that Piper’s mindset is something we should strive for and keep in mind as we call pastors to our churches.

I think that MacArthur does something very similar to Piper as well, and if there is anyone who could get rich off of his work, it would be him. The fact that he chooses to give so much of his stuff away for free (via GTY and the church website) is a real credit to him and a very tangible expression of the heart of any pastor worth the title. It’s also a delineator that sets MacArthur aside from the self-promoting Driscoll and their ilk.

[T Howard]

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Tom,

I have more education than anyone else currently attending my church, including my pastor. Yet, just looking at your compensation list, I don’t have the disability or life insurance you list under point 2, nor do I have points 3, 5, 6 or 7 (nor does almost anyone else in the church). I don’t have a problem with the pastor making more than I do. However, my family already stretches to make ends meet, and asking us to stretch even more so the pastor can live substantially above the level of my family (and that of everyone else in the church) is unwarranted.

Chip,

Life insurance is a pretty common employee benefit now a days (especially for people in important roles) and is really a benefit to the church as well as the pastor’s family. This is also a relatively minor expense for the church (for a 40 year old, $0.10 / thousand / month). My company pays for 1.5x my salary and it costs them almost nothing.

Disability insurance is also a benefit to the church as well as the pastor’s family. While my company doesn’t automatically provide it to me, they do offer it at a substantial discount. Again, this protects the church as well as the pastor’s family should the pastor become incapacitated.

3) Reimbursement for business expenses is a standard business practice and one that doesn’t penalize the pastor. The IRS looks at a pastor as a business man and recognizes that he incurs reimbursable professional expenses that allow him to perform his duties and should be paid by the church (automobile mileage, conferences, entertainment, supplies, anything pertaining to his responsibilities). In reality these expenses are incurred for the benefit of the church not the pastor.

5) Getting the pastor out of the church parsonage is one of the best things a church can do for itself and its pastor.

6) Most businesses send employees to business and training conferences at the business’s expense. Why? Because the business knows that what the employee does / learns at these conferences will directly benefit the company. Again, this benefit not only benefits the pastor but benefits the church as well.

7) I’ve worked for only one stingy employer who only gave his employees 2 weeks of paid vacation (regardless of tenure). The other employers I’ve work for started me out at 3 weeks, with the potential to earn up to 5 weeks based on tenure. Giving the pastor 4 weeks of paid vacation (including Sundays) is not excessive.

As I look at the list of benefits you said you don’t get (and don’t think a pastor should get), in reality most of these are for the benefit of the church. Except in really small churches, these benefits certainly don’t require families in the church to “stretch to make ends meet” to provide them to your pastor.

I didn’t say they were bad, or even that they were not desirable. What I said was they were not realistic in many churches. Speaking as a former pastor who has been both bi-vocational and fully compensated by the ministry, I would not accept these offerings from a church if the the majority of the members were as limited as I have described to you. I would feel uncomfortable accepting the great sacrifice of the majority of the members in order for me to live so far beyond their level of subsistence.

[Jay]

…

I think that MacArthur does something very similar to Piper as well, and if there is anyone who could get rich off of his work, it would be him. The fact that he chooses to give so much of his stuff away for free (via GTY and the church website) is a real credit to him and a very tangible expression of the heart of any pastor worth the title. It’s also a delineator that sets MacArthur aside from the self-promoting Driscoll and their ilk.

My rule of thumb: if you wouldn’t provide it without profit it is not ministry; it is business that caters to a Christian demographic.

Nothing wrong with a business that caters to a Christian demographic—book stores; music producers; etc., do it all the time and it is a valuable, honorable commodity. But that is neither the purpose, or even a legitimate practice, of the church or the pastor through the church.

There is a wide gulf between desirable and realistic in many churches. What “should” happen is not always possible. I don’t see the point in defining a list that the church must provide or there is something wrong. Why not just let capitalism take care of it? If the pastor is willing to work for the salary, he does. If not, he finds something else. If the church cannot pay enough to get a pastor, they either close or find a pastor who will be bi-vocational.

It seems to me like that is healthier in the long run. Maybe we will have fewer churches and fewer pastors, but based on what I see around where I live, we would not be hurting with fewer churches.

[Wayne Wilson]

Well, it has to be someone’s responsibility.

Who oversees the lay person’s finances to make sure they are not getting paid “too much”? Who polices the “average” congregation members to make sure they aren’t buying “needless luxuries” or getting “excessive compensation” from their employers? Who in the church scrutinizes their purchasing decisions?

[Wayne Wilson] The elders or congregation should naturally make sure compensation is reasonable, not according to a business model, but a spiritual one.

What is a spiritual compensation plan, Wayne? Does it include health insurance and 403(b) contributions? Let’s not dodge the issue by creating a false dichotomy between “spiritual” and business compensation models. And, let’s also be honest that there are a lot of things that churches and ministries could / should learn from business, particularly as it relates to operations, accounting, and finance.

In almost every church I’ve attended, the church was in some way violating the tax code. In one church it was in how they were classifying their pastoral staff. In another it was in how they handled designated giving. Overall, I’d have to give most of the churches I’ve attended a ‘D’ in their operations, finance, and accounting capabilities. Of course, where did they learn these bad practices? From a business model? Nope. From the “spiritual models” of other churches and pastors…

I say stop the shenanigans and the business model dodge and start operating your church / ministry properly, and that includes generosity to your pastoral staff (even if that means providing the pastor a benefit you don’t enjoy but would personally want).

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Tom,

I didn’t say they were bad, or even that they were not desirable. What I said was they were not realistic in many churches. Speaking as a former pastor who has been both bi-vocational and fully compensated by the ministry, I would not accept these offerings from a church if the the majority of the members were as limited as I have described to you. I would feel uncomfortable accepting the great sacrifice of the majority of the members in order for me to live so far beyond their level of subsistence.

Chip,

I think it says a lot about the church and you that 1) they would give beyond their means to make sure you and your family were taken care of through a generous compensation package and that 2) you VOLUNTARILY (key word!) set aside those benefits to minister at that church. However, let me remind you of two things: First, the benefits that you and I have been discussing are for the most part a benefit to the church and don’t really add a lot of expense. Second, the Apostle Paul didn’t reject the generosity of the churches who gave beyond their means. He praised them for it because he knew God would ultimately reward their generosity. Don’t rob your church of a blessing because of your self-imposed guilt.

[GregH]

Why not just let capitalism take care of it? If the pastor is willing to work for the salary, he does. If not, he finds something else. If the church cannot pay enough to get a pastor, they either close or find a pastor who will be bi-vocational.

The problem is that many pastors are fearful of asking for more money / better compensation packages because 1) the church has stingy elders / deacons and/or 2) people start complaining that the pastor is in the ministry for “filthy lucre’s sake.” Meanwhile, they go off on their Disney World vacation, buy their new bass boat, get that promotion at work, upgrade their house, buy their winter home in Florida, etc. On the other hand, the pastor and his family are stuck with a “spiritual compensation plan” that includes a 50-year-old parsonage, 2 weeks of vacation (if lucky), no retirement savings plan, no/poor health/vision/medical insurance, no life insurance, and with the expectation that the pastor must take ministry expenses out of his salary.

Yep, sounds about right to me.

Tom,

I never said it was guilt. I am moved more by decorum and justice. I am reminded here of 2 Samuel 23:14-17. That’s what would cause the discomfort that would keep me from accepting such a situation. I hope I would be gracious and express true love and thanks at the offer, but ultimately I would decline.

Tom

Who oversees the lay person’s finances to make sure they are not getting paid “too much”? Who polices the “average” congregation members to make sure they aren’t buying “needless luxuries” or getting “excessive compensation” from their employers? Who in the church scrutinizes their purchasing decisions?

You must have been part of some horrible church experiences, Tom, that are outside my knowledge. It’s hard to discuss because you keep changing the subject. We aren’t talking about members of the congregation. They can earn whatever they can, and be as rich as the Lord blesses them in their business as long as they are honest. We were discussing people in the ministry becoming rich through the church. That’s what the thread is about, not comfortable…rich. It has nothing to do with scrutinizing anyone’s purchasing decisions. It’s about excessive (usually hidden) compensation for men who are “servants of all.”

[Wayne Wilson] The elders or congregation should naturally make sure compensation is reasonable, not according to a business model, but a spiritual one.

What is a spiritual compensation plan, Wayne? Does it include health insurance and 403(b) contributions? Let’s not dodge the issue by creating a false dichotomy between “spiritual” and business compensation models. And, let’s also be honest that there are a lot of things that churches and ministries could / should learn from business, particularly as it relates to operations, accounting, and finance.

In almost every church I’ve attended, the church was in some way violating the tax code. In one church it was in how they were classifying their pastoral staff. In another it was in how they handled designated giving. Overall, I’d have to give most of the churches I’ve attended a ‘D’ in their operations, finance, and accounting capabilities. Of course, where did they learn these bad practices? From a business model? Nope. From the “spiritual models” of other churches and pastors…

Apples and Oranges…again. Churches not complying with the law has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. When I say spiritual, I mean biblical, not “what churches do.” Of course there is some overlap with compensation packages in churches and in the world. Human needs are similar. But there are huge differences in perspective as well because the two, business and the church, exist for entirely different reasons.

Simple question: Should a servant live in the master’s quarters of the manor house, or in the servants quarters? Why?

I say stop the shenanigans and the business model dodge and start operating your church / ministry properly, and that includes generosity to your pastoral staff (even if that means providing the pastor a benefit you don’t enjoy but would personally want).

I think this is aimed at someone else.

No horrible church experiences, just enough experiences with compensation committees that felt they needed to keep the pastor humble and living by faith. (I speak as a lay person myself).

For these individuals “comfortable” meant “excessive” or “too much”; unless, of course, it referred to their standard of living.

So, it’s not apples and oranges… it’s called defining terms.

As for your servant, if he serves his master faithfully, he should live where ever his master provides for him. If a lay person, in your words, “can earn whatever they can, and be as rich as the Lord blesses them in their business as long as they are honest,” then so can a pastor.

BTW, the key words are faithful and honest. As you pointed out, Steve Furtick is neither.

So, back to the OP, do pastors owe apologies for getting rich? No. And, churches should be generous to their pastoral staff instead of trying to keep them “humble” and “living by faith.”

What I’ve experienced is that although most pastors don’t get the big book deal, there’s a whole crop of guys out there aspiring to that kind of scenario. It’s very similar to aspiring athletes or entertainers. Millions dream, but only a few get there.

How broad can your experience be for you to possibly know how big this “crop of guys” is? How in the world can you the hearts of enough pastors to pass this kind of judgment on them? Might this say more about the few you know than great many that you don’t?

Let me cut to the chase with this, and just for the sake of putting some reality to it, let’s take T4G, which I believe had around 8000 people last time. Let’s assume that represents about 10% of gospel-centered/CE pastors. Which means there are about 80,000 “gospel-centered”/CE pastors (an absurdly low number).

I don’t know how many of these you know, but let’s say it’s a 1000 (probably a bit of a high number). And let’s say you are right … that the thousand you know are aspiring to “that kind of scenario.” That means you know just over 1%, but you are comfortable attributing your perceptions to the other 98.7%. And that’s assuming that you know 1000 of these pastors, and that every single one of them are as you describe, and that there are only 80,000. Isn’t it true that you probably don’t know 1000, at least enough to know their hearts on this matter, and there are way more than 80,000. Which perhaps means that your broad brush statement is at best ill-advised.

I have no doubt that there are some as you describe. But “all too often,” people are willing to attribute crass motives to people they don’t even know based on a few people that they do know (or have read something about), based on what might not even be an accurate perception of the people they do know.

I don’t know if you are right or wrong. My guess is that you are pretty far off the mark, but I don’t know that for sure. I don’t doubt that there are some people with crass motives, but I don’t suspect that everyone who is desirous of reaching more people with the gospel has some sinister desire to be the next ministry multi-millionaire. It may well be that there are more John Piper’s and Francis Chan’s than you know about.

My point is that it seems wrong to me to pass these kinds of judgments on pastors you don’t even know. It might work well for rhetorical purposes, but it is a pretty broad brush with some pretty ugly paint. If you have some kind of evidence, the let’s consider it. But short of that, talk about the fact that there may be “some” who do this. But don’t paint it as if it is every other person.

In the end, it’s just a word of caution.

My rule of thumb: if you wouldn’t provide it without profit it is not ministry; it is business that caters to a Christian demographic.

So how does this reconcile with Paul’s “rule of thumb” (under inspiration) that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel? Was he teaching that pastoring and preaching was not really ministry but a business that caters to a Christian demographic? Paul thought men who did this well were not just worthy of honor, but of double honor, by which he meant financial care, among other things.

While I understand and agree (at least somewhat) with the sentiment, to me it seems overstated. Pastors can’t work for no profit. And the Bible doesn’t require them to.

I have met a lot of pastors. I know some pastors personally. I know more as acquaintances. I have never met a rich pastor. I know they are out there. I have met a lot of underpaid pastors. I have met few “comfortable” pastors. My take away…Churches do a poor job generally speaking providing for their pastors. I assume this was also the case in Ephesus. Paul does not use the principle of “average” pay of the members (but he could have if that was the standard God had intended). The Holy Spirit uses the principle of ethics, equity, and liberality by comparing two secular examples. One from Moses, one from Jesus (1 Tim 6). It is not the church’s job to “provide” for their pastors. That is God’s job. Much danger is found when a church begins to think that their pastor “owes” them because they are providing for their livelihood and much danger to the pastor who begins to tailor his ministry because he knows that the church has that attitude. It is the church’s responsibility to obey the Scripture and use the principles of ethics, equity, and liberality to paying their pastor. They have no spiritual right to provide oversight to the pastor’s financial habits. They have every responsibility to choose godly men who fit the qualifications which would include such spiritual disciplines as hard-working, honest, servants, and good stewards. A church who does not pay their pastor ethically, equitably, and liberally is guilty of sin and can expect chastening by God. A pastor who is a lover of money, who longs to be rich, who uses people to gain is in sin and can expect chastening by God.

Should we not view the relationship of pastor and church similarly to the commands of husband and wife. God never commands the husband to make his wife reverence him, nor does God command the wife to make the husband love her. But he gives equal commands to each to obey as they have been called. God give us churches who are more than willing to liberally pay their pastors. And God give us pastors who are more than delighted to serve the church with the Word and prayer. And each one stop being so concerned about what the other one is doing wrong.