The Church and Money in Post-Christian America

[handy]

I'll start this thread off with a note to the mods... being a newbie to the "new and improved" cf.net, I'm not really sure if the Lounge is the best place for this discussion. Feel free to move this to a more appropriate forum if need be.

So Rollo Tamasi asked my opinion on whether or not pastors should receive a salary and it just so happens that the question fits into some thoughts I've been having lately as to whether or not the Church is serving or hindering the gospel of Christ in how money is handled these days.

And...full disclosure here, I'm a paid church secretary, not paid all that much, but nonetheless, I am a salaried employee of a church.

I believe there is solid biblical support for paying those who devote their time to the church. 1 Corinthians 9:1-14 is pretty clear that there is no reason why those who devote themselves full time to the work of the church should be supported by the church. 1 Timothy 5:17-18 makes the same point as well. Those texts are specific in their support of paying those who devote their time to the church. There is also the principle found in Romans 14... the "liberty" texts. It seems like taking things a bit out of context, but I don't think so. We know that Christians generally do have the liberty to do things (nothing is "unclean" and to the pure, all things are pure", so we certainly should not judge those who make their living (or even just some spending money) providing service to the Church.

But, while 1 Corinthians 9:1-14 is often pulled out in support of paying pastors and Romans 14:1-12 are often pulled out in support of a Christian's liberty to do things not specifically forbidden.... The real principle involved is found within the fact that .... while Paul had a lot to say about paying pastors and freedom in the Lord, he didn't always claim those rights. 1 Corinthians 9:12 and 15.

Paul supported himself. He did so that there could be no accusation that he was doing what he did for the money.

In other words, he consistently put the Gospel of Christ before his own rights, including the right to be paid for his service to the churches.

Today in America, the Church is taking in money to the tune of billions of dollars. The money is paid out in a number of ways, but a lot of it goes to salaries for pastors and staff. A lot of the salaries are pretty average salaries for the area in which the pastor/staff live. Others draw multi-million dollar salaries. Many churches use the tax-exemption laws to provide their pastor and staff with multi-million dollar homes for which no property taxes are paid. This has caught the attention of many, including atheists who rant (somewhat justifiably) that tax paying Americans are subsidizing religion at the rate of $71 billion (that's billion with a B) * per year. While all religions are tax-exempt, Christianity is the religion that, by an overwhelming margin, gets the lion's share of tax-free dough.

With the current national move towards legalizing gay marriage, it's been argued before the SCOTUS that churches who refuse to marry anyone who can legally marry due to their sexual orientation might lose their tax exempt status.

America is becoming increasingly a secular nation and while there are many who question whether we are truly at a "post-Christian" status, the trend is moving rapidly in that direction. Given that there have been high-profile cases in which millionaire pastors have brought dishonor to the church lately... and given that billions of dollars are going, not to support the poor and needy among us, but rather to building ever more expensive church "campuses", and that this use of money is bringing about accusations of hypocrisy and greed by secular and other non-Christians, is it time to set aside our "right" to spend free will offerings on salaries and buildings in order to be a better witness for Christ?

Thoughts?

* http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...cost-of-religious-tax-exemptions-71000000000/

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I'll start this thread off with a note to the mods... being a newbie to the "new and improved" cf.net, I'm not really sure if the Lounge is the best place for this discussion. Feel free to move this to a more appropriate forum if need be.

So Rollo Tamasi asked my opinion on whether or not pastors should receive a salary and it just so happens that the question fits into some thoughts I've been having lately as to whether or not the Church is serving or hindering the gospel of Christ in how money is handled these days.

And...full disclosure here, I'm a paid church secretary, not paid all that much, but nonetheless, I am a salaried employee of a church.

I believe there is solid biblical support for paying those who devote their time to the church. 1 Corinthians 9:1-14 is pretty clear that there is no reason why those who devote themselves full time to the work of the church should be supported by the church. 1 Timothy 5:17-18 makes the same point as well. Those texts are specific in their support of paying those who devote their time to the church. There is also the principle found in Romans 14... the "liberty" texts. It seems like taking things a bit out of context, but I don't think so. We know that Christians generally do have the liberty to do things (nothing is "unclean" and to the pure, all things are pure", so we certainly should not judge those who make their living (or even just some spending money) providing service to the Church.

But, while 1 Corinthians 9:1-14 is often pulled out in support of paying pastors and Romans 14:1-12 are often pulled out in support of a Christian's liberty to do things not specifically forbidden.... The real principle involved is found within the fact that .... while Paul had a lot to say about paying pastors and freedom in the Lord, he didn't always claim those rights. 1 Corinthians 9:12 and 15.

Paul supported himself. He did so that there could be no accusation that he was doing what he did for the money.

In other words, he consistently put the Gospel of Christ before his own rights, including the right to be paid for his service to the churches.

Today in America, the Church is taking in money to the tune of billions of dollars. The money is paid out in a number of ways, but a lot of it goes to salaries for pastors and staff. A lot of the salaries are pretty average salaries for the area in which the pastor/staff live. Others draw multi-million dollar salaries. Many churches use the tax-exemption laws to provide their pastor and staff with multi-million dollar homes for which no property taxes are paid. This has caught the attention of many, including atheists who rant (somewhat justifiably) that tax paying Americans are subsidizing religion at the rate of $71 billion (that's billion with a B) * per year. While all religions are tax-exempt, Christianity is the religion that, by an overwhelming margin, gets the lion's share of tax-free dough.

With the current national move towards legalizing gay marriage, it's been argued before the SCOTUS that churches who refuse to marry anyone who can legally marry due to their sexual orientation might lose their tax exempt status.

America is becoming increasingly a secular nation and while there are many who question whether we are truly at a "post-Christian" status, the trend is moving rapidly in that direction. Given that there have been high-profile cases in which millionaire pastors have brought dishonor to the church lately... and given that billions of dollars are going, not to support the poor and needy among us, but rather to building ever more expensive church "campuses", and that this use of money is bringing about accusations of hypocrisy and greed by secular and other non-Christians, is it time to set aside our "right" to spend free will offerings on salaries and buildings in order to be a better witness for Christ?

Thoughts?

* http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...cost-of-religious-tax-exemptions-71000000000/

Are you a reporter for Christianity Today?

 

[handy]

Are you a reporter for Christianity Today?

lol....

While I've been away from this forum, I was part of a forum for moms... specifically in order to chat about homeschooling, but I also got caught up with other discussions. It was not a Christian forum by any means and having spent a year or so chatting with non-Christians there, I can say that we cannot...absolutely can NOT ... underestimate the negative impact of the way the Church is handling money and handling homosexual issues, especially the issue of gay marriage. I've read testimony after testimony of women who have either left the church or swear to never enter one because of these two issues.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I'll start this thread off with a note to the mods... being a newbie to the "new and improved" cf.net, I'm not really sure if the Lounge is the best place for this discussion. Feel free to move this to a more appropriate forum if need be.

So Rollo Tamasi asked my opinion on whether or not pastors should receive a salary and it just so happens that the question fits into some thoughts I've been having lately as to whether or not the Church is serving or hindering the gospel of Christ in how money is handled these days.

And...full disclosure here, I'm a paid church secretary, not paid all that much, but nonetheless, I am a salaried employee of a church.

I believe there is solid biblical support for paying those who devote their time to the church. 1 Corinthians 9:1-14 is pretty clear that there is no reason why those who devote themselves full time to the work of the church should be supported by the church. 1 Timothy 5:17-18 makes the same point as well. Those texts are specific in their support of paying those who devote their time to the church. There is also the principle found in Romans 14... the "liberty" texts. It seems like taking things a bit out of context, but I don't think so. We know that Christians generally do have the liberty to do things (nothing is "unclean" and to the pure, all things are pure", so we certainly should not judge those who make their living (or even just some spending money) providing service to the Church.

But, while 1 Corinthians 9:1-14 is often pulled out in support of paying pastors and Romans 14:1-12 are often pulled out in support of a Christian's liberty to do things not specifically forbidden.... The real principle involved is found within the fact that .... while Paul had a lot to say about paying pastors and freedom in the Lord, he didn't always claim those rights. 1 Corinthians 9:12 and 15.

Paul supported himself. He did so that there could be no accusation that he was doing what he did for the money.

In other words, he consistently put the Gospel of Christ before his own rights, including the right to be paid for his service to the churches.

Today in America, the Church is taking in money to the tune of billions of dollars. The money is paid out in a number of ways, but a lot of it goes to salaries for pastors and staff. A lot of the salaries are pretty average salaries for the area in which the pastor/staff live. Others draw multi-million dollar salaries. Many churches use the tax-exemption laws to provide their pastor and staff with multi-million dollar homes for which no property taxes are paid. This has caught the attention of many, including atheists who rant (somewhat justifiably) that tax paying Americans are subsidizing religion at the rate of $71 billion (that's billion with a B) * per year. While all religions are tax-exempt, Christianity is the religion that, by an overwhelming margin, gets the lion's share of tax-free dough.

With the current national move towards legalizing gay marriage, it's been argued before the SCOTUS that churches who refuse to marry anyone who can legally marry due to their sexual orientation might lose their tax exempt status.

America is becoming increasingly a secular nation and while there are many who question whether we are truly at a "post-Christian" status, the trend is moving rapidly in that direction. Given that there have been high-profile cases in which millionaire pastors have brought dishonor to the church lately... and given that billions of dollars are going, not to support the poor and needy among us, but rather to building ever more expensive church "campuses", and that this use of money is bringing about accusations of hypocrisy and greed by secular and other non-Christians, is it time to set aside our "right" to spend free will offerings on salaries and buildings in order to be a better witness for Christ?

Thoughts?

* http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/06/16/the-yearly-cost-of-religious-tax-exemptions-71000000000/

Thanks handy.
I do question some things here.
Maybe you can help clarify it.

First off, in 1 Corinthians 9, Paul talks about his right as an Apostle.
Then he mentions "who serves as a soldier at his own expense"?
Then he says those who preach the Gospel should receive their living from the Gospel.

Now put all that together, and where does a pastor fit in?
A pastor is a shepherd of a flock.
Where does it say the shepherd of a flock should be paid?

My wife goes out into the streets regularly and preaches the Gospel.
Nobody pays her, in fact she's always giving money to those she preachers too.
My wife and I are both soldiers for Christ, serving God in several ministries and always ready to stand up for the Word of God.
No one pays us.

And how many Apostles do you know?

In 1 Timothy 5:17-18, there has always been a dispute as to what double honor is and the meaning of "do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain".
Without debating this, let's assume it is saying that preachers and teachers deserve some sort of compensation for their work.
As the verse" the worker deserves his wages" is referring to missionary assignments and Apostles are also doing missionary work, I find it somewhat difficult to fit these verses in with stationary pastors of churches who only preach to their congregations.
And how many Sunday school teachers do you know of that get paid?

If the worker deserves his wages, then maybe we should be including elders, deacons, ushers, etc.. on the payroll.

 

[jeff77]

I think pastors and church employees should receive a salary. What if pastors were not paid and had to work a 9-5 job in addition to pastoring the church. Would he still be able to fulfill all the duties of pastor?

 

[LovethroughDove]

I hope that our main focus is being a witness for Christ. I dream of the day when our "buildings" and how they are run, are not the witness. But, that we living out our lives are the witness of him.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I think pastors and church employees should receive a salary. What if pastors were not paid and had to work a 9-5 job in addition to pastoring the church. Would he still be able to fulfill all the duties of pastor?

That's a good question Jeff.
But what does the pastor do?
Preach, teach, visitation, available for counceling, marriages, funerals, etc..
Is he an administrator?
Does he do everything?
Does he only do some things?
How well would your church function with a part time pastor?
Would your pastor leave if you refused to pay him full time?

And the questions could go on.
But the question here, biblically speaking, should pastor (shepherd of a flock) be paid.
To include all these other duties changes the definition of pastor to something that is extra biblical.

 

[handy]

Clearly all Christians are called to share the gospel whether paid or not. Even as a person paid by a church (though not for preaching the gospel) I still share the gospel in season and out of season as it were.

But as for the Timothy verse referring to missionary assignments and not "stationary pastors of churches who only preach to their congregations"...I'm not so sure about that. The context is instructions for the ruling elders of the church and those who work hard at preaching and teaching. No debate here, just an honest question as to why you conclude this is speaking of "missionary assignments".

Another consideration is the very imagery of a shepherd tending the flocks... was that not a paid occupation? Shepherds are either owners of the flock (and thereby gaining an income from it... I'm a cattle rancher and my daughter is a goatherd; we certainly gain income from the critters) or are hired by the owners and thereby receive wages.

As to elders, deacons, ushers etc.. being on the payroll, many churches have a fairly large staff including paid youth workers, day care providers, etc. etc. etc.... should they be paid? The debate has often centered around the idea of can they minister to the church in these areas effectively if they are not paid and must spend a great portion of their time making a living.

 

[handy]

I think pastors and church employees should receive a salary. What if pastors were not paid and had to work a 9-5 job in addition to pastoring the church. Would he still be able to fulfill all the duties of pastor?

One thing to consider here is this: When pastors are paid (not addressing the "should they be" question, just when they are) it's often the case that many in the congregation become .... passive might be a good word here... Since there is a paid pastor, then others might not counsel, teach, do administrative duties, organize charities, etc. etc. simply because "that's what we hired the pastor for".

It seems one unintended consequence of having paid staff is that we have too many churches in which there is an "audience" going to be entertained rather than a "body" with sleeves rolled up ready to work.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I think its a crazy situation. I had a counselor who was also a minister...he did counseling at multiple locations and then pastored for very, very, very little money. Very dedicated man. Then you have the extremely well-compensated minister of a local mega-church. Well, mega-churches, really; they have multiple "campuses." The church is an Inc., and the board of directors pays the dude $$$, something like $400,000+ annually. The dude in the first trip did usual minister stuff--funerals, weddings, discple-ing people--the guy at the mega church; not so much. He's the star of the show, lol.

Considering that many minister positions require an expensive education (M. Divnity don't come cheap), it seems only fair that ministers should be paid something to keep them in a decent lifestyle. My own vision of perfect compensation package would be base pay plus whatever dude man can get from lectures, teaching classes, maybe writing books, etc.

I find it interesting...I grew up PCUSA. PCUSA ministers are, relatively speaking, well-compensated, especially considering that the denomination as a whole is dying. Ministers in other congregations have to beg and plead for reasonable compensation, it seems, and those are often the men who are actually doing things more or less in line with Biblical principles. That's a sad state of affairs :-(

I think eventually religious organizations will lose tax exempt status. I don't know when that will happen, but...there's anti-Christian hostility, plus the rise of a surprisingly militant atheism, plus economic problems, so...when those combine, I foresee a "perfect storm."

 

[handy]

I hope that our main focus is being a witness for Christ. I dream of the day when our "buildings" and how they are run, are not the witness. But, that we living out our lives are the witness of him.

A very good point, LovethroughDove. Far too often, I find that many people believe "witnessing" is comprised of inviting people to Sunday services, rather than engaging in sharing Christ's good news of salvation.

 

[jeff77]

That's a good question Jeff.
But what does the pastor do?
Preach, teach, visitation, available for counceling, marriages, funerals, etc..
Is he an administrator?
Does he do everything?
Does he only do some things?
How well would your church function with a part time pastor?
Would your pastor leave if you refused to pay him full time?

And the questions could go on.
But the question here, biblically speaking, should pastor (shepherd of a flock) be paid.
To include all these other duties changes the definition of pastor to something that is extra biblical.

I have many of those same questions. Besides preaching sermons on Sunday and Wednesday, just how much other stuff does the pastor do? As for weddings and funerals...isn't the pastor paid by the couple getting married for the marriage ceremony and paid by the family of the deceased for a funeral service? Or are these things that the pastor does covered by his church salary?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Clearly all Christians are called to share the gospel whether paid or not. Even as a person paid by a church (though not for preaching the gospel) I still share the gospel in season and out of season as it were.

But as for the Timothy verse referring to missionary assignments and not "stationary pastors of churches who only preach to their congregations"...I'm not so sure about that. The context is instructions for the ruling elders of the church and those who work hard at preaching and teaching. No debate here, just an honest question as to why you conclude this is speaking of "missionary assignments".

Another consideration is the very imagery of a shepherd tending the flocks... was that not a paid occupation? Shepherds are either owners of the flock (and thereby gaining an income from it... I'm a cattle rancher and my daughter is a goatherd; we certainly gain income from the critters) or are hired by the owners and thereby receive wages.

As to elders, deacons, ushers etc.. being on the payroll, many churches have a fairly large staff including paid youth workers, day care providers, etc. etc. etc.... should they be paid? The debate has often centered around the idea of can they minister to the church in these areas effectively if they are not paid and must spend a great portion of their time making a living.

With the Timothy verses, verse 18b, "the worker deserves his wages" is a direct quote from Luke 10:7, a verse Paul would have been familiar with.
So we have Apostles, soldiers, and Timothy being sent out to all the churches.
It should be quite clear that a stationary pastor has no mention in these verses.

To be honest, I was not questioning a pastor (shepherd) being paid for what he does.
But rather many pastors don't shepherd anybody and instead do others duties, which though may be worthy of compensation, are not biblical pastoral duties.
An administrator should be called an administrator, a councelor should be called a councellor, and so on.
A pastor (shepherd) should be called a pastor and do his duties as a pastor.

As you said before, we seem to be paying pastors for entertainment and to do the work of God that we choose not to do ourselves, and consider the compensation we give him for this as a justifiable act.

 

[jeff77]

One thing to consider here is this: When pastors are paid (not addressing the "should they be" question, just when they are) it's often the case that many in the congregation become .... passive might be a good word here... Since there is a paid pastor, then others might not counsel, teach, do administrative duties, organize charities, etc. etc. simply because "that's what we hired the pastor for".

It seems one unintended consequence of having paid staff is that we have too many churches in which there is an "audience" going to be entertained rather than a "body" with sleeves rolled up ready to work.

I can definitely see that happening. The church I attend has a paid staff, but also a lot of the members volunteer for ministries like VBS, teaching sunday school, community outreach groups, etc... I don't think there is a lack of people to fill all the ministry positions, but my guess is that more than half of the active members don't do anything other than come on Sunday morning.

 

[handy]

With the Timothy verses, verse 18b, "the worker deserves his wages" is a direct quote from Luke 10:7, a verse Paul would have been familiar with.
So we have Apostles, soldiers, and Timothy being sent out to all the churches.
It should be quite clear that a stationary pastor has no mention in these verses.

To be honest, I was not questioning a pastor (shepherd) being paid for what he does.
But rather many pastors don't shepherd anybody and instead do others duties, which though may be worthy of compensation, are not biblical pastoral duties.
An administrator should be called an administrator, a councelor should be called a councellor, and so on.
A pastor (shepherd) should be called a pastor and do his duties as a pastor.

As you said before, we seem to be paying pastors for entertainment and to do the work of God that we choose not to do ourselves, and consider the compensation we give him for this as a justifiable act.

Rather than continue on in the minutiae of how to interpret workers and wages and oxen and muzzles... I'll just completely agree with you. Whether or not the early church paid those who were recognized as pastors (I tend to believe they did)... TODAY, I wonder if we are being good stewards of money in how we disperse it.

Somehow, I wonder how Jesus would approach the Coffee Bars and Light Shows that so much money is spent on in many of today's churches. Would it be, "Well done, good and faithful servants" or "behold, I'm standing outside the door and knocking".

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Rather than continue on in the minutiae of how to interpret workers and wages and oxen and muzzles... I'll just completely agree with you. Whether or not the early church paid those who were recognized as pastors (I tend to believe they did)... TODAY, I wonder if we are being good stewards of money in how we disperse it.

Somehow, I wonder how Jesus would approach the Coffee Bars and Light Shows that so much money is spent on in many of today's churches. Would it be, "Well done, good and faithful servants" or "behold, I'm standing outside the door and knocking".

Lol, yeah, I like it when they walk in 15 minutes late with a coffee, a muffin, and a cell phone in their hands.
They seem to gain more attention than anything else.

 

[jasonc]

if I may, I have been abused by the church whilst working for them. the labor board was contacted and I was paid what I was owed. I didn't report them.

 

[Christ_empowered]

yeah...when I was at Teen challenge, I saw some abuse of power+tax exempt status....

 

[Marilyn C]

Hi Handy,

I think we need to clarify that the `church` you are talking about is the church organisation, which is only one way of believers gathering together. The `Church` is the Body of Christ, the called out one, the believers, as we all know. To just give the organisation the label `church` is narrowing down what is the true church. This then gives the organisations of man, too much power, meaning that `they` are the `church.` Whereas they are not, they are just organisations that people run in many forms & because they have done this over centuries it has become set in concrete that this is the ONLY way the church can meet together or function. Thus said, I believe that more & more the organisations are run as businesses & therefore have to come in line with the world system.

There was a recent survey done in America where they discovered that the people leaving the organisations were those that had worked the hardest, been involved in many activities over the years, etc but now they were `done` with the system, but not done with their faith. They now worked with other believers in the community, & functioned without man`s organisation. They said that those systems took all their time, energy & effort to mainly run meetings or activities controlled by the few. They had worked hard in the system but now were seeking other ways to function by the Holy Spirit.

The research is coming out in a book titled - `Church Refugees.`

Interesting, Marilyn.

 

[Marilyn C]

That book, the `Church Refugees,` is written by Dr. Josh Packard. (Sociologist)

You can download the first chapter from the site, `The God Journey,` (#484) And there is a discussion with Josh in two parts, `Where are the Dones?` & part 2 also. Dr Josh Packard also has a site which is posted there.

For any who are interested to follow up & see what is happening across the Body of Christ.

Marilyn.