Renumeration of pastors and making money off religion

[FireDragon76]

I wanted to start this thread because I commented on a thread in the Spirit-Filled Charismatic forum, and the discussion became heated, so I think it's best it continue elsewhere.

Why do some people seem to think that criticizing a pastor's renumeration and income is improper? Is this a characteristic of the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement as a whole? Traditionally, Protestants, and many reformers before them like Wycliffe and Hus, criticized the wealth of the Church and the misuse of resources. Some reformers even supported the state seizing church assets, an ethos very much at odds with the current US Supreme Court ruling that churches have a right to renumerate their pastors with as much money as they want, tax free, for housing, in the name of "freedom of religion". I think that's very troubling from a spiritual standpoint.

 

[thecolorsblend]

It's weird that some Protestants criticize the vows of poverty which some traditional Christian clergy take.

It's weirder still that a lot of those same Protestants criticize some of their own (apparently) for not taking vows of poverty.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's weird that some Protestants criticize the vows of poverty which some traditional Christian clergy take.

It's weirder still that a lot of those same Protestants criticize some of their own (apparently) for not taking vows of poverty.

If Wycliffe or Hus had graves, they'ld be turning over in them. The Pope lives a less lavish lifestyle now than many prominent Protestant clergy.

 

[thecolorsblend]

If Wycliffe or Hus had graves, they'ld be turning over in them. The Pope lives a less lavish lifestyle now than many prominent Protestant clergy.

The Pope hasn't lived high on the hog at any time in recent memory. At least a century.

If people could see the papal apartment, they'd be shocked by the patch-work carpets, the worn out and ugly rugs and all that.

There are stories out there about Pope John Paul II's secretary resorting to sneaky measures just to replace his undergarments with el cheapo Fruit Of The Loom items. Meanwhile, as you say, it's easy to find Protestant leaders wearing $3,000 suits.

Kind of makes you wonder who the more ostentatious bunch is.

Even so, there are positive signs in the Protestant worlds. Back in my evangelical days, I attended what the media have always called a "mega-church". The lead pastor there brought down something like $50 or $55k per year. That was a bit over ten years ago now. And that's a comfortable living, one supposes, but solidly middle class. Although, he was the sole bread winner in a family of four. So hmm.

But the pastor still occasionally got dragged by some parishioners for "being rich". His critics never publicly announced their salaries the way the pastor did. But judging by their Lexus and/or Audi cars, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that they made considerably more than the pastor did.

Honestly, a wealthy Christian leader is not a bad thing, ipso facto. At least, I don't think so. But I do acknowledge that it's not a good look. Still, what's better: Getting rich from being a Christian leader or getting rich from purely secular employment?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I wanted to start this thread because I commented on a thread in the Spirit-Filled Charismatic forum, and the discussion became heated, so I think it's best it continue elsewhere.

Why do some people seem to think that criticizing a pastor's renumeration and income is improper? Is this a characteristic of the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement as a whole? Traditionally, Protestants, and many reformers before them like Wycliffe and Hus, criticized the wealth of the Church and the misuse of resources. Some reformers even supported the state seizing church assets, an ethos very much at odds with the current US Supreme Court ruling that churches have a right to renumerate their pastors with as much money as they want, tax free, for housing, in the name of "freedom of religion". I think that's very troubling from a spiritual standpoint.

Depends on where one looks in the Charismatic/Pentecostal circle really. I spent about ten years, from childhood to adulthood, as part of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, a Pentecostal denomination founded in the US in the 1920's. One of the basic principles of the ICFG was avoiding fanaticism, as such the charismatic flavor of Foursquare services tended to be far more moderate than other Pentecostal services I've seen and experienced. That also meant there was a lot of suspicion and antipathy toward some of the various extremes that one sees in the Charismatic tradition, such as the Latter Rain stuff, or the "Toronto Blessing" or "Brownsville Revival" stuff that seemed to have merged together to become what we know today as NAR.

There was also a tendency to be firmly against things like WoF, or the opulence one sees when they turn on TBN.

Truth be told, I was already largely on my way out of the Pentecostal tradition* when I started to learn about some of the more extreme stuff out there. So my experience was of a pretty mild, moderate form of Pentecostalism.

*My leaving my church and moving away from the Pentecostal tradition wasn't motivated by bad experiences or hard feelings with my church at the time, but rather I simply found my own views shifting through my study of Scripture and Church history; which is what ultimately led me toward tripping over my own two feet into Lutheranism in my 20's.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

@ViaCrucis, so is this something that is more connected with Third Wave Charismaticism?

My S.O. used to be involved in Foursquare churches and their religion just seemed like typical Holiness religion, in regards to their attitude to money. Which was mostly the same as any other traditional Protestant.

 

[archer75]

I find the whole thing troubling.

Over where I am, we have married priests and as it seems to me, it is not insane to pay them something for the running of the parish. How well or honorably this is done in practice, I have no idea. I assume most priests in the OCA receive fairly modest remuneration, considering they probably knock themselves out and often have kids.

I think it's kind of crazy to get to dump millions tax-free onto any pastor / priest, regardless of whether they're in my jurisdiciton or confession.

 

[FireDragon76]

I find the whole thing troubling.

Over where I am, we have married priests and as it seems to me, it is not insane to pay them something for the running of the parish. How well or honorably this is done in practice, I have no idea. I assume most priests in the OCA receive fairly modest remuneration, considering they probably knock themselves out and often have kids.

I think it's kind of crazy to get to dump millions tax-free onto any pastor / priest, regardless of whether they're in my jurisdiciton or confession.

I was attending an OCA church for a few years and the priest had threadbare clothes sometimes, you could see worn tennis shoes poking out under his cassock. He eventually was able to move into a real house, but his wife worked too.

 

[archer75]

I was attending an OCA church for a few years and the priest had threadbare clothes sometimes, you could see worn tennis shoes poking out under his cassock. He eventually was able to move into a real house, but his wife worked too.

Yeah, this seems consistent with what little I have heard or seen.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't know that "improper" is the right word, but I think it's a very difficult topic.

How much is "enough" money? How much is too much? Does it matter how many children the minister has, or whether he/she has another source of income, or a spouse who works? What if he/she receives an inheritance; are they free to spend it as they wish?

Most of the time, people don't know the ins and outs of a minister's finances, and beyond what the church pays them (which should be publicly known, at least in the church), that's the private business of the minister. I know there are places where ministers feel they almost have to pretend to be poorer than they are, in order not to be judged; and I think that's ridiculous.

I don't want to get to the point where, for example, if I wear the valuable earrings my grandmother left to me when she died, someone is thinking, "How unChristian of Paidiske to have spent a small fortune on gemstones when it could have gone to the parish/the poor; what a sham of a priest she is!" But that sort of stuff happens.

I'm not arguing that churches should pay their pastors millions, (where I am, the stipend is pegged at a percentage - I think 80% - of the national average wage, and that seems to be reasonable), but if a pastor is paid a reasonable stipend which the church board agrees to and about which they're accountable to their membership, I think that frankly that's where criticism should start and end.

Unless you're happy to submit an accounting of all your financial decisions for public review and shaming!

 

[FireDragon76]

@Paidiske, is this really a cultural difference? I noticed somebody else that was from that part of the word took offense at the whole notion as well, like I was treading on something private.

Lutherans in the US just see it as a matter of social responsibility when we insist the pastor's salary and compensations should not be secret. We aren't out to shame people but we do value transparency and the congregation has a right to decide those things since, after all, they were part of calling him or her in the first place. We would never accept a church structure where we didn't have some kind of oversight of that.

Maybe part of the reason we have this perspective is because we do not understand the Church as itself being a divine institution necessarily above the ordinary norms of the rest of civil society. The Gospel and the Sacraments are divine, but the institution itself is not. And because it is the minister of the Gospel and the sacraments, the Church bears a special responsibility that other civil institutions do not (we aren't above the same kind of scrutiny the Lord himself accepted, after all). And I think that's my real issue. The whole "touch not the Lord's anointed" thing reeks of serious spiritual confusion.

 

[Paidiske]

Sure; if we're talking about what goes from the church's bank account to the pastor's bank account, within the church there should be transparency and accountability. The congregation should be able to see the church budget etc.

The problem is when this flows into then thinking they have a right to control or police what the pastor does with his or her own money, whether it's what the church paid them or they came by it another way. It's very common for this to become a useful tool for those who bully their clergy.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sure; if we're talking about what goes from the church's bank account to the pastor's bank account, within the church there should be transparency and accountability. The congregation should be able to see the church budget etc.

The problem is when this flows into then thinking they have a right to control or police what the pastor does with his or her own money, whether it's what the church paid them or they came by it another way. It's very common for this to become a useful tool for those who bully their clergy.

I do think clergy deserve extra scrutiny, though. Surely the past 1,000 years of Christian history has taught us that. It's one thing to complain about a pastor wearing nice earrings, and another to complain about a pastor that owns multiple mansion compounds for homes. And its even more deserved criticism when these types of folks tell us how to run our lives and broker political influence (which is very real in the US, unlike Australia).

 

[W2L]

I dont generally trust any teacher. I have a bible.

 

[Paidiske]

I do think clergy deserve extra scrutiny, though. Surely the past 1,000 years of Christian history has taught us that. It's one thing to complain about a pastor wearing nice earrings, and another to complain about a pastor that owns multiple mansion compounds for homes. And its even more deserved criticism when these types of folks tell us how to run our lives and broker political influence (which is very real in the US, unlike Australia).

The problem is, who should apply this extra scrutiny? What guidelines does it have? And what boundaries? If you think your church should include in its code of ethics for pastors (I assume it has one) some sorts of guidelines about the ethical handling of money, and some sort of provision for oversight of that, that would be appropriate. Random parishioners and members of the public making uninformed comments on individual choices is not.

Otherwise you do just get the petty small stuff being made into a big deal; because most of us don't own multiple mansions (or even one); but everyone owns or does something their congregation can sharpen their teeth on. And they do. I've heard of pastors being criticised for running their heating, or using their clothes drier too much. And that's just not necessary or helpful.

 

[FireDragon76]

I dont generally trust any teacher. I have a bible.

Well, I'm not really advocating for religious individualism, either. Just socially responsible religion. I really do believe that we need each other, as the Bible says, as iron sharpens iron (Proverbs 27:17).

 

[W2L]

Well, I'm not really advocating for religious individualism, either. Just socially responsible religion.

Its not really individualism if you debate your beliefs and learn. Of course in the end you see all the divisive traditions and doctrines and wonder if any of its necessary. I dont think 90% of tradition is necessary, so i wonder why people let it divide them.

 

[FireDragon76]

Its not really individualism if you debate your beliefs and learn. Of course in the end you see all the divisive traditions and doctrines and wonder if any of its necessary. I dont think 90% of tradition is necessary, so i wonder why people let it divide them.

Some division is good, if it divides truth from error. The idea that the freedom of the Gospel is compatible with irresponsible use of wealth is one of those errors. People were martyred in the past for this principle alone.

I actually don't see my church's traditions as all that divisive really. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) even proposed that the Augsburg Confession is simply a confession of Catholic faith. What's divisive is people living high off the donations of the sheep pontificating about a life they themselves have never lived. It's nothing but the blind leading the blind.

 

[W2L]

The idea that the freedom of the Gospel is compatible with irresponsible use of wealth is one of those errors.

I knew that from reading scripture.

 

[ViaCrucis]

@ViaCrucis, so is this something that is more connected with Third Wave Charismaticism?

My S.O. used to be involved in Foursquare churches and their religion just seemed like typical Holiness religion, in regards to their attitude to money. Which was mostly the same as any other traditional Protestant.

The notion of wealth = blessing is usually traced back to figures such as E. W. Kenyon, Kenyon's view known as "Positive Confession" has been asserted by some to have been influenced by New Thought, or perhaps by some aspects of late 19th century Holiness Movement (it is, apparently, a matter of continued debate). That said, Kenyon's ideas were a major influence on Kenneth Hagin, with some of Hagin's works eerily seeming to mirror or even appear to plagiarize Kenyon's works. We also see some of this in Oral Roberts. As such these things predate the "Third Wave".

I think probably the safest way to put it is that this stuff has been a fringe current for a long time, but has only gained something of a more "mainstream" (if only by comparison to the past) over the last several decades. It's something that divides the Pentecostal/Charismatic world, and that divide is fairly major.

-CryptoLutheran