What if Preachers Never Got Paid?

[ananda]

III John 5-7 addresses the issue as well....

Beloved, you are acting faithfully in whatever you accomplish for the brethren, and especially when they are strangers; and they have testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their way in a manner worthy of God. For they went out for the sake of the Name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles. Therefore we ought to support such men, so that we may be fellow workers with the truth.

Ruh Roh, another text that deflates the don't give them nothing position.

And THIS time John is the culprit not Paul!

ἡμεῖς οὖν ὀφείλομεν ὑπολαμβάνειν (hypolambanein) τοὺς τοιούτους ἵνα συνεργοὶ γινώμεθα τῇ ἀληθείᾳ - 3Jo 1:7

hypolambanein - means "to receive, welcome" - not "to support as in through a salary". These missionaries "accept nothing", and are thus worthy to be welcomed as fellow workers of the truth.

It means the opposite of what you think it means!

Try again

 

[A New Dawn]

Or that, through their faith, they would be taken care of by the Father, who even clothes and feeds the birds. Mammon is possessions, which I see as the disciples not having.

Money is a means to an end. I'm sure the Father provided the end.

And why would God providing a community that would support His ministers not be part of the way it could happen?

 

[Phantasman]

ἡμεῖς οὖν ὀφείλομεν ὑπολαμβάνειν (hypolambanein) τοὺς τοιούτους ἵνα συνεργοὶ γινώμεθα τῇ ἀληθείᾳ - 3Jo 1:7

hypolambanein - means "to receive, welcome" - not "to support as in through a salary". These missionaries "accept nothing", and are thus worthy to be welcomed as fellow workers of the truth.

It means the opposite of what you think it means!

Try again

Yeah. But the catholics changed the rules.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Papal Mint

When Jesus asked who's picture was on the coin, he taught what was Gods and what was Caesars. How does one justify making money then? Put the Popes picture on the coin as well. Now God allows them to take the money.

(hmmm)

 

[Phantasman]

And why would God providing a community that would support His ministers not be part of the way it could happen?

I never said they couldn't accept money. But the established career to teach the Gospel is not a money making endeavor of supporting ones life.

 

[drstevej]

It means the opposite of what you think it means!

Try again

accepting nothing from the Gentiles

John commends those who extend hospitality to these missionaries and then send them off with some provisions for the journey.

He commends Gaius (generosity) and condemns Demetrius (an early "pay em nothing" kind of guy).

 

[drstevej]

I never said they couldn't accept money. But the established career to teach the Gospel is not a money making endeavor of supporting ones life.

Not what Paul said so grab the Liquid Paper and JST him out.

 

[ananda]

accepting nothing from the Gentiles

John commends those who extend hospitality to these missionaries and then send them off with some provisions for the journey.

He commends Gaius (generosity) and condemns Demetrius (an early "pay em nothing" kind of guy).

I'm talking about salaries, the topic of the OP.

 

[A New Dawn]

I never said they couldn't accept money. But the established career to teach the Gospel is not a money making endeavor of supporting ones life.

You need to define "money making endeavor". How do you suggest that people who go out and spend their lives preaching and teaching, and otherwise doing God's work, live?

I'm talking about salaries, the topic of the OP.

So how do you suggest that the scriptures that support God's people supporting God's ministers plays out in this day and age? You have to have some idea how those scripture passages are to be interpreted for today, right?

 

[Phantasman]

Not what Paul said so grab the Liquid Paper and JST him out.

Or what someone said "Paul said".

No one knows. We only have Irenaeus (180AD) defending it (even though Marcion never had it in his Pauline Bible 140 AD).

Sounds fishy, and points towards catholic interventions.

 

[contango]

Would you consider being a preacher if they didn't get paid? If you are a preacher, would you quit if you could longer get paid for it?

I think it would depend on just what you mean by "being a preacher".

If you mean giving a sermon on a Sunday morning then I wouldn't expect to receive a payment for it. If I were invited to preach at a church that required travelling I would accept reasonable expenses but wouldn't expect anything over and above what was necessary. At present it seems unlikely but if at some point I were asked to preach somewhere a significant distance away I'd want travel and accommodation to be covered, but don't need to fly first class and don't need a 5-star hotel.

If a church as a body wants a full-time minister they need to pay the minister a liveable wage. If the minister's job is to preach on a Sunday and maybe minister to people in the evenings when they are free it's reasonable to expect them to take a job. If the church wants the minister on hand during the day, in a way that makes a regular job impractical, the church needs to pay the minister so they can live.

Whether the church offers a salary of $10,000 or $10,000,000 is for the church to decide.

 

[Phantasman]

You need to define "money making endeavor". How do you suggest that people who go out and spend their lives preaching and teaching, and otherwise doing God's work, live?




So how do you suggest that the scriptures that support God's people supporting God's ministers plays out in this day and age? You have to have some idea how those scripture passages are to be interpreted for today, right?

My wifes pastor brother-in-law worked at Lowes most of his life. He lives quite well through his stock options. He is a retired pastor who didn't accept money from the church. He still sings from time to time in the church, but doesn't get paid.

Why would anyone want to pay for the same experience they can have as a "paid priest/pastor". What do they offer that is worth money?

 

[Moodshadow]

My wifes pastor brother-in-law worked at Lowes most of his life. He lives quite well through his stock options. He is a retired pastor who didn't accept money from the church. He still sings from time to time in the church, but doesn't get paid.

Why would anyone want to pay for the same experience they can have as a "paid priest/pastor". What do they offer that is worth money?

Some people consider that a man's time and life - and oh-by-the-way his family's livelihood - are worth supporting. When he is on the job/on call pretty much 24/7 in the service of his congregation, with no other job distracting him from his calling, a lot of people believe that's worth compensating. (And like your own education, the years of study that enabled him to teach knowledgeably weren't exactly free, either.)

 

[drstevej]

I bet I could have gotten people in my church to pay me to NOT sing.

 

[2ducklow]

I'm gonna turn the question on it's head.

"What if congregations never paid their full time pastor for his services?

 

[drstevej]

My dad sometimes tells a story of when he was on his mission.

One day, he and his companion got a call requesting the missionaries. It turns out that the person who made the call was the minister of a local congregation.

The man believed in the Book of Mormon, such that he sometimes included passages in his sermons (the congregants never noticed, as they were supposedly never read their scriptures and just got by on what the minister told them). He claimed to have a testimony of the LDS faith, and his primary reason for asking the missionaries over was so that he could replace his old, worn-out BoM.

Then my dad and his companion asked him why he was still a minister.

You see, as a minister, the guy was getting a steady paycheck and a roof over his head (his church owned his house). By becoming Mormon, he'd lose everything.

And one story proves a universal????

 

[Phantasman]

Some people consider that a man's time and life - and oh-by-the-way his family's livelihood - are worth supporting. When he is on the job/on call pretty much 24/7 in the service of his congregation, with no other job distracting him from his calling, a lot of people believe that's worth compensating. (And like your own education, the years of study that enabled him to teach knowledgeably weren't exactly free, either.)

If you teach another of Christ, how much do you feel they should pay you?

 

[Phantasman]

I'm gonna turn the question on it's head.

"What if congregations never paid their full time pastor for his services?

He would have to work like the rest of them. And if he quit pastoring, it must have been for the money.

 

[Moodshadow]

If you teach another of Christ, how much do you feel they should pay you?

I believe that's a great question. There are so-called preachers out there who have zillion-dollar, glass-castle-type "cathedrals," and they implore their congregants to pour money into their coffers - and believe it or not, they do. There are televangelists who promise healings and blessings and untold wealth, all in return for your generous check, made out to them. There are Jim Bakker-Tammy Faye-type "ministries" out there, too, and many like them, whose glitz and scandals make Christianity a hiss and a byword on the lips of many people - and understandably so, for they are common crooks who take advantage of innocent people's goodness for their own gain, in the name of the Lord. These kinds of people enjoy lives of luxury, for sure, and they may be what you think of first when you think of "paid ministry." But please believe me when I tell you that for every one of these leeches, there are thousands of preachers and ministers of all denominations who are quietly serving their congregations for barely enough to live on, simply because they feel it is what God wants them to do with their lives. They do it for the joy and satisfaction of bringing souls to Him, not because they have any delusions that they're going to get rich from it. Have you ever seen pictures of Billy Graham's home in South Carolina? It's beautiful, but it is not opulent at all - and can you even imagine how much money has been collected in the many decades of his sermons? He was never in it for the money; he was serving God. That's the way it's supposed to be. There always have been and always will be those who abuse their power, irrespective of religion or denomination or position. Go visit the home of a real pastor some time and get back to me.

 

[drstevej]

I do not know of preachers who print money...

Except ....

Joseph Smith, Jr.

 

[ananda]

So how do you suggest that the scriptures that support God's people supporting God's ministers plays out in this day and age? You have to have some idea how those scripture passages are to be interpreted for today, right?

The Scriptures teach me that 1. all faithful believers are God's ministers, 2. there is no separation between "clergy" and "laity", and 3. all are to serve for free. "Freely you received, freely give."