Wednesday, September 05, 2012
The Big Business Of Religion
The Gospel Coalition linked to an interesting study of the salaries of "mega-church pastors" in the post How Much Money Do Megachurch Pastors Make? The study is quite interesting, looking only at "churches" with an attendance of 2000 or more and what it shows is that religion is indeed big business.
• Total cash compensation (including allowances for housing) for senior pastors ranged from $85,000 to more than $265,000, though the majority of the salaries cluster around the $100,000 to $140,000 range.
Of course there are some pretty nice tax advantages built in here as well. To give you an idea of what that means, salaries like that are in the very top wage bands of U.S. salary, the sort of salary demanded by medical professionals, corporate executives and other highly skilled professionals. Now if you see being an elder as a "profession", one that you have to invest a number of years and lot of money to gain the right educational credentials for, this makes sense but aren't we told all the time that being an elder/pastor is a calling, not a job or a profession?
I left this comment on the post to try to stir up some thoughtful conversation:
The greater question is not how much the megachurch guys make. In our corporate model of "church" it only makes sense. The question we should be asking is why are we paying able bodied men in the first place, subcontracting out the work of ministry to a small cadre of professionals? Paul worked for a living, rightly viewing the demand for payment to be a obstacle to the Gospel (1 Cor 9:12), and also to provide an example to others (2 Thess 3:7-10). Paul wasn't even a "pastor" but a traveling itinerant apostle and church planter. Until we are willing to ask these questions, the issue of mega-church salaries is irrelevant.
The comments should prove interesting, especially since one guy already made the comment before I posted that:
Paul ordered churches to pay their pastors and appointed pastors/elders/bishops.
Wow! Can't wait to see where the support for that comes from!
Studies like this shed some light on a topic that is taboo in the church, the conflict between the Biblical model of a voluntary, local leadership drawn from the within the body versus the Roman based model of a professional clerical class hired from outside of the church that draws financial support from the church. The sad reality is that we are headed toward a place where there will be two types of local churches, huge high production value religious megachurches that can pay multiple men professional level salaries and small local congregations that won't be able to pay men at all. In twenty years from now I am not sure what all of those guys with M.Divs are going to be doing but I am pretty sure it won't be sermon prep and hospital visits.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I'm definitely sympathetic to your take, but I'm curious how you interpret and apply Galatians 6:6 ("Nevertheless, the one who receives instruction in the word should share all good things with their instructor.", NIV)?
Hey Kevin
That is a verse that is commonly referenced in this discussion but it also is more notable for what it doesn't say than for what it does.
Share but share what? The church shared all things in common in the early days. Does this mean a salary? What about a Sunday school teacher? It is a huge leap to go from Galatians 6:6 or "double honor" for elders in 1 Tim 5:17 to a man making a full time profession from a salary paid by the local church.
Given the context and the circumstances, it makes more sense that a traveling teacher would be welcome to share a meal or stay in your home than an elder would expect to be paid by the church in perpetuity. The model that we take for granted, a full time pastor who spends his week preparing for a monologue sermon on Sunday, didn't exist in the time Paul was writing but we often have a hard time distinguishing between what the Bible is actually saying and our church culture is assuming.
I would encourage you to check out a series on paying elders by Alan Knox, this is the first post: http://www.alanknox.net/2007/10/what-about-work/ and it really opened my eyes back when I started to question this system.
Arthur,
Reading figures such as those mentioned causes me to feel embarrassed that I was once part of, what is understood to be, a professional function rather than simply a faithful member of the Body of Christ, freely using the gifts given him to serve Christ and the brethren.
Wonder why I'm reminded of Jesus advice to the rich young ruler?
Considering the waning impact that Christianity is having on our culture, I'd say that this small group of professionals is definitely not giving the "church" a good return on its investment. Could it be that "ordinary" Christians are meant to be the salt and light in our world?
The prosperity gospel has saturated the mega churches. It becomes their religion and so, the logic behind such gospel is that being successful in attracting large congregations and wealthy means that the church ministry is approved of God and the pastors are anointed ministers of God. But such religion is contrary to the religion of the Bible, it being, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." (James 1:27, NIV) Is it any wonder that we are experiencing the falling away, which must happen before the lawless one appears on the world scene?
1. Paul isn't just speaking of himself. In 1 Corinthians 9 he is speaking generally of "those who proclaim the gospel" (9:14). To them, he says, the Lord Jesus has commanded that they be paid by those to whom they are preaching.
2. In 1 Timothy 5:17, the word "labor" means to "labor", i.e. to work hard. It's not a hobby on the side, like golf. It takes time; it is an occupation. Then, "“The laborer deserves his wages.” (1 Tim. 5:18, again establishing the principle that the preacher of the gospel has a God-given right to be paid.)
3. In 1 Cor. 9 Paul has been making a case that the "those who proclaim the gospel" (not just himself or the itinerant or the apostle) has a God-given right to be paid. He concludes that with the saying quoted above, saying that it is a command from the Lord Jesus. He then goes on to explain that he is not availing himself of this "right". In 2 Corinthians he explains that he was being financially supported by the Macedonian church so as not to take money from them. So it was not as though he wasn't getting paid; he just was not being paid at that time by the Corinthians. And he was only doing that in Corinth because only there was it an obstacle.
John Carpenter
John
1) It is highly improbable that Paul meant our professionalized clergy delivering sermons on a weekly basis to the church when he spoke of those preaching the Gospel but rather he was speaking of those who took the Gospel to the lost.
2) The same holds true here. Also Paul says they should are worthy of double honor but a few verses earlier he says to honor widows. Should we pay them a salary and benefits? Should all of the elders in a church be paid a permanent salary?
3) When Paul wrote those words there was no professional clerical class in the church. He couldn't have been referring to our notion of clergy since they didn't exist yet. It makes sense that those who were commissioned to travel, like Paul and Barnabas, to have a right to be supported by the church but the model that Paul consistently demonstrated was that those who could work should work and not be a burden on the church.
Hi,
Thanks for the convenient points:
1. In 1 Corinthians 9:14 he says exactly of whom he is speaking: "those who proclaim the gospel". He doesn't say "to the lost." Instead, it is a generic command to financially support all who "proclaim the gospel." There is no basis from that chapter to narrow the referent to only the itinerant or the evangelist.
2. The basis for whether 1 Tim. 5:17f refers to financial support is not the debatable idea that "honor" means honorarium but the clear statement in 5:18 that "the laborer deserves his wages." So, in this context, Paul is speaking to the "elders who rule well, especially in preaching and teaching." These are local church teaching elders. They deserve their wages.
3. Your statement "When Paul wrote those words there was no professional clerical class in the church" assumes the answer before you've even opened the Bible. Unfortunately for that statement, your statement is obviously not true. There is the command in 1 Corinthians 9 to support those who proclaim the gospel and that financial support of the preacher of the gospel is a "right"; 1 Tim. 5:17f applies it specifically to the local church teaching elder; Galatians 6:2 says the same; in Philippians 4:15 we see that Paul took financial support from the Philippian church, before taking it from the Macedonians, and in 2 Corinthians he rebuked the Corinthians for having to ask the Macedonians to support him while he lived in Corinth. Your statement that Paul usually worked rather than take financial support is simply false.
No where does he teach that elders and those who proclaim the gospel should work for a living. His teaching is clear that those who proclaim the gospel should get paid; the laborer deserves his wages. By his example, he expected churches to support him.
John Carpenter
John
1. I proclaim the Gospel on a regular basis. Should I get paid? I certainly don't want to be as I am happy to share what Christ has done on the cross without demanding people pay me to do so. Somehow we have narrowed this definition down to only include professionals in spite of the lack of professional clergy in these days. Every example of preaching the Gospel in the Scriptures is to the lost and there is not a single example of a monologue sermon that we call "preaching" to the church anywhere in the New Testament.
2. You completely avoided the question about widows but we will ignore that for now. The quote about laborers comes from multiple places in the New Testament (Matt 10:10; Luke 10:7) and has to do with eating in someone's house when traveling. It has nothing to do with a salary just as not muzzling an ox has nothing to do with salaries. The reference point here is sharing within the church and speaks of food. You read "wages" and can only think of a professional "pastor" that gets paid as a subcontractor for the ministry that the entire church should be engaged in. Can you recognize that the church culture we live in has more to do with your assumptions than Scripture? Or do you really think that the first century church hired men to give sermons each week and visit people in the hospital?
3. I assume you miss the irony of your assertion about me making a decision before opening the Bible since you are defending a Roman Catholic tradition co-opted by Protestants. Again, there were no professional clergy in the New Testament.
In Acts 20:33-35 Paul commends the elders to imitate him in working for a living,
I coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” (Acts 20:33-35 ESV)
You have assumed a tradition, a full-time paid professional clergy, and support that tradition by snippets of text without the slightest regard for context. You read 1 Tim 5:17 and assume that Paul is speaking of a permanent salaried position. You read 1 Cor 9 and in spite of what it says you assume a permanent salaried position. You read Galatians 6:6 (you reference 6:2 but I assume that was a typo) and assume sharing means a permanent salaried position. You read Philippians 4:15 and somehow come up with defense for local elders being paid because the church in Philippi gave to support Paul as he travelled, something that is perfectly Biblical but that has nothing to do with paying local elders. Your argument regarding 2 Corinthians is especially puzzling
Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God's gospel to you free of charge? I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you. And when I was with you and was in need, I did not burden anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied my need. So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way. (2 Corinthians 11:7-9 ESV)
Paul speaks of preaching the Gospel free of charge yet again and saw financial support from the other churches (again as a travelling itinerant worker, not a local church elder) as robbing those churches. Paul sees financial support as a burden and theft not to mention a obstacle to the Gospel (1 Cor 9:12). I don't really understand why so many people are so adamant about defending a traditon that amounts to burdening the church, stealing from the church and placing an obstacle in front of the Gospel.
I can also recommend a great series on paying pastors, especially the third dealing with the "honor" issue and why it doesn't mean a salary:
http://www.alanknox.net/2007/10/what-about-work/
http://www.alanknox.net/2007/10/what-about-work-for-elderspastors/
http://www.alanknox.net/2007/10/what-about-honor-for-elderspastors/
http://www.alanknox.net/2007/10/what-about-right-of-elderspastors/
http://www.alanknox.net/2007/10/summary-should-elderspastors-be-paid/
1. With all due respect, if you cannot interpret scripture well enough to realize what 1 Corinthians 9 and 1 Timothy 5:17f, etc, is saying, then you should not be teaching or preaching it.
1 Corinthians 9:14 is absolutely clear. In it's context, it is even more forceful. Paying "the preacher of the gospel" is a "command" of the Lord Jesus Himself; it has OT roots; and receiving that pay is a "right". I fail to see how there is even any ambiguity there.
Again, you simply assert your assumption -- "in spite of the lack of professional clergy in these days". While they may not have had the sadly professional careerists we have too many of today -- who treat the church like any other occupation -- if by "profession" we mean people who make their primary living from the ministry and if by "clergy" we mean a class of men designated to a special office ("pastors/teachers", Eph. 4:11; teaching elders, 1 Tim. 5:17f), then scripture clearly tells us they did indeed have that. To interpret scripture correctly, you have to put aside the preconceived notions you bring to it.
2. Your handling of 1 Tim. 5:17f is, frankly, absurd. You say, "has to do with eating in someone's house when traveling." Prove that. And prove it from the text, not from some commentator who holds to your opinions. You can't. The passage is clear: "The laborer deserves his wages." It is the teaching elder who is "laboring" in preaching and teaching. He deserves to get paid. You've false narrowed the referent in 1 Corinthians 9:14 to only the itinerant and now you've falsely narrowed the "wages" to only a meal. In Galatians 6:6, the church member is also commanded to share "all good things", not just a meal. You've consistently inserted your opinions into the text in order to avoid what it says.
Further, the reference to honoring the widows in 1 Timothy 5 proves my point and undermines yours. "Honor" is demonstrated in practically providing for people; the widows who deserved to be honored were provided for financially by the early church; therefore, even if 5:18 doesn't specifically tell us that the "laborer deserves his wage", we could infer that the honor given to a teaching elder should also demonstrate itself in financial provision.
3. You can keep saying "there were no professional clergy in the New Testament" but you do so in the face of several scriptures that establish financial support for men whose work was the teaching and preaching of the Word. The Apostles in Acts set the pattern by creating the office of deacon so that they could dedicate themselves to the ministry of Word and prayer. They certainly weren't spending their time working for money.
In the 2 Corinthians scripture you quoted, we learn that Paul was supported by the Macedonians while ministering in Corinth. He was taking financial support from "other churches" because the Corinthians were too immature to accept their responsibility to support him. In Philippians 4:15 we learn he was supported by the Philippians before that.
Your charge that I've taken any scripture out of context is absurd. You, in fact, cite 1 Corinthians 9:12 while ignoring first that in that verse he calls financial support a "right" and then concludes just two verses later: "In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel."
John Carpenter
1. Paul isn't just speaking of himself. In 1 Corinthians 9 he is speaking generally of "those who proclaim the gospel" (9:14). To them, he says, the Lord Jesus has commanded that they be paid by those to whom they are preaching.
In 2nd Corinthians he explains that he was "robbing" other churches by taking financial support from them rather than get it from the Corinthians who should have been rightfully paying him.
2. In 1 Timothy 5:17, the word "labor" means to "labor", i.e. to work hard. It's not a hobby on the side, like golf. It takes time; it is an occupation. Then, "“The laborer deserves his wages.” (1 Tim. 5:18, again establishing the principle that the preacher of the gospel has a God-given right to be paid.)
3. In 1 Cor. 9 Paul has been making a case that the "those who proclaim the gospel" (not just himself or the itinerant or the apostle) has a God-given right to be paid. He concludes that with the saying quoted above, saying that it is a command from the Lord Jesus. He then goes on to explain that he is not availing himself of this "right". In 2 Corinthians he explains that he was being financially supported by the Macedonian church so as not to take money from them. So it was not as though he wasn't getting paid; he just was not being paid at that time by the Corinthians. And he was only doing that in Corinth because only there was it an obstacle.
You've simply not accepted the clear word of God.
John, I won't bother answering you point by point since you simply are making the same assertions over and over again. Viewing the Bible through stained glass lenses makes it difficult to see what it actually says so when it speaks of "preaching" you see "a clergyman in a pulpit delivering a prepared monologue sermon". You see "honor" as "a permanent employment contract with a salary and benefits until such time as the 'pastor' gets 'called' to a higher paying gig or the church gets bored with him and fires him". You even repeat the old canard that the church in Acts 6 was creating the "office" of deacons so that the apostles could spend more time in sermon prep even though the Bible never makes that linkage. It is simply a tradition, one we "Reformed" but essentially retained from Rome.
I understand how difficult it can be to dig through the layers of Roman church traditions that the Reformers adapted. Our church culture is so ingrained in our society that it is nearly impossible to read the Bible for what is actually there rather than what those with a vested interest have told us is there. In doing so we have allowed tradition to dominate the church for centuries and still do to this day, making a mockery of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers and reinstituing a professional priestly caste that may not wear a collar but for all intents and purposes functions very much like a Roman Catholic priest. I would simply ask you to set aside the preconceived notions and actually read the Bible. You might find that it doesn't say what you have been told it says all these years.
I can't help but wonder why someone who is paid to be a full-time shepherd by a local church would spend large amounts of time and energy "tending" to believers in other cities, who are not members of his flock.
David
Post a Comment