Should pastors be paid? scripture to back it up?

[OnTheBrink]

Well, I am going to step on some toes with this, but I'm okay with that. I really don't think this is a biblical mindset, but it is such a common one among so many people. There is no way that Moses, Paul, and many other leaders then and since could possibly now each follower personally. Fellowship is within the body of the church, but that doesn't mean the leader needs to know each member by name.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I prefer a smaller church where that sense of community does still exist. My pastor & his family are our friends and we know them on a very personal level. However, there are large churches where it is impossible to know everyone by name. That's why Sunday school classes, grow groups, small groups, etc. exist. I used to be an Administrative Assistant at a church of 8,000 members. We all belonged to the same body, but my fellowship was found in a smaller cell group. The senior pastor barely knew me & I was on staff there! He was (and still is) the most amazing man of God. Not having a relationship with him on a personal level was in no way a reflection of whether I thought he was fulfilling God's calling in his life as a leader and a pastor of the church I attended. He is simply human, and knowing everyone would be impossible. I believe he would have been accessible to me if I had ever needed him, but I also would have understood that stopping by his office unannounced wouldn't have been a reasonable way to go about that. Instead, I trusted my small group with my needs and prayer requests, etc.

 

Anyway, I'm not directing my comment specifically to you, so please don't take the post personally. I just quoted you because I think the comment you made is so common & not really fair.

 

Susan

 

Not taken personally, and my toes, while dirty right now, are not bruised. ;) However, I DO believe everyone in a congregation should be known by someone in leadership. I don't know how a pastor could shepherd his flock and not know the people in it, on some level, at least.

[ereks mom]

As a pastor's wife for 20 years and a pastors child for 40 years, all I can say is wow.

 

I grew up in the ministry. I knew exactly what I was getting into when I married my dh, knowing up front that he was called to ministry. We would and have done it when we have been severely underpaid (think well below the poverty level in America) and would do it again if we needed too BUT should we have to do so, if the church can support us. No.

 

In the past two weeks we have taken calls late at night and counseled couples dealing with marital problems. We have had counseling sessions with others who needed advice dealing with family issues. We have talked with young couple about parenting and financial advice. We have helped church members whose spouses are deployed. We both lead weekly Bible studies in addition to Sunday services. I don't know of many professions that require you to not only be on call 24/7 FOREVER, but also require you to have the knowledge of such a broad range of specialities.

 

When we go on vacation we are still available. My dh never turns off his cell phone. The thought that we should do all of that and then have him work another job :001_huh:.

 

And just so you understand we firmly believe that our job is to equip the people in our church to do the job of ministry in the church but really there are times when they need to talk to dh or even myself. We are experienced and knowledgable about certain things and they need that support. That is why my dh makes the big bucks. :lol:

 

I totally understand where you're coming from. I could have written this post too; just add 10 years to the numbers you mentioned in the first sentence. People who haven't been there just have no idea.

[ereks mom]

Maybe church should be different. Maybe the members should be able to call on each other in time of need, instead of always calling on the pastor. But that's not how it works now. So for most churches, I don't think the pastor can be expected to be the full-time on-call person, and hold down a "real" paying job, and maintain any semblance of family life.

 

So true. In theory, it sounds great to say that all members should be willing to help the others when they have a need. But the reality is that people don't want to call on anyone but the pastor. Several people have actually told my dh that when they have a crisis, they expect HIM to be there. Others can come as well, so it's fine if one of the deacons wants to come along, or the Sunday School teacher, etc., but the main thing is that the pastor be there.

Edited July 13, 2010 by ereks mom

[OnTheBrink]

I think one of the problems is that people think pastors should be accessible ALL of the time. I think pastors that can't (or don't) enforce boundaries suffer the most, as do their families. A pastor cannot be all things to all people & they aren't called to be. Moses received wise counsel from his father-in-law when he was encouraged to be a leader that could delegate.

 

Pastors deserve days off, uniterrupted vacations, and when it's family time, they owe it to their families to be fully present (without feeling guilty or distracted by congregational affairs). Our pastor firmly believes that it is God, Family, and THEN ministry. My husband is an Associate Pastor, and I've never felt so blessed to be a part of a congregation that supports us (instead of thinking my husband should get a second job, or judging me for our family choices). What an insult.

 

Susan

 

Me again.

 

I wasn't insinuating a pastor should never have days off, family time, vacations, etc. I don't believe that at all. In fact, I've personally helped our pastor take care of a situation with a family in church because the pastor's son's fiance and family was in town before the wedding. A family had suffered a stillbirth and had no means to provide a funeral for the baby. The pastor gave me a $$ amount and allowed me (I had offered) to make the arrangements. He had his plate full with family circumstances and I had the time and desire to help this family. So, I planned this baby's funeral for this family who was absolutely reeling with grief and had no other family members able to help them. So, the pastor got to spend needed time with his family, and other elders and friends surrounded this hurting family with love and support and their needs were met.

 

While I do believe church leadership should know who's in the congregation, I don't believe that the pastor is the sole person to carry all the burdens.

[simka2]

So true. In theory, it sounds great to say that all members should be willing to help the others when they have a need. But the reality is that people don't want to call on anyone but the pastor. Several people have actually told my dh that when they have a crisis, they expect HIM to be there. Others can come as well, so it's fine if one of the deacons want to come along, or the Sunday School teacher, etc., but the main thing is that the pastor be there.

 

 

This is the mentality that I struggle with as a PW. Yes, I come up against it, but I don't have to give in to it. People can want/expect whatever they want too, but it doesn't make it healthy for them. Yes, members have been unhappy when they can't have what they want when they want, but so is my 4yr old. KWIM?

 

I sometimes think we as shepherds have dropped the ball, because we are scared of upsetting people, being seen as unloveling, or even "un-christian."

[Lovedtodeath]

Very good points Simka. My brother has found a way to establish those boundaries and put his family first while still being a good leader. I am impressed by everyone who is able to do so.

[FO4UR]

I like house churches. The burden is shared by many, and everyone still has time to earn money to provide for the family. All money, then, just goes to the needy. I also like seeing the teaching spread out among the men. I also like the lack of committees and such.

 

Fundamentally, for me, it isn't about whether a position called pastor is worthy of payment. For me, it comes down to pastoring being a gift along with the other gifts. They are things you do, and a body of believers should have many of them. Elders were set up in bodies of believers, but the NT never speaks of a pastor as a position.

 

 

I like the "idea" of house churches...I honestly think we need more of them, but not in place of formal (for lack of a better term) churches.

 

They are vital tools for growing unchurched areas, BUT (here it comes LOL) house churches can be a dangerous thing too. Where is the check on theology in 30 groups of 4 families? Some differences are not a big deal, but many ARE. It's easy to get swept up in "Here is what this verse says to me." mentality, completely missing the message intended...a little turn here and a little twist there and a church can be preaching a "different gospel" QUICK! It can be easy to fall into false teaching/cultish practices. More ears listening and more minds thinking *should* help to keep the preacher accountable to sticking to God's Word and not preaching his own "agenda."

 

This is part of the reason we need to pay pastors. They need to be educated in the Biblical languages, in how to study commentaries, and how to line up the actions of the church with the beliefs of the church.

 

 

 

And other thoughts:

 

 

 

The thought about a pastor forming boundaries, not being on call 24/7 is not informed. It would be like telling a mother that she should not be on call overnights. Seriously, it's a unique relationship.

 

Part of a pastor's job is to mentor others into taking on leadership/pastoral roles. This takes TIME and ELBOW GREASE!!!! One can't just inform the deacons that they are going to minister....it has to be taught and trained, especially as a new pastor walking into a church that is used to leaving it ALL to a pastor (or letting it all go undone:glare:). I have been thanked and told MANY times that in 20-30-40 years my dh is the ONLY pastor to (fill in the blank...hospital visit/home visit/a thank you letter/etc). This means he's got a highly unpredictable schedule, but that's what we signed up for. The church recognized a need and that's why they thought it was worth it to pay a pastor FT.

 

My dh would minister for free, and has. Again, there is a greater cost.

[FO4UR]

Very good points Simka. My brother has found a way to establish those boundaries and put his family first while still being a good leader. I am impressed by everyone who is able to do so.

 

My dh breaks up his day into 4 parts. Morning-Noon-Afternoon-Evening. He spends one of those parts with our family everyday. It's a *spontaneous* way to live, but he sees us more than most DH/Daddy's imo.

[simka2]

I like the "idea" of house churches...I honestly think we need more of them, but not in place of formal (for lack of a better term) churches.

 

They are vital tools for growing unchurched areas, BUT (here it comes LOL) house churches can be a dangerous thing too. Where is the check on theology in 30 groups of 4 families? Some differences are not a big deal, but many ARE. It's easy to get swept up in "Here is what this verse says to me." mentality, completely missing the message intended...a little turn here and a little twist there and a church can be preaching a "different gospel" QUICK! It can be easy to fall into false teaching/cultish practices. More ears listening and more minds thinking *should* help to keep the preacher accountable to sticking to God's Word and not preaching his own "agenda."

 

This is part of the reason we need to pay pastors. They need to be educated in the Biblical languages, in how to study commentaries, and how to line up the actions of the church with the beliefs of the church.

 

 

 

And other thoughts:

 

 

 

The thought about a pastor forming boundaries, not being on call 24/7 is not informed. It would be like telling a mother that she should not be on call overnights. Seriously, it's a unique relationship. It's not very polite to call another pastor's wife "not informed." And I would expect my grown children to have healthy boundaires! I'm not talking rude unapproachable legalism here, boundiaries may need to be taught...gently. The should be taught.

 

Part of a pastor's job is to mentor others into taking on leadership/pastoral roles. This takes TIME and ELBOW GREASE!!!! One can't just inform the deacons that they are going to minister....it has to be taught and trained, especially as a new pastor walking into a church that is used to leaving it ALL to a pastor (or letting it all go undone:glare:). I have been thanked and told MANY times that in 20-30-40 years my dh is the ONLY pastor to (fill in the blank...hospital visit/home visit/a thank you letter/etc). This means he's got a highly unpredictable schedule, but that's what we signed up for. The church recognized a need and that's why they thought it was worth it to pay a pastor FT.

 

My dh would minister for free, and has. Again, there is a greater cost.

 

IMHO :)

[FO4UR]

IMHO :)

 

Forgive my blunt words!

 

I am speaking from my perspective, which is the way *my* dh ministers. I realize situations change from place to place, person to person.

 

My dh sees being on call 24/7 as a part of his job. We actually do have some boundaries such as office hours for non-emergency business, and a home phone line that is top secret LOL. Still, the position of being a Shepherd means he feels a call not only to preach but to LOVE the people...and most of the time that means being there when they NEED SOMEBODY....and that is rarely during normal office hours.

[Lovedtodeath]

I like the "idea" of house churches...I honestly think we need more of them, but not in place of formal (for lack of a better term) churches.

 

They are vital tools for growing unchurched areas, BUT (here it comes LOL) house churches can be a dangerous thing too. Where is the check on theology in 30 groups of 4 families? Some differences are not a big deal, but many ARE. It's easy to get swept up in "Here is what this verse says to me." mentality, completely missing the message intended...a little turn here and a little twist there and a church can be preaching a "different gospel" QUICK! It can be easy to fall into false teaching/cultish practices. More ears listening and more minds thinking *should* help to keep the preacher accountable to sticking to God's Word and not preaching his own "agenda."

I see what you are saying about home churches. Many little groups would make it impossible for unity in teaching and thought. (Ephesians 4:4,5; John 17:22; 1 Corinthians 1:10) You can have organization without one pastor over a church. We have the same outlines for discourses, the same Bible studies, the same ministry school in all of the congregations around the world.

 

4. In each congregation, there are elders, or overseers. They take the lead in teaching in the congregation. (1 Timothy 3:1-7; 5:17) They are assisted by ministerial servants. (1 Timothy 3:8-10, 12, 13) These men are not elevated above the rest of the congregation. (2 Corinthians 1:24) They are not given special titles. (Matthew 23:8-10) They do not dress differently from others. Neither are they paid for their work. The elders willingly look after the spiritual needs of the congregation. They can provide comfort and guidance in times of trouble.—James 5:14-16; 1 Peter 5:2, 3.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[Jugglin'5]

I'm really not trying to be rude here, but as a PW I don't understand why you "needed a full-time pastor?" Why was he the person who had to leave work during an emergency? Couldn't someone else do that until he could get there?

 

I don't get this "need."

 

Well, the surgeon couldn't walk out of his surgery, the real estate agent out of the closing, the factory worker's boss wasn't going to let him off for anything but a personal family issue, etc. We just hit the wall of reality that ministry needs don't always occur after business hours, and the pastor really needs time to properly prepare to teach. We were blessed in that one of our men, who happened to be self-employed, was obviously gifted as a pastor. People gravitated to him, and he had a real gift of making difficult concepts clear. He started working part-time in his business and part-time as the pastor. As our church grew we asked him to be our full-time pastor. He was later ordained by our presbytery that sponsored us as a mission church with the requirement that he start learning the biblical languages - he was already well read in theology. It was not necessarily ideal, but it has worked for our church. We have elders and deacons to help him, and we practically force him to go on vacation and the elders require him to turn his phone off. :) I think even pastors, like doctors and others on call, need to be able to get completely away occasionally. The graveyards are full of indispensable men, as the saying goes.

 

We also, as someone else mentioned earlier, never seemed to be able to get to any of the things like missions, outreach, etc., because the men were all exhausted from trying to do it all. Division of labor has enabled us to accomplish much more as a church.

 

ETA: I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. My unpaid elder husband is also on the hook for calls any time of the day. He has spent many a night at the hospital with someone. But, he can't go in the middle of the day, unless someone is literally dying. Our pastor camn. But it is not like we suddenly threw it all into his lap and said, "There! All the ministry is yours now since we pay you!" He still has a lot of help.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Jugglin'5

[susankenny]

And other thoughts:

 

 

 

The thought about a pastor forming boundaries, not being on call 24/7 is not informed. It would be like telling a mother that she should not be on call overnights. Seriously, it's a unique relationship.

 

Well, I disagree with you completely. I would never expect our pastor to be available 24 hours a day. That is definitely not his job. He shouldn't feel compelled to keep his cell phone on his body at all times & never turned off. When he is with his family on vacation, he should feel free to be completely present and available without concerns of church affairs. When my husband first began in ministry, we first served with youth (he is now over media & worship). The senior pastor there felt ministry was his number 1 priority, and equally felt we should be on-call 24/7. It was a very warped experience for my family. We have since moved on & many years later, we have found a church home that we truly love & it is a joy and privilege for my husband to serve at. Our pastor is amazing! He's only my age (40) and he certainly deserves the freedom to be a husband & a father, without feeling obligated to be "on call" 24/7. That doesn't mean he's unavailable. On the contrary, he's an amazing pastor and wonderful person. He & his wife go far above and beyond in their capacity to give to others and love their congregation in true and tangible ways. He has boundaries though, and he will take care of his family by delegating things when he can and saying no when necessary. I not only support this, I can't imagine ministry without boundaries. It would exhaust a person and deplete a family.

 

Susan

Edited July 11, 2010 by susankenny

[Lovedtodeath]

 

This whole thread makes me happy to be Catholic!

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, I am sincere, not snarky; Why? Because it is a non-issue? Priests don't have families? Catholics will always have a paid clergy?

[simka2]

Forgive my blunt words!

 

I am speaking from my perspective, which is the way *my* dh ministers. I realize situations change from place to place, person to person.

 

My dh sees being on call 24/7 as a part of his job. We actually do have some boundaries such as office hours for non-emergency business, and a home phone line that is top secret LOL. Still, the position of being a Shepherd means he feels a call not only to preach but to LOVE the people...and most of the time that means being there when they NEED SOMEBODY....and that is rarely during normal office hours.

 

 

I definately agree with you on this post! It is a call to LOVE!!! and the timeing of life is not always convient. :) But, I also think (especially when salaries get involved) that certain people can feel it is their "right" to call, pastor whenever they feel they need him.

 

Granted it is an incredible balanceing act of being both approachable...and wise enough to know that said lamb needs to be equipped to solve their own problems.

 

So, I think we agree on more than we disagree :)

PS...dh would consider himself on call 24/7 (because life is), but after certain hrs or during certain other family times...he will let the call go to voicemail and return when he can. When talking about salaries there's an assumption that only paid pastor can be expected to be availble 24/7. Plus the argument was being made that full-time pastors were needed, because bi-vocational ones could be stuck @ work. That only covers 9-5.

[Jugglin'5]

This is the mentality that I struggle with as a PW. Yes, I come up against it, but I don't have to give in to it. People can want/expect whatever they want too, but it doesn't make it healthy for them. Yes, members have been unhappy when they can't have what they want when they want, but so is my 4yr old. KWIM?

 

I sometimes think we as shepherds have dropped the ball, because we are scared of upsetting people, being seen as unloveling, or even "un-christian."

 

I agree that some boundaries should be set. We try (and fail of course, being human) to cherish and honor our pastor, both financially, AND in making sure that his family are protected as much as they can be. The kids didn't sign up for all that scrutiny, nor should his wife be at the beck and call of the church.

[susankenny]

Forgive my blunt words!

 

I am speaking from my perspective, which is the way *my* dh ministers. I realize situations change from place to place, person to person.

 

My dh sees being on call 24/7 as a part of his job. We actually do have some boundaries such as office hours for non-emergency business, and a home phone line that is top secret LOL. Still, the position of being a Shepherd means he feels a call not only to preach but to LOVE the people...and most of the time that means being there when they NEED SOMEBODY....and that is rarely during normal office hours.

 

Yes. I agree much more with this way of phrasing it :)

[Murphy101]

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, I am sincere, not snarky; Why? Because it is a non-issue? Priests don't have families? Catholics will always have a paid clergy?

 

Some are paid and some are not. It depends on the order they are in and what they are doing.

They usually aren't making the average Protestant pastor salary though.

And the amount of funds they can accept as gifts from individuals and a parish is very limited.

 

They also rarely have a divide of commitment between parish and personal family since they aren't permitted to marry. Even the very select few that convert after marriage are usually not given as primary pastor to a parish.

 

 

ETA: and there's no wife problems for the parish to deal with! Lol

Far far too often I think some churches view the pastors wife as the second in a buy one get the second free bargain. :/

And although I think some couples are okay with that, I do think it has to contribute to the divorce rates. :(

Edited July 11, 2010 by Martha

[simka2]

Well' date=' the surgeon couldn't walk out of his surgery, the real estate agent out of the closing, the factory worker's boss wasn't going to let him off for anything but a personal family issue, etc. We just hit the wall of reality that ministry needs don't always occur after business hours, and the pastor really needs time to properly prepare to teach. We were blessed in that one of our men, who happened to be self-employed, was obviously gifted as a pastor. People gravitated to him, and he had a real gift of making difficult concepts clear. He started working part-time in his business and part-time as the pastor. As our church grew we asked him to be our full-time pastor. He was later ordained by our presbytery that sponsored us as a mission church with the requirement that he start learning the biblical languages - he was already well read in theology. It was not necessarily ideal, but it has worked for our church. We have elders and deacons to help him, and we practically force him to go on vacation and the elders require him to turn his phone off. :) I think even pastors, like doctors and others on call, need to be able to get completely away occasionally. The graveyards are full of indispensable men, as the saying goes.

 

We also, as someone else mentioned earlier, never seemed to be able to get to any of the things like missions, outreach, etc., because the men were all exhausted from trying to do it all. Division of labor has enabled us to accomplish much more as a church.[/quote']

 

First of all, I want to say I find no fault at all with they way your church has handled this. In fact, on many levels I applaud you!!!

 

I think it's the fundamental logic I'm struggling with. Why does "The Pastor" have to be the one immediately availble during an emergency? Why can't the elders fill in until he's off work? Everyone works the same hours? There's not one stay at home mom?

 

And what happens when full-time pastor can't be there? Does he get in trouble because now he's paid?

Edited July 11, 2010 by simka2

[elegantlion]

 

Thank you for all your kind words and thought...elegantlion! :)

 

:grouphug: My thoughts and prayers continue to be with you and your family.

[Jugglin'5]

First of all, I want to say I find no fault at all with they way your church has handled this. In fact, on many levels I applaud you!!!

 

I think it's the fundamental logic I'm struggling with. Why does "The Pastor" have to be the one immediately availble during an emergency? Why can't the elders fill in until he's off work? Everyone works the same hours? There's not one stay at home mom?

 

Sometimes they can, but most of the time they would be fired from their jobs if they constantly leave during work! :001_smile:

[CLHCO]

I like the "idea" of house churches...I honestly think we need more of them, but not in place of formal (for lack of a better term) churches.

 

They are vital tools for growing unchurched areas, BUT (here it comes LOL) house churches can be a dangerous thing too. Where is the check on theology in 30 groups of 4 families? Some differences are not a big deal, but many ARE. It's easy to get swept up in "Here is what this verse says to me." mentality, completely missing the message intended...a little turn here and a little twist there and a church can be preaching a "different gospel" QUICK! It can be easy to fall into false teaching/cultish practices. More ears listening and more minds thinking *should* help to keep the preacher accountable to sticking to God's Word and not preaching his own "agenda."

 

This is part of the reason we need to pay pastors. They need to be educated in the Biblical languages, in how to study commentaries, and how to line up the actions of the church with the beliefs of the church.

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

Here is where I come upon the biggest issue with a house church. If you are to share in the work with the other fathers/men, you darn well better have some that are mature in the teachings. Sadly, when you get into idealistic imaginations on how the house churches should look: Father's leading, sharing in the teachings, etc., you end up with a box you must then fit everyone into. It's grand if you have those mature in Christ people of one mind, but life is messy for some of us.

 

It started out wonderful but just couldn't stand as reality started to sink in. We couldn't manage to minister to the mini-skirt wearing middle-aged women down the road who really wanted to know God, whose husband had no interest, but whom really had little idea what being a Christian meant. Obviously, she wasn't going to help with the leading, she needed the leading. What about the husband on the fence towards salvation, ignorant of the bible, who wanted to attend with his saved wife and children, but then was roped into "leading" when he stayed too long, because they didn't know what to do with a warm body who was slow to have that "ah-ha" salvation moment? Kick him out until he has it and expect his wife to stay without him? After all, in the box they *needed* the men and fathers to lead because it was too much work for the two who happened to have even a tiny bit of the maturity.

 

We ended up with many meetings of "what does this mean to you", exactly as you described because the semi-mature over-worked men with jobs and families couldn't deeply lead the flock when they just put in 50 hours then had to help with their home and tend to children, and the younger ones still on milk, had no clue. The semi-mature couldn't even keep themselves in the meat of true scripture and really, needed their own shepherd if they were going to live the life of a sheep.

 

This sort of thing threatened to cause a lot of problems in that "ideal" young church of the New Testament. Look at Paul's writings. Did they sound like they were poetic encouragements to people who had it all together? Nope. Lots of fixing going on, lots of travel, help needed financially at times in different places, strong corrections, etc.

 

The difference when I went to a church where the head pastor was committed, studied, and deeply devoted with the time to give to his flock was stunning. I have never looked back. Through his strong, biblical teachings the congregation has flourished, and that includes a healthy understanding of caring for their pastor. We have elders who make sure no power is abused, and also ensure the shepherd gets his rest when he needs it. I can also hear how easily it is abused as well, so the flock must too be vigilant. This isn't Eden, after all. I'm just very glad, right now at this moment, I have a well paid pastor who can shepherd without having to panic over everything else in life to distract him.

 

I am not against house churches, because I can see how, at times in needed circumstances, they can be wonderful for a group. They are, however, not always going to steer correctly just because they are a house church, any more than a large congregation will, just because they are a large congregation. Put humans into just about any circumstance and they will eventually muck it up. ;)

Edited July 12, 2010 by CLHCO

[MamaSheep]

First I want to say that I do think that if you're going to hire someone to do a job for you, then you need to be willing to pay that person a responsible wage for their time and labor. And that includes hired clergy. If you hire them to do the work of ministry, and they do it as their job, then you need to pay them.

 

That said, though, I love that my church (LDS - aka Mormon) operates without paid clergy.

 

I think that there is a difference between working for hire, and working for love or for a commitment to God. Not that you can't be both paid and committed to God (although as the Bible tells us, we can't serve both God and mammon), I just think there's a difference in motivation and in results between working for hire and not. For example, I do a lot of hard work as a wife and mother. I am on call 24/7, I do messy, difficult work, and the people I work with are sometimes a little skimpy on the gratitude. It's not easy, it's not always fun, and I don't always feel adequate to the task at hand. I honestly don't think you could pay me enough to do this work as a "job"--as paid employment. But I do it happily (most of the time) without pay because of my love for my family and my love for my God. In fact, I make certain personal sacrifices in order to be able to do this for free. I would fight tooth and nail if someone tried to take this away from me. In theory, I could go get a paying job of some sort (I do have a college degree and have prepared for paid employment should it become necessary) and hire someone to do some of this work for me. I could (theoretically) pay a housekeeper and a nanny, for example. But I don't want to. I firmly believe that there are aspects to this wife/mother gig that literally can not be done adequately by hired help. And it changes ME to do these things, out of love and with no other expectation, for those I love most dearly. There's just a difference between a family relationship and a paid relationship, even if much of the work involved appears, at a surface level, to be the same. Also, I love that I can expect the same kind of unpaid commitment from my husband. I do not have to pay him to mow the lawn, keep my feet warm at night, or give me a shoulder to cry on. He's just there because he loves me and because he made a commitment to me and to God to be there. I would not WANT to pay him to be there for me. That would change the relationship. And I would be really upset if he wanted to pay me for doing wifely things. Of course if someone else hired me to be their nanny, I would darn well expect to be paid. But that is a very different relationship.

 

Similarly, I like that my relationship with my local church leaders is not based on money. It would feel as weird to me to pay my bishop, Relief Society president, or High Priests' Group Leader for their work at church as it would feel to pay my husband to be my husband. And it would feel as odd to me to BE paid for the things I do for the church as it would feel to be paid for what I do for my family. But I think it does take a certain mindset amongst church members, as well as a workable organizational structure, in order for a church to function this way. I don't think it would work for a group of people who saw ministry as something that could only be done by an elite class of people, and therefore excused themselves--being merely ordinary folk--from all ministerial duties. Rather, you would need people who saw themselves as personally responsible for the work of the ministry--those who considered themselves to be on call 24/7 just as much as anyone in leadership positions. And you'd need people in leadership positions who understood the idea of delegation. If someone calls with an emergency and you can't get away from your paid employment, you need to feel confident in calling upon someone else to fill in for you until you can be there. Also, I can't imagine it working out well without clear organizing principles for the work. If only one person tries to do everything they don't have time for anything else (and probably not enough time even for just ministerial demands) and they crash. If everyone tries to be in charge of everything all at once and nobody is "in charge", then chaos ensues. But if duties are divvied up rationally, and everyone understands the structure, and knows who is best to call upon under what circumstances, then it works out very well. At least for millions of us Mormons it does.

 

Anyway, I am grateful that my church operates the way it does. I think the way it is set up is, quite literally, inspired. I really don't think that at this point I could be happy in a church with a paid "professional" ministerial staff. But I can see that unpaid clergy would not work in every scenario, and I don't think that just stopping the salary of a pastor in a church, but leaving everything else the same, would have very good results. I think there would need to also be some fairly major rennovations in the church's operational structure and in the attitudes of church members. And as I say, if the structure of the church is such that it requires the pastor to function as an employee, then I think he ought to get the benefits of employment, including payment for services.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Also, I can't imagine it working out well without clear organizing principles for the work. If only one person tries to do everything they don't have time for anything else (and probably not enough time even for just ministerial demands) and they crash. If everyone tries to be in charge of everything all at once and nobody is "in charge", then chaos ensues. But if duties are divvied up rationally, and everyone understands the structure, and knows who is best to call upon under what circumstances, then it works out very well. At least for millions of us Mormons it does.

:iagree:Good post Amy.

[MamaSheep]

:iagree:Good post Amy.

Thanks. I'm kind of wishing I hadn't said anything though, because this was such an interesting thread, and I think I killed it. Dead.