Why pastors and preachers should not be receiving salaries

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S

SpoonJuly

Guest
Me, I'll put my hand up for not paying a pastor.
Why would I when God COMMANDS His body of believers not to. see post #261
Anyone that suggests otherwise is suggesting that their wisdom is greater than their Creator.
Dose the clay jug dictate to the potter?
Be extremely careful, because anyone that publicly opposes Gods Word gets the label "false prophet". And believe me God really hates that!


2 Thessalonians 3:9 states that even though they did not ask or demand support, they had the power to do so.
The whole teaching of these Scriptures was about some not working at all but living off the work of others.

It is obvious that you and others on this forum have no concept of the time involved of a Pastor PROPERLY fulfilling the requirements of his office.

I see no evidence in Scripture where Jesus and the Apostles worked at jobs during our Lord's ministry, They were supported by those they taught and even had a treasurer to keep the excess not spent immediately.

So maybe we should look at the example set by Jesus ---24/7 ministering to those in need.

Now if a "pastor" does not give all his time to ministering to the need of others, not only should he not receive support but should not hold the office of pastor.

Just a question for you-----
Would you spend 40 to 60 hours a week ministering to others without accepting support?
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
5,633
666
113
Now if a "pastor" does not give all his time to ministering to the need of others, not only should he not receive support but should not hold the office of pastor.
Paul was an apostle and he spent some of his time working. Do you mean to say that an elder who is bivocational who works a job and pastors, too, is disqualified? I don't see where spending all his time is required.
 
S

SpoonJuly

Guest
Paul was an apostle and he spent some of his time working. Do you mean to say that an elder who is bivocational who works a job and pastors, too, is disqualified? I don't see where spending all his time is required.
Was speaking of a full time pastor---should have been more clear.
I do understand that sometimes a man must work (be bi-vocational) to support his family and sometimes a small or very mature congregation does not require full time work.
I just find it sad that some condemn men that spend 40 to 60 hours a week is the service of a local church as not being worthy of full support.
BUT I will also say that some may not be worthy and some use the office of pastor to become very wealthy.
 
Jun 5, 2018
32
12
8
2 Thessalonians 3:9 states that even though they did not ask or demand support, they had the power to do so.
Yes and----???? Why did you stop half way through verse 9 ????

The whole teaching of these Scriptures was about some not working at all but living off the work of others.
Precisely, living off the work of others the word "others" is the congregation, and those that are not earning their own living are burdening the congregation.

It is obvious that you and others on this forum have no concept of the time involved of a Pastor PROPERLY fulfilling the requirements of his office.

Maybe, you can show us (through Paul's gospels) how it is supposed to be done. I have sat in pews long enough to know that the churches described in Paul's letters do not resemble the churches of today.

I see no evidence in Scripture where Jesus and the Apostles worked at jobs during our Lord's ministry, They were supported by those they taught and even had a treasurer to keep the excess not spent immediately.

So maybe we should look at the example set by Jesus ---24/7 ministering to those in need.

I think we paying more attention to how we gentiles should living during the church age that was kept secret in the mind of God. Only to be reviled to Paul first and some years later to the rest of the apostles.

Now if a "pastor" does not give all his time to ministering to the need of others, not only should he not receive support but should not hold the office of pastor.

Where dose Paul say that it is a pastors duty full time ?

Just a question for you-----
Would you spend 40 to 60 hours a week ministering to others without accepting support?
Straw-boy!!
Any work load was intended to be sheared through the congregation, not someone carrying all of the load then making a profitable industry out it.
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
5,256
638
113
All of God’s priests, apostles and prophets were allowed to receive material goods from believers because they had the primary job of preaching the truth and the Gospel. Those material goods were received ONLY to satisfy their most basic needs like food, water, clothing and shelter.

But modern day constitutional Churches turned the job of preaching into an enterprise, and instead of receiving material things to satisfy only basic needs, pastors and teachers are getting rich from preaching while most of the hearers who give them money are poorer than them or live in poverty. The poor are ignored while the preachers get millions of income. This is against the very teachings of Jesus and His apostles. Even the apostle Paul supported his ministry through tent making, to set a good example.

Repent you leaders of the church.
YET? Is that you?
 
S

SpoonJuly

Guest
Straw-boy!!
Any work load was intended to be sheared through the congregation, not someone carrying all of the load then making a profitable industry out it.
You do seem to have a problem with context when reading the Scripture.
2 Thessalonians 3:9 clearly states that Paul and those who ministered with him had the authority to ask support from those they ministered to but CHOOSE not to.
It is also very evident that Paus was addressing the fact that some were not working at all ( NO JOB ) but were living off the work of others.
In 1 Timothy 3 Paul gives us the qualifications for those who were to serve as LEADERS/TEACHERS of the local church. The obvious teaching is that some if not most were not qualified and should set down and shut up.

It would be great and according to Scripture if ALL the members were qualified and did their part but the truth is that in most if not all present day churches only a few or one meet the qualifications and as a result the work load falls on the few or even one man.
Most church members are lazy and are happy so set on the pew and allow the few to do all the work. I guess in your understanding of Scripture that if a members fails to do his part it just does not get done.
God understood this would be the case and provided a way for the work of each local church to be done.

Those men I know that fill the office of Pastor are not getting rich at all. Their wife has to work in order for them to pay their bills and feed their kids.

I understand that there are some men that look at the office of pastor as a way to make an easy living and even become rich and I will openly condemn them.
But we should not judge all for the wickedness of the few or as may be the most.

You have set forth a scenario where all members are qualified to teach/lead and all do so.
Is that true in your church?
Are you doing an equal part with the others in your church?
Are you qualified according to the standard Paul presented in Scripture?
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
10,989
2,130
113
If it was (it wasn't) he wouldn't be able to reply since he was banned over a week ago.
it would be nice if instead of "Active Member" on his profile, it said "Banned!" You know, like it used to be. Then we wouldn't waste our time replying to someone who is long gone.

Thanks in advance.
 
Mar 21, 2009
702
246
43
New York
list of millionaire pastors in the new testament: 0
Pastors of each church, and their income are not listed in the New Testament. We have no way of knowing. I am sure there were pastors who were chosen to be elders partially because they were examples of financial responsibility. After all, would you want a lazy, nonworking, financially irresponsible, always broke, never saving any money leader? Or one who showed by good works how to be financially responsible and save over time and diversify investments becoming financially stable and understanding how money can be handled faithfully, as a WISE STEWARD like Jesus said, so that he can be found faithful with more. Which elder would you choose to lead? Churches met in LARGE houses that belonged to wealthier members. FACT. Today Most churches of 150 people are not giving enough to pay the mortgage, the basic utilities, etc for enough to be leftover for a pastor to have any kind of decent salary. People do not tithe and that is one of the reasons many pastors are leaving the ministry. They can't survive on what little the people are giving. There is no risk of pastors getting wealthy off these nongivers today. These non tithers have no dog in this fight and their opinion does not even matter to God. They should just shut up or put up.
 

Oncefallen

Idiot in Chief
Staff member
Jan 15, 2011
5,635
1,895
113
it would be nice if instead of "Active Member" on his profile, it said "Banned!" You know, like it used to be. Then we wouldn't waste our time replying to someone who is long gone.

Thanks in advance.
Yeah, it would be. The old platform did that automatically whereas this one I (in rare case when I do) have to do it manually from the Admin controls.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
14,011
7,554
113
Pastors of each church, and their income are not listed in the New Testament. We have no way of knowing. I am sure there were pastors who were chosen to be elders partially because they were examples of financial responsibility. After all, would you want a lazy, nonworking, financially irresponsible, always broke, never saving any money leader? Or one who showed by good works how to be financially responsible and save over time and diversify investments becoming financially stable and understanding how money can be handled faithfully, as a WISE STEWARD like Jesus said, so that he can be found faithful with more. Which elder would you choose to lead? Churches met in LARGE houses that belonged to wealthier members. FACT. Today Most churches of 150 people are not giving enough to pay the mortgage, the basic utilities, etc for enough to be leftover for a pastor to have any kind of decent salary. People do not tithe and that is one of the reasons many pastors are leaving the ministry. They can't survive on what little the people are giving. There is no risk of pastors getting wealthy off these nongivers today. These non tithers have no dog in this fight and their opinion does not even matter to God. They should just shut up or put up.
Well... nothing like a good snarl to get your feelings out, even if it is based on fallacies and falsehoods.

You've built your argument on a false dichotomy, so all that blather is invalid. Many people are wise stewards of the little they do have. It's the responsibility of the local church elders to teach their congregation about biblical giving, and to steward the congregational finances appropriately, within the available funds.

Christians are not commanded to tithe... period. Your dismissive attitude indicates your inability to discuss the topic rationally and your unwillingness to consider anything you don't already accept.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
5,633
666
113
Pastors of each church, and their income are not listed in the New Testament. We have no way of knowing. I am sure there were pastors who were chosen to be elders partially because they were examples of financial responsibility. After all, would you want a lazy, nonworking, financially irresponsible, always broke, never saving any money leader?
Maybe they wanted leaders who earned money and quickly divested themselves of it, giving to their own and the poor, and trusting God to bring in more, the 'give us this day, our daily bread' and 'lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth' approach. The Jerusalem church shared possessions.

Churches met in LARGE houses that belonged to wealthier members.
Probably, but I can't find any evidence that the hosts were elders of the church. Elders of the church aren't named as such, except for Peter calling himself an elder. Gaius was the host of the whole Corinthian church at one point according to Paul's greetings in Romans, but he told the Corinthians to submit to such as the household of Stephanus.

FACT. Today Most churches of 150 people are not giving enough to pay the mortgage, the basic utilities, etc for enough to be leftover for a pastor to have any kind of decent salary.
Have you got a source for that? I know that there are huge numbers of bivocational pastors. It seems like I heard a number around 40%. Much of the country is rural, and there are a lot of small churches. But there are a lot of small churches, and many of these small churches with bivocational pastors may be less than 100.

I can't find evidence in the New Testament for the church meeting in a special-purpose religious building used for the church. The really early Jewish believers met in the temple and in homes. The temple was already there. When the gospel spread among the Gentiles, we see that they met in homes. Someone already paid for or is paying for a house.

People do not tithe and that is one of the reasons many pastors are leaving the ministry. They can't survive on what little the people are giving. There is no risk of pastors getting wealthy off these nongivers today. These non tithers have no dog in this fight and their opinion does not even matter to God. They should just shut up or put up.
Most Gentile Christians do not give a 10th of their livestock and crops from the land of Israel to the descendants of Aaron, collect a 10th of their crops to either take with them or else sell and spend in Jerusalem when they go there three times a year, minimum, for feasts, and every third year do not give a 10th of their crops israeli-land to the Levites, strangers, widows, and orphans. Why? Because most of them do not own land in the Holy Land. Jews do not even agree that they have a pure priestly lineage. The New Testament also does not create a separate tithe for church elders. It does teach giving, and generous giving. There is probably more emphasis on giving to the poor than elders in the New Testament. I can think of just one verse about honoring elders.
 
Jun 5, 2018
32
12
8
You do seem to have a problem with context when reading the Scripture.
2 Thessalonians 3:9 clearly states that Paul and those who ministered with him had the authority to ask support from those they ministered to but CHOOSE not to.
It is also very evident that Paus was addressing the fact that some were not working at all ( NO JOB ) but were living off the work of others.
In 1 Timothy 3 Paul gives us the qualifications for those who were to serve as LEADERS/TEACHERS of the local church. The obvious teaching is that some if not most were not qualified and should set down and shut up.

It would be great and according to Scripture if ALL the members were qualified and did their part but the truth is that in most if not all present day churches only a few or one meet the qualifications and as a result the work load falls on the few or even one man.
Most church members are lazy and are happy so set on the pew and allow the few to do all the work. I guess in your understanding of Scripture that if a members fails to do his part it just does not get done.
God understood this would be the case and provided a way for the work of each local church to be done.

Those men I know that fill the office of Pastor are not getting rich at all. Their wife has to work in order for them to pay their bills and feed their kids.

I understand that there are some men that look at the office of pastor as a way to make an easy living and even become rich and I will openly condemn them.
But we should not judge all for the wickedness of the few or as may be the most.

You have set forth a scenario where all members are qualified to teach/lead and all do so.
Is that true in your church?
Are you doing an equal part with the others in your church?
Are you qualified according to the standard Paul presented in Scripture?

SpoonJuly, post:
You do seem to have a problem with context when reading the Scripture.
2 Thessalonians 3:9 clearly states that Paul and those who ministered with him had the authority to ask support from those they ministered to but CHOOSE not to.

You post half of verse 9 add the word “choose,“ implying or rather justifying that pastors also have a choice to burden a living from the church.

I am aware that Paul relinquished his right, and Paul mentions that the other apostles (sent to reach the Jews) including their wives, enacted their right to be fed and accommodated.They were the handpicked apostles whom gave their entire lives for God. I don’t think your “pastoral office types” are qualified for the same privilege.

John 10: 12The hired hand is not the shepherd, and the sheep are not his own. When he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf pounces on them and scatters the flock. 13The man runs away because he is a hired servant and is unconcerned for the sheep.



You accuse me with context problems. Lets us visit the whole passage.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we COMMAND you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from any brother who leads an undisciplined life that is not in keeping with the tradition you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not undisciplined among you, 8nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. Instead, in labor and toil, we worked night and day so that
we would NOT be a BURDEN to any of you. 9Not that we lack this right, but we wanted to offer ourselves as an example for you to imitate. 10For even while we were with you, we gave you this COMMAND: “If anyone is unwilling to work, he shall not eat.”

11Yet we hear that some of you are leading undisciplined lives and accomplishing nothing but being busybodies. 12We COMMAND and urge such people by our Lord Jesus Christ to begin working quietly to
earn their own living. 13But as for you, brothers, do not grow weary in well-doing.

14Take note of anyone who does not obey the instructions we have given in this letter. Do not associate with him, so that he may be ashamed. 15Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.

I apologize for the big and bold, as you seem to have selective hearing problem. Now that we have it in context, that was three COMMANDS NOT CHOICES!!! in that passage, how can anyone say that it’s ok for pastors to burden a living from the church? Paul speaks of all salaried pastors and the likes, leading an undisciplined life and not keeping with the teachings of the apostles. This means the “pastoral office” as you put it, are fake shepherd types and Paul commands the whole church (congregation) to keep away from them in the hope that in their shame they may repent and begin to live a disciplined lifestyle.


SpoonJuly, post:
Just a question for you-----
Would you spend 40 to 60 hours a week ministering to others without accepting support?

My wife and I have spent much more hours per week, countless hours involved in home based churches (x3) and never did we even dare to think of compensation. Leading people to the Lord is most satisfying experience in its self, payment NOT required.

 

KhedetOrthos

Active member
Dec 13, 2019
284
155
43
All of God’s priests, apostles and prophets were allowed to receive material goods from believers because they had the primary job of preaching the truth and the Gospel. Those material goods were received ONLY to satisfy their most basic needs like food, water, clothing and shelter.

But modern day constitutional Churches turned the job of preaching into an enterprise, and instead of receiving material things to satisfy only basic needs, pastors and teachers are getting rich from preaching while most of the hearers who give them money are poorer than them or live in poverty. The poor are ignored while the preachers get millions of income. This is against the very teachings of Jesus and His apostles. Even the apostle Paul supported his ministry through tent making, to set a good example.

Repent you leaders of the church.
Well, there are two issues here. First, the worker is worthy of his hire. So we should support our pastors financially so they can live appropriately and do what God has called them to do. The question is what is appropriate.

However, many are abusing this privilege to lay up treasures on earth from the televangelists who fly private jets to more traditional evangelical denomination based pastors who have multi campus churches and run their operation like a business with franchises.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
17,312
3,875
113
2Ti 2:6 The husbandman that laboreth must be the first to partake of the fruits.

Do not muzzle the ox as he is treading………… A Workman is worthy of his pay.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
7,200
2,626
113
I think people can vote with their feet with this one.

If its not your pastor or preacher you have no obligation to support any greed they may display.

Manse, bills, uniform, food and travelling expenses, any thing extra is a blessing. Many pastors and preachers may had already savings or homes before they became pastors, what they do with that is up to them.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
5,633
666
113
I think people can vote with their feet with this one.

If its not your pastor or preacher you have no obligation to support any greed they may display.

Manse, bills, uniform, food and travelling expenses, any thing extra is a blessing. Many pastors and preachers may had already savings or homes before they became pastors, what they do with that is up to them.
So are you pro vestments?
 

CS1

Moderator
May 23, 2012
4,954
1,214
113
All of God’s priests, apostles and prophets were allowed to receive material goods from believers because they had the primary job of preaching the truth and the Gospel. Those material goods were received ONLY to satisfy their most basic needs like food, water, clothing and shelter.

But modern day constitutional Churches turned the job of preaching into an enterprise, and instead of receiving material things to satisfy only basic needs, pastors and teachers are getting rich from preaching while most of the hearers who give them money are poorer than them or live in poverty. The poor are ignored while the preachers get millions of income. This is against the very teachings of Jesus and His apostles. Even the apostle Paul supported his ministry through tent making, to set a good example.

Repent you leaders of the church.
it would be nice if you used the term some, not all do that. Secondly, it has been my experience those who complain about the Pastor receives from the local fellowship have no issue with the salary. While the one who complains is stealing from the people by way of taxes taking money for a disability they don't have. Go Back and read about the wave Offering and what the priest wore and what God said to give to them. IN the New Testament we are not to muzzle the OX. faking sickness and acting needy when one can work and doesn't is a thief.