Paying money to church pastors and musicians

[sojourner]

our culture revolves around entertainment...

But music and worship are not peculiar to our culture. And cultures in which worship and music are prevalent do not necessarily revolve around entertainment. Our culture has made church music an entertainment, which is sad and creates a stumbling block to meaningful worship.

imo, worship should be done in private, but that's just me.

Another cultural faux pas. Worship is a corporate, not individual endeavor, just as the Church is a corporate, not individual entity. When we worship, we are transformed, and others who are close to us are transformed, as well, because we are transformed. By definition, worship cannot be solitary.

i am almost certain this wasn't in an evangelical setting...

I'm almost certain that you are 125% correct. (Extra credit for correctly identifying that the impetus for much evangelical worship is the entertainment factor).

movements in music conjure an emotional response...
it is calculating...

But a particular response doesn't have to be solicited. That would be calculated manipulation. Simply evoking does not = either calculation or manipulation.

 

[waitasec]

But music and worship are not peculiar to our culture.

really...so the worship music in an american church plays world music?

And cultures in which worship and music are prevalent do not necessarily revolve around entertainment. Our culture has made church music an entertainment, which is sad and creates a stumbling block to meaningful worship.

i think it's the other way around...are we talking about worship music or christian artists?

Another cultural faux pas. Worship is a corporate, not individual endeavor, just as the Church is a corporate, not individual entity.
When we worship, we are transformed, and others who are close to us are transformed, as well, because we are transformed. By definition, worship cannot be solitary.

why?
where did this tradition come from?

I'm almost certain that you are 125% correct. (Extra credit for correctly identifying that the impetus for much evangelical worship is the entertainment factor).

:curtsy:

But a particular response doesn't have to be solicited. That would be calculated manipulation. Simply evoking does not = either calculation or manipulation.

i think because the corporate setting, as you put it, makes it difficult to actually be intuned with whatever you are trying to grasp...
being surrounded by other people makes the experience less personal or less meaningful for the individual...imo.

i'm actually curious as to how this collective worship traditions came about...
you don't think it has to do with acts chapter 2?

 

[Pegg]

If pastors should be paid money, shouldn't church musicians also be paid money?

only if the church is viewed as a business

but if it is not a business, then why should anyone be paid a wage?

 

[Ceul]

only if the church is viewed as a business

but if it is not a business, then why should anyone be paid a wage?

I would say it'd depend. I mean, there are ministers (or whatever one wishes to refer to them as) who are, essentially, doing church-work for the majority of the day and I think getting a salary for that much work is reasonable (especially including, that in a lot of cases, becoming a part of the clergy requires a lot of educational courses on the matter). As, otherwise, the minister may be unable to actually make a living.

And even though I, generally, don't have a particularly positive view of churches, I do recognize that there are many churches who use their clergy to provide (often times) late-night or late-afternoon "meetups" so to speak, for people who are struggling in some area of their life. (For instance, there's a church here that holds two groups I know of, one for alcoholics who want to get better, and one for LGBT Youth -- the latter, I was a bit surprised, is actually pretty constructive and not deconstructive, as in, not a "it's a sin, get over it" but more of a counseling for these individuals who get bullied, or targeted in the community) and for the preparation work, time taken out of schedule, and dedication it would take to set these things up (on top of prior duties), I think it's reasonable the minister (if one is running the groups, versus a volunteer) be paid for their troubles.

When it comes to musicians, though, I'd say that it would depend as well. Musicians who are approached by the church and asked by the church to preform should be paid, but if the musicians approach the church and ask the church if they may preform, then I think it'd be reasonable for the musicians to do so for free (as volunteer work, really). I would say that musicians who also volunteer (perhaps a flier asked for volunteers who are musically inclined) shouldn't be paid, or ask for a salary, given the context.

That's just my opinion of it.

 

[Pegg]

I would say it'd depend. I mean, there are ministers (or whatever one wishes to refer to them as) who are, essentially, doing church-work for the majority of the day and I think getting a salary for that much work is reasonable (especially including, that in a lot of cases, becoming a part of the clergy requires a lot of educational courses on the matter). As, otherwise, the minister may be unable to actually make a living.

on this point I dont believe anyone should have to pay to learn in the first place. Jesus said 'you received free, give free'... so the fact that the church charges a high price for its knowledge is very bad in my eyes.

And even though I, generally, don't have a particularly positive view of churches, I do recognize that there are many churches who use their clergy to provide (often times) late-night or late-afternoon "meetups" so to speak, for people who are struggling in some area of their life. (For instance, there's a church here that holds two groups I know of, one for alcoholics who want to get better, and one for LGBT Youth -- the latter, I was a bit surprised, is actually pretty constructive and not deconstructive, as in, not a "it's a sin, get over it" but more of a counseling for these individuals who get bullied, or targeted in the community) and for the preparation work, time taken out of schedule, and dedication it would take to set these things up (on top of prior duties), I think it's reasonable the minister (if one is running the groups, versus a volunteer) be paid for their troubles.

yeah they do some good work in the community and have some very good programs...the salvation army is especially good in that regard. But i still think this sort of work can be done without expecting a wage.

When it comes to musicians, though, I'd say that it would depend as well. Musicians who are approached by the church and asked by the church to preform should be paid, but if the musicians approach the church and ask the church if they may preform, then I think it'd be reasonable for the musicians to do so for free (as volunteer work, really). I would say that musicians who also volunteer (perhaps a flier asked for volunteers who are musically inclined) shouldn't be paid, or ask for a salary, given the context.

That's just my opinion of it.

yeah im all for volunteer work

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

I read some Internet blogs where some conservative Christians criticized church musicians who accept money for their services. They said that church musicians should play for the Lord without pay, but if that is true, why should pastors accept money? Surely music is a very important part of church services, takes time and preparation, and frequently is an important factor regarding church growth.

I don't think preaching should be a profession. After all, Paul was a tentmaker.

 

[Ceul]

on this point I dont believe anyone should have to pay to learn in the first place. Jesus said 'you received free, give free'... so the fact that the church charges a high price for its knowledge is very bad in my eyes.

I've heard that quote before, from a minister who provided a free learning curriculum, but in many cases clergy (at least, some from around here and some I used to know when I was a Christian) do have to pay for the education (although, that in and of itself does vary. There are free programs and lessons that exist, but I only know of those through the internet and it likely varies from denomination to denomination), so the quote wouldn't apply given real-world context. (And even with the free lessons, there is a yearly payment, usually of 30ish dollars, and often times one has to pay for the books and materials which can be a bit pricey -- going by the on-site estimates). And the quote-not-applying is more that, the actual education isn't free -- even for the actual church in question (paying for materials). (Although, again, it could vary from those that do have non-paid staff and those who do, as I don't know the internal workings of every single church that exists -- I'm going off the ones I've had experience with).

As for the education being provided absolutely free, that'd be a bit tricky. Probably not as tricky for those Megachurches, given the amount of money they get in the first place, but when it comes to smaller, local places most (if not all) of the money goes to paying the bills for the services provided. So, in giving more money than the church has to provide the necessary material for those interested in becoming clergy, it'd probably put the actual church out of commission. (Although, a fundraiser for such a thing probably wouldn't be a bad idea, if a church is supporting a non-paid staff).

yeah they do some good work in the community and have some very good programs...the salvation army is especially good in that regard. But i still think this sort of work can be done without expecting a wage.

It can, there are United States Civil Air Patrol Officers who are put into the position of Chaplain to essentially serve the same purpose and they're non-paid. But, the difference is that a CAP Chaplain doesn't have the CAP corporation asking them to do a whole host of other jobs that may take several hours a day to complete (That's why there are specific job-branches, like radio, communications, pilot -- so one person doesn't become overwhelmed). Some ministers, on the other hand, have the same organization asking them to spend, at times, several hours a day overseeing the building (or preforming services, or both) which sometimes does cut out the ability for that individual to actually hold a job. That's why, when these groups are added onto that workload, it's a bit understandable from my perspective that there's a salary involved. (Not a salary of a "gimme money," but out of a "I need money to actually live").

Of course, there are also churches (or, really, any religious institution) that utilizes volunteers for a lot of the work done in the building, but there are some (generally small) churches that don't have a healthy volunteer body to turn to. Volunteers being used does, in many places, cut out the responsibilities a lot of clergy would have otherwise, which allows them to hold an actual job.


Mostly, that's why I said "it depends" because these conditions vary from place to place, and even denomination to denomination.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

only if the church is viewed as a business

but if it is not a business, then why should anyone be paid a wage?

If it's not a business, then why pay the church?

I don't think preaching should be a profession. After all, Paul was a tentmaker.

Paul also expounded at length in the epistles on why he would have a right to be paid for his preaching if he chose to take it.

 

[sojourner]

really...so the worship music in an american church plays world music?

I pastor a medium-sized, white-bread, middle-American, Protestant congregation -- Ozzie-and-Harriet as they come. They love it when I play my native American flute during worship. They love it when some of our other musicians play Celtic music. Yes. The American church has always used "world music." Heck, even the Puritans used European music in America. Our hymns consist of German, English, African, Scandinavian and Slavic music.

i think it's the other way around...are we talking about worship music or christian artists?

That's my point. "Christian artist" usually denotes someone who plays pop or rock music with religious lyrics. That style is engendered by the entertainment industry. Those people play that kind of music for worship, so the two are the same. "Worship music," in many churches, is played by "Christian artists." It's commercial, it's entertainment-driven, and that makes it wrong for the purposes of worship.

why?
where did this tradition come from?

Which tradition did you mean?

i think because the corporate setting, as you put it, makes it difficult to actually be intuned with whatever you are trying to grasp...
being surrounded by other people makes the experience less personal or less meaningful for the individual...imo.

What is it we're really "trying to grasp," though? Is it some vague, amorphous "feeling in the heart?" Or is it a broader connection with all creation? True worship points to the latter. Sanctimonious piousness points to the former. What does "Jesus living in my heart" really do for us? But "Jesus living within humanity" does much.

i'm actually curious as to how this collective worship traditions came about...
you don't think it has to do with acts chapter 2?

Acts 2 is a very good example of it, but corporate worship is ancient. It's a cultural expression. And we can't have a culture without a plurality of people.

One word for worship is "liturgy." It comes from 2 Greek roots, Laos and ergon. Laos = people, ergon = work: "The work of the people," (not "person").

 

[sojourner]

only if the church is viewed as a business

but if it is not a business, then why should anyone be paid a wage?

If the minister is there full-time, taking care of the flock, foregoing any opportunity to earn a wage, how is (s)he supposed to live, if the congregation (s)he serves does not take care of her/him?

 

[sojourner]

on this point I dont believe anyone should have to pay to learn in the first place. Jesus said 'you received free, give free'... so the fact that the church charges a high price for its knowledge is very bad in my eyes.

Most churches want an educated clergy, in matters of theology, scholarship, interpersonal relations, counseling, and social justice. That's what seminaries teach, and seminaries cost in the neighborhood of $10,000 - $20,000 per year, for an 89 hour program.

Jesus also instructed those whom he sent out to accept the hospitality of those who would shelter and feed them...

But i still think this sort of work can be done without expecting a wage.

Let me guess: You haven't done this sort of work full-time much, have you?

yeah im all for volunteer work

Who do you think coordinates, trains and leads the volunteers? (Hint: It ain't volunteers...)

 

[sojourner]

I don't think preaching should be a profession. After all, Paul was a tentmaker.

if you don't have professional preachers, all you end up with is bad preaching.

Gee, I don't think that doctors ought to have to go to expensive schools and become educated and do their work full-time, either. But I sure wouldn't want a butcher doing delicate surgery on me, only to be called away to his "job" in the middle of it...

I don't think lawyers ought to have to go to expensive schools and become educated and do their work full-time, either. But I sure wouldn't want a know-it-all defending me in a murder trial, and having to leave early because of his "job."

I don't think teachers ought to have to go to expensive schools and become educated and do their work full time, either. But I sure wouldn't want an idiot teaching my kid mathematics, and having to cut the lesson short because of her "job."

This is why we have full-time, professional ministers. Because we want educated people who are dedicated full time to their profession when we need spiritual help.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the minister is there full-time, taking care of the flock, foregoing any opportunity to earn a wage, how is (s)he supposed to live, if the congregation (s)he serves does not take care of her/him?

God will provide? That seems to be the Biblical (or at least Gospel) answer.

Of course, that would go for everyone, not just ministers.

Most churches want an educated clergy, in matters of theology, scholarship, interpersonal relations, counseling, and social justice. That's what seminaries teach, and seminaries cost in the neighborhood of $10,000 - $20,000 per year, for an 89 hour program.

So then maybe part of the solution is to convince the seminaries to teach for free as well.

Who do you think coordinates, trains and leads the volunteers? (Hint: It ain't volunteers...)

I think that depends. I know in my own volunteer stuff (which isn't in a church context, admittedly), the trainers are often volunteers, too. And the managers, and the directors, all the way up the chain. Of course, these people also have full-time jobs to pay the bills.

There are plenty of denominations and religions that don't have paid clergy/ministers, so I don't think you can say it can't be done that way. However, I agree with you that this doesn't necessarily imply that it must be done that way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

if you don't have professional preachers, all you end up with is bad preaching.

So... Mormon, Quaker, and Baha'i preaching (just to list off a few groups without professional preachers) is all "bad"? That sounds like a rather sweeping generalization.

Speaking from my own experience, the only time I've ever actually felt moved in a religious service was in an unprogrammed Quaker meeting. None of the professional preachers I've ever heard managed that... unless you count being moved to boredom or anger.

Gee, I don't think that doctors ought to have to go to expensive schools and become educated and do their work full-time, either. But I sure wouldn't want a butcher doing delicate surgery on me, only to be called away to his "job" in the middle of it...

I don't think lawyers ought to have to go to expensive schools and become educated and do their work full-time, either. But I sure wouldn't want a know-it-all defending me in a murder trial, and having to leave early because of his "job."

I don't think teachers ought to have to go to expensive schools and become educated and do their work full time, either. But I sure wouldn't want an idiot teaching my kid mathematics, and having to cut the lesson short because of her "job."

This is why we have full-time, professional ministers. Because we want educated people who are dedicated full time to their profession when we need spiritual help.

An unqualified surgeon can kill people. An unqualified lawyer can ruin people's lives, as can an unqualified teacher. What's the risk of an unqualified minister?

 

[waitasec]

I pastor a medium-sized, white-bread, middle-American, Protestant congregation -- Ozzie-and-Harriet as they come. They love it when I play my native American flute during worship. They love it when some of our other musicians play Celtic music. Yes. The American church has always used "world music." Heck, even the Puritans used European music in America. Our hymns consist of German, English, African, Scandinavian and Slavic music.

...
that's cool. but isn't that for the purpose of entertaining...?
by making worship service fun for everyone...
i thought worship was about taking the focus off of ones self and putting it on the object of worship

That's my point. "Christian artist" usually denotes someone who plays pop or rock music with religious lyrics. That style is engendered by the entertainment industry. Those people play that kind of music for worship, so the two are the same. "Worship music," in many churches, is played by "Christian artists." It's commercial, it's entertainment-driven, and that makes it wrong for the purposes of worship.

i've heard not so very nice stories about this industry...

Which tradition did you mean?

collective worship

What is it we're really "trying to grasp," though? Is it some vague, amorphous "feeling in the heart?" Or is it a broader connection with all creation? True worship points to the latter.

see i'm confused with this statement, i thought it was about taking the focus off of ones self

Sanctimonious piousness points to the former.

how? isn't that judged by the individual...isn't that what really counts, what the individual learns of themselves?

What does "Jesus living in my heart" really do for us? But "Jesus living within humanity" does much.

i can see someone admiring the good works of others, by perceiving it as gods work through others,...and that act alone would be a form a worship...

Acts 2 is a very good example of it, but corporate worship is ancient. It's a cultural expression. And we can't have a culture without a plurality of people.

One word for worship is "liturgy." It comes from 2 Greek roots, Laos and ergon. Laos = people, ergon = work: "The work of the people," (not "person").

well from i get is that the way someone worships in their heart tells a lot about the person to the person...

i can see that the 'work of the people' would be to gather together to talk about their lives, for support, testimony or anything that manifests god's workings , sort of like having a party but with the focus on god not on themselves...from what i understand, that was the culture of worship in the early phases of christianity

i don't call it worship, i call the realization of who, where and what we are as humility...

 

[sojourner]

that's cool. but isn't that for the purpose of entertaining...?

No, it isn't. The purpose is to find some art form that resonates with the creative juices.

by making worship service fun for everyone...

Unless you define "fun" as "being deeply moved," I'd have to say no.

i thought worship was about taking the focus off of ones self and putting it on the object of worship

In terms of Christian worship, you'd be mistaken. Worship is about building deep, transformative relationship by perceiving God at work within the gathered community.

i've heard not so very nice stories about this industry...

A lot of it is well-done, for what it is. But "what it is" is not conducive to worship and ends up being, as I've said, so much claptrap, no matter if it is spit-polished and slick.

collective worship

I can't speak for other traditions, but from the Christian standpoint, it's always been that way. The collective is the Body of Christ. The Church is the Assembly. The Eucharistic meal is one meal, celebrated in all times and places, not many meals. It's that way because God is believed to work within the gathered community. I think we (with our expanded world view) can take that even further today.

see i'm confused with this statement, i thought it was about taking the focus off of ones self

It's about deeply focusing one's life in context with the created order, and, ultimately, in the context of God. In a way, that does put the spot light off of individuals. In another way, it deeply involves individuals in a holistic way, because true unity celebrates the uniqueness of each individual, like noticing each individual facet of a diamond.

how? isn't that judged by the individual...isn't that what really counts, what the individual learns of themselves?

Yes, but in context with others -- not by oneself, to the exclusion of others.

i can see someone admiring the good works of others, by perceiving it as gods work through others,...and that act alone would be a form a worship..

But it has to go deeper than admiration. Admiration suggests objectivity. Worship is subjective. God is celebrated from the inside out, not from the outside in.

i can see that the 'work of the people' would be to gather together to talk about their lives, for support, testimony or anything that manifests god's workings , sort of like having a party but with the focus on god not on themselves...from what i understand, that was the culture of worship in the early phases of christianity

It is that, but it's more than that. Worship helps us to learn to identify ourselves in context with each other, and to become transformed into a greater whole.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This is why we have full-time, professional ministers. Because we want educated people who are dedicated full time to their profession when we need spiritual help.

What exactly is professional in a religious context? Administrative? Psychology?

 

[Agnostic75]

If all church musicians were not paid money, the general quality of church music would be much less than it is now.

Even though many church musicians work 20 hours or less a week regarding performance and practice, their musical contributions can be significant to the growth and maintenance of a church, so it is not just a matter of how many hours a week a person works that warrants them receiving money from churches.

 

[sojourner]

What exactly is professional in a religious context? Administrative? Psychology?

professional
early 15c., of religious orders; 1747 of careers (especially of the skilled or learned trades from c.1793); see profession. Meaning "one who does X for a living" is from 1798; opposed to amateur from 1851. The noun is recorded from 1811.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source

Ministers are called (which is the original meaning of "profession" (see above). In the modern sense, a professional minister is one who has received formal, graduate education for ministry, and who holds standing in a recognized denomination.

 

[sojourner]

So... Mormon, Quaker, and Baha'i preaching (just to list off a few groups without professional preachers) is all "bad"? That sounds like a rather sweeping generalization.

I'd pit a preacher with an accredited seminary education against a non-seminary educated preacher any day of the week and twice on Thursday. Homiletics is an art. sure, there are some untrained people who are naturally good, and there are some trained people who can't preach their way out of paper bag. But, by and large, the odds are HUGELY in favor of the professional.

An unqualified surgeon can kill people. An unqualified lawyer can ruin people's lives, as can an unqualified teacher. What's the risk of an unqualified minister?

Harming people in a spiritual way.