Paying money to church pastors and musicians

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Like I touched on earlier, that goes against my personal experience. I've seen a fairly large number of preachers who had seminary educations, and most of them were pretty bad to watch. They were probably doctrinally sound, but completely unengaging.

BTW - "unpaid" necessarily means "uneducated"? I'm not sure how the Baha'i do things, but AFAIK, Mormons in preaching and leadership positions do get training.

Harming people in a spiritual way.

Meaning what, exactly? What's an example of "spiritual harm"?

 

[Pegg]

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

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

among jw's it is all run by volunteers, the printing, the ministries, the congregations, even the thousands who live and work at bethel homes around the world...and even the construction teams of tradespeople/builders/carpenters/plumbers/plasters/electricians

voluntary donations support the work we do and those donations come from the same people who volunteer their time. , the buildings we build and the printing and distributing of literature...jw's with professions volunteer their time and energy, that includes the orchestras, singers and music composers... and they make some beautiful music

so it can be done.

 

[sojourner]

"unpaid" necessarily means "uneducated"?

Generally speaking. "Training" is OK, but it's not the same thing as "educated." I bet you'd be hard-pressed to find too many seminary-educated people volunteering their ministry on a regular basis.

 

[drsatish]

Being a Tough Corporate Manager,
who thinks money should be paid according to ‘Results’ achieved,
I would say,
Pastors should be paid …..
ACCORDING to the RESULTS they have ACHIEVED in their Community/Circles
On
Jesus’ Message of NON-VIOLENCE.
No Pay…
If No Tangible Results.
Satish
PS: Musicians can be paid ANYTIME if 'their' music strikes a chord in you.

 

[sojourner]

Being a Tough Corporate Manager,
who thinks money should be paid according to ‘Results’ achieved,
I would say,
Pastors should be paid …..
ACCORDING to the RESULTS they have ACHIEVED in their Community/Circles
On
Jesus’ Message of NON-VIOLENCE.
No Pay…
If No Tangible Results.
Satish
PS: Musicians can be paid ANYTIME if 'their' music strikes a chord in you.

That's fine for someone who works in a field that produces quantifiable results. How are you gong to quantify something whose "goal" is qualifiable and not quantifiable?

 

[drsatish]

That's fine for someone who works in a field that produces quantifiable results. How are you gong to quantify something whose "goal" is qualifiable and not quantifiable?

qualifiable and not quantifiable?


How about

• No of Knife-Give-Me-Your-Wallet
• No of Sexual Assaults
• No of Intimidation & Threats …..if you don’t follow my line..
• No of Knifing/Stabbing
• No of Wife bashing
• No of Husband bashing…in non-physical ways
• No of Robbing Stores and Banks
• No of Stores and Banks….Robbing…YOU..
• No of Politicians…Robbing…You..
• ..and like em…many..

ALL ACCOUNTABLE & QUANTIFIABLE!
Satish

 

[sojourner]

qualifiable and not quantifiable?


How about

• No of Knife-Give-Me-Your-Wallet
• No of Sexual Assaults
• No of Intimidation & Threats …..if you don’t follow my line..
• No of Knifing/Stabbing
• No of Wife bashing
• No of Husband bashing…in non-physical ways
• No of Robbing Stores and Banks
• No of Stores and Banks….Robbing…YOU..
• No of Politicians…Robbing…You..
• ..and like em…many..

ALL ACCOUNTABLE & QUANTIFIABLE!
Satish

I have no idea what you're talking about. None of these is a "goal" of Xy. They may be happy by-products that contribute to the whole quality of community life, but they are not the goal.

 

[totolina]

Wouldn't be nice if all the pastors would follow Jesus's example? During his ministry on the earth he went and preached God's Word free of charge... and we are supposed to follow his example... correct?

 

[sojourner]

Wouldn't be nice if all the pastors would follow Jesus's example? During his ministry on the earth he went and preached God's Word free of charge... and we are supposed to follow his example... correct?

Who fed him? Who clothed him? Who housed him? He didn't have a job for which he got paid. One assumes that he depended upon the hospitality of his "parishioners" for his subsistence -- like the rest of us do...

 

[drsatish]

I have no idea what you're talking about. None of these is a "goal" of Xy. They may be happy by-products that contribute to the whole quality of community life, but they are not the goal.

I believe Jesus' primary message was 'non-violence' as opposed to what may have come to be interpreted since his time. If the principle of non-violence is followed, you get 2 mangoes with 1 stone: This World becomes a better place and you score good points if there is a Next World.

Satish

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe Jesus' primary message was 'non-violence' as opposed to what may have come to be interpreted since his time. If the principle of non-violence is followed, you get 2 mangoes with 1 stone: This World becomes a better place and you score good points if there is a Next World.

I disagree.

I think that while Jesus had a message of non-violence (sorta - I wouldn't say that the message "violence can be righteous, but let God do it" is actually non-violent), it was rooted in the idea of trust in God: he preached that you don't need to stand up to injustice because God will do it. Without God, it just becomes complacency.

If Jesus' commands aren't based in truth but you follow them anyway, you enable evil.

 

[drsatish]

I disagree.

I think that while Jesus had a message of non-violence (sorta - I wouldn't say that the message "violence can be righteous, but let God do it" is actually non-violent), it was rooted in the idea of trust in God: he preached that you don't need to stand up to injustice because God will do it. Without God, it just becomes complacency.

If Jesus' commands aren't based in truth but you follow them anyway, you enable evil.

Reading Jesus and your post,
Gandhi developed a new methodology called Active “passive resistance”
which won the freedom of a billion people from the biggest army in the world
&
which “liberated” the blacks in the U.S (Martin Luther King).
What would be your comment on that?


Satish

 

[sojourner]

I believe Jesus' primary message was 'non-violence' as opposed to what may have come to be interpreted since his time. If the principle of non-violence is followed, you get 2 mangoes with 1 stone: This World becomes a better place and you score good points if there is a Next World.

Satish

That's simply not true. Jesus' primary message was, "Turn your lives around, because God's kingdom has come near."

 

[sojourner]

Reading Jesus and your post,
Gandhi developed a new methodology called Active “passive resistance”
which won the freedom of a billion people from the biggest army in the world
&
which “liberated” the blacks in the U.S (Martin Luther King).
What would be your comment on that?


Satish

Neither of these issues are spiritual issues. Both are political. Ghandi wasn't even a Christian, so I don't see how he can be used to support what you think "Jesus' main message" ought to have been. Jesus' message wasn't political. Furthermore, neither of these examples involve the ancient Roman government.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Reading Jesus and your post,
Gandhi developed a new methodology called Active “passive resistance”
which won the freedom of a billion people from the biggest army in the world
&

The Indian independence movement wasn't just Gandhi. While he was engaging in non-violent resistance, others were engaged in violent resistance. IMO, it was more the mutiny of the Indian Navy that really brought the issue of independence to a head with the British than it was Gandhi's non-violent protests.

Also, I think that Indian independence had as much (or more) to do with World War II as it did with the actions of Indians themselves. World War II left Britain weakened; it no longer had the resources to maintain a worldwide empire. So, in a way, it was really the Germans in WWII who created the environment in which Indian independence was possible, and I sure wouldn't call the Nazis non-violent.

I mean, look at what else was happening in the British Empire at the same time: in the decade after WWII, the British granted Indian independence, left Palestine, transferred Newfoundland to Canada, and began its program of granting independence to its African colonies. These events are all part of a larger trend; Gandhi's movement can't be credited for all of it.

The violent effects of WWII are what ended the British Empire, and Indian independence is just one example of this larger process.

which “liberated” the blacks in the U.S (Martin Luther King).
What would be your comment on that?

Again, you're focusing on one part of a larger whole. While Martin Luther King was preaching non-violence, the Black Panthers and others were calling for violence to acheive the same ends. You can't separate these effects from each other; the result came from both violence and non-violence.

 

[drsatish]

Neither of these issues are spiritual issues. Both are political. Ghandi wasn't even a Christian, so I don't see how he can be used to support what you think "Jesus' main message" ought to have been. Jesus' message wasn't political. Furthermore, neither of these examples involve the ancient Roman government.

What are ISSUES?....Spiritual or Materialistic?

You see, the inner core of Truth SHINES....irrespective of the "LIMITS" within which it is supposed to shine...by vested interests.

One DOES NOT HAVE to be a CHRISTIAN to get the message of what Jesus said. As already being discussed in other threads, even 38000 denominations of Christianity are not clear about Christianity.

Pls check
Amazon.com: Gandhi and Jesus: The Saving Power of Nonviolence (9781570757662): Terrence J. Rynne: Books
The Kingdom of God Is Within You - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Spirituality & Practice: Book Review: Gandhi & Jesus, by Terrence J. Rynne
From Jesus To Gandhi: Re-Reading the Gospels - The Daily Dish - The Atlantic

Satish

 

[drsatish]

The Indian independence movement wasn't just Gandhi. While he was engaging in non-violent resistance, others were engaged in violent resistance. IMO, it was more the mutiny of the Indian Navy that really brought the issue of independence to a head with the British than it was Gandhi's non-violent protests.

Also, I think that Indian independence had as much (or more) to do with World War II as it did with the actions of Indians themselves. World War II left Britain weakened; it no longer had the resources to maintain a worldwide empire. So, in a way, it was really the Germans in WWII who created the environment in which Indian independence was possible, and I sure wouldn't call the Nazis non-violent.

I mean, look at what else was happening in the British Empire at the same time: in the decade after WWII, the British granted Indian independence, left Palestine, transferred Newfoundland to Canada, and began its program of granting independence to its African colonies. These events are all part of a larger trend; Gandhi's movement can't be credited for all of it.

The violent effects of WWII are what ended the British Empire, and Indian independence is just one example of this larger process.


Again, you're focusing on one part of a larger whole. While Martin Luther King was preaching non-violence, the Black Panthers and others were calling for violence to acheive the same ends. You can't separate these effects from each other; the result came from both violence and non-violence.

Any peer-reviewed, internationally-held links to the arguments you have put forward?
Satish

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Any peer-reviewed, internationally-held links to the arguments you have put forward?

Are there any for yours? I thought we were just talking. If you want to make this a rigorous exploration of the issues, then sure - I'll submit my sources for your review as soon as you submit my sources and I find them to my satisfaction.

Are there any points that you think I've got wrong? I don't think I gave any factual statements that are controversial: there were violent aspects of both the Indian independence and US civil rights movements; The British Empire did collapse after (and predominantly because of) World War II. Do you disagree with these points?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Every thing in the Church of England is regulated By law.

An increasing number of Priests are non-stipendiary.
Some full time Organist choirmasters are paid, most are not.

Choirs and organists are paid fees for private srvices... weddings...

Other musicians are rare, and are usually for voluntary concert type occasions.

I occasionaly make wooden objects, repairs and replacement /alterations for the church (the largest I made was an oak Altar). Whilst they offer to pay and have even sent me payments, I never accept. I tell them if I had not wanted to do it, I would not have .

 

[drsatish]

Are there any for yours? I thought we were just talking. If you want to make this a rigorous exploration of the issues, then sure - I'll submit my sources for your review as soon as you submit my sources and I find them to my satisfaction.

Are there any points that you think I've got wrong? I don't think I gave any factual statements that are controversial: there were violent aspects of both the Indian independence and US civil rights movements; The British Empire did collapse after (and predominantly because of) World War II. Do you disagree with these points?

Yes, I want to make this a rigorous exploration of the issues.
As an Indian, living in India, the common notion is that
Gandhi….got the Freedom for India (hence he being recognized as the Father of the Nation)
Indian independence movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
&
not
Subhas Chandra Bose
Subhas Chandra Bose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Though I have been to the U.S and have studied it,
you may know something more about it, (assuming you are there).
Please enlighten,
Satish