In his book 'Pagan Christianity,' Frank Viola lists 3 reasons churches should not give salaries to ministers. Frankly, I'd love to work my way out of the job, so to speak, but I don't think his arguments stand up to scrutiny.
1) Salary elevates pastors above the people
Viola says this system, by default, turns the church into a business with a CEO. Can this be a problem? Yes. Is this a problem? Again, yes. Must it be a problem? Absolutely not. If a paid pastor preaches about the priesthood of all believers and thinks of himself as an equipper first and foremost, these harmful mindsets need not take root.
2) Salary makes a pastor a people pleaser
Viola says this system, by default, makes the minister a slave to men. He says the minister is, then, 'not able' to speak freely. Can this be a problem? Yes. Is this a problem? Again, yes. Must it be a problem? Absolutely not. In my experience, the people have freely chosen to salary their pastors and specifically want them to preach the truth, not please the people. I, personally, have never felt afraid to say something just b/c it wasn't the most traditionally 'wesleyan' viewpoint.
3) Salary makes a minister feel stuck in ministry
Viola is saying that to get a salary you have to go to Bible college and/or get a Master's and by the time you are salaried you are 'stuck' in full-time ministry b/c you feel you don't have any other employable skills. In other words, even if a pastor realizes Viola is right, he's too afraid to resign b/c he doesn't feel equipped to make a living. I suppose my only reaction to this argument is that I think it would be fairly easy to get a job with a similar salary as a minister. And I'd get to work a lot less!
17 comments:
i've got the feeling the trend in ministry is to be bivocational, which might mean that the future in the church might mean making less than ever before..of course, a pastor who is bivocational would need more staff depending on church size, which could increase the budget even more. at any rate, if one does become a pastor, i think it is a fine thing to have other abilities (mechanics, carpentry, accounting, etc) to supplement an income or to expand his ministry.
I also think bi-vocational ministry will continue to increase. personally, i hope i get to be the next announcer for the buffalo sabres as my '2nd' profession
I'm not sure how 1 & 2 are really compatible. If I'm your employee than how can I also be above you? Unless you see it as an issue of position or ordination or calling - all of which are different than simply being paid.
And as for three there may be some truth to that but it's the same in any area of life. If you want to be good you need to be trained and once you are trained you are invested. That being said nobody keeps the same career all the way through life these days. Will pastors be the same? will it become normal to be a pastor for a season and then do something else or to leave your "career" halfway through to help lead a church?
Does Viola acknowledge the amount of things that are the pastor's job? So many things that the lay-people could be doing and don't. Expecting a pastor to be bi-vocational or completly unpaid would require the congregation to take on hospital visits, Wendsday night service, youth group, ect, counselling sessions, event planning, ect.
If a church is willing to do this stuff than great, but the more likely situation is that the pastor will still be expected to be all these things, and find another way to feed his family.
AJ,
I agree that there is some contradiction to think about b/w 1 & 2. I had the same thought.
Lindy,
Viola says he feels bad for the pastors. He's definitely in the camp that says the body should be doing those things. His argument is that paying a pastor creates a mindset in which the body will NOT do such things b/c it is somebody else's job.
Or we could just teach them the biblical role of a church leader?
Hey Matt,
How does Viola deal with 1 Tim. 5? Or the fact that Paul boasts in not taking payment, but suggests this is the exception?
on the subject of paying the clergy i have never disagreed with. mostly because of my mormon background. I have had three uncles who have been bishops and as my dad said this is only because they hit the six diget mark in thier salaries. this makes it so the bishop of the ward is above his parishoners in socal statise. how can he really tell people to trust in God to take care of finansis when he has no worries because he is making over 100,000 a year?
AJ, I can tell from your comments that you and I have pretty similar thoughts about this book :)
AP, Viola believes that Apostolic workers were paid, but not elders.
The question of 1 Timothy was raised in the Q&A at the end of the chapter. I'll let him answer in his own words:
"To begin with, the passage deals with elders, not the modern day pastoral office....A working ox deserves corn...a laborer deserves payment...an elder deserves 'double honor' (not money...respect).
He points out that verse 19 is a practical example of the respect they are to be shown (only entertain accuasations against them from 2-3 witnesses).
Glo,
I too think giant pastoral salaries can be ridiculous.
Seriously? That's all he says? Why disregard, "The worker deserves his wages"? Oh well. Thanks for the response.
I shouldn't say that's all he says...there is also a footnote! :)
"For a response to those biblical passages that some have used to defend clergy salries, see Viola 're-imagining church' (Summer 2008)
But I am guessing the book won't be free :)
yea, when at all possible I try not to get my history from someone with bitterness and an agenda.
AJ, I've heard the authors on several interviews (http://www.ptmin.org/answers.htm) and they don't sound bitter at all. Their agenda seems to be that they want Jesus to be glorified in the church. Take a listen to the interview with George and Frank. I think you will be able to see where they're coming from. The interview on subversive influence is good too. I personally benefited from reading the book.
Donald - thanks for the link. My first exposure to Viola actually was an interview I listened to with him. I don't think he is a horrible person or bitter in the sense that he is just always spewing venom. But he does seem had some negative experiences with what he calls the "Institutional Church" and his baggage from that comes through. He also seems like he was a house church guy long before he did this research and did it in order to find more ammunition against the "Established Church". He did seem like a nice guy and I think he genuinely loves Jesus and I think he at least loves a certain form of the church but for the reasons I mentioned above (which in my mind boil down to some bitterness and an agenda though there may be better words) I don't think he is the best source for history. History is an incredibly easy thing to manipulate based on what you emphasize, what you leave out, and the cause and effect relationships you create. I would want to cross check his history before I told my church - ok guys from now on we are just going to meet in someone's living room with no plan. Of course church like that would drive me nuts so I might not be a good candidate either.
I listened to his interview on the Drew Marshall show archives the other night. I agree with AJ that he's a nice, Jesus-loving guy who possibly has a chip on his shoulder from past frustration with an institutional church.
Post a Comment