Previous | Next 

Should pastors be paid? It depends

Jim Coggins

Why is the Herald raising the question of pastors’ salaries? Does the editor really think pastors should not be paid? No, I am convinced that there are good reasons for paying pastors, at least in many instances. What I wanted, in putting this issue together, is for us to think through the reasons for paying pastors, what this means for the church and how we should go about it.


Brian Anderson has laid out a good biblical case for paying pastors, and George Epp admits that congregations have an obligation to support their pastors in a material way to some extent. On the other hand, Brian Anderson, in noting that the apostle Paul was not paid, admits that it is not an absolute requirement that pastors be paid.

Perhaps, then, the question is not whether it is permissible to pay pastors but how much they should be paid, when they should be paid and why.

How much?

In the Old Testament, the other 11 tribes of the Israelites were to tithe (give 10% of) their incomes to the 12th tribe of priests and Levites, the people who taught them about God. This would mean that the Levites might get about 11/10ths of the average income of the Israelites. From this, I glean the principle that pastors should receive a salary similar to the average salary of the members of the congregation, but perhaps slightly higher as a sign of respect for God and the work of God’s Kingdom. (If all church members tithed, this would mean that it would only take 10 or 11 families to support a pastor.)

Of course, this should not be adhered to rigidly. A pastor ministering in the inner city should not be paid at the rate of social assistance allowances, and a pastor of a church of millionaires does not need a salary of $1 million. There is in Scripture also a principle of equity and equality in God’s Kingdom. Martin Luther taught that people should be paid what they need to live on, plus whatever they need to carry out whatever job they are called to do.

The fringe benefits of pastors are sometimes questioned, but there are no good reasons why pastors should not have medical benefits and pensions like other people. In the Kingdom of God, should we allow the servants of the Kingdom and their families to fall into poverty when they become old and sick? Given the frequency of pastoral moves and firings, I think there should also be a solid “unemployment insurance” plan for pastors who find themselves unemployed and perhaps even unemployable after devoting most of their lives to the service of the church.

As for things such as car allowances and entertainment allowances, we should perhaps think of these things not as giving the pastor money to squander on selfish luxuries but as providing tools to enable the pastor to do ministry. Do we really want to get to the point that a pastor can’t adequately do pastoral care because the pastor can’t afford the gas to go visit someone or to take someone out for coffee? What congregations should look at is the total compensation package. A pastor being paid an exceptionally high salary might not need these allowances. On the other hand, if the salary is low (as it often is), these “fringe benefits” are a necessity to enable the pastor to do ministry. The same is true for book allowances and paid sabbaticals. If the church gives the pastor resources to be used for personal spiritual renewal, the spiritual benefits will overflow to the congregation. The cost of a burnt-out pastor is usually much higher than the cost of a sabbatical.

Trusting God

How relevant is the argument that pastors should “trust that God will provide”? We should all trust in God’s provision – in fact, we are all absolutely dependent on God’s provision – but that does not stop the rest of us from accepting a regular salary, and it should not stop pastors from doing so either. “Trusting in God’s provision” in practice often means relying on the “free will contributions” of God’s people – as anyone knows who is acquainted with a missionary working with a “faith mission”. This usually results in a lot of insecurity, uncertainty, fundraising and outright begging on the part of the missionary or pastor. Pastors and church leaders who get their income from “free will offerings” sometimes are paid too little and sometimes are paid too much – as the scandalous incomes of some televangelists attest. Paying a fixed salary is a matter of convenience – a way in which a congregation can collectively ensure that the pastor receives an adequate but reasonable income.

I know many pastors who rely on “God’s provision”, accepting whatever salary is offered (even if it is inadequate), paying some ministry expenses out of their own pockets and even giving more than a tithe themselves. As Brian Anderson says, that is their responsibility as servants of God. However, the congregation also has a responsibility – to make sure that its pastor is adequately taken care of. The question is not whether God will provide but whether God’s provision is channelled in an orderly fashion.

It also seems to me that a pastor on a guaranteed salary will be freer, not less free, to teach on stewardship issues. Pastors who rely on “free will offerings” will be very hesitant to offend the givers and more tempted to beg for money (as researchers have discovered who have analyzed how much on-air time televangelists devote to asking for money).

Dangers

Pastors are often in an awkward position. On the one hand, they are employees. This means that congregations face at least two temptations – to treat their pastors as disposable elements in Christ’s body (they can easily be fired) and to treat their pastors as servants, expecting them to do all the work of the church by themselves. Paid pastors also face the temptation to treat their ministry as “just a job”.

On the other hand, pastors are also members of the congregation, and, in fact, spiritual leaders in the congregation. They therefore have the right to be treated as part of the family and respected as godly people. They also have the responsibility to act like part of the family and to be godly people.

It seems to me that what often lies behind the question of pastors’ salaries is this more fundamental question of the pastor’s role and authority. Some historians suggest that the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, and particularly the Anabaptist protest within that Protestant Reformation, was not so much motivated by theology as by “anticlericalism” – the widespread hatred of the clergy. Clergy in the 16th century were despised for their greed (sometimes living in luxury on “tithes” collected as a non-optional tax on the poor), their sinful lifestyles, their arrogance and their failure to carry out the ministries to which they had been assigned. The church must always be on guard against such institutionalism. I don’t think the primary problem is so much with paid pastors as with professional pastors. When pastors and church leaders begin to act (and be treated) as a professional elite separate from and unaccountable to the congregation, then the church is in deep trouble. In the long run, such a professional pastorate will attract the greedy and the power hungry as often as it will attract the godly. (One obvious example of this professional mindset is those people who think they have a right to pastoral employment simply because they have a seminary degree, and in spite of the fact that they have experienced moral failure – after a brief suspension, they expect to be restored to their “rightful place”, even though the New Testament qualifications for that position are spiritual rather than professional.)

Spiritual leaders

In Mennonite Brethren circles, we often state that the normal New Testament model for leadership in a congregation is a plurality of elders/pastors. The New Testament appears to make no distinction between pastors and elders. In practice, we often make the distinction that pastors are paid and elders are “lay people”, but this distinction is not biblical. The New Testament distinction is not paid versus unpaid but elders/pastors versus lay people (non-leaders).

In this understanding, paying a pastor is not a matter of position, but a matter of convenience. There may be someone who is independently wealthy and who serves full-time in a pastoral role without being paid. Such a person is no different in status from a pastor who is not wealthy and who receives a full salary from the church. If pastors are not paid, most will probably have to get jobs elsewhere, and they will not have as much time to devote to ministry.

Moreover, full-time paid pastors are not fundamentally different from elders who have a full-time job elsewhere but who “direct the affairs of the church” on a part-time basis. The paying of a salary to some pastors/elders does not confer a separate status on them but is merely a matter of expediency, allowing them to devote themselves completely to “prayer and the ministry of the Word” (Acts 6:4).

On the other hand, some who receive a salary from the church are not pastors/elders at all but rather “deacons” – such as janitors, secretaries and administrators. It might even be questioned whether youth pastors fit into this category – clearly some people are charged with carrying out both “elder” functions and “deacon” functions. In any case, what is essential is that when we are choosing and affirming spiritual leaders, whether they are paid or not is not essential. A salary does not make someone a spiritual leader, but it does not disqualify someone from being a spiritual leader either. We should choose spiritual leaders on the basis of spiritual maturity and giftedness, and if we expect these leaders to work full-time in ministry, we should accept the responsibility to pay them an adequate salary.

Previous | Next 

Last modified August 13, 2002.

© 2002 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.