Of all the ways I envision a new American church, this is probably the most "extreme." I certainly don't intend for it to be that way, but when an institution has implemented something since, oh I don't know, 325 A.D., arguing for a change can be viewed as extreme. At any rate, here we go: what if our Pastors/Ministers/Clergy were not paid (salaried) by the churches they serve? Polarizing! Lol. Hear me out.
Aside from sexual misconduct, being too political, hypocritical, and anti-LGBTQ, we see an extensive critique of American Christianity regarding the use of finances. Is the church giving enough to the poor? Is the church paying their Pastors too much? (How much is too much, anyway?) Is a $100,000 projector screen too much? Should the Pastor drive a Tesla? Should the Pastor's cell phone bill be covered in their salary package? What about a travel expenses line item? As recent as the last few years, the topic has become front and center. A great conversation starter was the Instagram account @Preachersnsneakers (worth a follow, by the way), highlighting celebrity Pastors wearing expensive appeal (think $1,000 shoes and Gucci belts). So why the critique? Can Christians not have nice things? What is it that Christianity perpetuates that puts American financial ideals at odds with the Gospel?
A lot of things come to mind, answering the question above. Perhaps part of the answer comes from people realizing that Christians serve a human nomad God. He had no job, trusted God the Father to provide his every need (including where He would sleep at night), and had the ministerial "career" (feels gross using that word to talk about Jesus) that lasted three years. On the other hand, maybe it is that Jesus was always challenging the money norms of His day. This is all fine, but what does it have to do with Pastors receiving a salary? I have thoughts.
You get what you pay for. Call it cultural but when Americans pay for a service (be that food service, a mechanic shop, even in retail stores, we expect it to come with excellence; after all, we paid for it. Things get messy when you take that mindset and apply it to the Christian faith. Here's the reality, when church attendees tithe, they are paying the Pastor's salary directly. I know we have framed the conversation differently (you're giving to God!), but it's also true we're paying the wages of those on the payroll. It's only natural that this all-encompassing notion of "I paid for excellence" rears its ugly head. You can imagine what pressures this puts on the Pastor and their family. The Pastor firstly must bring more people to the church. If the church isn't growing (by number), then it's dying! (Or so it's said). So the church must be grown numerically (more on the ickiness of this later). The Pastor then should feed their congregation with outstanding sermons! With the board operating the church budget like a business, they need the Pastor to perform. They may control the funds, but it's the people who are really paying the Pastor, so then a new mindset emerges, "why should we (the congregation) go minister to the sick and broken; we pay a Pastor to do that!" Paying someone to do a job, even minister the Gospel, is a payment for a service at the end of the day.Â
Church growth means church growth. I can't help but feel icky when there is a push to bring a friend or invite "the neighborhood" to church on Sunday. The effort to see more people in seats on a Sunday morning (more on the Sunday morning structure in Part 3 of this series) directly equates to dollar signs. I'm sure this is considered a cynical view, but let's be honest here. More people means more money. To grow the church (monetarily), we have to increase the church (numerically). Yes, this is all communicated with a desire to see people come to know Jesus, but if that was really the only thing we wanted, would it matter if they attended on a Sunday morning or not? Are you saying the only time they can have community/hear the word of God is on a Sunday? Doesn't it feel like a conflict of interest when the Pastor (whose salary is directly affected by how many people attend their service) emplores the congregation to invite more people? No wonder Pastors take it personally when people leave their church for another; they lost a person and a salary.
You get what you pay for (2). A lot is expected when compensating a person 40 hours a week, plus benefits. This doesn't change in terms of ministerial work either. No wonder Pastors burn out, commit suicide, and even leave the faith; the pressure is way too high. I'm not saying being a Minister of the Gospel should be pressure-less, per se, but in the words of Kate Bowler, "To what extent should ministry hurt?" Pastors are tasked to be counselors, preachers, teachers, accountants, graphic designers, event planners, financial gurus, wedding officiants, mentors, and more! Who is prepared to do all these things? So here's the deal, when we pay someone to do a role, we will try and get as much bang for our buck. Of course, all those roles are salaried in the mega-church world; I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about 65% of American Churches, with less than 100 people attending their services. You can imagine why churches are closing their doors and mega-churches dominating the evangelical space.
So now what? Maybe I spent too much time on the critique and not enough time on the dream. Well, here's to dreams:
What if a Pastor was free to preach, knowing that they were not tied to any financial consequence even if they offended someone?
What if, because no one is salaried, the church wholly carried the burdens of the body of Christ together? No one would benefit more than anyone else by growth in attendance. In fact, we would all benefit from an increase in attendance as we would see the work shared.
What if we all had jobs outside of the volunteering work we did in the church? What if we were all bi-vocational? What if we all knew the hardship of ministering while also having a 9 to 5?
What if we all had unique roles with particular commitments? What if we had a Pastor to teach, a Pastor to preach, and a Pastor to counsel? What if we had children's teachers, artists, and mentors who knew their role in the church was just as critical as the people on stage? No one is being paid to do more.
What if all the money we gave a church went to paying off medical bills for our City, or to homeless housing, or making adoptions affordable? Think of the work we could do with no overhead.
Just dreaming.
I say all of this, but please note I do, in fact, think we should give monetarily to our leaders. An annual gift offering would be impressive, or maybe quarterly even, I don't know- it's a gift! Surly, a church that can pay a million dollars in medical bills can love on their Pastors with money as well. There are various points in scripture that point to paying Pastors; I didn't list them here as I think they are far more gray than some would lead you to believe. The Apostle Paul argues for paying our Pastors (1 Cor. 9:14) but then states that he turns the salary down as the financial commitment could burden the church. Was that just a Pauline hot-take? I digress.
I end where I began. The world is watching the church. Unfortunately, our relevance has grown increasingly insignificant in the last few decades, and we are to blame. Jesus certainly isn't. Please don't read those previous statements as the introduction of a pity party; the currently post-Christian landscape has challenged me to think differently. To dream differently. To do good by those who are watching. It is not a sin to pay a Pastor in 2022. I'm just wondering if we should.
-L