Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple
Paul showed the Elders (Pastors) to work with their own hands.
And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up , and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified . 33 I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. 34 Yea, ye yourselves know , that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. 35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak , and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said , It is more blessed to give than to receive . Acts 20:32-35
They definitely were not expecting a salary. Freewill offerings yes. Salary? No way. |
If the church has a regular income, however, it's only practical to take a portion of that and set a regular amount to give to the pastor. No need to be sporadic with it; it's easier to budget a regular amount, even if it's small. If you don't know what to expect, it can be nearly impossible to run your household budget.
As Hoovie pointed out, though, it's a moot point if the church doesn't have income (or a substantial income). The primary use of funds has to go toward maintaining a building, among other things. After that, compensation can be on the table. Most pastors that I know who pastor small congregations have to work to support their families, or at least work part time to supplement. A good pastor won't "expect" the church to provide for his family; he will provide for his family and take (e.g., receive) income from the church when it can be reasonably provided. My parents were from the old school where the pastor got all the tithes and the offerings supported the church, but they would routinely turn around and put money back into the church to pay the bills or to pay visiting ministers. It would be pointless for a pastor to take more money than the church can provide, because he will run it into the ground and have no church to pastor.
Bottom line: it's perfectly fine for a pastor to have a salary if the church can provide one; it shouldn't be [can't be] expected from small, struggling congregations.
Whatever income is provided, it should be openly discussed and agreed upon among the church members and/or church board. Transparency is a good thing. It supports that "good reputation both within and without" dynamic. Beyond that, I don't really care what the actual dollar amount is. That should vary by congregation and it's the business of the local assembly. If a congregation wants to handsomely award their pastor with a large income and it is within their means to do so, more power to them. Some leaders are worthy of "double honor."