Money & Religion: A Whole New Can Of Worms!

[prisonchaplain]

This issue of church and money has come up in different strings, with different issues raised. So, I'll throw out some questions to get this string going.

1. While the LDS church generally does not have paid clergy, is it wrong that most other churches do? Are there advantages and disadvantages to volunteer vs. paid congregational leaders?

2. Is it always wrong to charge money for religiously oriented programs? For example, Contemporary Christian Music concerts generally require paid admission. Some churches charge an entry fee for a high-quality special event, such as a concert or cantata.

3. Is it wrong for churches or religious organizations to reserve some areas of service or rituals for the most loyal members (i.e., those who, among other things, consistently and signficantly contribute funds)?

4. Some have said that one's religious sincerity could at least partially and signficantly be appraised by examining the ole checkbook. Is this crass and superficial, or is there some truth to the understanding that what you refuse to back with your bucks you're not really very serious about?

5. Should Christians necessarily try to live simply, humbly, and avoid any or most semblances of luxury?

6. Does God want Christians to be rich and/or successful?

That should be enough to get us started. I'll chime in, once this ball gets rolling!

[pushka]

Hi PC, I'll have a go at tackling your questions, the best I can at least:

1. While the LDS church generally does not have paid clergy, is it wrong that most other churches do? Are there advantages and disadvantages to volunteer vs. paid congregational leaders?

Ans: Although the LDS church does not pay its clergy, those clergy generally have other work that they do, so they have a wage on which to support their families, also some of the more 'higher up' clergy, President and Apostles? have homes provided for them from the church, therefore they are not destitute as a result of not being paid. I believe that Priests in the RCC devote all of their time to being a Priest, rather than taking on other jobs for which they are paid, I will hazard a guess that this is the same of vicars in the C of England? Therefore I would not object to them receiving some sort of payment for their work, but only to the extent that it allows them to live a 'normal' life, not a life of luxury. I'm not sure about any other churches and their arrangements for their clergy so will not comment on them.

I think that somebody who volunteers their services free of charge is less likely to be insincere, in that they are less tempted to carry out the work simply because they will receive a payment for doing so, if that payment is above and beyond their living expenses.

2. Is it always wrong to charge money for religiously oriented programs? For example, Contemporary Christian Music concerts generally require paid admission. Some churches charge an entry fee for a high-quality special event, such as a concert or cantata.

I do not think it is unreasonable for churches to charge admission fees for social events. I say this because it is important that the church is able to afford to pay for the hire of venues or musicians/entertainers booked, and for any buffet they might provide. I would suggest a sliding scale of charges according to whether a person is waged/unwaged/old age pensioner/disabled/child for instance, so that the event is affordable for all.

3. Is it wrong for churches or religious organizations to reserve some areas of service or rituals for the most loyal members (i.e., those who, among other things, consistently and signficantly contribute funds)?

Yes I believe it is wrong to do so. The church must be fully inclusive of all its members, there ought not to be an 'elite'.

4. Some have said that one's religious sincerity could at least partially and signficantly be appraised by examining the ole checkbook. Is this crass and superficial, or is there some truth to the understanding that what you refuse to back with your bucks you're not really very serious about?

I think it depends on what the funds you contribute are being used for. Should it turn out to be that your contributions are lining the pockets of the 'leader/s' of the organisation, so that they can live in luxury then it is wrong to say that only the people who contribute the most are the most sincere believers. I do not however think it is unreasonable to ask for donations, no matter how big or small, to the church in order for it to carry out certain events...pilgrimages etc. which all church members will benefit from at one time or another. Nobody should be judged by the amount they are able to contribute.

5. Should Christians necessarily try to live simply, humbly, and avoid any or most semblances of luxury?

I don't believe in the puritan view of avoiding all luxury, however I do think that it is a good example to show others that you are not overly materially minded, that this isn't 'the god you are serving'.

6. Does God want Christians to be rich and/or successful?

I don't believe so myself. I have only heard the promoters of Seed Faith give the impression that this is what god wants. However, I don't think that god would object to somebody working hard and therefore becoming rich and successful as a result of it, as long as that person did not also become selfish and boastful as a result of their increased wealth and success.

[Dror]

This issue of church and money has come up in different strings, with different issues raised. So, I'll throw out some questions to get this string going.

1. While the LDS church generally does not have paid clergy, is it wrong that most other churches do? Are there advantages and disadvantages to volunteer vs. paid congregational leaders?

I imagine paid clergy are able to devote more time to their calling/profession. However, paying the clergy may call into question their reasons for being clergymen (Though I recognize one doesn't normally get rich as a clergyperson, it may be a "nice career choice.")

2. Is it always wrong to charge money for religiously oriented programs? For example, Contemporary Christian Music concerts generally require paid admission. Some churches charge an entry fee for a high-quality special event, such as a concert or cantata.

Dunno.

3. Is it wrong for churches or religious organizations to reserve some areas of service or rituals for the most loyal members (i.e., those who, among other things, consistently and signficantly contribute funds)?

Yes, it is wrong. Do deny someone religious services or rituals for lack of money is very wrong, IMO.

4. Some have said that one's religious sincerity could at least partially and signficantly be appraised by examining the ole checkbook. Is this crass and superficial, or is there some truth to the understanding that what you refuse to back with your bucks you're not really very serious about?

There is some truth to this, though a person's means ought to be kept in mind. Does the person not contribute much money for lack of committment or for lack of funds?

5. Should Christians necessarily try to live simply, humbly, and avoid any or most semblances of luxury?

Maybe that depends upon what one means by "simply," "humbly," and avoiding "semblances of luxury." Our local Institute director, discussing the concept of Zion, put it this way: He likes opera and has a large collection of opera CDs. One could regard that as a "semblance of luxury," but he doesn't think God begrudges him that. He otherwise doesn't live extravagantly, and doesn't go overboard with his love of opera, though it is important to him. Personally, I like chocolate, and occasionally splurge. Otherwise, I really spend very little money. (I'm actually quite frugal, though perhaps more by necessity than choice!)

6. Does God want Christians to be rich and/or successful?

The Book of Mormon answers that question. Yes, He wants us to "be successful," though "rich" is a relative term. It's ok to seek riches as long as we do so for the purpose of blessing others, not hoarding it unto ourselves and living a life of luxury. He promised the Lehites a land where they would prosper if they were righteous. He wants us to be happy, and part of happiness is sharing with others so we all can enjoy alike. (Sermon over. )

That should be enough to get us started. I'll chime in, once this ball gets rolling!

Good questions!

Dror

[prisonchaplain]

Ans: have homes provided for them from the church, therefore they are not destitute as a result of not being paid. I believe that Priests in the RCC devote all of their time to being a Priest, rather than taking on other jobs for which they are paid, I will hazard a guess that this is the same of vicars in the C of England? Therefore I would not object to them receiving some sort of payment for their work, but only to the extent that it allows them to live a 'normal' life, not a life of luxury. I'm not sure about any other churches and their arrangements for their clergy so will not comment on them.

I think that somebody who volunteers their services free of charge is less likely to be insincere, in that they are less tempted to carry out the work simply because they will receive a payment for doing so, if that payment is above and beyond their living expenses.

Okay, Pushka, excellent observations. My understanding of Scripture is that normally congregations would pay their full-time clergy. Ideally, in so doing, they free their leaders to pray, seek God's face, fast, study for homilies, and offer spiritual counsel. On the other hand, some ministry situations do call for ministers who are willing to be "tentmakers"--having outside employment. Paul did this for the Corinthian church, I did during my campus ministry years in Korea (I was an English Instructor). Both models are acceptable, but the norm was for churches to have fulltime clergy.

While volunteers may be less prone to the "career mindset," they would be just as susceptible to pursuing religious titles for the power and prestige they carry.

I do not think it is unreasonable for churches to charge admission fees for social events. I say this because it is important that the church is able to afford to pay for the hire of venues or musicians/entertainers booked, and for any buffet they might provide. I would suggest a sliding scale of charges according to whether a person is waged/unwaged/old age pensioner/disabled/child for instance, so that the event is affordable for all.

I agree. The sliding scale part is a neat idea, but most of these events are meant to be almost "Christian culture" events, as opposed to purely religious meetings. Also, interestingly enough, Promise Keepers (an interdenominational men's retreat program) did much better with paid admissions than with voluntary offerings and fundraising. Men who wanted to bring "investigators" simply paid their way--in essence 'treating them.'

3. Is it wrong for churches or religious organizations to reserve some areas of service or rituals for the most loyal members (i.e., those who, among other things, consistently and signficantly contribute funds)?

Yes I believe it is wrong to do so. The church must be fully inclusive of all its members, there ought not to be an 'elite'.

I think most churches reserve their volunteer leadership positions for the most dedicated members. It is unlikely that elders, presbyters, deacons, bishops, etc. would be picked from members who were inconsistent givers, had a poor reputation in the community, etc. In addition, if I'm not mistaken, for LDS, temple activities are primarily reserved for those who have proven reasonably dedicated, based on various objective factors.

4. Some have said that one's religious sincerity could at least partially and signficantly be appraised by examining the ole checkbook. Is this crass and superficial, or is there some truth to the understanding that what you refuse to back with your bucks you're not really very serious about?

I think it depends on what the funds you contribute are being used for. Should it turn out to be that your contributions are lining the pockets of the 'leader/s' of the organisation, so that they can live in luxury then it is wrong to say that only the people who contribute the most are the most sincere believers. I do not however think it is unreasonable to ask for donations, no matter how big or small, to the church in order for it to carry out certain events...pilgrimages etc. which all church members will benefit from at one time or another. Nobody should be judged by the amount they are able to contribute.

Different churches have different structures for handling finance. However, amongst conservative groups, including the LDS, the tithe (10% of gross income) is considered basic, and is generally understood to be targeted for the church, not other charities).

I don't believe in the puritan view of avoiding all luxury, however I do think that it is a good example to show others that you are not overly materially minded, that this isn't 'the god you are serving'.

Excellent--I fully agree!

6. Does God want Christians to be rich and/or successful?

I don't believe so myself. I have only heard the promoters of Seed Faith give the impression that this is what god wants. However, I don't think that god would object to somebody working hard and therefore becoming rich and successful as a result of it, as long as that person did not also become selfish and boastful as a result of their increased wealth and success.

God wants success, but the best success is to raise up fellow disciples, first from one's own family, and secondly from acquaintences, friends, coworkers, etc. Money is nuetral. It can do great good or harm, depending on how one uses the "tool."

[prisonchaplain]

I imagine paid clergy are able to devote more time to their calling/profession. However, paying the clergy may call into question their reasons for being clergymen (Though I recognize one doesn't normally get rich as a clergyperson, it may be a "nice career choice.")

Since clergy, as a rule, make less than schoolteachers, me thinks the "career mindset" would not be very prevalent. The better paying churches require seven years of college, and still only pay about what a schoolteacher makes.

Even those who end up getting huge salaries, usually didn't start out that way. For example, the average salary of a first-time fulltime pastor in my movement is roughly $20K per year. There's no extra pay for weekend work, overtime, late nights, emergency calls, etc. And, most often, these are leaders with four years of college.

Then you meet the fellow who has thirty years of ministry under his belt, now pastors a church of 1200, and makes $70K a year, and say, "Wow...not a bad gig." That solid middle-class income is something that he did not see the first 15-25 years of ministry, and still comes out quite low compared to many other positions requiring advanced education. Additionally, he probably represents only the top 20% of ministers.

3. Is it wrong for churches or religious organizations to reserve some areas of service or rituals for the most loyal members (i.e., those who, among other things, consistently and signficantly contribute funds)?

Yes, it is wrong. Do deny someone religious services or rituals for lack of money is very wrong, IMO.

Usually church leadership positions go to the most loyal and consistent members. Also, are not the temple rituals reserved for those "recommended?" And, does not the criteria include faithful giving? IMHO such standards are acceptable for church leaders. I cannot comment too deeply on the LDS practice here, but it seems reasonable on the surface of it.

There is some truth to this, though a person's means ought to be kept in mind. Does the person not contribute much money for lack of committment or for lack of funds?

I would not judge myself so generously. Realistically, there's usually no money, because giving came lower on the list than "essentials" like cable TV, cell phone, high-speed internet, eating out, etc. The biblical standard is 10% of the "first fruits"--not the leftovers. Like I said--this is how I judge myself, and it is the general counsel I offer to those who ask. Hey, I'd make some bishop, huh?

6. Does God want Christians to be rich and/or successful?

The Book of Mormon answers that question. Yes, He wants us to "be successful," though "rich" is a relative term. It's ok to seek riches as long as we do so for the purpose of blessing others, not hoarding it unto ourselves and living a life of luxury. He promised the Lehites a land where they would prosper if they were righteous. He wants us to be happy, and part of happiness is sharing with others so we all can enjoy alike. (Sermon over. )

Amen.

[mom_of_jcchlsm]

3. Is it wrong for churches or religious organizations to reserve some areas of service or rituals for the most loyal members (i.e., those who, among other things, consistently and signficantly contribute funds)?

OK, the first thing I thought of was that you need to be a full tithe payer in order to receive and maintain a Temple recommend.

Among LDS, tithing is a seen as more a matter of faith than of finance. 10% is required, and it should be the first 10% - before mortgage, food, or anything else. When my husband lost his job seven years ago and was without work for many months, I worked as a substitute teacher, but my pay didn't come close to meeting our obligations. But even so, we paid a full tithe on my income. And to meet our needs, we received assistance from the Church. We got food from the Bishop's Storehouse. They paid our mortgage and utility bill. You could ask - wouldn't it be better to just keep all the money you make and then have to take that much less charity? But it's not. Giving 10% is even more an act of faith when your own family is in need.

A person who has no income, for instance a college student still living off the Bank of Mom & Dad, pays no tithing, but is eligible for a Temple recommend anyway. A woman who does not work outside the home, whose husband does not or will not pay tithing, is eligible for a Temple recommend.

Temple attendance is limited to tithe payers, but also includes those who would be tithe payers if they had income or control of the income. But it's not about the money. A full tithe payer who contibutes $57 annually has the same right to the Temple as a full tithe payer whose contributions are in the millions. Thus it is a guage of one's attitute and willingness to obey, not a price tag on admission.

I would have a problem if a Church had socials or special performances or occasions for big contributers (I'm thinking similar to what patrons of the arts enjoy), to which non-contributers were not invited or not welcomed. I also have a problem with "buying" a pew. Why should one family get better seating just because they can afford it? Give the best seats to those who are willing to make the sacrifice to get their family organized and to the Church on time (and before you ask, no, my family is usually in the folding chairs in the back because we slip in just after the opening prayer).

[Dror]

Since clergy, as a rule, make less than schoolteachers, me thinks the "career mindset" would not be very prevalent. The better paying churches require seven years of college, and still only pay about what a schoolteacher makes.

Even those who end up getting huge salaries, usually didn't start out that way. For example, the average salary of a first-time fulltime pastor in my movement is roughly $20K per year. There's no extra pay for weekend work, overtime, late nights, emergency calls, etc. And, most often, these are leaders with four years of college.

Then you meet the fellow who has thirty years of ministry under his belt, now pastors a church of 1200, and makes $70K a year, and say, "Wow...not a bad gig." That solid middle-class income is something that he did not see the first 15-25 years of ministry, and still comes out quite low compared to many other positions requiring advanced education. Additionally, he probably represents only the top 20% of ministers.

Fair enough. Please remember, though, that I did acknowledge one does not become rich as a clergman! By "nice career choice" I did not mean "profitable." I myself chose a career that pays rather little, because it is a "nice career choice" that has rewards other than money, while still enabling me to pay the (modest) bills. That is what I meant. By having an unpaid clergy, the LDS Church asks people to go "above and beyond" what is expected by some churches, and therefore would seem to require a higher level of devotion. I don't doubt that many paid clergy have an equal level of devotion, just that some may not, because it's not required.

Usually church leadership positions go to the most loyal and consistent members. Also, are not the temple rituals reserved for those "recommended?" And, does not the criteria include faithful giving? IMHO such standards are acceptable for church leaders. I cannot comment too deeply on the LDS practice here, but it seems reasonable on the surface of it.

Temple goers are not recommended in the sense of being nominated by another person. One may seek a temple recommend and, if found worthy, the bishop and stake president will recommend the person. All members of the Church above the age of 12 are encouraged to live worthily and to participate in temple work (i.e., it is not exclusive, as the notion of nomination-recommendation would seem to suggest).

Yes, the criteria do include faithful giving (in the form of tithing) as one is able. Tithing is defined as ten percent of one's increase. Those who have more money give more money, yet those who give less because they have less (or nothing) have equal standing in the eyes of the Church. None of this preferred status for high donors nonsense.

I would not judge myself so generously. Realistically, there's usually no money, because giving came lower on the list than "essentials" like cable TV, cell phone, high-speed internet, eating out, etc. The biblical standard is 10% of the "first fruits"--not the leftovers. Like I said--this is how I judge myself, and it is the general counsel I offer to those who ask. Hey, I'd make some bishop, huh?

Well, the biblical standard is the one we follow--10% of one's increase (for myself, I define that as my gross income, not net). This is the law of tithing, and it seems we're on the same page, here. :)

6. Does God want Christians to be rich and/or successful?

The Book of Mormon answers that question. Yes, He wants us to "be successful," though "rich" is a relative term. It's ok to seek riches as long as we do so for the purpose of blessing others, not hoarding it unto ourselves and living a life of luxury. He promised the Lehites a land where they would prosper if they were righteous. He wants us to be happy, and part of happiness is sharing with others so we all can enjoy alike. (Sermon over. )

Amen.

[Guest MrsS]

Hi PC, I'll have a go at tackling your questions, the best I can at least:

1. While the LDS church generally does not have paid clergy, is it wrong that most other churches do? Are there advantages and disadvantages to volunteer vs. paid congregational leaders?

Ans: Although the LDS church does not pay its clergy, those clergy generally have other work that they do, so they have a wage on which to support their families, also some of the more 'higher up' clergy, President and Apostles? have homes provided for them from the church, therefore they are not destitute as a result of not being paid.

The "higher up clergy" in the LDS Church that are paid a wage are: The First Presidency, Twelve Apostles, and the next lower bracket of Apostles, & The Presiding Bishopric. Their wages are stipends really, and the First Presidency refuse the stipend. They are wealthy men in their own rights and do not need, nor want the wage. The ones paid a wage are the ones who devote all of their time to the Church, thus they can not hold an outside job.

Their homes are their own. The LDS Church DID NOT provide them with their homes. If anything, their utilities may be paid by the church, but I don't think so.

Then there are those who are actually hired by the Church, these are men and women who are employed by the Church. They are of course paid a wage, with these wages they purchase homes, cars, clothes, food, etc.

I believe the Area Authorities on down to Bishops are all volunteer. Meaning, they get no wage from the Church. They all have outside employment that 'Pays The Bills,' all of their church work is volunteer. When they are called to their positions, they are Set Apart and blessed by the Melchizedek Priesthood for that particular calling/ position. This "setting apart" is vital. It enables them to have the strength and ability to carry out the calling they have accepted.

When I was called as Branch Librarian, I was not set apart for nearly 6 months. The Bishopric spaced it out, and I did not know that I should be set apart. I had a real hard time doing the job. No you just don't open the doors and let every one and any one in to get and take what ever they want. I knew what needed to be done, it was just that there were roadblocks going up all the time!

When I finally was set apart ~ those roadblocks were gone, and when one would try to pop up, I knew I had the spiritual authority to banish it. The same is true of all callings, just more so for the Priesthood holder ones.

[pushka]

Hi MrsS. Thank you for correcting my misconceptions regarding the houses in which the first presidency etc. live...I really did believe that the church provided them for them...I apologise for my mistake.

[shanstress70]

1. I don't think it is wrong that clergy are paid a salary. This allows them to specialize and receive special training to carry out their responsibilities. I'm not crazy about the idea of getting couseled by a plumber.

2. I do belive it is wrong to charge for special concerts, etc. I think that asking for donations is the way to go.

3. I think it is very wrong to reserve areas for 'special' members. Everyone should have equal rights at the church they belong to.

4. I don't mind paying tithing and supporting special causes, but I am 100% against tithing settlements. I was floored when I found out that a church actually did this! The amount of money I pay is between me and God. No one needs to look at my pay stub and determine if I paid 10% of my salary.

5. It is a matter of personal opinion whether or not one should live simply. Just because someone drives a BMW, it doesn't mean that they can't be wonderfully spiritual people.

6. I do not think God wants Christians to be rich and successful. I think He would like for us to be comfortable and be able to pay the bills that we take on. Then, so much more energy can be spent on things that really matter.

I recently went to a funeral. I'm not sure what denomination the pastor was - probably Southern Baptist. Anyway, he kept talking about how Mrs. Deceased was in Heaven walking the streets of gold with her husband. He must have referred to 'streets made of gold' about 15 times. This was really bothering my husband and I. I'm not looking forward to going to heaven for the riches! Not to mention, could you imagine how tacky that would look?

[prisonchaplain]

1. I don't think it is wrong that clergy are paid a salary. This allows them to specialize and receive special training to carry out their responsibilities. I'm not crazy about the idea of getting couseled by a plumber.

I'm not opposed to volunteer church leaders, but as a rule, the overseers in biblical times were supported by the church. The "tentmaker" model of the Apostle Paul seemed the exception, rather than the rule.

3. I think it is very wrong to reserve areas for 'special' members. Everyone should have equal rights at the church they belong to.

I could be wrong, but I think the days of "paid pews" a long gone. I became a Christian in 1974, and have never seen one. The rule in most our churches is that the late comers usually get stuck in the front, because those who arrive early usually take the primo seats (in the back!).

4. I don't mind paying tithing and supporting special causes, but I am 100% against tithing settlements. I was floored when I found out that a church actually did this! The amount of money I pay is between me and God. No one needs to look at my pay stub and determine if I paid 10% of my salary.

I've heard of this, but never have seen it. Yeah, such a practice almost seems "cultish."

[mom_of_jcchlsm]

4. I don't mind paying tithing and supporting special causes, but I am 100% against tithing settlements. I was floored when I found out that a church actually did this! The amount of money I pay is between me and God. No one needs to look at my pay stub and determine if I paid 10% of my salary.

I've heard of this, but never have seen it. Yeah, such a practice almost seems "cultish."

In tithing settlement, they never look at your pay stub, nor ask for tax records, or anything like that!

Around Thanksgiving, the Ward clerk prints out a list of all all your contributions for the year. It's given to you in a sealed envelope, and you're supposed to look it over to make sure it matches your records. If it's all correct and complete, you save it for filing taxes. If there are changes or corrections, you make them and get a new print-out. Tithing settlement is voluntary. A schedule of available times is posted and families sign up. I'd guess only about 1/3 to half of the families in a Ward even go. They should. It is encouraged. But it is not required. At tithing settlement, the Bishop will ask you if you're a full tithe payer -- "yes" or "no". Some people use the meeting as a last opportunity to make further contributions, which are then noted on your statement. Our bishop doesn't even look at the sheet to see how much money was given - he just asks if it's a full tithe or not. If yes, he congratulates you for keeping the commandments and then talks with the family about setting goals for the next year, how things are going generally for the family, etc. If no, he'll spend some time teaching about the principle of tithing and helping the family overcome any obstacles they may have - he'll lovingly probe to see if there are financial hardships he wasn't already aware of. Then he'll talk with you about setting goals for the coming year, see how things are going for the family, etc.

It's a once-a-year opportunity to sit down with the Bishop and talk; a time for him to get to know your family better and a time to receive his love and counsel for your family, personally. The Bishop is generally available any time, but a lot of families just never have occasion for other interviews, other than Temple recommend interviews and tithing settlement. If you're not having problems, and not needing the Bishop for other things, it may be the only time you get one-on-one time with him.

[shanstress70]

I'm sorry. After reading this again, and reading mom's response, I realize that post read as though I was talking about LDS tithing settlements. I wasn't. Perhpas I shouldn't have used the term 'tithing settlement' since that is a Mormon term. I heard of this in another church - don't remember the denomination.

Tithing settlement is voluntary.

You say this is voluntary, but can you get a TR if you don't do it? Maybe you can... I don't know... just asking.

Thanks!

[mom_of_jcchlsm]

You can get a Temple recommend without attending the end-of-year tithing settlement. Of course, as part of the Temple recommend interview, you'll be asked the same thing - are you a full tithe payer? (but still, you're never asked for documentation or proof - just your word) Temple recommends are valid for two years from the time they are issued, and you just go for an interview whenever you need one (preferably before the old one expires).

- edit for punctuation

- edit again for spelling. arghhh!

[prisonchaplain]

I'm sorry. After reading this again, and reading mom's response, I realize that post read as though I was talking about LDS tithing settlements. I wasn't. Perhpas I shouldn't have used the term 'tithing settlement' since that is a Mormon term. I heard of this in another church - don't remember the denomination.

See...and now I am sorry too. I assumed that Shantress70 was NOT talk about LDS, and did not know the term was specific. I had heard of a single Lutheran church doing this (not a denominational practice!)--the story came from my parents.

[Ray]

Are there advantages and disadvantages to volunteer vs. paid congregational leaders?

What if we rephrased this question to ask if a paid clergyman’s “job” might hinder him from attending or joining another church, especially a church which wouldn’t pay him for being a clergyman in their church?

And btw, I think “lay” or “non-paid” clergy can be just as effective as “paid” clergy, as long as all other things are equal. Or in other words, I believe people can learn and share everything there is to know about Jesus Christ and the gospel, whether they are paid or not.

Is it always wrong to charge money for religiously oriented programs? For example, Contemporary Christian Music concerts generally require paid admission. Some churches charge an entry fee for a high-quality special event, such as a concert or cantata.

I think it’s interesting that this question avoided asking if there might be some advantage or disadvantage to a particular situation, and instead asked if a certain choice might be considered "wrong".

Anyway, in this case, what if we changed the question to ask how much easier would it be to have more people attend a function or event if there were no charge for admission, especially for a family with several children?

And btw, the idea that “allowances” could be made for people in need of financial assistance would probably make the people receiving that “assistance” feel somewhat uncomfortable about not being able to pay their own way, especially when there other people who could.

Is it wrong for churches or religious organizations to reserve some areas of service or rituals for the most loyal members (i.e., those who, among other things, consistently and significantly contribute funds)?

Again, rather than saying it would be “wrong”, I would say a lack of money would be a disadvantage preventing some people from serving or attending certain functions, if money was a requirement.

And in this case, I would also say that it would not seem “fair” to exclude some people from certain areas of service or rituals simply because other people had or have more money than other people who didn’t.

And as some people have already mentioned, this is not the situation in our Church, where everyone can serve and offer or attend all Church services regardless of how much money a person has.

Some have said that one's religious sincerity could at least partially and significantly be appraised by examining the ole checkbook. Is this crass and superficial, or is there some truth to the understanding that what you refuse to back with your bucks you're not really very serious about?

Yes, there is some truth to the understanding that if you refuse to give up something in order to gain something else, you aren’t very serious about wanting to gain what you can gain by giving up what you have to give up in order to get something else.

And btw, in the Church, these principles are better known as the law of sacrifice and the law of consecration.

Should Christians necessarily try to live simply, humbly, and avoid any or most semblances of luxury?

Personally, I try to save where I can, without any desire to be extravagant, remembering that there are many people who lack the basic necessities and luxuries, and I can actually help them.

Or in other words, instead of buying a new top of the line Mercedes, I bought a new VW Jetta, which allowed and still allows me to give more money to others. And btw, I probably would have bought the same car even if I had a billion dollars, though I would not have bought a new car if I really couldn’t afford it.

Does God want Christians to be rich and/or successful?

Yes, our Father wants all of His children to be successful, in all of the good things we do, and for those of us who receive an abundance of money, He wants us to use it to help other people rather than simply using it to help ourselves.

[prisonchaplain]

What if we rephrased this question to ask if a paid clergyman’s “job” might hinder him from attending or joining another church, especially a church which wouldn’t pay him for being a clergyman in their church?

Well, that's an odd rephrasing. Ironically, I can answer you. No. I've seen clergy change churches, even when doing so has meant "loss of job" as you rather materialistically put it. In fact, ministers who have come into Pentecost often give up established ministries, take on "store front" or "home missions" churches--usually requiring them to work on the side to support their "ministry habit."

And btw, I think “lay” or “non-paid” clergy can be just as effective as “paid” clergy, as long as all other things are equal. Or in other words, I believe people can learn and share everything there is to know about Jesus Christ and the gospel, whether they are paid or not.

There are situations where volunteer clergy can be more effective (thus Paul's ministry, and my own experience in Korea). However, for a typical church setting, I would think having a leader who can dedicate his full efforts to the ministry--and one who has set aside a number of years of his/her life specifically for training in the ministry, is usually of greater advantage to the people.

I think it’s interesting that this question avoided asking if there might be some advantage or disadvantage to a particular situation, and instead asked if a certain choice might be considered "wrong".

Anyway, in this case, what if we changed the question to ask how much easier would it be to have more people attend a function or event if there were no charge for admission, especially for a family with several children?

I suppose it depends on the purpose. Sometimes audiences are more attentive if the pay, because they've "invested" in the program.

And btw, the idea that “allowances” could be made for people in need of financial assistance would probably make the people receiving that “assistance” feel somewhat uncomfortable about not being able to pay their own way, especially when there other people who could.

Best solution--encourage church members to "treat" those who might benefit from an evening out, but who might not come on their own.

Or in other words, instead of buying a new top of the line Mercedes, I bought a new VW Jetta, which allowed and still allows me to give more money to others. And btw, I probably would have bought the same car even if I had a billion dollars, though I would not have bought a new car if I really couldn’t afford it.

Live well, live wisely, and don't show off? :-)

Yes, our Father wants all of His children to be successful, in all of the good things we do, and for those of us who receive an abundance of money, He wants us to use it to help other people rather than simply using it to help ourselves.

Amen

[Traveler]

It is my personal opinion that money and the church is one of the prime signs of apostasy, even more so than doctrine. Money is the twin of power and as much as the misuse of power is a sign of Satan’s influence and ultimate corruption so is the misuse of money. I am so ingrained and sure of money as incentive of corruption that I will not donate to any charity that uses professional (paid) solicitors especially if they are paid by commission. I submit that Simony is a sure sign of apostasy as are indulgences and any other pay for blessing or ecclesiastical position.

I am adamant that anything remotely associated with salvation be completely dissociated with price in money to obtain. Salvation is free. There is no price in money to be taught by a servant of G-d, of Christ or of any eternal doctrine. There in no price in money to be paid to any minister of Christ to feed his flock. I do not believe that anyone inspired of Christ or the spirit of G-d will write and publish the doctrines of salvation for profit - for such are freely given and received. I do not care if the amount is small or large - I do not believe the things of G-d are for sale, only the things of this world and not the next.

This is not to say that someone ministering for Christ will not accept gifts or assistance, just that such things are always considered property of G-d and never for personal enrichment but are believed to belong to all of G-d’s servants and not personal property or salary of any individual.

I believe the scriptures teach by example that G-d does not call professional priests and prophets. Moses tended flocks as did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Joseph worked in Egypt and even Jesus Christ was a carpenter by profession. Others were fishermen, tax collectors, physicians, tent makers and other professions - none were professional clergy.

I do not wish to offend anyone - but to state clearly where I stand and how I feel. There is no doubt in my mind that the kingdom of G-d can and will roll forth without salaries or monetary benefit. It is all accomplished by covenant which was the method established in the beginning with the creation.

The Traveler

[Ray]

I've seen clergy change churches, even when doing so has meant "loss of job" as you rather materialistically put it. In fact, ministers who have come into Pentecost often give up established ministries, take on "store front" or "home missions" churches--usually requiring them to work on the side to support their "ministry habit."

First of all, the idea of being materialistically minded is part of the idea in this thread, so don’t be surprised if I suggest a relationship to the idea of money with the idea of sharing the gospel.

And to go a little deeper into the point I was trying to make in my last post, with the understanding that money is simply a means to an end, meaning that those who seek to gain money are primarily interested in wanting to gain what that money can do for them, what would you say to the idea of someone who would choose to preach to "their own” congregation of people, for the lifestyle of prestige, influence, or sense of power that would give them among those people, rather than being a “regular” member among other members, while seeking to learn and share the gospel with everyone without seeking any recognition?

And to try to make that point a little more clear, I’ll offer my personal perspective.

When I first heard more about the gospel as taught by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I was preparing to go back to school to get a better education which would help me earn a living by preaching the gospel, as my Dad and Granddad had done. And when I heard that the Church doesn’t have ministers who get paid for preaching the gospel, and the Church doesn’t even have any “ministers” who preach full-time for free, at least not in the sense of having ministers who preach each and every Sunday except on special occasions, it was a jolt to me which separated the idea of making money and all that would bring to me or someone else who wanted to preach or share the gospel.

Or in other words, to make that point a little more personal to you, I guess I’m asking if you would join with members of a Church who don’t get paid for “sharing” the gospel, with the idea that you would then be among members of that church as one of the “regular” members, without any of the “prestige” you now have as a “leader” of other people… unless you were called into a position of leadership by those who have that authority?

There are situations where volunteer clergy can be more effective (thus Paul's ministry, and my own experience in Korea). However, for a typical church setting, I would think having a leader who can dedicate his full efforts to the ministry--and one who has set aside a number of years of his/her life specifically for training in the ministry, is usually of greater advantage to the people.

This is related to the point I was trying to make in the question or idea above.

And rather than simply saying, “I disagree with you”, perhaps you could explain why you believe a “typical church setting” is better off with one person, a “leader”, who dedicates all of his full efforts to a ministry—even if that person has set aside a number of years of his/her life specifically for his training in the ministry.

And while you are considering that, I’ll tell you what goes on in our Church and how I feel about that.

On most Sundays, except for usually the first Sunday of each month and except for conference meetings, either the bishop or one of his 2 counselors has already assigned (in advance) 3 or 4 people to share their testimony or give a talk on an assigned subject during the Sacrament meeting after the Sacrament, with each speaker having between 5-10 minutes each to say what they have to say. And although sometimes one of the persons who is assigned to speak is a member of the bishopric, or a member of the high council of the stake, or a member of some other body of people with positions of authority in the Church, the speakers are usually “regular” members, with 1 or 2 of the 3 or 4 who are usually children.

And personally, coming from a home where my Dad and Granddad were preachers, and very capable and “good’ ones at that, I think it is much more fulfilling to hear from several “regular” people, who can each speak what they know from their hearts, rather than hearing from the same person each and every week. And my reasons for feeling this way do not indicate that I can't imagine someone who I could enjoy hearing from each and every week, but rather that I find it more beneficial to be able to hear from many more members of the Church... with their own experiences and testimonies.

And btw, as I said above, that is the routine on most Sundays, and the exceptions are the first Sunday of each month, in which all members are allowed to come up and share their testimonies in what are called the Fast & Testimony meetings, as well as the Sundays which are set aside for conferences… ward conferences and stake conferences and general conferences.

And btw, the next General Conference of the Church is coming up this next weekend, on Saturday and Sunday, and you can be in attendance either in person or by television, either at one of the chapels or home on your own. And personally, I enjoy attending at home, by BYU-TV. :)

Ray: … how much easier would it be to have more people attend a function or event if there were no charge for admission, especially for a family with several children?

prisonchaplain: I suppose it depends on the purpose. Sometimes audiences are more attentive if they pay, because they've "invested" in the program.

Heh, yeah, but since our money is no good in heaven, a person would not get very far by only investing their money.

And btw, there is nothing preventing people from contributing to every service they like, and I think it makes much more sense to allow people the freedom to contribute to a service after they have received it, rather than compelling them or others to pay for the performance of that service before they see or receive it.

Ray: … the idea that “allowances” could be made for people in need of financial assistance would probably make the people receiving that “assistance” feel somewhat uncomfortable about not being able to pay their own way, especially when there other people who could.

prisonchaplain: Best solution--encourage church members to "treat" those who might benefit from an evening out, but who might not come on their own.

When talking about “religious services”, why would it be better to have people pay money to come and receive all they can receive from those religious services instead of offering those services for free?

[prisonchaplain]

I submit that Simony is a sure sign of apostasy as are indulgences and any other pay for blessing or ecclesiastical position.

Simony = buying or selling of ecclesiastical privileges. Travelor, what are you thinking of, here? Churches selling ordination? I'm not clear here, but do not think any major religious movements do such. Indulgences? Traveler, that's so 14th century! Come on, churches do not sell forgivenesses for future sins, and have not done so for centuries.

Then this precious gem, "and any OTHER pay for blessing or ecclesiastical position." Am I reading you right? Do you really think that when the Salvation Army pays its fulltime officers (their version of clergy) $25K a year for their full-time service it is the moral equivalent of the much despised practice of Tertullian--selling "blank check forgiveness" for FUTURE sins?

There in no price in money to be paid to any minister of Christ to feed his flock. I do not believe that anyone inspired of Christ or the spirit of G-d will write and publish the doctrines of salvation for profit - for such are freely given and received. I do not care if the amount is small or large - I do not believe the things of G-d are for sale, only the things of this world and not the next.

Okay? This is an opinion site, and you've shared yours. Never mind that the Levitical priests were supported by the other tribes, never mind that Abraham, long before the Law was given on Sinai, paid his tithe directly to the priest, Melchizedek? Never mind that in 1 Corinthians 9 Paul goes to great lengths to explain how most Apostles are paid, how God has proclaimed that he has a right to be paid, but how they should appreciate that he chose not to, because of his own sense that the Corinthians would be better off if he didn't. Note that in another passage he points out that other churches are supporting him, so the Corinthians would not have to.

Money is a tool. The want of money (greed) is sin. However, the biblical norm, is that the people of God support their teachers and leaders financially, so they can be set aside for the work.

This is not to say that someone ministering for Christ will not accept gifts or assistance, just that such things are always considered property of G-d and never for personal enrichment but are believed to belong to all of G-d’s servants and not personal property or salary of any individual.

You draw a very fine, yet adamant line here, between full-time ministers receive gifts and assistance, but not receiving a salary or stipend. Why? The Levites were supported by the people. The early apostles were. It would seem right and good that the people of God would support their leaders sufficiently, that they might dedicate themselves completely to prayer, study of scripture, and offering spiritual counsel.

I believe the scriptures teach by example that G-d does not call professional priests and prophets. Moses tended flocks as did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Joseph worked in Egypt and even Jesus Christ was a carpenter by profession. Others were fishermen, tax collectors, physicians, tent makers and other professions - none were professional clergy.

Moses was a national leader, more akin to a president. Ditto for Abram, Isaac. Jacob and Joseph. None were prophets or priests. Jesus was a carpenter, but we know that his biblical knowledge was as great as the rabbis, based on the incident at the Temple, when he was 12. Furthermore, there is no record of his supporting his ministry through carpentry, as Paul did with tentmaking. BTW, the primary theologian of the New Testament, Paul, certainly was a professional clergy. He did make tents, but his primary training was theological, under Gamiel, I believe.

I do not wish to offend anyone - but to state clearly where I stand and how I feel. There is no doubt in my mind that the kingdom of G-d can and will roll forth without salaries or monetary benefit. It is all accomplished by covenant which was the method established in the beginning with the creation.

I would argue that the people of God who sponsor their teachers and leaders, so that they might fully dedicate themselves to study, prayer, counseling and tending to God's people, do well. In some settings it is not possible, and in some movements, it is not the practice. However, Paul argues that supporting the leaders is the norm, and that his choice to forgo support was a special case--one they should appreciate.

[prisonchaplain]

what would you say to the idea of someone who would choose to preach to "their own” congregation of people, for the lifestyle of prestige, influence, or sense of power that would give them among those people, rather than being a “regular” member among other members, while seeking to learn and share the gospel with everyone without seeking any recognition?

Those who use religious positions, paid or not, for their own egos or desire for power, will be judged by God. Billy Graham preached to millions, yet lived a middle class life. David Koresh probably received little from his people, yet allowed his ego to drive him and his followers to destruction. In other words, a volunteer bishop can be just as power-prestige hungry as a paid clergyperson.

And to try to make that point a little more clear, I’ll offer my personal perspective. When I first heard more about the gospel as taught by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I was preparing to go back to school to get a better education which would help me earn a living by preaching the gospel, as my Dad and Granddad had done. And when I heard that the Church doesn’t have ministers who get paid for preaching the gospel, and the Church doesn’t even have any “ministers” who preach full-time for free, at least not in the sense of having ministers who preach each and every Sunday except on special occasions, it was a jolt to me which separated the idea of making money and all that would bring to me or someone else who wanted to preach or share the gospel. Or in other words, to make that point a little more personal to you, I guess I’m asking if you would join with members of a Church who don’t get paid for “sharing” the gospel, with the idea that you would then be among members of that church as one of the “regular” members, without any of the “prestige” you now have as a “leader” of other people… unless you were called into a position of leadership by those who have that authority?

Your query reminds me of the story behind the song, "The Heart of Worship." Matt Rudman is a Christian songwriter. There came a time in his church when the leadership decided to have a season of not singing during the main worship time. They wanted the people to learn that there was much more to worship than just singing. Rudman went through a real spiritual turmoil. "I'm a songwriter. This is my gift to the church--my gift to God. This is what I am. Now, I have nothing to bring." Out of this experience came the words to this song: When the music fades and all is torn away/I'll bring you more than a song, for a song in itself is not what you have required/I'm coming back to the heart of worship--It's all about you,...

So, yes, like Rudman, like those ministers who, in embracing the Pentecostal message gave up their established ministries, if God showed me that I was to travel the road of an unpaid, untitled teacher, that is the way I would go.

And rather than simply saying, “I disagree with you”, perhaps you could explain why you believe a “typical church setting” is better off with one person, a “leader”, who dedicates all of his full efforts to a ministry—even if that person has set aside a number of years of his/her life specifically for his training in the ministry.

First, it is the model of the New Testament. Paul led the Corinthians, Timothy led his people--the seven churches of Asia Minor (Rev. 2-3) had their leaders. Second, leaders who are set aside for fulltime dedication to the work are able to focus their prayer life, their studies, their counseling time etc. to the care of the congregation, and to intense prayer, fasting, and other communication with God about his will and direction for the particular congregation.

[prisonchaplain]

On most Sundays, except for usually the first Sunday of each month and except for conference meetings, either the bishop or one of his 2 counselors has already assigned (in advance) 3 or 4 people to share their testimony or give a talk on an assigned subject during the Sacrament meeting after the Sacrament, with each speaker having between 5-10 minutes each to say what they have to say. And although sometimes one of the persons who is assigned to speak is a member of the bishopric, or a member of the high council of the stake, or a member of some other body of people with positions of authority in the Church, the speakers are usually “regular” members, with 1 or 2 of the 3 or 4 who are usually children.

This clergyperson agrees that it is vital for the congregation to hear from members. In fact, we need to share life together. Fellowship, breaking bread together, and feeding spiritually from one another are so important. You accomplish this in the way you described, whereas these days most churches do so through good old-fashioned Sunday School (youth and adult classes tend to include a lot of conversation and interaction), as well as small groups. These often meet in members home, and give the opportunity for sharing stories and experiences, as well as praying on a personal level for one another.

So, bottom line: You can have both--the freshness of hearing from different voices of "regular people"--and the challenge of having the one who is set aside for ministry to the congregation seek God's face week after week, and deliver what God gives him/her.

When talking about “religious services”, why would it be better to have people pay money to come and receive all they can receive from those religious services instead of offering those services for free?

The particular meetings I'm speeking of (Promise Keepers) are put together by a non-denominational non-church sponsored organization. Experienced showed them that it was more reliable to raise the funds needed to fly in the speakers, rent the stadium, and pay the other bills, by selling tickets, rather than taking up "free will offerings." Once again, dedicated Christians who knew and believed in the messages being offered would usually invite their non-Christian friends, "treating them" to the conference.

I guess my key belief for this thread is that it is certainly fine and noble for pastors or leaders to volunteer their ministries without pay. I've done so myself. It is even acceptable for a denomination or movement to rely soley on volunteer leadership. On the other hand, it is untenable to suggest that those believers who are supported by congregations are somehow less spiritual, less righteous, or have, of necessity, been tainted by "mammon."

Furthermore, the norm for religious meetings should be that they are offered free of charge, and nonmembers are not only tolerated, but encouraged to attend. On the other hand, there may be special events, programs, or meetings that are primarily for the already-converted, which may include fees.

[Ray]

prisonchaplain:

Rather than go line by line with you again, I’ll state what I and other LDS believe and let you go at it from there… if you feel so inclined.

First, it is not good for a person to receive money for sharing the gospel or helping our God with His work… although it is "good" for other people to want to help provide for the necessities (food, clothing and shelter) of others if they cannot provide those things for themselves.

Or in other words, people can and should do all that they can to provide for their own needs and necessities, and that even includes the people who know God and are authorized to help Him with His work, and if for some reason some people cannot provide for their own needs, then other people should give them some assistance.

And btw, you cited some cases in which God told some people to give some things to people to help provide for their necessities, and those people received those revelations from God, so your belief that ALL people who choose and claim to work for God should not work at a “regular job” is simply based on an assumption and your “interpretation” of the scriptures.

Secondly, people can know just as much if not more about God and His gospel whether or not they have money or the things money can buy.

Or in other words, someone’s ability to know God and His gospel is not determined by how much money they have so they don’t have to “work” at a “regular job” anymore, because even if that meant they could then spend ALL of their time “studying”, that alone would not help them to know God.

Or in other words, the fact that some people may have all their time in this world to study and learn about God without having to work at a “regular job” does not give them an advantage over other people who choose to work at a regular job to “earn their living” while learning about God on their “spare” time, because the knowledge God gives to all of those who want to know Him does not come by “study” alone.

Or in other words, the way to know God is by having a personal relationship with Him, in which you speak to Him and listen while He speaks to you, and not only does God speak by what He has revealed to others, but He speaks by what He reveals personally to you.

And btw, those who truly know God and share their knowledge with others are the ones who write “the good books”, so even when people do learn about God by studying His revelations to others, they should receive their own assurances from God about those things, as well as revelations about other things too.

Or in other words, to put all of this in a nutshell for you, nobody should be trying to figure out who or which group of people has spent the most time studying all of “the good books” or "good things inspired by God and written in books" which are available on this planet and then trying to learn from “them”. Instead, we should all seek our own knowledge of God, and we should all share the knowledge we receive from God without charging anybody any money.

Heh, but if you wish, you may send your contributions to me and I will promise to pay tithing on all of it. :)

And btw, FYI, Moses, Abram, Isaac. Jacob and Joseph actually were all prophets of God, despite any notions you have to the contrary.

[Traveler]

I would argue that the people of God who sponsor their teachers and leaders, so that they might fully dedicate themselves to study, prayer, counseling and tending to God's people, do well. In some settings it is not possible, and in some movements, it is not the practice. However, Paul argues that supporting the leaders is the norm, and that his choice to forgo support was a special case--one they should appreciate.

Though I recognize you as an exceptional person of faith and goodness, you and I are of different opinion in this matter for I believe that every Christian should "dedicate themselves to study, prayer, counseling and tending to God's people" and that such matters are not to be left to those that do it for money - for the obvious reason. If any one Christian has a right to be supported in their faith and for their efforts then all have that same right (in my view). I do not believe in classes of priviledged Christians.

BTW, I cannot think of any problems in the history of Christianity that did not have someone drawing a salary from underlings that was not championing the problem.

The Traveler

[Maureen]

For anyone interested in some information regarding the LDS church's financial history may I suggest reading this excerpt from:

The Mormon Hierarchy - Extensions of Power

by D. Michael Quinn

Chapter 6. Church Finances

Tithing

Paid Ministry and Voluntary Service

Public Disclosure

Church Business

Deficit Spending and Modern Financing

The Hierarchy: From Corporate Management to the Sideline

Conclusion

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/hier2.htm#chap6

There's lots of information, so enjoy!

M.