A referral and a conversation starter
First, go check out Matt’s post on churches and businesses as there are some interesting and thoughtful comments there.
Second, I am going to steal two excerpts from his comments thread to start a new conversation here that has occasionally been hinted at. Lionfish says this:
I would agree that in some circumstances that skilled, high calibre people are required to lead large Churches. I believe these people have to be well remunerated (honoured). Biblically speaking, St Paul gave some guidelines – ‘worthy of double honour’.
I may be wrong, but I would take that to mean twice the average rate of pay…if the average man’s wage is say $60K, then I do not see a problem with a high calibre Pastor making twice that – straight salary. I know that many good Pastors in Churches make much less.
Rev responded, in part as follows:
Bro, I actually disagree. I don’t think he should be making $120,000 a year. It makes sense skills and requirement wise, but we are in an upside down kingdom. I think the pastor should make enough to live in a upper working class lower middle class lifestyle. But that is just my thoughts.
I could quote a couple of other perspectives that I have heard recently. I know of one guy who believes strongly that the concept of salaried ministers is out of date and no ministers should receive salary from churches. A couple of years ago we had an argument at a denominational AGM about salary guidelines and there was a general feeling that salaries and benefits should be limited because otherwise churches wouldn’t be able to afford them (with the obvious implication that ministers could more easily do without). And we have discussed often those in some churches who draw a substantially larger salary. Phil will reflect that when he was in the US for a tour of large churches, it was understood that many church ministers were paid the equivalent of business rates because otherwise why the hell would anyone want to be a minister?
As a personal reflection, in our denomination salary guidelines theoretically provide an income that is the equivalent of an ordinary highschool teacher (equivalent because the net effect is due to tax concessions rather than just dollars paid by churches). Our experience is that it is probably less than that. When the ‘average’ income figures came out during the latest round of tax cut debates, the ministry salary was definitely on the lower side of the fence.
Which is no drama for a family with a second income and no kids (except the furry kind). But I imagine it is quite a stretch for some.
So what do you think - how will new models be financially sustainable? Just by tent-making or should salary support from churches/denominations continue? And what sort of package is reasonable for a minister/missionary to accept and for a church to offer?
December 31st, 2005 at 11:53 pm
All right now. As we are speaking of ministers wages and you know how hard it is for me to stay on track, I would like to add some questions about the missionary incomes.
I have a friend who is Massai In Kenya. He is or was the president of the Pentecostal Evangelical Fellowship of Africa. He told me when i saw him last (1999) that the churches in his part of Kenya wanted nothing to do with the missionaries and had ordered them out of their regions, becasue all they were doing was ministering in Nairobi to large churches of white foreigners.
He told me that every two years they would come out to the villages, take a few pictures, gather a couple of shields and clay pots and take off back to America to “raise” support. He told me they lived like Kings in big houses in Nairobi with house servants and were totally ineffective at reaching any Massai or other tribal people becasue they lievd like rich white people.
To any of you who have knowledge of this area, has this been your observation also. I know of a few AoG pastors in this area who are preparing to cut the crap out of their missions budget becasue of similar experiences. I know there are legitimate missionaries who give more than they take, this is not a slam on all missions - just one man’s observations passed on to me.
Maybe the issue isn’t so much monetary income as it is lifestyle. You could probably live in slendor in India on $15,000 a year, but that amount would put you in absolute poverty trying to reach the islanders of Hawaii.
January 1st, 2006 at 7:46 am
Those kinds of things happen all the time.
Innerchange has some great missionaries that live in poverty with those they are trying to reach, as does UNOH.
the rev
January 1st, 2006 at 1:43 pm
A couple of years ago we had a strong link with some CoC missionaries to Fiji (ministering to the “second class” indian population). We supported them and also went on a couple of mission trips there to help out building a community building and helping with some other people. They certainly lived in the same manner as those to whom they were ministering. The only difference would have been that they had computers and internet access (for contact with home).
I think like all things there are some that take advantage and some that do it the way that you would want.
January 1st, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Happy New Year everyone - it’s about an hour away here. But of course, we americans live in the past.
January 2nd, 2006 at 9:10 am
I have a mate who is a great missionary - he and his family have made huge sacrifices to go where they are and serve the people.
But… they live in a big house in a wealthy area of a very very poor country.
Why? Because they believe it will lenghten the time they are able to be there.
To me its going to be horses for courses. I would never question this bloke’s integrity, but I know for a fact that he doesn’t tell the folks back home what kind of house he lives in over there because it would impact his support. He doesn’t speak of his cable TV (the only ‘entertainment’ his 6 kids have) because others will see cable as too expensive for missionaries.
Its a jungle when we get to deciding what God is calling others to. Unless there is clear financial impropriety then we don’t have a lot of scope for any kind of judgement, especially those of us who live in the affluent west.
January 2nd, 2006 at 10:12 am
Well Hamo it depends on whether or not he is misrepresenting things in his support letters, correct? Lying even for a good cause is still lying.
the rev
January 2nd, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Hamo - I have to agree with Rev, If he is misrepresenting things in his support letters to prevent people from knowing his situation because of money - that’s makes his integrity a bit suspect. I know preachers who won’t preach some things they really believe because it would effect people’s giving.
“But… they live in a big house in a wealthy area of a very very poor country” because they believe it will lenghten the time they are able to be there.” How so?? And why not disclose to people who support you reason you do something instead of hide it from them. If I were there supporter, I’d be mad as heck at them.
January 2nd, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Furthermore - people at my church are entitled to know who they are supporting, why they are suporting them and where the money goes. If i found someone to be doing that for some lame reason like extending their time.. They’d probably have to come back early to raise the support they used to get.
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Rev and Kev - Hamo never said the bloke was lying - he merely said he didn’t include those things in his letters.
I actually don’t have any problem with that, for a couple of reasons - firstly, people here in Oz often don’t have the knowledge to contextualise that stuff. If I were working in Johannesburg, for example, you betcha I’d be living in a big house in a wealthy area - it’d lengthen the time I could stay there both in physical (because I’d be less likely to be shot!) and spiritual/emotional terms (because I’d have some respite/respite). If I were working somewhere like Honiara, I’d want cable - without it there’d be no contact with the outside world. In a city where even UN officials have to use the internet cafes (of which there’s only two, with about 10 computers each), I reckon people are entitled to a few luxuries.
I also have no problem with people leaving out some information - having volunteered (including in publicity) for several aid and development NGOs, I know that plenty of people do it all the time! It might be hard to distinguish between “lying” and “not telling the whole truth”, but there is a difference - and there’s plenty of people living comfortably in Oz who think that they can justify withdrawing their dollars from NGOs simply because development workers have a widescreen TV.
Re: Greenman’s comments about Darren…from the little contact I’ve had with Darren, I think that it’s more than a little harsh to suggest that his commitment to Christ is a mere “hobby”. Also, from what I’ve read on his blog, he’s got a whole bunch of reasons to have cut back on the LivingRoom blog - including issues of effectively living out his commitment to Christ, stewardship, use of time etc!
I’ve heard some Christians accuse others of having a ‘poverty mentality’ - while I’m certainly no fan of prosperity doctrine, I do think we need to be careful of making judgments based on what a person earns, without knowing the full details of what they give.
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:30 pm
I agree with Bec. Darren is a great example of someone showing great initiative and putting his gifts to use to support his ministry. Describing his commitment to Christ as a hobby is a bit ignorant I think…
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Yes,
I was a bit amazed when he described his committment to Christ as a hobby as well.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:11 pm
To clarify Darren described his committment to Christ as a “hobby” in an interview that was published in a local newspaper, the Herald Sun I believe.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Bec, to respond to your question about not mentioning certain things to your supporters, I think it is a difficult position to be taking. Particularly when we might resist telling people something because it might impact on their willingness to give. That can provide a powerful motivation to conceal things in such a way that people might feel deceived or manipulated.
I don’t for a moment suggest that missionaries or ministers need to go through a harrowing process of full disclosure and lay their souls bare. However there has to be a line. And I think that if you are asking people to contribute financially to your ministry (particularly in a situation where you are controlling your own financial situation ie donations are not being filtered transparently through a parent organisation) then people need to trust that their donations are being used wisely.
You can say that the example above is perfectly reasonable and this may be true. But if the only person judging the reasonableness is the person asking for and receiving support, then what is to stop people being exploited?
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Bec,
Drawing on examples from Johannesburg and Honiara somewhat clouds the issue. Missionaries are members of the church and every organisation, including churches, have an obligation, both legal and moral, to provide for the basic needs of their employees and volunteers, particularly with respect to personal safety.
That is a far cry from a minister in West Pennant Hills drawing a six figure salary, living an opulent lifestyle and with his political support apparently for sale to a party that has an adgenda that will further disempower the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.
I still maintain that the pursuit of wealth for its own sake is fundamentally at odds with genuine spirituality and as such is inappropriate for a minister no matter how they try and justify it.
January 3rd, 2006 at 6:11 pm
By the way, this is the Family First party chairman’s game plan for the ‘ministry of business’.
“Our vision is to facilitate and participate in the generation of billions of dollars through businesses to extend God’s Kingdom. We call it ‘billions of dollars for millions of souls’. We want to create a ‘ministry of business’ perspective and environment amongst Christian business people and pastors,” declares Peter.”
http://www.austchristianchurches.com.au/news.php?article=170
January 4th, 2006 at 12:31 am
I agree with Bec (funnily enough!)
I have learnt over the years that I don’t need to disclose my financial situation to some people - I used to be quite open. But because we have been fortunate enough to have made some good investments and have done ok financially, some folks actually get jealous and judge us for what we own.
For some reason the ‘missionaries are supposed to be poor’ mentality is still rife in churches so to these folks a missionary (like my friend) with cable TV looks like he just isn’t taking things seriously.
I know some people would question my lifestyle if I told them how much I earn and where I spend it - and its not at all exorbitant or indulgent - BUT - I am in ‘ministry’ and for that reason (supposedly) I am to live with less and look poor.
At the moment we are building an investment property. To some that is ‘not on’ a for a missionary. For us it is the start of our ’superannunaution’ plan and it is being responsible with the money we have. I don’t tell everyone about what we are doing because it sounds like a rich person’s gig.
I think its possible to have accountability, but not to tell all to everyone. I regularly discuss our finances with friend and talk about the integrity issues.
There is a difference between dishonesty, foolishness and wisdom in disclosure.
I had actually written a post to go on here explaining how much we earn as ‘ministers’ and how it is divided up and spent, because I believe transparency is vital, but upon reflection I felt it was taking an unnecessary risk to post that here.
Drop me an email if you’d like to read it and I may send it to you
January 4th, 2006 at 12:57 am
Hamo - “For some reason the ‘missionaries are supposed to be poor’ mentality is still rife in churches so to these folks a missionary (like my friend) with cable TV looks like he just isn’t taking things seriously”
My point is not that missionaries need to be poor - or sacrifice their financial future for the “ministry” - far from it.
My point is this. To live one way and project that you live another way is disingenuous, and to do it because of the negative effect it will have on money is deceptive and manipulative. If you have servants to do your laundry becasue the local people expect you to, and it get’s you into the culture, fine. Just don’t bring me back a bunch of pictures of your wife beating your clothes on the rocks down at the river with the local people.
That was my friend in Kenya’s point also. He knew the photo-ops were about raising money. It was obvious to him and the rest of the Massai around him that the missionaries were there to collect trinkets to make it look like they had been there, when in fact they were tourists. The difference is that real tourists do not go home and tell you they live with the Massai.
I have a very good friend who is a missionary to Morocco. He ministers at an international church in Casablanca and he discloses it as such. He also ministers in Spain and Italy frequently and has an afordable life with internet and television. He just doesn’t make it look like he is there to live and minister with the sheep herders of the dessert.
January 4th, 2006 at 8:22 am
I can’t find the article on Darren but I certainly don’t recall him describing his faith as a “hobby” - I think he was referring to his *blog* as a “hobby”…???
I don’t think that drawing on examples from a developing country does cloud the issue. My understanding was that Hamo was referring to a friend of his that was working in a developing country - not in West Pennant Hills. Yes, organisations do have an obligation to provide for the “basic needs” of their employees and volunteers - and I think that in SOME contexts, living in a relatively wealthy suburb or having cable TV MIGHT come close to being a “basic need”. Living in a wealthy (and therefore safer) suburb in Joburg, or having cable tv in Honiara (where there’s only one local newspaper, limited tv and radio) is far more easily justified than living in a wealthy suburb in Melbourne (I don’t know anyone who’s been held at gunpoint in Footscray or Springvale) or having cable tv in Sydney (where we’re inundated with access to tv, internet, radio, cinemas, etc).
I wasn’t talking about the pursuit of wealth either - I was talking about Hamo’s specific example, and whether I felt that in some situations it was acceptable to not disclose certain information.
I’d agree with Dan that there’s a difference between an individual not making full disclosure and an organisation - I don’t have a problem with aid agencies not making full disclosure (and by full disclosure I’m referring to expenditure on televisions etc!), as they have to jump through so many hoops as it is.
January 4th, 2006 at 10:04 am
I can’t find it now either and in fairness to Darren it may have been a misquote by the paper. It is really a side issue. The central issue is that his is making big money on the net by working over 12 hours per day posting to his money making blogs. In spite of the fact that some of his practices on the net are questionable, I have no problem with this choice per se, it is his to make and good luck to him. It is difficult to imagine a scenario, however, where working 12 hours per day 7 days per week on his money making activities would not impact his commitment to his ministry and I used the example of his posts on Livingroom to support this proposition.
The point of the post was that his desire for wealth, whilst entirely acceptible, is incompatible with the level of commitment to his church that he once displayed and that this is a loss to the church since he gave the impression of being a careing and capable minister.
January 4th, 2006 at 10:27 am
I’m not qualified to comment on whether or not his work has compromised his ability to be a caring and capable minister.
As I suggested above, I’d query whether posting less on LivingRoom is indicative of a lesser commitment to his ministry or church: http://www.livingroom.org.au/blog/archives/the_state_of_the_god_blogging_community.php
“Questionable practices on the net”? How so?
January 4th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
[…] tions the economic status of the emerging church. While at Signposts, they are discussing pastoral pay – another econ […]
January 6th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Bec
I believe I was referring to his extension activities, which are also a valuable activity and which are represented by his postings on Livingroom since that was the express purpose of Livingroom originally.
January 6th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
sorry - you’ve lost me - I have no idea re: post 51…can you rephrase? thanks!
January 6th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Just an afterthought - why should religious organisations receive generous tax concessions for their workers?
Is it becaus they perform valued community work?
If so, then an atheist organisation, or any organisation, that provides similarly valued services to the community should receive similar tax benefits.
January 7th, 2006 at 8:32 am
They do. All non-profits that are registered charities get the same “generous tax concessions for their workers”.
January 7th, 2006 at 9:06 am
The FBT exemptions available to “ministers of religion” as defined under taxation ruling tr 92/17 are explicity related to the religious and pastoral care nature of pastors.
I don’t think this type of activity should attract tax exemptions.
Activity relating to community benefit should, no matter who performs it.
January 7th, 2006 at 9:17 am
All registered charity non-profits have the same benefit whether religious or not.
January 17th, 2006 at 8:32 am
[…] nversation starter ” ” Blog Archive ” Signposts ” A referral and a conversation starter ” […]