# Should the State Support Ministers?



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Apr 18, 2011)

John Calvin seems to think so. Fascinating quote from his commentary on Isaiah 49:23...



> Undoubtedly, while kings bestow careful attention on these things, they at the same time supply the pastors and ministers of the Word with all that is necessary for food and maintenance, provide for the poor and guard the Church against the disgrace of pauperism; erect schools, and appoint salaries for the teachers and board for the students; build poor-houses and hospitals, and make every other arrangement that belongs to the protection and defense of the Church.



Commentary on Isaiah - Volume 4 | Christian Classics Ethereal Library


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 18, 2011)

The state was a bit different then, not wholly secular as it is now. Having the current secular states support ministers would be disastrous for the gospel. He who pays the piper calls the tune.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 18, 2011)

Once the Nation becomes Christian again the State will support the Church.

The progress of Christianity is a process in history that ebbs and flows, and possibilities for the State to support the Church - or the likelihood that such will happen - depends upon the condition of Christianity in the Nation. 

This also affects how good and effective a prophet the Church is to the State.

Where the spiritual temperature of the Nation goes down hill both the Church and State go to pot and co-operation between the two ceases or ceases to be effective.


----------



## rbcbob (Apr 18, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Should the State Support Ministers?



Only Baptist Ones who embrace the 1689 LBC and support the first amendment!


----------



## Herald (Apr 18, 2011)

A thousand times "no." Why would we give the state a say in the preaching of the gospel?

Sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 18, 2011)

I agree with Bill. I don't think the State should ever financially support any Church. It needs to learn how to support God's law and submit to Him though.


----------



## seajayrice (Apr 18, 2011)

The State does support churches and their ministers. The imprecise moniker "charitable organization" hardly applies to most congregations and many ministers profit quite handsomely from their tax privileged position. It is probable this support will be used against the faith, we would be well to pass on 503c.


----------



## Dwimble (Apr 18, 2011)

I wouldn't call that "supporting" them. I'd call it "taking less" from them.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 18, 2011)

seajayrice said:


> many ministers profit quite handsomely from their tax privileged position.



Churches might. But from a personal tax standpoint, keep in mind that most pastors are considered by the IRS to be self-employed, which does not tend to work out to a tax advantage.


----------



## Rufus (Apr 18, 2011)

Separation of Church and State. Political parties would begin "funding" churches more and certain "churches" more, which would be disastrous to the gospel, weaken different theologies, politicize Christianity, which would lead to what has happened in countries that already have state churches (i.e. Northern Europe).

If ministers are in lack of basic needs like food, and should get food stamps, that's different. Food stamps should look at salary, not profession, religion, or race.


----------



## seajayrice (Apr 18, 2011)

Jack K said:


> seajayrice said:
> 
> 
> > many ministers profit quite handsomely from their tax privileged position.
> ...


 
I think the se status is up to the church, not the IRS. Even so, not too many self-employed individuals can claim exemption from se tax like clergy can. Nor do many folks get tax-free housing allowances and still deduct interest and taxes from said home costs to boot! The clergy certainly enjoy advantageous treatment. Our American perception of the church and state relationship is a mirage - the church state relationship is robust but just below the radar. For 2k folks this works well, not so good if you wish to denounce a leader or party from the pulpit.

IRS Topic 417 - Earnings for Clergy
For income tax purposes, a licensed, commissioned, or ordained minister is generally treated as a common law employee of his or her church, denomination, or sect. There are, however, some exceptions such as traveling evangelists who may be treated as independent contractors. If you are a minister performing ministerial services, you are taxed on wages, offerings, and fees you receive for performing marriages, baptisms, funerals, etc.


----------



## SRoper (Apr 18, 2011)

> Undoubtedly, while kings bestow careful attention on these things, they at the same time ... provide for the poor ... build poor-houses and hospitals ...


 
Calvin was a socialist! He supported socialized medicine!


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 18, 2011)

Jack K said:


> keep in mind that most pastors are considered by the IRS to be self-employed, which does not tend to work out to a tax advantage



A well-said reminder on tax day. Just to put this into perspective: at my modest salary, my federal taxes are actually quite reasonable. But because (for some absurd reason) the gov't considers me to be self-employed, I have to pay _both halves_ of FICA (though, thankfully, the church is now paying a portion of this as my compensation package). That comes out to be a huge chunk of money that I have to send in quarterly estimates. And to answer another question in advance, yes, as a minister, I could have opted out of social security, but, no, in good conscience, I could not do so.


----------



## Curt (Apr 18, 2011)

seajayrice said:


> many ministers profit quite handsomely from their tax privileged position.



Which privileged position is that? Even when I don't make enough to pay income taxes (which happened in 2010), I still have to pay FICA - at a higher rate than most.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 18, 2011)

C.J.,

It has been a while since I did the math, but . . . 

If a minister owns a home, the housing allowance usually allows you to break even on the higher FICA. If you do not own a home and have a modest rental, the FICA is much more punishing than having a simple 7.65% deducted (and matched by the employer) from your paycheck.

Presbyterians generally receive better compensation packages (in my limited observation) than most Baptists. I have known pastors with very low salaries who would not have had much of a federal tax liability (remember that nearly half of the country has NO federal tax liability) but still paid out quite a bit in FICA at the self-employed rate.

As to the original post, as a Baptist I say NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. However, if the feds want to pay me at the typical civil service rate or treat me as a municipal public employee, that would be sweet!

One of my buds in Rotary retired from a local Fire Dept. this year at 51 years of age. They paid him $49,000 for unused sick leave/vacation, will pay him a pension of $154,000/yr (with automatic inflation adjustments) for the rest of his life, AND as soon as he "retired," he took a similar position (full time) at a fire department in the pacific northwest!


----------



## KMK (Apr 18, 2011)

Marrow Man said:


> He who pays the piper calls the tune.



Cool axiom.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 18, 2011)

It is in the interests of the Christian Church and Christian State to recognise and co-operate with one another for the sake of the Christian Nation.



> Kings shall be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers. With their faces to the ground they shall bow down to you, and lick the dust of your feet. Then you will know that I am the LORD; those who wait for me shall not be put to shame.(Isaiah 49:23, ESV)


----------



## Grimmson (Apr 18, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> It is in the interests of the Christian Church and Christian State to recognise and co-operate with one another for the sake of the Christian Nation.


 
Of course there a fundamental problem here with the idea of the Christian nation. There is only one Christian nation and that is the kingdom of God, not founded by man, but instead by God. To try to establish a Christian nation, in contrast with a nation based on Christian principles by man, is in my opinion is rebellion against God, because one already exists as seen through the church. It is the church’s responsibility to care for their ministers and their members. It is the church that should give the pastor that double honor, and not the state, because the church was given that responsibility by God in Holy Scripture (see 1 Timothy 5:17).


----------



## jambo (Apr 18, 2011)

In a word no. In two words definitely not. In three words most definitely not. In four words etc

As I read the original post the phrase_ he who pays the piper calls the tune_ came to mind and I notice this phrase has already been used in response. In past generations patronage was a problem in the Presbyterian church and if you look at the Three Self church in China with all its restrictions because of state influence you can see how the church loses some of its autonomy. You can try to be as independent as you want but if the state is supporting you then you are not truly independent. 

The state would exert its influence to say that in the interest of equality laws you must support the ordination of gay clergy or women. You can be sure of one thing. If the state did support ministers it would support the liberals as the Reformed would be deemed too radical, too divisive too exclusive for the governments liking.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 18, 2011)

Grimmson said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > It is in the interests of the Christian Church and Christian State to recognise and co-operate with one another for the sake of the Christian Nation.
> ...


 
Well, yes. Strictly speaking the Church is the Israel of God, the international nation of God, that is in the process of becoming a great mountain that fills the whole earth (Dan 2:35)

Also it is firstly the duty of the Church to raise tithes and offerings to pay for its ministers. The State raises taxes for the military and law and order.

But where the Church is in the ascendency in a nation, the nation and the State become more and more Christianised and in that sense Christian. 

Where the State "kisses the Son" (Psalm 2) such States may wish help out the Church in various ways. The Church may decline the help of a godless or effectively godless State, but in a Christianised nation with a Christianised State the Church may accept such help.

This is just part of the Establishment Principle, as taught in the WCF. 

States that don't recognise Christianity any more than Hinduism or Atheism reveal the foolishness and godlessness of modern or post-modern Enlightenment man. 

But modernism and postmodernism will one day give way to (traditional) Christianity.


----------



## Edward (Apr 18, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Undoubtedly, while kings bestow careful attention on these things,



There's the preliminary problem in the US. No king. 

For what it's worth, Wikipedia:

Church tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

"Church tax is compulsory for Catholics in Austria, with a rate of 1.1%. This tax was introduced by Hitler. "


----------



## Dearly Bought (Apr 18, 2011)

jambo said:


> In a word no. In two words definitely not. In three words most definitely not. In four words etc
> 
> As I read the original post the phrase_ he who pays the piper calls the tune_ came to mind and I notice this phrase has already been used in response. In past generations patronage was a problem in the Presbyterian church and if you look at the Three Self church in China with all its restrictions because of state influence you can see how the church loses some of its autonomy. You can try to be as independent as you want but if the state is supporting you then you are not truly independent.
> 
> The state would exert its influence to say that in the interest of equality laws you must support the ordination of gay clergy or women. You can be sure of one thing. If the state did support ministers it would support the liberals as the Reformed would be deemed too radical, too divisive too exclusive for the governments liking.


To quote Rev. Winzer,


armourbearer said:


> That is the consequence of falsehood, not government.


----------



## dudley (Apr 18, 2011)

Marrow Man said:


> The state was a bit different then, not wholly secular as it is now. Having the current secular states support ministers would be disastrous for the gospel. He who pays the piper calls the tune.



Amen to brother Tim and ditto...I believe as an American in separation of the church from any control by the state....


----------



## MW (Apr 18, 2011)

Herald said:


> A thousand times "no." Why would we give the state a say in the preaching of the gospel?


 
Do you think that is what Calvin was doing?


----------



## discipulo (Apr 18, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > A thousand times "no." Why would we give the state a say in the preaching of the gospel?
> ...



The establishment principle once more, Rev. Winzer? It may not be Erastianism, but it sure has a lot of risks. Shouldn't we in the *Puritanboard* be advocating Nonconformity. Just saying...


----------



## Hamalas (Apr 18, 2011)

Doesn't all of this just become that much stickier when we look at voluntary membership/association (such as in America) compared to the established churches of the reformation era?


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 18, 2011)

We did once pay ministers via tax money on our shores. That's why the Presbyterians were the "dissenters" here in Virginia. That's how Patrick Henry began developing a reputation: by his skillful arguments during the compensation portion of a suit involving payment to the clergy. (The minister won the case, but Mr. Henry so swayed the jury that the only awarded something like a dollar.) This is the long way of saying that the precious principles of Christian liberty are best served when they are not entangled by the state. I may peaceably go about with my Calvinistic ways while the church up the road makes altar calls.


----------



## MW (Apr 18, 2011)

discipulo said:


> The establishment principle once more, Rev. Winzer? It may not be Erastianism, but it sure has a lot of risks. Shouldn't we in the *Puritanboard* be advocating Nonconformity. Just saying...


 
I belong to the "Free Church" tradition. Our ministers one and all left a vitiated establishment and forfeited endowment on the basis of the establishment principle. (Establishment and endowment should be kept distinct). Of course there are risks. We live in a fallen world that is prone to corrupt God's good creation. Still, it is to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth, and nothing to be refused. There is no good reason for rejecting any part of the "all things" over which Jesus is Lord.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 18, 2011)

jambo said:


> In past generations patronage was a problem in the Presbyterian church ...



Excellent reminder. Christ alone is King -- not the crown, not the secular gov't, and not wealthy landowners either.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 19, 2011)

> not the crown, not the secular gov't, and not wealthy landowners either.



This isn't the Establishment Principle at its best.

We'd prefer a Christian rather than a secular government. 

No civil government - secular or Christian - has the right to interfere in the spiritual affairs of the Church.


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 25, 2011)

*No, but I suspect the answer depends if you are a Presbyterian or Baptist*

Rightly or wrongly the expenditure of "tax dollars" or "the public purse" brings with it an accountability to the electorate. Far better to question what the government should be raising taxes for. As I understand it they should maintain some sort of army for defensive purposes (does that include military intervention elsewhere?). Education would be best paid for by the individual parents. That brings up the thorny question of parents. Here in the UK there are more children born out of wedlock than in!

No is my answer and that for one reason. State support for which ministers and which church? Here in Scotland the Church of Scotland has broken from the Westminster Confession and seems determined in defining what it does not believe in rather than what it does. That my taxes should support a largely apostate church is a grievous offence to me.

The same might be said for state support of Education. At what point do you decide that the education is no longer education but humanist indoctrination? At thet point having conceded the point that general taxation should be used to fund education you are funding the humanist indoctrination of our youth. Clause 28 was a bitter battle over here to prevent the use of the public purse (tax dollars) to promote homosexuality. Should the general taxes raised in Scotland be used to support ministers in:
The Free Church of Scotland 
The Free Church of Scotland Continuing
The Church of Scotland
The Baptist Churches of Scotland
Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (F.I.E.C.)
Brethren Assemblies
Elim Pentecostal
Anglican Churches
The Roman Catholic Church

To some extent this is already the case, in that your degree course is funded for you. (Admitedly this has changed a bit with the development of loans but it is the same for any course)


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 25, 2011)

I see nothing in Scripture that the State should financially support Pastors, but in every passage I can think of the Church is to do it.


----------

