# Paying (or not paying) Your Pastor



## Marrow Man

I am planning to preach on 1 Timothy 5:17-18 this Lord's Day. Of course, this is one of the NT passages where payment of ministers is emphasized.

My question: are there churches/denominations that do not pay their pastors? It seems that I have heard (anecdotally) about this.


----------



## JonathanHunt

of course there are. lots of small ones that can't afford it.

or do you mean ones that could afford it and still don't?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

The LDS church does not pay their Bishops. Of course they really don't have anything to do since there are no sermons in the LDS church.


----------



## Philip

The church I attend has had a couple of unpaid pastoral staff, but in those cases, they were simply ordained TEs who were either retired or teaching and did pastoral ministry on a volunteer basis (we also had two paid full-time pastors at the same time).


----------



## Marrow Man

JonathanHunt said:


> of course there are. lots of small ones that can't afford it.
> 
> or do you mean ones that could afford it and still don't?



The latter. In experience, even the smaller ones can afford an honorarium for a weekly supply pastor.

In reality, I am looking for churches/denominations where it is a systemic problem -- i.e., ones that say that church shouldn't pay pastors.


----------



## Marrow Man

It seems like I remember Quakers or certain Anabaptist groups (Brethren?) might not pay their pastors (these groups might not actually have pastors, though). I could be wrong, of course.


----------



## Wayne

Failure to pay an agreed-upon salary was a common problem in the 19th century, but that sort of illustration probably falls outside what you are looking for.


----------



## JonathanHunt

In the UK, it would be common for the Brethren not to pay anyone, because they would not recognise any elder as being a 'minister' or 'pastor', and most men in a congregation would be expected to 'give a word' in turn. This has changed somewhat in recent times, with the more open wing of brethrenism tending to adopt the 'evangelical' label (which is not such a bad word in the UK compared to the USA) and sometimes having a paid full-time elder.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Some Primitive Baptist groups believe that the minister should not receive a salary, but should be supported solely by secular employment.


----------



## PreservedKillick

JonathanHunt said:


> In the UK, it would be common for the Brethren not to pay anyone, because they would not recognise any elder as being a 'minister' or 'pastor', and most men in a congregation would be expected to 'give a word' in turn. This has changed somewhat in recent times, with the more open wing of brethrenism tending to adopt the 'evangelical' label (which is not such a bad word in the UK compared to the USA) and sometimes having a paid full-time elder.



I grew up Plymouth Brethren, and this was the position of our church. While some American Brethren assemblies are starting to pay full-time ministers, this is seen by more conservative brethren as a departure from their interpretation of the New Testament model.


----------



## Jake

I have come across the doctrine in a church I was in, but this is by no means a norm...
This church was run by four elders (no distinction was made between teaching and ruling elder here... all were theologically trained to some degree and ordained simply as elders) who had other employment as well. The church was fairly new, but by the time I left, it had reached 200 members and the elders did not expect a salary... but there was money available when they couldn't make ends meet.


----------



## Mushroom

I was going to mention Plymouth Brethren, but I see it has already been cited. Other similar groups, some known simply as 'the meetings', do the same. Those are the only groups I've ever encountered with that doctrine, but I have seen a few particular Churches of various theological stripes that under-pay their Pastors with the expectation they will be bivocational.


----------



## Marrow Man

Wayne said:


> Failure to pay an agreed-upon salary was a common problem in the 19th century, but that sort of illustration probably falls outside what you are looking for.



Actually, I'd like to see an example of that.


----------



## irresistible_grace

I hope this is not off topic but I am a little curious, is the "payment" or wages actually money?
The reason I ask is because when Christ said pretty much the exact same thing as the passage in question, Christ was instructing the disciples to stay in someone home and that particular household was to provide them with food and drink. Also, if I remember correctly the Puritans rejected the ecclesiastical tithe as ceremonial and none of the Reformed Confessions directly mentions tithing. So, if it is money, how much? And, is it a set salary? I heard someone saying in a passing conversion that pastors used to be given such small salaries that it wasn't unusual to find the minister eating at the homes of the church members (this allowed the the members the opportunity to provide the minister with food & drink like the disciples while it also offered the minister the opportunity to shepherd his flock more intimately).


----------



## Marrow Man

It would not always have to be "money" (at least not all of it). That's just easier in many ways in our modern society. It is similar to the way churches have gone from supplying a home for the minister to live in (i.e., a manse than the church actually owns) to providing him a housing allowance instead and allowing him to purchase his own home (I understand there are other reasons why this may be advantageous to the minister).

Provision, of course, will differ widely from the 1st century to the 21st. But this will even differ from the 19th or 20th to the 21st. When I pastored a church in northern Mississippi (a rural church), there was an old barn (almost falling down) and a large field (nothing but grass) in my backyard. I asked about them, and I was told that the pastor used to be expected to have his own garden and raise his own milk cow as part of his call (these were provided by the church, I got the impression, but he was expected to look after them, etc.; we did, btw, plant a vegetable garden in that field one year). So provision was made for him that did not include only money. But in our modern day, it is easier to cut the pastor a check and have him go down to the local supermarket for food. Times change.


----------



## Cymro

Because of the apostacy of the Denominations in my country,there has been a fragmentation which has
begotten small Independent churches. Many of them do not pay their Pastors,as many of them are retired men.
I belong to one ,and can think of three others locally. A basic remunaration could be afforded, but this is forfeited by the
love of the calling, and having the time to do it, and using collections for missions and charities.
Having much contact with the "long isle" in Scotland, the denominational Ministers there have a basic wage. But some
still supplement their income by keeping a small flock of sheep, growing potatoes, and burning peat. Also in many instances their wives work.
I personally would hold to a called and paid ministry in a Reformed Presbyterian denomination.


----------



## KMK

There are no 'pastors' or 'pastor salaries' in the Viola/Barna House Church Movement.


----------



## fralo4truth

Damon Rambo said:


> Some Primitive Baptist groups believe that the minister should not receive a salary, but should be supported solely by secular employment.



Right. I used to be one so I should know. Many of their ministers, as it was with me, would nevertheless receive from the church a relatively small amount. You might look at it as "gas money". Some of them would refer to a salaried pastor as a hireling.


----------



## Romans922

Bill The Baptist said:


> The LDS church does not pay their Bishops. Of course they really don't have anything to do since there are no sermons in the LDS church.



LDS and church don't go together. Just like Roman Catholic and church don't go together.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Romans922 said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The LDS church does not pay their Bishops. Of course they really don't have anything to do since there are no sermons in the LDS church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LDS and church don't go together. Just like Roman Catholic and church don't go together.
Click to expand...


Very true. The position of bishop is mainly a political one. If someone is prominent in the community, chances are they will be made bishop, however it is an unpaid position.


----------



## BuckeyeGirl

Damon Rambo said:


> Some Primitive Baptist groups believe that the minister should not receive a salary, but should be supported solely by secular employment.



Interesting. I attend a Primitive Baptist church and I am virtually certain we support our Pastors... neither of them have secular employment. However, I do know that there are several different groups of Primitive Baptists. Some of them have very unusual beliefs and practices, so I guess this isn't too surprising.


----------

