Do We Really Need To Be Paid For Our Talents?

[Tommy63]

I don't understand why we take money for our talents at church when we are to be helping others. I can't help but think that there is a price for God's word. If we are spending all our offerings on payroll and the church mortgage, how are we helping anyone? With a low number of members and a big mortgage, I believe we should pay for a leader full time, but that should be about it until we are able to do so. Missions should be at the top area of our list if we are trying to reach the lost. Does anyone feel the way I do?

[EduChris]

...Missions should be at the top area of our list if we are trying to reach the lost. Does anyone feel the way I do?

To me, building up each other and worshipping together constitute the "inhaling" of the Church body, while missions and social concerns constitute the "exhaling." To be healthy and alive, the Church body needs to regular rythms of inhaling and exhaling.

[Tommy63]

...Missions should be at the top area of our list if we are trying to reach the lost. Does anyone feel the way I do?

To me, building up each other and worshipping together constitute the "inhaling" of the Church body, while missions and social concerns constitute the "exhaling." To be healthy and alive, the Church body needs to regular rythms of inhaling and exhaling.

But when resources are used everywhere except missions, then we are not breathing correctly. This is my reason for this thread.

I understand and do believe that some money should be used for upkeep as well as taking care of our leader. The thing that bothers me is the money of the 75 member church (not counting children) isn't even enough to cover the mortgage and payroll. This still leaves the utilities, operating expenses, and missions left to be paid. The fact that there are many on payroll that have paying jobs outside the church and that we have an associate pastor making 2/3 of what the pastor makes. We are giving more to advertising than we are to missions, which I might add when your church is bringing in about 20k monthly and all you can give to missions is $250.00 there is something wrong with this vision. At our last church meeting instead of people offering to work without pay, we were asked (if we could) to add $50-$100 extra a week to our offerings to make up for our losses. I cannot believe that no one seems to see anything wrong with this. I know you do not muzzle the ox, but I don't recall the disciples being on any payroll plan when Jesus picked them. I also believe that when the tithes were collected in the OT, it was not to beautify the barn and pay it's owner, it was to help our brothers and sisters in need by giving our first fruits. The barn would be taken care of by our love to help our neighbor and joining in to fix it. I would like someone to show me anywhere in the bible where Jesus accepted pay for His sermons and teachings, or where He gave money for a payroll. I'm asking this in a serious manner. This just does not feel right to me.

[EduChris]

...I would like someone to show me anywhere in the bible where Jesus accepted pay for His sermons and teachings...

Luke 8:1-3

But I agree with your larger point. Our present model of "church" was developed during the heyday of "Christendom." Since that day is over, we need to start looking at alternate models--such as we find in the developing countries today.

But I still think in our Western world a case can be made for the "professional church," the "beautiful church," the "awe-and-reverence-inspiring church." But these would be rare (due to their cost) and probably located in central urban areas. Our primary focus should be more of a homegrown, local, modest-budget church.

[otseng]

I understand and do believe that some money should be used for upkeep as well as taking care of our leader. The thing that bothers me is the money of the 75 member church (not counting children) isn't even enough to cover the mortgage and payroll.

I agree with you. The problem is the fundamental principles of traditional churches. Churches believe they need to have a building and a paid staff. For large churches, this might be possible. For small churches, this is too burdensome.

I was in a church that you described. And right now, they are having severe financial difficulties because of the mortgage and staff salaries. I think in the ideal situation, a church should not have either. Buildings should be rented or paid in full. And leaders should be bi-vocational.

Edit:

I just realized that we are talking about the same church.

[Tommy63]

...I would like someone to show me anywhere in the bible where Jesus accepted pay for His sermons and teachings...

Luke 8:1-3

I believe this would be more like a love offering. Because of the good tidings of the kingdom being told to them, they wanted to make a donations to the cause. I was leaning more to the side of how we pay for a speaker to come to an event. Jesus never told anyone they would have to pay Him to speak.

If the gift of God's grace and His word are free, why should we be putting a price on something we can do for free?

[EduChris]

...was leaning more to the side of how we pay for a speaker to come to an event...

I don't mind paying travel & lodging expenses for a visitor to come and speak some message that would edify or enlighten or encourage the local church. But as far as paying the high speakers fees that some speakers charge, to me that sounds like it should be a "special event" and not part of a regular church service.