probably

Dude.  Wh . . B . . . Dude.  (You're in so much trouble)

I could wait until you get forty comments on that one (which should be oh-so-interesting), but I guess I'm not.  I'm pretty amused and impressed and curious. Why do you ask?

Just for fun I'm going to guess (I could be totally wrong) that it has something to do with your last post.  I'd love to hear the questions behind your question.  Are any of these in the ballpark:  Are our leaders just as much enslaved to money as we are?  Since we actually can't organize our life efforts around both God and money (though we try), are we just paying someone to serve God for us as a co-dependent cover?  Is the current church system just a way for congregations and pastors alike to avoid serving/trusting God but by talking a good talk?   Are we just "playing" church, like children do "house" and is serving money our real business? 

Mind you, I'm not actually asking these questions myself, I'm just wondering if you are (cause you're clearly mental) . . .

Caparoon:  "Probably"? 

Your church spends $600k a year on salaries.  I got the budget newsletter yesterday.

Freeman:  It's not directly correlated to last post.  Directly.  But those are good questions you're not asking...

hahaha

I took the minimalist approach. It allows me to not break my own, "if you can't blog-comment it in 25 words or less, don't bother" rule.

But since you asked...

I think the question is, "what's the return on investment?" So if you've got a local church that dumps $600K into salaries, what dollar amount (since we seem to be assigning a dollar amount) can be at least semi-attributed to their paid positions?

My guess is, it's probably a lot more than $600K. But that's just a guess. If only there were some kind of tracking device...

If you aren't just assigning $$ to it, then how much "Kingdom work" probably gets done as a semi-direct result of the persons in those paid positions? It probably puts the $600K to shame.

Either way, there a lot of people right now who are so fortunate as to be paid pot-stirrers for the benefit of the Kingdom. They work long, long hours to (optimistically) set off a chain reaction of Kingdom work. Hopefully, they act as a catalyst for a lot of work that wouldn't get done if they weren't there stoking the fires.

And I'm not saying that to be kissy-kissy to the Church establishment, either, and you know it. I'm kind of in the same place with it, right now, as I am with the Christian entertainment industry: They serve a purpose. They minister to people. It may not be 100% my thing, but that doesn't make it a bad thing, either.

That substantive enough for ya?

On the flip-side of that, btw, my other answer was:

"nah"

Because, when I'm being a Calvinist, and Sovereignty is foremost in my thought process, I think.. "Really, there's not much you can do to hurt it. It's gonna be fine."

Go ahead. Take all the paid staff out of the equation. Is God gonna be shocked? Dismayed? Befuddled? hm-m. He's gonna be fine, and so's the Kingdom.

So.. take your pick. Whatever works for you.

2 eProps.  1--Brant,  1--Caparoon. 

Well said.

From a Catholic perspective, I would give a definite yes. It would suffer in two ways. First, much good work would be lost and pastors (from Greek for shepherds) would find it difficult to lead their flocks. Second, it implies that the People of God would no longer be generous in their charity. That loss of sacrifice and generosity would be devistating for the Kingdom.

Also, in our capitalist society, it would indicate to people that working for God is not important. And people should instead concentrate on "real" jobs that pay the bills. Not a message we should reinforce.

Youth group mission trip to Mexico:  $10,000.
Annual salaries for church staff:  $600,000.
Church expansion project:  $2,000,000.

Eternal impact of a youth minister in the life of an impressionable teenager:  priceless.

There are some things money can't buy.  For everything else, there's the collection plate.

-Stacia

Central to my understanding of the kingdom is that it is wherever and whenever God's will is fully done; where people submit to God's right to rule.  In most churches, I seriously doubt that a sudden defunding of all pastors' salaries would be at God's direction, which, by definition then, would be an act in defiance of God's right to reign.  I think there are a lot of churches and communities that need some radical action, but that's another post.  

That being said, I am curious of your reasons for asking the question, which is pretty intense, unless this isn't the forum for discussing them.

I wrote a too-long response, so I deleted it.

In short, I'm not asking this question as a monetary cost-benefit issue.  I mentioned the $600k for salaries to say, surely, if we're only thinking it "probably" helps, why, I'll bet we can find another use we can be sure is about the Kingdom.  $600k should get us somewhere beyond "probably", and I know Cap agrees.

The timing is prompted by a local issue here that's beyond disgusting, to be frank.  I can't detail it now, but may write about it sometime. 

I don't think the "radical action" post is another post.  I think this is a perfectly good place to discuss it. 

I began dealing with an issue similar to this one when we kept recieving 'support' letters from young 20 something Christians in our community. "Will you commit 50 dollars a month to support me in my ministry to area youth?" Sounds good, but now we have a gaggle of guys with no real skills beyond "hanging out" and "making connections" . I think it would be more Biblical if these people with hearts to serve youth would work at the Boy's and Girl's club, work at a day care, substitute teach, become a high school teacher, etc. Feel the sweet sting of sweat in their eyes as they minister in the midst of working hard.

What would the kingdom look like if churches didn't work like businesses? I have a really hard time giving a tithe to support the latest and greatest fantastic flat screen technology or thousands of dollars worth of professionally printed flyers, or the latest and greatest 'strategic' method of being culturally relevant  when millions of people are starving all over the world.

I think your question is tremendously valid and is worthy of some real thought. I think that the kingdom, the real Kingdom of God and not the little evangelical kingdom of playing church, would not suffer that much at all.

Alright.  Regarding radical action.  I think it's necessary to look at Israel.  Israel was called, as we are, to be God's servants, his sign, his appetizer to the world, his earthly embodiment of God's character and agenda expressed in all aspects of their individual and communal life.  Israel steadily came to abandon this call.  The abandonment was expressed in the lives of Israel's individuals and its institutions, including the priesthood and the temple itself.  God's way of attempting to deal with Israel's misdirection was multi-faceted, but a common tool was through radical and often symbolic action.  He would use nature, other people groups (even pagans), and, of course, crazies known as prophets.  These guys and gals would marry prostitutes, cry all the time, burn stuff, pray for famine (and get it), and even occasionally talk in complete sentences and then some.  They would be mini-dramas of what was really happening, and what was destined to happen.  Jesus, as such a prophet and more besides, did much the same to challenge Israel's incorrect interpretation and embodiment of their calling as God's people.  He welcomed those rejected by the "system" of Israel, and he did it as a prophet of the kingdom.  He cursed the fig tree as "fruitless" and commanded that it never bear fruit again.  He threw over tables in the Temple, and predicted its ultimate destruction.  He healed on the Sabbath, showing what it, what God, was really about.  He touched the untouchables, making them clean.  He called obedient disciples his family.  He cast out demons.  He raised the dead.  He treated money as irrelevant yet dangerous.  He hung on a tree, willingly, for others. On and on.

As the people who are now called to represent God in this world, we definitely ought to ask if, and to what extent, we are misinterpreting and misrepresenting God's agenda, individually and institutionally.  He will lead us in to the kind of radical repentance and symbolic action that will help us and others, unless we, like the Pharisees, like our interpretation of the kingdom better, come hell or high water.

That's my two cents.  I'm totally open, by the way, to get together and pray (more than just once even) for whatever God wants to do to be faithful, individually and in community, and the willingness to do it. 

And I second cybilmarie. ;)

Gator boy has a great take here, too.

Sorry, Brant, that my (whatever word you would use to describe my posts) posts weren't very good for your discussion. That's what I get for trying to be clever when clever wasn't what you were going for. I can be clever on my own blog.

Sort of.

Anyway, thanks to cybilmarie, I think it got back on track, and I'm glad to see it.

I'm just not very big of "tear it down!" these days. I'm in more of a "build another one over there.." mode. So that bled through a bit. : ]

Is there another way of "doing Church"? Yeah, I think there is. I think there's a difference between the Christian Lifestyle and the Christian Life. And I think that right now, at least here in America, there's a tendancy to confuse the two, or at least assume that they *must* be blended so smoothly that no one can see where one ends and the other begins. I think it's possible to live a Christian life--in conjunction with other Christians--outside of the organizational framwork that typifies "The Church" as we usually see it. I think that the church, running as a business, is essentially a "faith based organization". Which is fine, right? Nobody's got a problem w/ faith based organizations.. but I think that the Church, universal, is not an organization. Not necessary for the Church to be an organization.

So if we ditch the paid staff, does it hurt the Kingdom? Calvinist-John says "no, not ultimately." But it doesn't necessarily help, short-term, either. Different folks have different ways of doing things, and different venues work better for different people/things. So instead of stopping paying everybody, how 'bout we just head off in a new direction, and try to work alongside and influence the work and purpose of the institutions already established?

I've broken my rule TWICE now.

I had a pastor who refused to take a salary from the diocese and just lived on what was given to him. His was a radical step, but he didn't like to pay taxes to fund abortion and that was his solution to that dilemna. It also caused him to rely on God much more. I will say that I've never had a holier pastor. He took a church in the inner city that was on the verge of closing and turned it around, starting a pregnancy center and a school for the kids in the ghetto around the church. He died a couple years ago and the funeral procession was amazing. He had literally touched tens of thousands of lives while pastoring small parishes of a couple hundred families.

Is this for everyone and would the kingdom suffer overall if the money was yanked. Certainly if it indicated a lack of generosity on the part of the people of God. That's what happened to the Jews. The people quit giving their tithe and the priests had to labor outside of ministry for to privide for themselves and their dependants. As the prophets proclaimed, God wasn't too happy about that.

Doug

I know you said, Brant, that this question was not necessarily related to your earlier post, but I think the juxtaposition contributes, however unintentionally, to the teeniest hint of a suggestion that maybe paid pastors do it for the money and not for the Kingdom.  Now for a lot of the pastors I know (although admittedly not for all) this would be like suggesting that teachers, for example, submit willingly to all that aggravation just for the magnificent financial remuneration; in other words, it's hard to believe that such an amount of money would be sufficient to sell out for.  However, that's really beside the point.  I realize that the Biblical injunction about not muzzling the ox who treads out the grain is an Old Testament reference, but I think the same principal is seen in the New Testament as well and has been referred to slightly a couple of times by others above.  Pastors and other Christian workers who labor full-time for the Kingdom should be able to legitimately expect to have their needs for living met in order to be able to perform their service, and the logical way for God to make this provision is through the people being served.  So I'm sure there are pastors who are actually slaves to their salaries and not to God, but I don't think those of us who suppport our pastors financially should stop doing the right thing just to prevent one of them from possibly doing the wrong thing.  While of course we need to examine whether our actions are unavoidably contributing to another person's sin, I think the bottom-line responsibility for this lies with the pastors, not with the pay-ers.  (This is Lisa, BTW--that was Scott posting above.)

Of course, I'm just asking the question. 

But as far as muzzling oxen goes:

Paul needed money because he was a city-to-city missionary. Tough to hold down a regular gig when you're doing that.  My understanding:  when he was hanging out for awhile somewhere, he got a regular guy job.  Except when he was in jail, which kinda knocks you off the career track.

And yes, I understand it's logical:  If people, bustling with careers and sports leagues and trips to Blockbuster and the internet and shopping and watching "Lost" and college basketball and trainng their kids so they, too, can get good jobs and....so forth -- if they don't have time to do pastoral work, they should be the ones who pay someone to make time for it for them.    There is logic to that.

Most Americans have plenty of time, or COULD, given lowered buying expectations. (Bright young moms like, say, Lisa Sheltra, may rightfully object.  But the season will pass!) 

We have plenty of time -- for what we want to do. 

(I simply *have* to get to sleep at 8:30 each night, I tell friends -- then Illinois is in the Final Four, and I find the time!  Who knew?) 

By and large, we find time for what we want to find time for.

And when it comes to the church, it all works nicely:  pay someone to "have time" to do it.  In exchange for the outlay, we can pursue what we really want, tell ourselves that those we employ for the work of the Kingdom are somehow experts of a particular variety, and the whole institution can stay right smack where it is.

I just want to say that Cybilmarie is one of the coolest, funnest, cut-to-the-chasest people I know.  And I want to test the comment box to see if I come up as "Brant" or "Carolyn."  And I think it's laughable to think that the Kingdom would suffer without paid pastors in America.

Darn, Brant, it doesn't work.  I'm still "Brant."

Carolyn

Oh, now I get it.  Excuse me.

Hey hey, Carolyn-posing-as-Brant.. "laughable"? Wow.

I mean, from the "Sovereignty" side, as I commented earlier, sure. I'm all kindsa with you. The Kindom is bulletproof.

But when you say that it's laughable, doesn't that kind of give the impression that paid pastors aren't really accomplishing anything for the Kingdom at all? Because if they were suddenly unpaid, it wouldn't leave any kind of void, y'see...

At least that's the way that kind of comes off to me. Is there a parallel here with the "we have a right to burn the flag" vs. "if it wasn't for that flag you wouldn't have any rights" argument? Or is that just because my Special K hasn't kicked in yet? I'm just sayin', it seems like if it weren't for paid pastors, I probably wouldn't even have a faith at this point in my life ("oh *re-ally*..? says Calvinist-John), so if I want to go jumping off the paid staff trolley-ride, that's fine and good, but I probably shouldn't set it on fire before I bail out, either.

So...you think you probably wouldn't have a faith if the pastors in your life weren't paid?  (Nice sentence construction, Hansen.)

Remember, this isn't about "Should we have pastors?", it's about the American church and the way we professionalize things.

(This is the Real Brant, asking Non-Calvinist Part of John)

I TOTALLY agree that we have time to do whatever we really want to have time to do.  A point that's been made many times in my household.  By me.  But I don't really think that the paid pastorship is an issue of "not having time" to do Kingdom work, or of paying someone else to "make time for it for them."  I don't think that having a paid pastor is intended to let us off the hook in terms of Kingdom work.  It's either a priority in your life or it isn't, and if it is, you make time for it, regardless of whether someone else is also co-laboring with you.  To me, the paid pastorship is simply a matter of enabling a person, even though it's just one person, to be able to do as much as possible for God with as little concern as possible for anything else. 

Hi John, Sorry about my flippant post.  (Not "flippin'" post)  I was quick; I was flippant.  But I still think God will work out his purposes.  Paid pastors have done so much good.  My own husband was a paid staff, and for that job at that time, I am grateful.  Sorry to offend.