[Banned-Mommiex2]

I am not sure if this belongs here or the religious debate board, but I am going to put it here anyway.

How do you feel about ministers (whether it be Christian or Rabbi or whatever) who spend a lot of money on material items, like clothing, electronic devices, cars, homes, etc.? Do you think it's appropriate for ministers to have expensive items or do you think it's ok for them to do whatever they wish?

[Chloe'sMommy]

I don't see why people would care what they spend their money on? They're allowed to have nice things just like everyone else is.

my gut reaction is to not care how someone else spends their money, but I've never belonged to a church with paid clergy. So the question then becomes: where does their money come from and what expenses does the church pay?

Some ministers get a free house. No mortgage, no taxes, no rent. Obviously there are rules about improvements and things such as that, but either way they don't have to pay. Then they get a salary on top of that. My instinct is to say that if someone (or a group of people) are using their money to support you, it would be polite to not flaunt that you have your own money.

So while I don't object to a minister who gets a free house and/or a monthly stipend for groceries/utilities and/or a salary, I don't think it would be polite for him to arrive at church in a brand new Ferrari.

[Banned-Mommiex2]

Originally Posted by Chloe'sMommy

I don't see why people would care what they spend their money on? They're allowed to have nice things just like everyone else is.

I have a problem knowing that money for their salaries comes from the pockets of the people donating to the church. If I were donating to a church, it wouldn't be so my minister could buy a $350.00 pair of jeans or drive around in a Hummer when they could just as easily buy a $20.00 or $50.00 dollar pair of jeans or drive a Chevy and use the rest of the money to actually serve the community.

Perhaps it's a double standard for me since I don't care what people on welfare do with their money. However, people on welfare don't make a public committment to serve others like ministers do, and people on welfare don't accept monetary donations from people on Social Security or other people on welfare on a weekly basis. I don't know, but it really bugs me, because it seems like a mockery. Here a minister is telling me to "give to God", but when I do, he gets a $70.00 t-shirt.

Is the minister's salary based on how much the church brings in from donations? If not, if the minster gets paid the same whether $100 or $1000 get donated on Sunday, then I don't see why it really matters how he spends his salary. I suppose he could donate it to somewhere rather than spending it, but I don't know how else he should spend his salary giving back to the community?

[Chloe'sMommy]

Originally Posted by Mommiex2

I have a problem knowing that money for their salaries comes from the pockets of the people donating to the church. If I were donating to a church, it wouldn't be so my minister could buy a $350.00 pair of jeans or drive around in a Hummer when they could just as easily buy a $20.00 or $50.00 dollar pair of jeans or drive a Chevy and use the rest of the money to actually serve the community.

Perhaps it's a double standard for me since I don't care what people on welfare do with their money. However, people on welfare don't make a public commitment to serve others like ministers do, and people on welfare don't accept monetary donations from people on Social Security or other people on welfare on a weekly basis. I don't know, but it really bugs me, because it seems like a mockery. Here a minister is telling me to "give to God", but when I do, he gets a $70.00 t-shirt.

I guess I feel like the people that are donating to the church must not care all that much because they continue to donate every week or however often it is that they go. If they took that much of an interest in how the money was being spent or didn't agree with it, why give so much? If I didn't like that the minister of my church (totally hypothetical since I don't attend a church) was buying all these expensive toys, I wouldn't be donating so much. That would be me though, people can donate however much they want to.

Originally Posted by Keskes

Is the minister's salary based on how much the church brings in from donations? If not, if the minster gets paid the same whether $100 or $1000 get donated on Sunday, then I don't see why it really matters how he spends his salary. I suppose he could donate it to somewhere rather than spending it, but I don't know how else he should spend his salary giving back to the community?

Ministers are generally paid a set salary, but its not unheard of for a minister to have to take a pay cut if the church is struggling (been there). Also, housing is not actually "free" for ministers; the church calculates the fair market value of the house or apartment, and the minister must declare it as income and pay 15.3% tax quarterly on it. Granted, most of us are poor enough where we end up getting much of it refunded back anyway, LOL.

Anyway, I'd *like* to say that it shouldn't matter, as the church decides how much they are going to pay the minister and he/she should be free to manage their income as they see fit... but it does send a poor message to be spending on so many material things when your congregation is struggling. At the same time, I don't know of that expensive pair jeans was a gift or bought on mark-down at a outlet store. May he saved up for several years to buy that new car.

ETA: I was just reflecting on how our situation this year would look: the church was finally able to provide housing for us, I bought a newer car and dh bought a new computer. At first glance it looks like we're "rolling in it", but the fact is that dh also took a salary cut (which dropped us into a lower tax bracket), we drove around in an old car for 9 years while saving up to buy this one cash (so we'd save by not having finance charges or collision insurance), and dh bought the computer with the money we got from selling our old car. We're not frivolous at all, just wise stewards with what we do have.

[AMDG]

Originally Posted by Mommiex2

I have a problem knowing that money for their salaries comes from the pockets of the people donating to the church. If I were donating to a church, it wouldn't be so my minister could buy a $350.00 pair of jeans or drive around in a Hummer when they could just as easily buy a $20.00 or $50.00 dollar pair of jeans or drive a Chevy and use the rest of the money to actually serve the community.

Well, all I know is the Catholic Church but if priests aren't part of a religious order they receive a set salary from the diocese. It is modest but I'm sure if a priest is frugal he could save up to buy an expensive car etc. Most priests who are part of a religious order take a vow of poverty so they wouldn't ever have the opportunity to buy expensive things. But, the point is, how much the priest makes is never tied in with how much the people tithe.

Originally Posted by Keskes

My instinct is to say that if someone (or a group of people) are using their money to support you, it would be polite to not flaunt that you have your own money.

.

Does this also apply to those people we are supporting on welfare?

[Chloe'sMommy]

Originally Posted by Tofu Bacon

Ministers are generally paid a set salary, but its not unheard of for a minister to have to take a pay cut if the church is struggling (been there). Also, housing is not actually "free" for ministers; the church calculates the fair market value of the house or apartment, and the minister must declare it as income and pay 15.3% tax quarterly on it. Granted, most of us are poor enough where we end up getting much of it refunded back anyway, LOL.

Anyway, I'd *like* to say that it shouldn't matter, as the church decides how much they are going to pay the minister and he/she should be free to manage their income as they see fit... but it does send a poor message to be spending on so many material things when your congregation is struggling.

I would agree that if the congregation is struggling then it wouldn't exactly be in the best taste to be spending money so frivolously. However, if the congregation isn't struggling, the church is being kept up and isn't lacking, I don't see it as a huge deal if the minister was to treat himself.

[Banned-Mommiex2]

Originally Posted by Chloe'sMommy

I would agree that if the congregation is struggling then it wouldn't exactly be in the best taste to be spending money so frivolously. However, if the congregation isn't struggling, the church is being kept up and isn't lacking, I don't see it as a huge deal if the minister was to treat himself.

I guess where I have the problem then is what is the purpose of the church? If it's to be self-sustaining only, then why have it be tax free? I was always of the impression that the purpose of the church was to serve the community, thus giving it a tax free status.

By the way, both of those senarios (the $300.00 jeans and the Hummer) are things that have been purchased by 2 separate ministers that I know.

I found this article interesting:

This year, 253 churches responded to the Dallas-based network's survey. They were asked for “the combined total of cash salary plus any housing allowance" and were to “include salary amounts funded by love offerings if applicable.” If there is more than one person in a position, respondents were to “use the average salary for that role.”

A church with a budget of $1-1.99 million provides, on average, the senior pastor with a salary of $91,000. The average salary for a senior pastor at a church with a $10 million or more budget is $189,000.

Report Reveals Salaries of Megachurch Pastors | Christianpost.com

Is it reasonable for someone who is called to be a minister to be making $189,000 - off of people's donations to the church? I just don't understand why that is reasonable, regardless of the size of church. Why should it matter if you have 50 members or 500 members? Shouldn't the extra take care of the community instead of buying the pastor a bigger home or better car? It just seems at odds with what is preached from the pulpit.

While I agree that $189,000 is A LOT for a minister to be making, again, this is something the congregation votes on, and is largely based on the size of the congregation; the head pastor of a mega-church has a much larger flock to pastor than the minister of a small country church. The compensation package for the pastor of a mega church is not an accurate reflection of what the average pastor earns. The average minster receives a modest salary, or a compensation package that combines salary and housing), health insurance if they are lucky, a retirement fund if they are lucky. But most do still need to take on a second job to fill in the gaps.

[Jintana]

I agree with these statements and feel similarly regarding welfare recipients or donation recipients.

Anyway, I'd *like* to say that it shouldn't matter, as the church decides how much they are going to pay the minister and he/she should be free to manage their income as they see fit... but it does send a poor message to be spending on so many material things when your congregation is struggling.

My instinct is to say that if someone (or a group of people) are using their money to support you, it would be polite to not flaunt that you have your own money.

[Banned-Mommiex2]

Originally Posted by Tofu Bacon

While I agree that $189,000 is A LOT for a minister to be making, again, this is something the congregation votes on, and is largely based on the size of the congregation; the head pastor of a mega-church has a much larger flock to pastor than the minister of a small country church. The compensation package for the pastor of a mega church is not an accurate reflection of what the average pastor earns. The average minster receives a modest salary, or a compensation package that combines salary and housing), health insurance if they are lucky, a retirement fund if they are lucky. But most do still need to take on a second job to fill in the gaps.

The people I know that do these things aren't really part of "mega churches". I grew up in what is considered to be a "mega church", and I think that's part of why this bothers me. No one in our church voted on the salaries of the pastors, just the "board of directors" voted, and the board was made up of the pastors and a few deacons. Who wants to not vote on a riase for the guy who is in charge of your job? I am not sure if the churches where these pastors work did the same, but these people grew up in the same atmosphere I did, so it would seem reasonable that they would gravitate towards the same type of enviournment (but I don't know).

I have no problems with a pastor and his family being average- meaning they don't have to be poor. However, I guess it makes me really wonder when these people can afford to regularly shop at places that I wouldn't ever go to because I feel the places are way too expensive. We aren't poor, but we do live modestly in order to be financially secure.

I realize that a "mega church" head pastor has more people to deal with, but they also have WAY more staff in order to help deal with the people. The churches I attended (both at home and around the country) had at least 15 pastors full time for the large congregation. So, to me, it just seems like these pastors are compensating themselves the same way an executive would compensate himself with executive pay for overseeing a lot of people. But, shouldn't a pastor be above that sort of thing? Does a preacher NEED a $200k salary? I dunno. It looks from the outside like a money making business vs. service to the community.

[MissTorrieIfYou'reNasty]

Welfare recipients also aren't providing an example of their scripture to their congregation, and their scripture couldn't be interpreted as saying that amassing material wealth is a sin. So there's that. I mean, I don't give a good ******* what a pastor/whoever spends his/her money on, but perhaps it's a bit contradictory.

Originally Posted by Mommiex2

The people I know that do these things aren't really part of "mega churches". I grew up in what is considered to be a "mega church", and I think that's part of why this bothers me. No one in our church voted on the salaries of the pastors, just the "board of directors" voted, and the board was made up of the pastors and a few deacons. Who wants to not vote on a riase for the guy who is in charge of your job? I am not sure if the churches where these pastors work did the same, but these people grew up in the same atmosphere I did, so it would seem reasonable that they would gravitate towards the same type of enviournment (but I don't know).

Wow, I definitely wouldn't want to be part of a church where there is such a disconnect. My only experience is with smaller churches, where there is no board, and the members vote on every financial decision. Generally, the deacons will estimate the average income of the congregation, and the work out a compensation package (salary plus any extras the church is able to provide) based on the minister basic living expenses. The the deacons present it as part of the annual budget for the members to vote on. The goal is ensure the minister's needs are met, but not to excess.

Originally Posted by Mommiex2

I have no problems with a pastor and his family being average- meaning they don't have to be poor. However, I guess it makes me really wonder when these people can afford to regularly shop at places that I wouldn't ever go to because I feel the places are way too expensive. We aren't poor, but we do live modestly in order to be financially secure.

I realize that a "mega church" head pastor has more people to deal with, but they also have WAY more staff in order to help deal with the people. The churches I attended (both at home and around the country) had at least 15 pastors full time for the large congregation. So, to me, it just seems like these pastors are compensating themselves the same way an executive would compensate himself with executive pay for overseeing a lot of people. But, shouldn't a pastor be above that sort of thing? Does a preacher NEED a $200k salary? I dunno. It looks from the outside like a money making business vs. service to the community.

The bolded is what it all comes down to. I wholeheartedly believe that there does come a point when a salary is simply too much... and I will be the first to admit that there are ministers who should not be in ministry because their heart isn't truly in serving the Lord or their congregation. They wouldn't last long in a smaller church, where they would be kept just barely above the poverty line, while having to physically get in there and meet every need without a staff to pick up the slack.

Originally Posted by MissTorrieIfYou'reNasty

Welfare recipients also aren't providing an example of their scripture to their congregation, and their scripture couldn't be interpreted as saying that amassing material wealth is a sin. So there's that. I mean, I don't give a good ******* what a pastor/whoever spends his/her money on, but perhaps it's a bit contradictory.

It is contradictory when you have someone telling you to "give, give, give" while they spend, spend, spend.

[AMDG]

Originally Posted by Mommiex2

Is it reasonable for someone who is called to be a minister to be making $189,000 - off of people's donations to the church?

That is a lot of money! Granted a priest doesn't have a family to support, but I think the salary range is usually between 20K and 40K depending on the diocese - housing is almost always paid for also so that would be in addition to housing.

^^It depends. That figure is most likely the entire compensation package (salary, housing allowance, health insurance, retirement savings) not the actual paycheck. Its complicated because clergy don't have a separate tax code, even though they are taxed differently than non-clergy.

Originally Posted by Mommiex2

I have a problem knowing that money for their salaries comes from the pockets of the people donating to the church. If I were donating to a church, it wouldn't be so my minister could buy a $350.00 pair of jeans or drive around in a Hummer when they could just as easily buy a $20.00 or $50.00 dollar pair of jeans or drive a Chevy and use the rest of the money to actually serve the community.

Perhaps it's a double standard for me since I don't care what people on welfare do with their money. However, people on welfare don't make a public committment to serve others like ministers do, and people on welfare don't accept monetary donations from people on Social Security or other people on welfare on a weekly basis. I don't know, but it really bugs me, because it seems like a mockery. Here a minister is telling me to "give to God", but when I do, he gets a $70.00 t-shirt.

If the minister is being paid a salary than obviously he's earning it by doing his job and he can spend his own earnings on whatever he wants.

Originally Posted by Mommiex2

I guess where I have the problem then is what is the purpose of the church? If it's to be self-sustaining only, then why have it be tax free? I was always of the impression that the purpose of the church was to serve the community, thus giving it a tax free status.

By the way, both of those senarios (the $300.00 jeans and the Hummer) are things that have been purchased by 2 separate ministers that I know.

I found this article interesting:



Report Reveals Salaries of Megachurch Pastors | Christianpost.com

Is it reasonable for someone who is called to be a minister to be making $189,000 - off of people's donations to the church? I just don't understand why that is reasonable, regardless of the size of church. Why should it matter if you have 50 members or 500 members? Shouldn't the extra take care of the community instead of buying the pastor a bigger home or better car? It just seems at odds with what is preached from the pulpit.

The size of the congregation does matter. Being a minister is more than just standing at the pulpit and giving a little speech once a week. They council, visit shut-ins, etc. Doing that for a church of 500 is a lot more time consuming than for a church of 50.

[Jarheadwed]

In many religions, it is considered holy to live modestly. I think owning flashy cars, designer clothes, wtc. goes against that. That said, if my pastor could nicer things without being flashy (say, a Ford Escape instead of a Denali, Levis instead of Diesel, etc) thats fine. But I think it would be nice for more people to live modestly anyway. Who needs a McMansion and BMWs in the grand scheme of things?